Leafless

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone. What it says is "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right. Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT.

bk59 SSM is not on the same level as 'women's rights to vote'. Women's right to vote was a 'human right' in which they were denied that LEGAL right initially. What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination. Any law made legal pertaining to 'sexual orientation' which is not a 'human right' should be decided by Canadians if it to receive Charter protection as there are NO human rights being initially denied to homosexuals. http://www.queermarriage.com/index.php?content=articles http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/essays/w_rights.html Countries where SSM is legal. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrus.htm

Seems to me it would be redundant seeing as most of them voted for the motion in the Commons. If all the parties voted overwhelmingly in favour, the controversy belongs to all of them. This is true, but was not initially Ignatieff version concerning the definition of Quebec as a nation. For the Liberals to agree with Harper's watered down meaningless definition (of Quebec as a nation) offered the Liberals an easy way out, but at the same time by ditching the original Liberals 'nation resolution' shows the hypocrites the Liberals really are.

" A controversial resolution that called on the federal Liberal party to recognize Quebec as a nation has been withdrawn by its authors as party delegates begin gathering in Montreal for this weekend’s leadership vote." ----------------------------------------------------------- After all this the Liberals ditch the nation resolution and stick the Quebec nation controversy and it's ramifications with Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. Now tell me, would you vote Liberal? It is this kind of liberal politics that is tearing this country apart. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...2aa&k=61971

So you got new runners and a track suit. So what. Woooooossshhhh!!!!! So what! I got a new Hummer----C-R-U-N-C-H. LOL

So you got new runners and a track suit. So what.

I point out this thread is a duplicate and then I post again...what a hypocrite. This thread is not a duplicate as the one you quote lacks credibility with NO link or quotes. To post this in the middle of another thread that got off on the wrong foot makes no sense. But in reply to your post you are confusing 'nation' terminology with different definitions pertaining to a majority and minority language. Which begs to answer another question:' In a country that the majority language is English, is this not the language that in fact ALL definitions should be derived from? Are you as naive to assume Quebec wants nothing more then the Nothing definition Harper and company gave it? If you are familiar with the origins of this country, Canadians did not fight for this country. It was given to us by British. If you recognize that fact, surely you must recognize no political party in Canada should have the right to initially muddle with the original BNA Act without participation of ALL Canadians in the form of referendums.

This thread is like Old Faithful if it spewed crap instead of steam. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks man... that's funny! Cultist would find that amusing. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Maybe. Too bad if you leave the Muslim faith you are subject to death. Are we to conclude from your statement that then in fact there is no definition of a 'moderate Muslim' and therefore conclude all Muslims are extremist. I find it hard to believe if 2,000 Canadian Muslims were to convert to Christianity all would be hunted down and murdered. This raises another interesting question: 'Are moderate Muslims unable to fight to defend their believes?'

"'That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada' Yeahs: 266 Nays: 16" ----------------------------------------------- Gutless politicians continue to play with rights that should be Canadians right in the way of a national referendum whether or no to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada. Michael Chong, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport, resigned in protest and charged Harper's recognition of Quebec smacks of "ethnic nationalism" and believes Canada should be "one nation undivided". It seems Mr. Chong is one of the few politicians that recognize Canada as the only official entity representing 'all of Canada and all of Canadians. Good show Mr. Chong! http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...64f&k=47263

1. This is matter of 'personal opinion' whether or not the clock was ever INITIALLY advanced concerning the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' pertaining to Quebec, Gays and Aboriginals. If you think it was an advancement good for you, I don't, for reasons indicated in previous post in this thread. Women's right to vote cannot be compared to homosexual rights which are totally of a different nature and was not an isolated case relating to only Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suf...rage_by_country http://citizen.nfb.ca/onf/info?aid=5961&atid=24 2. Canadian citizens should have the right to vote and decide all (social or constitutional in nature) major issues that could benefit or be harmful to Canadian society that could affect all Canadians. Even Christianity if the demand was ever created, that Christianity posed a serious problem for all Canadians.

You haven't answered my question about what should be a referendum question and what should be left to Parliament. All you have said is that some types of questions should be asked at election time (your "mini-referendums") and some should be asked at any time they become relevant (constitutional amendments). Saying that Parliament should make laws "beneficial to the public" is so wide open that nothing would ever have to go to a "mini-referendum". Parliament could easily say that recognizing sexual orientation as a protected right is beneficial to the public. This doesn't even take into account the fact that when you vote for a party platform it pretty much covers what you call a "mini-referendum". Kind of like voting for a party platform, right? I did answer your question pertaining to referendums in which I said parliament should be responsible for laws pertaining to 'law and order' and implementing laws decided by Canadians via a referendum. The types of questions asked pertaining to a referendum are those that affect ALL Canadians pertaining to constitution amendments and ALL questions relating to social equality, even social programs in a mini-referendum. You seem to believe the Canadian majority is some sort of unqualified monster. What you are not taking into account is the majority only becomes the majority after the results pertaining to any specific referendum issue have been calculated. All Canadians means 'you and I and everyone else, fair enough'. Comparing referendums to voting for party platform is nonsense. Politicians don't keep their promises and how they are implemented is something else. Decisions made by political friendly courts is no way to decide the future of Canada. Nothing can replace a referendum as the true feeling of each and every Canadian COUNTS. BTW- Bogging down this thread by refuting every sentence makes it impossible to debate in any organized manner. It seems you disagree with almost everything I said, which actually provides more power for a referendum since what politician is going to answer the concerns of millions of Canadians and millions of other questions by individual Canadians. You know as well as I do there is no process to accommodate this. You also know the purpose of political parties is to win votes and not necessarily do the right thing that protect the interest of all Canadians, an impossible feat anyways. That's why you must allow Canadians to decide for themselves as it's the only fair way to ACCOMMODATE every Canadians decision.

