Leafless

Sounds like commie...er, socialist talk... Again, a very socialist notion...but given your previous rants against communism, that only leaves Facism as the evident source of your position. My comments were directed to reasons why marriage was failing, pertaining to heterosexual divorce rates. Let's get something very clear. If the government of this land chooses NOT to support heterosexual marriage and the family that in turn supports basic society, so be it. Personally I can do without either, so in effect its no skin of my back. If government chooses, rather than support families would rather support massive immigration and perverted lifestyles, what can I do?? I don't vote as it is, because of other important reasons excluding these ones. BTW-I don't support Fascism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-GOT WHAT??? Don't be such a FOOL! Name calling is a nice way to welcome a new poster! The sentiment he expressed is correct, the speach was classic Chretien. He took some slick and funny shots at Harper. That is the "it" that he still has. Yep, it was a very good speach. Very good "speach". You are probably confused and are really thinking of 'impeach' which is the route a lot of Canadians feel should have been taken against Mr. Chretien.

Terminology is NOT the issue. Many Christians find it unacceptable that homosexuals are using the traditional word 'marriage' to describe themselves being just as 'EQUALLY MARRIED' as Christians and other religions that use that word to describe the union of a 'man and a women'. There are other words homosexuals could have chosen to describe their UNIQUE union. Since homosexuality is not a religion but a 'lifestyle' and to 'BORROW' the word marriage to include homosexuals is seen by many an repulsive anomaly (relating especially in our country) to Christianity. The federal government has degraded Christianity and Christians by allowing the word 'marriage' to describe the union of two members of the same sex.

But that would be lying. 'Christianity is good for marriage' is only a suggestion to form a legal defense against abuse from an external source, in this example concerning the word 'marriage'. Your statistics really prove nothing as both Canadian and U.S. societies are majority Christian societies. You know as well as I do external pressures, societies materialistic influence and the lack of financial governmental support for families is the root cause for divorce and not Christianity itself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! JC still got it! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-GOT WHAT??? Don't be such a FOOL! Why don't you read about the LITTLE GUY CHRETIEN including his LEGACY, KYOTO and THE HIRING OF QUEBECER STEPHANE DION AND GIVING HIM A NON-ELECTED SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. LOOK UP CORRUPTION IN THE DICTIONARY AND YOU PROBABLY SEE A PICTURE OF MR. CHRETIEN. http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing...0050120Gray.htm

'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. Some of us are aware of homosexual groups pressuring the U.N. to revise the 'Declaration of Human Rights' to include perverted groups, such as 'Transgender Petition to the United nations' http://transgenderunity.blogspot.com/

The right to vote as a 'human right' does not compare in anyway shape or form to the 'promotion of a perversion' as a human right.

Who wants politicians to infringe on traditional trademarks pertaining to the word 'marriage' in this country.

Christianity has no patent on the word marriage, and no right to claim it for their exclusive use. Marriage is found in all religions, and in the absence of religion as well - people can be married without any religious ceremony at all. It really amazes me how the intolerant can be so cruel and irresponsible as to try to deny people basic respect for no reason other than ignorance. All I am saying is Christianity or any one of its denominations for instance could claim a group of words pertaining to a motto or trademark such as 'Christianity is good for marriage'. This way at least the church would be able to defend themselves legally, concerning some form of infringement on Christianity and marriage from government relating to marriage. Whoever imagined the word 'marriage' pertaining to religions in Canada would be attacked by their own federal government to include a group alien to most Christian denominations. Relating to, "to try to deny people basic respect for no reason other than ignorance" is garbage as they already had the same rights as any one else prior to SSM. What they got is elevated rights above everyone else pertaining to a perversion as being equal to heterosexual marriage.

The U.N. is not a place to publicly mock leaders of other countries. Chavez is a tyrant by definition. You fail to mention that certain countries have limitations concerning their ability to be helped to substantially improve their economies and that their governments have failed by allowing their countries populations to exceed manageability by their respective governments. The U.S. nor anyone else cannot work miracles for these countries that have allowed themselves to be engulfed by unmanageable poverty.

