betsy

So, that method of manipulation is not confined to religion. As I've pointed out...there is the boogeyman...the big bad wolf. How can children know exactly what is right...without being introduced to its concept? Aesop fables and other stories have manipulated children for centuries. Of course it has something to do with manipulation. It's right in there....the powers of reasoning. And yes it could be based on some artificial benefit!

Same sex marriage, huh? And you want to have a referendum why? No, of course not SAME SEX marriage! Traditional marriage.

Here is the crux of the argument. Religions may have a vision of what marriage is, but that vision doesn't apply to those who don't subscribe to religion. Many people have no need or interest in making a promise to some magic sky pixie, but that doesn't mean they don't want to make a promise to their life partner. That is why religion can't be given the mandate to define marriage for others. What is preventing them from making a promise to their life partner? Is there anyone here who says they should not and cannot? Just basing it on purely religion-based pov, surely if they don't subscribe to religion....this should not be an issue at all. They'll just be as happy using any word they can come up with to celebrate their union. And I think the government would be as happy to recognize it. And if they do subscribe to religion....then they know and understand why their kind of union cannot be accepted. And insisting that it should be accepted is stepping on religious freedom!

Please distinguish for me the difference between "old customs" and "tradition". DEFINITION of the word marriage is the issue. You insists the definition of it being a union between one man and one woman had changed several times in the past....therefore I ask you, what other definitions were there aside from that? You made a simple claim. I am asking you a simple question to back up your claim. Don't deflect the question.

Did you go back and read the post? Would you deny that at one time women were considered the property of men? That is where the custom of giving away the bride comes from - the father passes the ownership of the woman to the new husband. Interracial marriages were also seen as a deviation from "tradition". As for polygamy, how many wives did Jacob have? Seems to me there were four listed in the Bible, a popular source for Christians when they are defining tradition. When you talk about the "traditional" definition of marriage, whose traditions are you upholding? Christian, Muslim, European, African, First Nations...... I'd say there are many traditions, not all of which I would like to see upheld or returned to. Traditions that have outlived their value can be changed. You're speaking of old customs of marriage. The issue here is about the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of the word, marriage. And I'm speaking about Western societies.

That was recognized by the government? And if they weren't recognized, why not. Seems traditional if it has been happening all along. Yes, it's all perfectly legal! It's recognized! Practically most places all over the world too! Not just Canada.

They were not forbidden from marrying? Nope. A lot of gays got married and had children.

Hah! I just saw the trailer of a horror movie...starring Al Gore. Gore. What an appropriate name! I think the title is: Slashing The Truth

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed many times; see post #65. And who gets to decide morality? I would argue that "morality" is being violated by those who deny equal rights to all members of society. The traditional definition is that it is the union between one man and one woman. Where is it said that it had a different definition other than that before it got changed now? And what was that other definition...other than it being "a union between one man and one woman?" Can you provide a link to back up the statementt?

What if at some time in the past we had a referendum on race equality. The question could have been: "Now that slavery has been abolished and blacks are free to exist in society we believe that blacks should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think.... Choice #1 We should allow blacks into 'our' schools, restaurants, etc. Choice #2 Blacks can have their own schools, restaurants, etc which will be the counterparts of the traditional white establisments." I think choice #2 would have won overwhelmingly in the past as well...good thing we don't hold referendum on human rights issues. Seggregation isn't the answer Betsy. Canada has chosen equality and tolerance...good on us. The blacks do not see their fight for their rights comparable to gay "rights!" Gays can enter any establishments, attend any schools etc. They are not segregated! Why wouldn't they be content to have the union recognized as the counterpart of marriage in England?

Would you have agreed to a study of what would happen if the government let women vote? That was clearly about women's rights...for women did not have the same rights as men to vote! Gays had always had the same rights as heterosexuals. They were not forbidden to marry. This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

A Jewish guy who represents a group that wants an extensive study done BEFORE ANY LEGISLATIONS are made was guest on CPAC Sound Off last Sunday, along with the rep from the proponents of SSM. He was not there as a theologian. But he has an important point. We should not just simply legislate just to accomodate a special group....without knowing how this legislation will affect society. Its effects will not be visible to us for years. Effects need not be all negative. Studies could probably even show some positive effects on us. But the way things are going right now....this thing had been simply rushed through the door! Yes, some of us who oppose it could say we are driven by our religious beliefs....but truth is, this concern is not all about plain religion!

