betsy

I've heard from the news that a school in Ontario had suspended a large number of students until they have their immune shots in order (Rubella, mumps, polio etc..,) I know of a parent who did not give their child the shots that normally are given to children. I think they believe that they do more harm than good. They've also decided not to give the child milk... Personally as a parent, I'd feel wary taking this risk. I'd feel like playing Russian roulette with my child's health. What is your take on this?

From what I've understood about the Spartans, when a boy reaches the age of 10, he is given to a mentor for military training...and this sometimes lead to sexual encounter between boy and mentor. I wonder about the "actively encouraged homosexuality in the ranks". But then I don't know much about them.

There's no denying that the early years are critical in a child's development...early childhood education had always been there! Parents are still involved with their children! It's only the odd ones that don't really give a hoot! This so-called "new" early childhood education being touted is nothing more than just practical understanding and practical approach to children....in a fancy packaging. And actually some of their methods are questionable! Some of their approach...especially when it comes to "discipline" suggests that either these new methods are engineered by those who don't understand children at all...or they're out to lunch! In some public daycares, they do not want to be involved with any disciplinary methods at all. Some parents are called from work to handle their kid when the "teachers" cannot "reason" with a toddler. It takes more than just having a diploma to be effective with children. Especially when the motivating factor in getting that diploma is a unionized job with excellent pay-rate.

What is "good daycare?" The rep of the Childcare Choice Advocate said she saw two gov-funded daycares in Toronto. "I'll quit my job before I send my kids there!" that's what she said. Apparently majority of parents do not like the universal plan. They see it as another big waste of money. Her point is just being typically the Liberal that she is: "I know what's good for you and so you'll do it my way!"

The day the budget was actually announced, Carolyn Bennet was a guest of Mike Duffy, along with Olivia Chow. That day Bennett made a very insulting statement. "Out of spite, Harper scrapped all the Liberal plans for daycare and early childhood education. It is good that Harper is getting and arming our law enforcers and building up more prisons. We'll surely need those." Even Duffy was surprised with the implication of the comment. He laughingly said "you saying children not raised in universal daycares will end up becoming criminals?" In the same interview, Bennett gave me the impression that she might be sort of a highly-strung person. Not only was she screeching and mad about it (which could've been posturing)....but when Chow criticicized the inaction of the Liberals (after Bennet's tirade), and Duffy refrained Bennett from interrupting....you see Bennet looked mad and suddenly clamped her lips shut , and the way she was doing it looked like she was battling with herself not to "lose it." They mentioned something about a "teddy bear incident" connected with Bennett not too long ago....apparently another insulting gesture. So what's with these two prominent Liberal "flappers" (Hedy Fry will announce hers today)....both medical doctors at that. Did they go to the same school I wonder.

However much I dislike what Trudeau did to Canada, I will cede that he was the most intelligent PM in recent times, before Harper. People with intelligence generally have a disrespect for mainstream media. It's hard to respect people that think they know more than you, when really they are merely generalists that took a course or two in English. The goal of the media in this country is to talk down to people of Canada, and force them into their viewpoints on issues. I love when journalists try to tell me what is best for the economy or in business (Business & econ major here, yeehaw), I imagine others feel the same when journalists speak about things related to their professions or their knowledge. It's all from their opinionated viewpoints, yet presented as factual evidence. I get nothing but a massive feeling of arrogance from the media, especially CBC types, and its not something I tolerate paying to hear/see/read. There is no critical reporting of facts anymore, I wouldn't deal with the media if I were a politican. I wouldn't deal with the media ever actually. They've lost credibility. I feel automatically skeptical about what they say....just like listening to a salesman. This opinionated arrogance is rampant among "highprofile" or "star" journalists...that's why it's a good move on Harper's part to go over their heads and instead, talk to the "small guys."

