MightyAC

The problem is that many, many homosexual culture is strongly hebephilic, and its members (pardon the pun) would most certainly be going after the 14 year olds like lions after lame zebras if they weren't afraid of going to prison for it. The law has been struck down by both the Ontario and Quebec court of appeal and homosexuals preying on 14 year olds isn't a problem. Do you have any evidence of the homosexual community being more hebephilic?

I wonder why this motion has been pushed to the point of a vote so quickly? Anyone know if this is a free vote for the Conservatives? I am willing to bet that the vast majority of ridings held by Con MPs would not support the motion to call Quebec a "nation within Canada". I am damn near positive that all 28 Alberta ridings would oppose it. I am also fairly sure that despite the lightning quick vote many constituents have actually told their MPs that they do not support this motion through emails, phone calls, etc. I wonder how many Conservative MPs will seek out the wishes of their ridings and vote against the bill? Now that Garth has been ousted I'm guessing 0. Garth happend to have a town hall meeting with his constituents scheduled this week, and those that attended were opposed to this motion by about 30 to 1.

OK, I have found what people cling to when they say the "age of consent" was not lowered to 14 by the Mulroney government. Sexual intercourse with a female that was not your wife under the age of 14 was completely illegal. However, the protection provided to females under the age of 16, 18 had qualifications attached. Sexual intercourse with females between 14 and 16 was illegal for females of "previously chaste character" . So prior to the change made by the Mulroney government females between 14 and 18 had some protection but not complete protection. The Mulroney government just removed the extra protection provided to females over 14. This quote shows that the law preventing anal intercourse under 18, that the Liberals may push to remove, has already been struck down by the Ontario and Qubec court of appeal so it no longer applies anyway. Both quotes are taken from this document http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...bs/prb993-e.htm

Are you sure? Because I've read many articles that say the age of consent was dropped to 14 in 1987 by the Mulroney government. This quote is taken from the first link below. The last link contains Hansard excerpts, use your browsers search function to find texts containing the word Mulroney. Anyway Adelle, it appears that you may be mistaken. http://www.c-a-s-e.net/Bill%20C313/Bill%20...nt%20%20Law.htm http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/writ...d_a_bc_pervert/ http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/artic...nr-constent.htm http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...E&x=1#T1520

This is a non-issue. The Libs simply want to remove an old law that is not even used anymore. Once the law is taken off the books the legal age of consent for anal sex will be the same as the legal age of consent for any other sex act. Right now that age is 14, thanks to Mr. Mulroney who lowered it in 87, and soon it will lbe changed back to 16.

What? GFW is a simple quality assurance program and marketing ploy. Publishers pay a fee and agrees to some install, removal and controller parameters, M$ does a little testing and they get to use a logo on the box. Nothing earth shattering. Some of the XBox team had has been diverted to the Windows division already, in an attempt to get Vista done and shipped. I wonder if that has anything to do with Halo 3 being late.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion and has existed long before Christianity. All religions have since put their own spin and conditions on marriage but the idea that Christianity somehow owns or is responsible for it is absurd. Plus not all Christian churches oppose SSM. Same sex couples can get married in United and Anglican churches and likely others as well. The current law is fair to everyone. Any couple can get married in a civil ceremony or at a consenting church. Plus, any church that is opposed to SSM can refuse to perform the ceremony. Why do conservative religious types feel the need to inflict their beliefs on others?

It seems that Sony will be giving away buckets full of marketshare this time. A year head start won round 1 for M$, simple value bundling and short supply by Sony won round two for them as well. I'm willing to bet that Halo 3 will cause another surge in Xbox sales after Christmas giving them round 3.

