redhead_pt

Lol, a childish rebuttal, perhaps, but I wonder how many ill-mannered Yanks have tainted our perceived courtesy whilst masquerading as Canadians! In all honesty, the majority of Americans I have met have been well-mannered and agreeable while travelling through Vancouver. I think it is likely due to political disdain that Americans get most of their bad rap. At the same time, if people have voted for the political party, then are they not to blame for it's actions?

1) Anyone who opposes my right to equality can make no claim nor appeal for respect or pleasantries. That is what this is all about, respecting differences! 2) In response to: Well, maybe you just did, which only supports my case for your homophobia and as a result your repressed homo-love-lust desires! 3) Lastly, a ) I think I might do just that... having a drink before responding to your posts should intoxicate me enough so as to lower my mental acuity and cognitive reasoning skills to... well, your level. On second thought, I'm going to need an entire bottle if that is what I hope to achieve. b ) Just because I am always right, it does not necessarily follow that I am self-righteous; nor should my reverence and appreciation for equality allow me to be branded self-righteous. c ) moronic and idiotic are synonymous, and therefore needn't be used in quick succession. We already have a hard enough time deciphering your writing, Leafless. Grammatical and syntax issues succeed only in furthering our difficulties... I am happy to note from another post that I am not alone in my judgement

case and point... too bright, and no one is asking... are among the infinite mistakes in spelling and grammar which you routinely perplex us with. I am in no way meaning to present distored views; my purpose is to change the distorded views of ignoratums like you. Rhetoric, here defined for you, since it's use proves slightly oxymoronic... :- Skill in using language effectively and persuasively... and yet you also claim that I am not bright... so which is it? Either you think the former and are simply using words for which you know not the meaning, or you think the latter and are therefore complimenting me... haha, one word sums you up in all your wanton and contrived pedantism. It's an adjective, starts with an S, ends with a D, and I'm certain your not too S _ _ _ _ D to figure this one out! OMG, please do tell me you are joking. The idea that rights have to be earned? Ha! Please look up "rights and freedoms", by anyone's standard definition, and find me some outside reference whereby anyone is in agreeance with you. By your lacky standard, people on welfare should be abandoned and left to die, seeing as how their "right to life" as defined in the charter is not well-earned. Yet again, the NAZI party awaits your call... Yet another fine example of the run on the sentence; something, Leafless, with which you seem all too familiar. That aside, I think Canadians do think their country to be one that is accepting of diversity, as published in survery after survey on "what it means to be canadian". These ideas are meant to be used in an utmost generality that it is meant to parallel our wide-ranging acceptance of a wide range of practises... get it? got it? good! Since you -> , dont understand the meaning of multiculturalism, spirituality, or sexuality, (among the many facets of diversity as a whole) the boys at meriam-webster would be sure to give you a hand. I think that everyone else has a fairly decent handle on my implied meaning.

You are so unbelievably stupid, Leafless, words alone cannot describe... you have failed in rebutting even a single point I brought up, and countered only with mindless babble that makes no specific arguments, and only adds to your perceived stupidity. "No real values or common identity"? The common value is one of respect of personal freedoms and equality, the common identity is one of multicultural, sexual, spiritual, and social diversity. If you don't agree with that, I suggest you hop back in your time machine, set the dial for 1940 and meet your mentor- Adolph Hitler- as you seem overly eager to embrace his philosophies. If you choose to dwell on the fact that your religion touts an anti-gay message, then you are not in touch with God at all. Jesus' cardinal lesson was one of love and acceptance, an idea with which you are seemingly out of touch. The church once quoted the bible in denying rights both to blacks and women, and yet I don't see your stout opposition to their equal rights. You are a biased bigot, likely a result of your homophobia. An interesting side-note, research has indicated that homophobic men are largely "turned on" by gay pornography, and that their homophobia is largely the result of an inner struggle of cognitive dissonance. Secondly, America's stance as a leader in democracy was relinquished the very day they passed the Patriot Act- which basically acts as a limiting clause to their Bill of Rights… if that is the model of democracy for which you yearn, feel free to drop off your application for immigration. The debate in this forum has become dull and vague… Leafless, you are moving from specific issues on to the broader base of grudge that you seem to hold for the Liberal party of Canada and democracy as a whole. Your ongoing generalizations are a result of your inability to recognize the outweighing strengths in EVERYONE else’s arguments. Your posts, meanwhile, ring hollow- a nonsensical amalgam of blather which never succeeds in making a single good point. I certainly don’t have time for nitwits like you, and every other enlightened person taking part in this debate seems on side with Charter Rights. Your reasoning as to the initial premise of this debate has been toppled by innumerous arguments of unambiguous superiority. It is time that you concede defeat!