How about the image of their friends, who are of another religion, burning in hell and being tormented for all of eternity? How about the image that they too will suffer horribly if they believe unquestionably in the God fo their parents? You're right, the negative imagery is disgusting. I'm not saying there are no negative imageries in religion-related techings...but that's not what I'm responding to. My reply is directed to this statement by Melanie: I ask...what's wrong about that? Is that not a sample of the modern day educators' version of "positive reinforcement" to discipline? She suddenly find something wrong with that...simply because she thinks it's from the Christian aspect! She's giving a knee-jerk reaction to the concept of Santa Claus (which I think had been so commercialized anyway...and I think it is abused...and I certainly don't buy into the notions of today's educators that you need to bribe children)! A lot of left-leaning educators seem as confused as the children!

So? It's his own analysis! That's his belief! Practically everyone can create or make up their own theory. Dark Angel has his own theory! He can write and promote his own theory.....get published...make money! Does that make it an absolute truth? No. And what's he on about scaffolds? How many of those who marched proudly on the scaffold had done so without believing in a God? What does he know what drove the dignity and courage of those who walked to their deaths? Who do you think is the one most likely to march on to death with dignity, courage and pride...the one who thinks there's something that awaits him on the other side...or the one who believes after that rope snaps his neck, it means kaput! I got to admit...he is poetic. Romantically so.

A bisexual man cannot marry a man BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. He can only marry the woman!

You mean St. Nick! So he's been invented by whom? The Bible? More likely he's been conjured and given a task to help parents get their children to listen to them. At least, St Nick is your POSITIVE VERSION of the BOOGEYMAN.... or the BIG BAD WOLF...you know, the ones who'll carry children off and eat them! If it's okay to scare the pants off children using negative scary tactical mental imageries of being torn to pieces by wolves or being abducted by the boogeyman...what's so very wrong about using a positive method that also bring about innocent joy? Funny how St Nick's method is suddenly a point of criticism...when modern day educators and child advocates insists that the methods of "positive reinforcement" is the way to go in disciplining children....which very much includes negotiations and bribing them! St Nick is doing all that and more! Gee...talk about confusions.... Actually, I would like to correct something with what I said about St. Nick. Santa Clause....that's whom you're refrring to...is not a Christian aspect of Christmas at all. His name "Santa" may mean saint in Spanish...and he may be referred to as St Nicholas...but he has nothing to do with Christian Christmas. I don't think he's into any religion at all. Just like the tree has nothing to do with Christmas...except for pagans perhaps. But they nevertheless got tied neatly with Christian Christmas. The gift-giving part may've been derived from Christian Christmas (three kings bearing gifts)....but you've gotta admit....the concept of Santa Claus now, as far as kids are concerned, is all about..."what will I get from Santa!" So very much into the "ME" concept.... very much fitting into the mold of today's values! So the real traditional meaning of Christmas got even "bartardized" further into becoming so commercialized. It became a materialistic's golden event....complete with a wishlist! And who are the ones most likely responsible for turning the Christian Christmas into something so shallow?

Great idea Betsy. I think Harper should propose this question as part of his platform in the next election. I'll bet Harper's strategists haven't even considered it. What I especially like about your referendum question is that you've left out the lesbians. I guess even Harper agrees that lesbians should marry, just not those gay perverts. Maybe he views lesbian sexual acts as less perverted. It's difficult to know how some religious extremists think. Well it's understandable that gay includes Lesbians. You failed to mention the bisexuals and transgenders! In your views they're not allowed to marry? It's difficult to know when some are just plain nit-picking.... One thing sure, you know they're grabbing desperately into thin air when labels start flying!

I had chosen immigration reform. I would like a reform that would give positive impact on our economy. Letting those who'd had training in professional fields be allowed to practice in their professions. This in turn will also help the shortage of doctors and staffs in the nedical fields....thus help solve some of the problems of our healthcare. I'd like to see a very reliable screening process to prevent undesirables in coming to our country. And something more reliable to prevent those who have the authority of letting immigrants and refugees into the country from being corrupted and/or abusing their authority. I'd like to see us pushing for and funding programs for aggressive assimilation (that will bring results, not just as a "window-dressing" of pseudo-assimilation)....and that the taxpayers need not pay for cultural diversities to be practiced. If an ethnic group would want to teach their children their mother tongue, fine...they can do so...but that burden should not be shouldered by taxpayers. We're all better off seeing those fundings go to the coffers of fixing our healthcare system and the environment instead!

What doesn't these days? Costco, Loblaws, Independent Grocers, Sears, Home Depot, Super Pet Stores.... Why singling out Walmart? That's what I don't understand. Just like McDonald's is being singled out.