I had video games growing up. I had an Atari 2600 and a Commodore 64 yet I still spent most of my time outside. My parents didn't have to force me to play road hockey, tag and other active games we just wanted to. I absolutely loved video games but they ust seemed like a first thing in the morning or after dark type of activity. My parents were moderately active so maybe they lead somewhat by example. They also didn't ever ban anything. By anything, I mean TV, video games, pop, chips, candy, etc...I wasn't allowed to crack a beer and watch porn at 8. They just made healthy activities seem appealing and they participated in many of them with us. I had several friends with parents that would set TV limits, like 30 minutes a day max, and prevent them from drinking pop, eating chips, playing video games, etc. When they came over to my house all they wanted to do was sit on their arses and stare at the boob tube, play Donkey Kong and drink Tahiti Treat. (Hey anyone know if they still make that?) I know this example doesn't apply to all cases and all children but I have found that, so far, with some young relatives and neighbours kids that having an adult play with them and lead by example goes a long way. Hopefully the same formula works with my kids. At the moment they are too young for video games or sports but my wife and I are trying to remain as active as possible in an effort to lead by example. I play hockey and we both play golf, baseball and ultimate Frisbee. Besides I know I can beat my son at sports until he reaches his teens but kids these days seem to be instinctively good at video games. I think our widespread use of chemicals, microwaves, etc have mutated the genetic make up of young people, giving them super human video game playing abilities. My wife's, cousin's kids kick my but at NHL 07 (and every other game they own) despite the fact that I've been playing every iteration since 95....it ain't right...it just ain't right.

It is too bad that people with views like Leafless exist, but these are the times we live in. Actually, it seems that the more I read about history and participate in forums like this one, the more I realize that the times have always been like these. Burning witches, killing in the name of religion, slavery, racism, sexism, killing abortion doctors, the beating/segregating of homosexuals, etc. People can argue over the severity of the various crimes against humanity if the like but in the eyes of the subsequent generations each preceding one looks ugly, narrow minded and violent. Take Leafless for example. That guy (I assume he’s male as women tend to be smarter than us) probably finds some of the former atrocities committed by mankind to be horrible. Maybe it’s slavery, maybe the repression of women but in any case he looks at that act as disgusting. If the unfortunate day comes and he happens to sire some offspring, if he hasn’t already, they will likely see their father as a disgusting, narrow minded, ogre. Unless of course he is able to brainwash his kids along the same line that he was as a child. In any event, if one day Leafless is able to build us a time machine, because he is like so totally psyched about quantum physics, anti gravity and perpetual motion, and we were able to look at this period of time from the perspective of a future generation we’d all likely be embarrassed. The pure hatred perpetuated by man made differences, intolerance and greed is disgusting. Plus our assault on our planet and all of the species that inhabit it makes me sick. The fact that guys like Leafless exist embarrasses this period in time and all of us by association. It would be nice if we could round them up and burn them at the stake or many stakes anyway…just kidding. It would be nice however, if there was a quick and easy way to deprogram them all. I guess I shouldn’t be so hard on Leafless as maybe I’ll be just as ugly when the next “ism” comes along. (That should sound like “iz em” like the ending to racism, sexism, etc…I’m sure everyone got it but just in case Leafless is reading this I thought I should be clear) Maybe it’ll be clonism. First I’ll find some obscure passage in the bible to back my up my hatred and I’ll preach it online. Then others like me will form massive organizations to wield our collective power. We’ll all follow our leaders every word like a bunch of zombies as he reads and rereads our twisted interpretation of that passage. We’ll even boycott companies that have been found to have used clones in their advertisements. Eventually we’ll have arms length organizations that beat and kill clones and clone sympathizers. Maybe we’ll call it the CCC…the Clone Cleansing Clan…but we can work out the details later. I apologize in advance. I’m on some cold meds and it seems to be making me wordy.

I'd by the Xbox 360 if I could. It is expected to drop in price soon. Sony may be in trouble. Despite the $600 price tag, they loose considerable money on each PS3 sold. I know typically manufacturers loose money on the console itself and make it up in the over priced games but Sony is loosing piles of dough. The main problem is the Blu-ray player; it is still bloody expensive to produce. M$ will drop its prices which will force Sony to do the same, as soon as the initial hype dies down. At the same time they are having problems with the PS3 they have to pony up serious cash for the massive laptop battery recall and they aren't doing well with their entertainment division either. Typically the company could fall back on its very profitable gaming division but this time it is not expected to actually make money for years. Sony argues that the PS3 is a great value...and it just might be. It is a computer, a game machine, a Blu-ray player and potentially the centerpiece of a home theatre system all in one. However, marketing it as such may be problematic. Also it isn't fully backward compatible right now. The console released in Japan had trouble with most old games and that problem is not expected to be remedied before the US release. In time I'm sure a patch will be made available though... Due to my expanding family I am mini-van shopping right now...I said I'd never own one...and now I'm clinging to the fact that at least it will be my wife's vehicle. Leaving reliability out of the analogy, I see the PS3 as the Honda Odyssey and the Xbox 360 as something like a Dodge Grand Caravan. The Honda is the better machine and it comes standard with more options...but is it worth the much higher price tag? As much as I dislike Chrysler the package comes with what I need and not a tone of crap I don't...but all that extra crap is available if I choose. In the end I can get a product that meets my needs and will last the 4 or 5 years I want to own it, for a much cheaper price. If money is not an object put up the extra couple hundred for the PS3 but I get the feeling more and more people will be using that extra two bills to buy 3 or 4 games. Again, I'd buy the 360 if I could but I'm not allowed, I'm buying a gas, guzzelling, land yacht of a mini van instead...getting old sucks.