Conservatives at 34% Bloc at 31%

Yes people have a way of deciding for themselves....but do they really? Or they just think they do. You hear parents whining about the excessive commercialism of childrens' products (from video games to any fads)...and yet they end up capitulating. It is a "need" that's been created by skillful marketing. You just have to have it.

Marketing encourages consumption? Why consumption?Could marketing encourage, uh, doing homework? Or does marketing only work to encourage consumption? (And why would that be?) Also, do you think marketing could encourage consumption of public transit? If so, why is traffic so bad? Sorry, I think marketing is a far more subtle concept than you suggest here. Marketing provides useful information to people but individuals have a way of deciding for themselves. Advertising would not be billions of dollar worth of industry if it does not work. Practically any venue or any means that connects to consumers are financed by advertising. It even sells people.

Ah, liberalism. The two edged-sword. With liberties come license. But I don't want to turn back the clock to the times: * to get a divorce you had to fake an adultery scene. * sodomy was a criminal offense. * condoms were illegal. * women had to go to a backroom butcher for an abortion. * blacks, gays, Catholics, Jews, etc were routinely discriminated against. Sure, our society has a lot of flaws but I don't want to return to the dark ages. How do we know that those were the "dark ages?" For all we know, we're just entering into one.

Oh I'd easily asume overwhelming percentage of adoloscents had been seduced by opposite sex...including young people who'd grown up to be gays. I am not excluding that possibility. Some comes through the form of "experimentation"...even among children (although innocently they do not associate it with the term "sex"). It is particularly hard for gays hitting adolescence to try to "fit in"....like we see nerds and "misfits"...for don't we understand all about peers...and how insensitive and cruel young people can be. As for seduction into a a certain lifestyle...I know for a fact that in some exclusive girls school...experimentation with lesbianism is common. For some, it's even like a badge of "sophistication". A good friend of mine had come from such schools and regaled us "provincials" with stories that you bet, shocked us. Not all youth seduced into such relationship end up getting confused. It depends on the individual...who knows what he/she may be going through at the moment...or whatever other circumstances...that all come into play to form that confusion. As I say, it is a strong possibility. Unless research prove it wrong...that possibility exist in much the very same equal way that the possibility exists homosexuality could be innate.

We think of internet as "communicating." For a lot, it is becoming their only way of socializing. Business transaction is getting popular...you don't need to go out and meet "real" people. TV can be a powerful addiction....for it provides the substitute of "companionship." I know of someone who turns on the TV all day without watching....the droning voices provides some sort of an assurance. It may be easier for us to communicate with one another....but it is far from real personal interaction with a real person. This forum may want us to feel that we belong in a "community"....but do I really know you? Sure, I have an image of each individual here but my image of you is just derived from conjectures in my mind based on how I translate your nuances and opinion. And my conjectures insist upon it even when I get the message that I'm wrong. I still picture one of the posters as a woman even though it's been said that he is a male. I have the control of whether I wish to participate some more...or not. All I do is click this button and you all go away. I do not even have to offer an excuse..or a polite apology for leaving while a "conversation" is still going. I do not even have to say a polite good-bye for now. Just click. Your feelings do not count. Is that how it is to communicate and socialize in a real set-up? If someone stops coming to this community....we just let it ride. We do not speak about it. For all we know, that person had just died. No one is concerned. For all the world opening at the click of your fingertips....we are isolated. Sitting in a room...facing this glowing monitor....and think we are communicating. But there is no real personal interaction. It is a cold substitution for the real thing. How ironic that when we're supposed to be able to reach out to everything...we are actually losing touch. The focus is always on "me." How can it not be?

United 93 was #2 at the box office last weekend in North America.

Rising divorce rates, single mothers, drugs, STDs, teen pregnancies, and all other social ills are choking us up. Why, when our society's supposed to have become "progressive" and advanced do we see these ever increasing problems?? It can't only be due to poverty. For we've had poverty before. We are doing something gravely wrong here. And unless we face it and acknowledge it....and do something about it, we are on a downward spiral.