Your predetermined assumptions are incorrect. Absolutely no problem, I would abide by ANY referendum decision decided by Canadians pertaining to altering our constitution.

Surely you must understand everything from the repatriation of our constitution from Britain to amending our constitution was Liberal induced. If you agree the country was given to us from Britain, then surely you must agree Canadians are entitled to participate concerning changes in our constitution as the Liberals DID NOT win Canada. I realize politicians have decided for the Canadian public concerning constitutional changes, but all I am pointing out is that it was an undemocratic and corrupt way to initially handle constitutional changes. Not only was the Canadian public was rejected in being part of the process regarding important constitutional questions but there was no constitutional built in safety device to prevent abuses of power or concerns regarding discrimination by politicians deciding unilaterally who gets what. Referendum issues I think are any proposals concerning changes in our constitution with less important concerns decided on by Canadians every federal election called mini-referendums. Parliaments role should be implementing and creating laws beneficial to the public pertaining to law and order and implementing laws decided by referendums and mini-referendums at election time. In a democratic society what possible way can a fair policy be applied other then cater to the interest of the majority. This is of course not excluding necessary social policies that serve as a safety net for Canadians. but at the same time I think its demeaning to the country for political parties to run on implementing social policies continually resulting in creating an unfair level of taxation to subsidize these social programs. Mini referendums at election time would be an ideal way to get the required input from Canadians concerning social programs. We have laws disallowing the exploitation of Canadians for purposes of slavery. Canada is also seen by many countries as a banana republic due to its overabundance of social programs and control by the government. As a matter of fact Canada's infrastructure is in dire need upgrades. I don't think we can afford treating provinces like separate countries and this is where we can save a lot of money. Transfer and equalization payments should be reworked to make provinces more accountable for financing their own programs rather than place the burden on all Canadians. Immigration is not the answer to all problems as these immigrants themselves at a later time become a liability and an additional financial burden. The country or system will only sustain so many Canadians and the expendable purchasing power of individual Canadians remains the same but scattered over a larger area with no real net effect to the economy.

Now there's a bit of racism worthy of a report. This is not a racist statement, facts speak for themselves.

How else do expect the SYSTEM should work in a democratic majority Christian country. Like it presently is along the lines of communism or Nazism. Like I said in another post : "You are forgetting, this country was GIVEN to us by the British who won the war on the plains of Abraham against the French. The French have no rights other than originally provided by the original BNA Act to conform to their political desires. Canada's culture included Judo-Christian values since its beginning. "Our constitution was altered in a manner I for one thinks as totally unacceptable by mere POLITICIANS, rather than the citizens of Canada, that reflect a high degree of an over abundance of socialistic values, never intended for this country."

I think the Pope would be wise to stay out of Turkey. It is also clear Christianity and Islam DO NOT MIX. I can't help but wonder who gave troublesome Muslims the right to immigrate to countries in Europe, U.S. and Canada and why anyone would even want them? It seems their numbers have increased in civilized countries to place themselves in a position of authority. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....C1-ArticlePage3

This is how wars are won, whoever has the most troops or weaponry, wins. "Live and let live", should be to the standards of majority society is acceptable. You are forgetting, this country was GIVEN to us by the British who won the war on the plains of Abraham against the French. The French have no rights other than originally provided by the original BNA Act to conform to their political desires. Canada's culture included Judo-Christian values since its beginning. Our constitution was altered in a manner I for one thinks as totally unacceptable by mere POLITICIANS, rather than the citizens of Canada, that reflect a high degree of an over abundance of socialistic values, never intended for this country. Why did Canada's political system deny the right of Canadians to decide what is best for this country? Canada's politicians DID NOT fight for this country and have no right to impose their constitutional views and implement them into OUR constitution.

Stoning? The ten commandments I am familiar with pertaining to 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' or 'Traditional Catechetical formula'. No, I don't want to get religious but only quoted the ten commandment relating for a preliminary base pertaining to morals, nothing else. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/arch...ism/command.htm

You are confusing two separate issue's. You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything." What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals. For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then? I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision.

I don't think Russia will ever develop into a free democratic country as functionability of the country is currently being hampered by the Russian mafia and probably will be forever. http://gangstersinc.tripod.com/Rus.html

We do have a majority Christian religion but means little to the twits that run this country, who have purposely implemented the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', that in effect allows only 'politicians' to control the inner workings of Canada based on their interpretation of 'political equality'. This of course will cause major problems in Canada, some of which are already surfacing as certain groups become stronger with rights and some groups stronger in sheer numbers, with their own ideas how to run the country with their political or religious interest at heart. This of course excludes Christianity and anyone who happens to be the colour 'white' and 'English speaking'. Sounds like your in favour of scrapping the Charter?

I only posted CHP for info regarding human rights and our constitution preamble for the previous poster. I didn't vote for them either. Pertaining to the United Church, I wouldn't take them to seriously either as they only represent 17.5% of Canada's religions. As a matter of fact all protestant denominations in Canada when broken down are fairly insignificant. http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_28.html

Canada is a secular nation made up of a diverse group of people some who have religion some who do not. We are not a christian society, and if we were that would not make us moral. Our laws are not to be based on religious tenets. Our laws are made for practical reasons, in the interests of health, happiness, security, and equality. We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise. Andrew Who is " We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise." Some enlightenment for your reading pleasure: http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/partyPolicy6.htm

Really? Define immoral and define for me how homosexuality fits your definition of immoral. Here is the trick, do not mention god once..... Andrew Define a moral Christian society but do not mention God?