Can you define "exploitive"? If I have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl, that in iteself is not, by law "exploitive". Maybe if I'm putting her on the street or something, but otherwise I don't think so. Do you know of any case where anyone has ever been convicted under this law? Teen years are very hard for everyone, and lots of people have a hard time finding partners. But finding someone to have sex with is not a desperate necessity of life for most fourteen year olds. Certainly it's not so desperate that we, as a society, have to welcome the kindly volunteer work of forty year old gay men who want to bend the little boys over and have at them. Just as in the case of your belief that it's desperately important for 14 year olds to have sex with adults, you are wrong. So Argus read my post where I said I agree with the age of consent being changed to 16 along with a close in age exemption. In the same post I explained to Betsy, the position of EGALE as she seems hell bent on labeling all gays as pedophiles. Argus then pulls out a couple snippets of my explanation and states I believe it is "desperately important for 14 year olds to have sex with adults". Argus I'm not sure why you are so blatantly dishonest, especially when I agree with raising the age to 16. When you take portions of a post out of context and misrepresent a position like that what do you hope to achieve? Are you hoping that most people haven't read the thread before reading you message? As far as being wrong about the Mulroney government lowering the age of consent from 16 to 14, I have read several articles that have made that claim. If that claim is wrong please explain who did lower the age of consent to 14 from 16 in 1987. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/nov/02110405.html http://www.c-a-s-e.net/Bill%20C313/Bill%20...nt%20%20Law.htm http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2006/0...-and-order.html

I would say there is a very strong streak of hebephilia running through the male homosexual community, and it would not surprise me if Svend was one of those with such feelings. Isn't the definition of hebephilia a "sexual attraction felt by an adult to young people"? I am definitely attracted to fit, young, university girls. I think most of the heterosexual community are hebephiles as well.

I hope this damages both campaigns and Liz May takes the riding.

I agree. Let kids wear "My god can kick your god's ass" t-shirts for all I care. I am opposed to public institutions teaching or favouring one religion over another but who gives a crap if a kid wears a religious symbol? Learning to accept opposing view points in the school environment will go a long way to promote tolerance.

From what I've read "exploitive" relationships with anyone under the age of 18 are illegal. I'm not sure if the term "exploitive" limits the law to the relationships you've listed or if it is one of those terms that give broad discretionary powers to judges. FTA Lawyer can likely provide more insight though. I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that judges work with the laws provided to them. Quite often judges hands are tied by the wording of a law or the sentencing guidelines. This probably deserves another thread, but I'll comment here for now. I think the Judicial Advisory Committees should be as independent from political influence as possible. Adding a police rep to each JAC seems like a reduction in independence and impartiality to me.

Whoops, I missed the point completely. Thanks.

The same could be said of the Outgames, just on a smaller scale. That hasn't stopped people on this forum from bashing them. I suppose it's possible that the Outgames will increase Mtl tourism for years to come but I doubt it. The Montreal region also didn't receive and discounted atheletics, housing and administration facilites or any infrastructure upgrades out of this. I see what you're saying though..maybe the tourism generated makes the 5 mill worth it. The Ontario government tried the same thing when they ponied up 3 mill to bring the Lord Of The Rings musical to Toronto. Initially it seemed like a good move as the tourism dollars would likely pay off the investment 100 times over. However, the play bombed and the peasants were angry. In both cases governments made a calculated risk to generate tourism and it didn't pay off. Later armchair QBs slam them for it.