I agree. Feminism had accomplished some good points...but nevertheless, also messed things up.

Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that all homosexuals are promiscuous males - you are ignoring all of the homosexual women who do not live that lifestyle. Now we probably agree that promiscuous lifestyle is bad for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. So which of the following do you think has a higher chance of getting promiscuous males to show some restraint: 1) Convince them that they are not really gay and simply have to 'kick the habit'. 2) Accept gay marriages as a social institution and encourage gays to have long term monogamous relationships. Why don't you just tell them not to forget to use their condoms??? And if you're female or a "receptacle" or whatever...just insist on the condom! And let's not forget about the needle-sharing. Not only for drugs...but anywhere from tattooing, piercing etc.., Make sure they're safe!

Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that all homosexuals are promiscuous males - you are ignoring all of the homosexual women who do not live that lifestyle. Now we probably agree that promiscuous lifestyle is bad for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. So which of the following do you think has a higher chance of getting promiscuous males to show some restraint: 1) Convince them that they are not really gay and simply have to 'kick the habit'. 2) Accept gay marriages as a social institution and encourage gays to have long term monogamous relationships. Why don't you just tell them not to forget to use their condoms??? And if you're female or a "receptacle" or whatever...just insist on the condom!

Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that all homosexuals are promiscuous males - you are ignoring all of the homosexual women who do not live that lifestyle.Now we probably agree that promiscuous lifestyle is bad for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. So which of the following do you think has a higher chance of getting promiscuous males to show some restraint: 1) Convince them that they are not really gay and simply have to 'kick the habit'. 2) Accept gay marriages as a social institution and encourage gays to have long term monogamous relationships. Why would marriage change that? We've had marriage among heterosexuals...and look, we're also having this problem now. As I've said, everyone is facing this problem. All we can do is keep informing the public...the rest is up to each individual. You cannot force people to conform and change their lifestyles...same as you cannot change an alcoholic by force. The personal decision and the determination will have to come from within...voluntarily. Otherwise, it won't work. Look at the news about the rising problems of AIDS in the gay community again...I had posted the link in one of the previous gay-related debates. The younger gays are suffering from what they termed as "fatigue"....a condition that got them so sick and tired of being informed that they no longer seem to care.

Today Graham was on Question Period and he's insisting that the Trenton affair was supposed to be a public event! Enough already!

Assuming that your theory is true....it only explains why homosexuals have a promiscuous lifestyle.

I guess you're right that in Africa, heterosexuals were the victims. But in America, it started among gays. "AIDS: A Doctor’s Note on the Man-Made Theory By ALAN CANTWELL, J.R, M.D. When AIDS officially began in 1981 the public was told that anal sex, drugs, and homosexuality were at the root of the new "gay plague." The first cases were all young, predominantly white, and previously healthy homosexual men from Manhattan who were dying mysteriously from "gay pneumonia" and "gay cancer" in the form of Kaposi’s sarcoma. The association with homosexuality was so remarkable that the disease was initially termed GRID ("gay-related immune deficiency"). To this day, gays are still blamed for the spread of AIDS into the U.S. population. When the disease first broke out, a new virus was suspected, but officials reassured "the general public" there was nothing to worry about. Of course, the health experts were wrong. Now most of the world’s AIDS cases are heterosexuals. The AIDS virus (HIV) can also be transmitted vaginally; and one does not need to be a drug abuser, a promiscuous person or a homosexual to contract AIDS." http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/46a.htm -------------------- "INDEPTH: AIDS AIDS in the 21st Century Sean Hosein, Special for CBC News Online | Updated September 22, 2003 A Snapshot in Time In 1981, doctors in New York and Los Angeles noticed that increasing numbers of previously healthy young men were seeking help for symptoms that included severe weight loss, virulent herpes infections, life-threatening lung and brain infections and previously rare cancers. Around the same time, doctors in France, Zaire and Haiti also noticed a similar syndrome in both men and women. The remarkable thing that all these patients had in common was that they were all dying from infections to which most healthy people were already immune. The doctors were puzzled because they could find no obvious cause for this new syndrome. If a line can be drawn in time, then 1981 marks the official beginning of what has come to be known as the AIDS epidemic." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aids/aids.html