Children already face a myriad other nonsensical insults through the course of their schooling. In fact, they would be far more likely to suffer the wrath of a perceived weight problem, acne issue, funny name, or any other of a host of superficial childish critiques. What further harm could be presented by their parents' sexuality, which is for the most part out of view of their peers. It is for this reason exactly that children with a homosexual parent(s) are typically less discriminatory and judgmental in their overall views; an irrefutable benefit. A good parent is a good parent plain and simple; sexuality is a non-issue. Please define normal heterosexual society? Homosexuality is as much a normal orientation as is heterosexuality. Its prevalence throughout the human population has been steady at around 5-15% over several millennia. What's more, homosexuality is endemic to many animal species- but found in ALL mammalian species. Please enlighten me as to what exactly the ramifications of homosexual lifestyle are?? Do you fear that our fashion sense will seep into your str8 male populus? Or could it be our unfair advantage in dealing with women and the not-so-surprising correlation of higher average income for gays? I must reiterate, majority rule is not the way to deal with a minority rights issue. Thank-you Leafless for your epitomizing demonstration of a run-on sentence. I do not hold religion in contempt… well, but for the fact that it as been there every step of the way telling people what they can and cannot do, guiding them into meaningless wars, and precluding charter rights for ALL minority groups- gays, blacks, and women alike. The whole point is, morality is purely subjective. We may not all agree on what is right, but we can certainly all agree on at least one thing that is wrong: the denial of charter rights to any person or group thereof. What’s wrong is superiority-complex assholes like yourself, touting moral authoritarianism over everyone else. Without the guarantees set forth in the Charter, you would not even have the right to freedom of speech nor the freedom of religion which you seem to hold in such high regard. The only thing that is dysfunctional in our society is naïve religious-right nutjobs like you who cannot wrap their minds around the idea of “separation of church and state”. Go to church all you like for your bi-weekly brainwashing needs, but don’t expect all people to share your beliefs, morals, and other twisted self-serving maxims. Democracy lies not in the adage of “majority rule”; democracy is present only in the fair and equal treatment of our fellow man.

exercising the right to strike is by no means "above law"... i think you should re-read my post, becuase you seem to have overlooked my point... either that, or you are simply too dense to wrap your mind around it...

Religions make claim to a message of love notwithstanding, yet such loathing superiority in their attitude toward same-sex marriage is a display of anything but. Why would such institutions, so privileged as to enjoy protection under our constitution, seek to withhold those same freedoms to other minorities? The church was initially opposed to equality for blacks, women – something we now hold to be their undeniable right. Why should people who seek only to be treated as equals under the law endure such angst? Most of all, perhaps, from religious persons who make claim to supposed “higher moral character” which is naught more than a façade for their discrimination and hatred. On the political front, I do not even believe that a free vote is here in order. Conservatives may tout it as “the only democratic resolution,” yet true democracy goes well beyond the limits of majority rule, especially when dealing with minority rights. The essence of our democracy lies in our equality – irrespective of age, sex, religion, race, and in this case sexual orientation. What is to fear by granting same-sex couples the right to marry? It does nothing to lessen neither the meaning nor quality of heterosexual unions. The meaning of marriage should be rooted in love and commitment and it is here that the age-old truism “love is blind” proves true - even in the case of gender. Homosexuals should not be refused that choice on account of that over which they have no control or choice.

It should be surprising to many of you that the majority of BC parents are on side with the teachers. The all too little publicized aspect of teachers’ contract negotiations are limits on class sizes, which, under the not-so-watchful eye of our liberal government have increased from and average of 24 to 35 and above. Funding has also been slashed and downloaded onto local school boards, which have had no choice but to respond by closing libraries- entire schools even- and the forced elimination of programs designed to benefit students with special needs (i.e. disabilities, ESL). Hard cuts may have been necessary after certain budgetary shortfalls of the NDP era, but in this time of surplus, surely the government can share in its profits. If the Campbell government can revel in it’s self-administered salary increases, then there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in denying the demands of teachers. Contract negotiations always follow the pattern of “ask for more, expect less” so this 15% wage increase that is demanded by teachers is certainly not expectation. They warrant a wage increase, which, at the very least, reflects inflation and the higher than average living expenses of the province as a whole. Bill Teleman said it best: “By imposing a contract last week on BC teachers instead of allowing them to continue with free collective bargaining, including the democratic right to strike, the Gordon Campbell government once again showed disrespect for the law. And the law is even of its own making.” In my opinion, said disregard extends arguably to certain aspects of our charter of rights and freedoms, but that is another matter entirely… he goes on, “The government was quite clear that it was not – repeat not – eliminating the right to strike. A government news release dated Aug. 14, 2001 was crystal clear about Bill 18. ‘The legislation maintains the right to engage in free-collective bargaining, and teachers and support workers continue to have the right to strike,’ it stated. But last week’s legislation makes a mockery of the government’s own words. No one should be surprised that the Liberals lack respect for the law, even when they write it for themselves.” No issues will be resolved by this new legislation! Students have suffered far more at the hand of the Liberal government than they would had they simply allowed teachers to exercise their right to strike to reach a negotiated agreement. By infuriating the teachers with such condescending back-to-work legislation, the Liberals have succeeded only in prolonging the negotiative process…