This discussion board is being hijacked by comedians. sigh... ok, you're either disagree with me referring to CPC policies as anti-democratic, dictatorial and top down or you believe that I am in fact endorings the Libs... care to expand?

Considering their entire focus is to represent the issues of homosexuals I think EGALE makes some valid points. However, I can't understand why the NDP would oppose it though. Most Canadians want this bill, it protects far more people than it inconveniences and I'd guess that the majority of their supporters are straight.

Scriblett wrote: That's why I admire him. The rules were no MP can speak to the press without permission from cabinet. MPs must attend a meeting before committee to be told what that they should do or say. Non-cabinet MPs cannot speak in the houses without permission and pre-approval of a script. MPs cannot submit private members bills without cabinet approval. Garth said his constituents come first and lived up to the promises of honesty, accountability and transparency. To borrow a phrase from a farmer friend of mine. "The Conservatives sure sprayed Roundup on the grassroots this time" Shakeyhands wrote: Not sure what you mean by this. By slamming the anti-democratic, dictatorial, top down policies of the CPC I am not in any way endorsing the Liberals. I know the Fibs forced the cabinet to vote for SSM...I know Copps made allegations that Martin and the Fibs helped Valeri win her nomination in Stoney Creek... Is that what you're referring to?

Great point. Not that I agree with it (even though I fall underJerrySeinfeld's oft-repeated, overly generalized term "lefty"), but the difference is simple. Some homosexuals might want to ban religion because it is generally comprised of organizations that plot to defame and discriminate against them. Homosexuals, on the contrary, do not by definition plot to defame religion. One actively promotes hatred against the other. That's the difference. (Again, I don't agree. I'm just stating the difference because Seinfeld often has problems with "nuance.") So you're saying JS was trying to convey that religion actively promotes hatred against homosexuals?

It makes me laugh when people bash any Olympic games that doesn't turn a profit. Even if the event falls a few hundred million short of breaking even the games are a bonus. An area receives a few billion in new facilities and infrastructure then sees a big increase in tourism for years and years to come...all for a few hundred million. Yeah sounds like a real waste of money to me.

Immediately after being turfed Garth the media peppered him with questions about his future plans. Garth told the press he'd explore his options and hold a press conference when he has an answer. As soon as he announced the conference visitors to his blog and the media postulated theories as to what Garth would reveal, the hype created became ridiculous. However the same media that created the hype gives Garth unheard of power and influence for an independent MP so I doubt he'll complain. In the conference he revealed that he will not cross the floor and become Green. He will campaign for Liz May in the London by-election though, which leads me to believe he will run as a Green candidate next election. I'm glad he didn't simply become a Green MP as that would make him as dishonest as the Cons or Libs have been recently. Plus his problems with the CPC began when he had the nerve to honestly say that his party should not have allowed Emerson to cross the floor and should not have appointed an unelected man to the senate and cabinet. His revelations about the CPC were over hyped, but do reveal that they are no more accountable to voters than the previous Liberal governments. 1. When asked for an official reason, in writing, for his indefinite suspension from caucus the CPC would not give one. 2. The CPC party rules state that any party member can seek the nomination of a riding. Despite being a CPC member Garth will not be allowed to seek the CPC nomination of Halton Region. In fact, the national CPC president says Garth cannot seek the nomination again. Garth summarizes the situation perfectly. "The party has removed an MP nominated by the local party members and elected by the voters. The party will not explain this to those folks. The candidate they selected for the next election is being set aside. No explanation. All of these actions were taken in secret, without any input or appeal, and yet materially affect the voters of a large electoral district. This raises more questions - about the role average Canadians actually have in the political system, and their ability to choose their own representatives - and about this government's commitment to transparency, openness and accountability in the political system." To me that is a serious problem. The CPC went on and on about accountability during the last election campaign. The question is who should MPs be accountable to, the voters or the party? The CPC showed us that MPs must choose their party over the people, and that's just plain wrong.

I am in favour of keeping prayer out of school, hell I'm in favour of dropping the word god from our national anthem...but this is ridiculous. Ms. Ironbox, er I mean Bines needs to give her head a shake.