I think the majority does not want to have the issue revisited....but not for the reasons some proponents of SSM would like us to believe. They just want to move on. But if a referendum is done, with this question: "We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think.... choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman. choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. " I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

Finito. That thought must be terrible for those borne with "abnormalities"....or for those who have not had the luck to be born with a silver spoon, but had to sift through garbage to survive, or for those who'd had terrible accidents that cut their abilities to enjoy life...or for anyone who thought something is still missing in their lives and that time is running out...or the old folks waiting for their time to run out in nursing homes. Darn, you've got only one shot at being....and then you become nothing. It must be hard for some wallowing in miseries to accept the truth that they are in miseries because of one simple fact: you're born out of luck. No one can even say..."better luck next time..." No, it's just simple...."too bad." Maybe that's why we've got people who decides to go out with a big bang...."darn! My life is the pits and there is nothing after this. I might as well end it all now....but I'm taking as many of you as I can with me!" Or people galore popping anti-depressant pills! Because it's quite a depressing theory indeed. I wonder if you'd ever come to this bielief if it happens that you are having a miserable life....if you happen to be one those homeless roaming the streets? People in Africa and everywhere will be devastated by this "revelation." There is so much sufferings in this world. Anyway....how did you come up with this conclusion?

You mean St. Nick! So he's been invented by whom? The Bible? More likely he's been conjured and given a task to help parents get their children to listen to them. At least, St Nick is your POSITIVE VERSION of the BOOGEYMAN.... or the BIG BAD WOLF...you know, the ones who'll carry children off and eat them! If it's okay to scare the pants off children using negative scary tactical mental imageries of being torn to pieces by wolves or being abducted by the boogeyman...what's so very wrong about using a positive method that also bring about innocent joy? Funny how St Nick's method is suddenly a point of criticism...when modern day educators and child advocates insists that the methods of "positive reinforcement" is the way to go in disciplining children....which very much includes negotiations and bribing them! St Nick is doing all that and more! Gee...talk about confusions....

I doubt they ever had "anti-western" sentiments before they arrived. I believe the majority of people who move to Canada are NOT xenophobic. Then why do we have Imams preaching in London or some other western societies against the western evil? Inciting suicide bombings?

Could you provide links to the studies that support your contention of a negative impact to divorce act? thanks Does it have to be negative? Anyway, some impact on society need no studies. All you've got to do is look around you. One very prominent impact is the abundance of SINGLE PARENTS. And children coming from single parent households. The need for social programs that greatly target single parents and their children. The lifestyle of children from divorced couples, the custody arrangements, the adjustments to their parents' new lifestyles as well, etc.., Then there are the extended families....inter-linked affiliations (dad's girlfriend's children's grandparents, and you get the pic). Anyway, one link I can provide is this: "Re-examining the impact of no-fault divorce Even a casual observer of the American scene can see the conservative trends that are seeking to reverse the social policies of the 1960s and '70s, ranging from state welfare programs and affirmative action policies to abortion rights. Another campaign being waged in state legislatures is the effort to get rid of no-fault divorce. While we should certainly be wary of trends, which often replace vigorous debate with one-dimensional ideologies, neither should we grant privileged status to the status quo. I think that the current debate over toughening our divorce laws is a healthy one, and deserves our renewed attention. In the late '60s and '70s, most states adopted the policy of no-fault divorce, which meant that either party to marriage could sue for divorce with only the claim of "irreconcilable differences." This created the situation of unilateral divorce: either member of the union, upon feeling the urge to dissolve it, was free to leave. The original intention of relaxing the divorce laws was to allow individuals trapped in bad marriages to exit easily. However, as noble as this objective may have been, demographers' surveys have shown that the number of unhappy marriages has not dwindled; to the contrary, there are far fewer happy marriages. As Maggie Gallagher, the author of "The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love," recently reported in The New York Times, recent studies have linked no-fault divorce with the steep rise in the rate of divorce over the last 25 years. Even the effort to make divorce less bitter failed; Judith Wallerstein's studies indicate that five years after the divorce, 50 percent of all couples were still engaged in conflict." http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchiv...rst_person.html

Your opinion of disaster is not well thought out. Some marriages caused more damage to children than if a woman or man raised their children alone. And even traditionally, a child was often raised by one parent when one of the parents died. I'm sorry your traditional world doesn't include gay people either. I suppose you think their children should be taken away? It will take years before we see the impact this may have on the children being raised by gays. Just like it took years before we saw the impact of the divorce act....which we are seeing now!