What wealth are you really talking about? Low wage earners AKA, the working poor, welfare recipients, pensioners etc. who end up financing the bulk of social programs since there are many more of them than wealthy Canadians. The rich get richer. In other words you don't want a government running this country, you want a national social agency, AKA COMMUNISM, with of course the rich excluded.

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term. I'm going to assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian forms of religion, although certainly most religions have their own versions of marriage. Of course, the Judeo-Christian traditions also allowed polygamy (how many wives did Jacob have?) and incest (Job and his daughters). Each religion has it's own version of marriage, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the word. In a pluralistic society like Canada, where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected rights, no religion has any bearing on marriage outside of the confines of its own believers. It should be noted practically all faiths throughout the world have used the word marriage to signify the heterosexual union of a 'man and a woman'. In Canada it was twisted politicians who pursued the legal emphasis on marriage to remove any perceived right religion has on the word in order to pacify homosexuals. Perhaps Christianity especially has failed in that respect and not realizing to include a PATENT on the word 'marriage' making it the exclusive property of churches throughout the world to recognize the union of a 'man and a woman'. Maybe society will learn from this unauthorized intrusion of government intervention into defenceless churches universal trademark 'marriage' and legally protect all other religious interest that might or could be abused by government. It really amazes me how governments can be so cruel and irresponsible to give perverts this right to 'marriage' and at the same time allow these perverts to be sheltered and live among the general majority Christian population of Canada.

Except for one thing. Outside of Quebec, NO one wants another PM from Quebec. Liberals are going to pay big time for linguistically ignoring the ROC with yet another French Liberal leader.

Are you that naive, relating to 'marriage' to interpret that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' refers to 'an act of perversion' relating to the activities of diverse homosexuals and lesbians. Again you are making a nonsensical statement suggesting diverse or perverted Canadians reserve the right to marry whoever they choose. Does this include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, dogs, cats, sheep etc. being defined as a suitable candidates for marriage?

Where are you getting this definition? So I would understand by your response that you do not consider a male homosexual a part of the group "man"? By extension, you also don't consider lesbians to be part of the group "women". Am I getting that right? I am quoting the definition of 'man' from 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' Item 3-a, reads, " a person showing characteristics associated with males." You are correct pertaining to your understanding, that I do not consider homosexuals traditionally male or female as in comparison to the traditional role of male and females. Proof of this is in a homosexual or lesbian relationship, usually one of the same sex partners, invariably assumes the traditional heterosexual role of a member of the opposite sex. It's clear homosexuals and lesbians could be identified as members the third sex in which they play act heterosexuals.

There were basic reasons why women were initially denied the right to vote. First and foremost was women were not interested in politics and did not really understand what was going due to dedicating their full time to family obligations, which was back then the norm. Secondly most did not pay taxes or own property. Women having the right to vote is an international human right. To-day with many women working and paying taxes along with the right to vote mostly has been beneficial to society as a whole. Equality and human rights are not on the same level and cannot or should not be associated with each other since equality as in the case of Canada is a 'dictated right as seen by government' and therefore can be seen as 'corrupt' for the benefit of government and not the citizens of the land or for that matter the world.

I'll be happy to. "Men and women of full age...". Or is it your position that homosexuals are not considered "Men and women of full age"? Reference to homosexuals having the right to marry each other = "Men and women of full age...". I don't think so. Pertaining to marriage, I don't think that would be accurate to make such a statement. The definition of 'man' includes: " a person showing characteristics associated with males" This would include of course i.e. 'normal sexual characteristics' which homosexuals do not possess. Besides, you simply cannot blurt out a statement "Men and women of full age" as being meaningful without including what that statement is meant to imply. Let's face facts. The only reason homosexuality is legal along with SSM is Canadian politicians wish to control the electorate to squeeze every vote possible in the direction that is of benefit to that particular political party. Referendums are NOT illegal in Canada and politicians IMO are depriving Canadian citizens of their rightful democratic rights. SSM will simply convince many more Canadians not to participate in the federal electoral process.