AIDS was a homosexual problem....but not anymore. Now, it's everyone's problem. "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PROMISCUOUS LIFESTYLE Homosexuals argue that their relationships are as deep and committed as those within a legal marriage. This is not the case. Promiscuity is an inherent aspect of homosexuality. Although a few homosexuals maintain stable, monogamous relationships, these are rare exceptions. In particular, male homosexuals show a high degree of promiscuity as indicated by the following seminal studies: • A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexuals could be classified as monogamous or semi-monogamous (10 or fewer partners); (A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preferences, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana 1981, pp. 308-309.) • A 1978 study (A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978, pp. 308-309) found that: a) 43% of white male homosexuals estimated that they had sex with 500 or more partners. 28% reported having more than 1000 partners. A study (A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978,pp. 308-309) by the American Psychological Association found that: • 79% of homosexuals said that more than half their partners were strangers; • 70% of homosexuals said more than half their partners were men with whom they had sex only once; • due to the AIDS epidemic, homosexual promiscuity manifested itself in n average of 50 partners per year (vs. 70). These studies and the views expressed by leaders of the homosexual movement today indicate clearly that homosexuals do not wish to conform to the traditional understanding of marriage - that is, faithfulness and commitment to one partner for life. Ken Popert, homosexual activist, editor of Toronto's homosexual magazine Xtra and lover of Brian Mossop (who argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that their relationship constituted a family) stated: I am in a web of relationships but there is no centre and no boundaries. It's not structured and institutionalized the way the family is. Each person can feel at the centre of it -- because in fact, it has no centre. (Globe and Mail, June 27, 1992) Brian Mossop, his partner at the time, stated: I don't believe in the concept of family. The only useful purpose it serves is that it provides a method of distributing benefits. (Western Report, March 15, 1993) The reason why homosexual relationships are so promiscuous can best be explained by a regular columnist, Andrew Griffin, in the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra. In the June 23, 2000 issue, Mr. Griffin explains homosexuality to us. He states: Because in the end, being gay is all about getting and giving a good f…. It is about seeing members of the same sex as sources of pleasure, not potential enemies and competitors. Mr. Griffin has written many other articles explaining to his readers the "joys' of sexual encounters in the semi-darkness of a gay bathhouse where most frequently, sexual encounters take place between complete strangers. It is obvious from other articles that homosexuals accept promiscuity as an essential part of their orientation, and this is the case even in their so-called "long-term" relationships." http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2000...article_10.html

I agree that there are gays who became such because...they simply are. However, I also believe that some gays THINK they are...and/or HAD CONVINCED themselves that they are...for whatever reasons that they have....stemming from whatever experiences they might have had...and most likely this goes all the way back from adolescence ( when experimentations with sensuality start to occur). It is not uncommon for an adolescent or young teen to be seduced into a gay relationship and by nature, at that age....anything sensual I guess is intriguingly welcomed. Sometimes this can cause confusion for the boy...especially if pleasure was derived from it. Do we then say that he is gay because he felt pleasure from it? No. But some boys end up carrying this confusion all the way to adulthood...what more if for some reasons, he's having problems with women. It depends on the individual I guess. That's why, unless there is an extensive research done about it covering all areas that may affect or influence or have an impact, whether psychological or otherwise....we cannot establish a conclusion. At this point, we have to acknowledge that there might be other possibilities.

Do you think a person who's had a sex change operation is obliged to disclose it when they enter a relationship? How would you feel if the person you'd been seeing seriously discloses that he/she used to be a she/he? I certainly would like him to tell me if he used to be a female. I feel that I've got the right to know.

But in the mean-time, what do we do with the rest we've got???