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights "as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislation's." http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06053102.html

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other? You are an obscene person to interpret to the goodness of international rights legislation to include members of the same sex, relating to marriage. You are making a mockery relating to the goodness of international human rights.

How do the circumstances of Canada's founding matter in the slightest? Wrong. Uh... you are aware that the U.S. doesn't hold referendums on constitutional matters either, right? Article 5 (1)- If Canada was conquered, obviously (whatever government) would not be involved with the 'founding nations notion' or whatever you want to call it. Government would waste no time bickering with Quebec or Aboriginals and I would assume (like most other conquered lands), Quebec and Aboriginals would quickly fall into line with wishes of government or face certain consequences. (2)- So what if the premiers (at the time) ratified the constitution. Anyways it was still the constitutional boat rocking Liberals who initiated the process. It is still ethically wrong not to include Canadians to decide the fate of their own country especially when it sponges British law to suit the corrupt requirement of politicians. We know all about it, screw the British but keep their paramount political system giving the PM the powers of a king to screw Canadian citizens. (3)- I would like to see what the finalized process that would be used in such a divisive issue as SSM in the U.S. It will never happen. As it is, the states that have agreed to SSM offer NO FEDERAL benefits to homosexual couples.

Races are not meant to live with each other, that being the entire problem. Maybe the answer to all this is separate White clubs and separate Black clubs. Then we'll all be able to laugh once again without being hit with the racist bit.

"Gays in South Africa can be joined in matrimony under new legislation passed by parliament -- an unprecedented move on a continent where homosexuality is taboo." -------------------------------------------- In a country where homosexuality is bad news and AIDS is out of control produces headaches and heartaches. But on the bright side: "In an effort to ease some of these concerns, the bill allowed both religious and civil officers to refuse to marry same sex couples on moral grounds." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/11/14...ay.marriage.ap/

"Venezuela's president calling his U.S. counterpart Satan in a U.N. speech seemed a devilish gambit in the nations' war of words -- but Hugo Chavez says he was shooting from the hip." Oh yeah, sure. We are all aware of Chavez and his hatred of the U.S., especially President Bush. This is another perfect example why the U.N. should be scrapped and get rid once and for all these little tyrants, who think they are just as powerful as superpower U.S. and who refuse to acknowledge this fact. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....USH.xml&src=rss

I am not Canadian, but we are having the same debate here in Massachusetts. My feeling is No, we should not open up civil rights to popular vote, particularly where the effected class is a much-maligned minority. You keep calling it "SSM" as though it is an entirely different legal status. It is not. It is marriage, plain and simple, and is no less legal that "OSM". Civil rights in the U.S.would probably be best defined as: "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination." http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights In the American constitution 'sexual orientation' is not a recognized nor protected right, so it is subject to discrimination. The Canadian constitution is a bit of a joke. Canada as a country was given to us from Britain and not conquered by Canadians to claim the country as their own, including our primary constitution which did not include rights pertaining to 'sexual orientation'. The Liberal party of Canada unilaterally repatriated our constitution from Britain (without a national referendum) and amended that constitution to include the Liberal invented 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' without a national referendum again. IMO only a banana republic would initially do such a thing without consulting all Canadians. Regardless this controversial amending of the Canadian constitution with the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' included 'sexual orientation under the charter section, 'Equality Rights' and other very controversial rights without a 'national referendum'. I would like to see the reaction in the U.S. if the Democrats somehow managed to convince the Republicans that amending the U.S. constitution to include 'sexual orientation' would be a desirable thing without including U.S. citizens as part of that decision.

What right do courts have or politicians to decide anything that is NOT an 'International Human Right'? Our constitution was given to ALL Canadians by Britain. Should it not be the right of all Canadians to decide by way of a national referendum, if SSM which is not an 'International Human Right' should be protected or allowed constitutionally in Canada?