Hicksey

99% of us aren't against gay rights at all. In fact we're willing to temper our beliefs with compassion because we believe that all human beings are created equal. We just think that including that union under the banner of marriage goes against 2000 years of tradition and is not the right way to go about it.

I hear you shoop. Talk about someone that's tolerant to people with views other than their own, eh?

Consenting adults. Then why is the age of consent being lobbied by the Gay Group to be lowered? *which* "gay group" is advocating for lowering the age of consent. You need to be *very* specific when you're making a claim like this. -k Its NAMBLA itself. It's not a gay/lesbian group, rather a pedophilia group.

Good thing I didn't call you a liar, then. I simply pointed out that "some of my best friends etc." is a hoary cliche associated with people accussed of being bigoted. That's not to say you are...well, you get the point. See, I wouldn't expect a Jewish, Hindu or Muslim PM to ask for the blessing of whatever god or gods they worship. Religion is a private, personal matter, best left out of politics altogether, even in as seemingly an innocuous form as "God Bless Canada." (I also fully expect that many of the people who support Harper's borrowed catchphrase would have a collective shit if he used something like "May Allah's blessing be upon our nation.") Then he should really end his speeches with "I love Canada." Why are people so afraid of others religious expression? I do it and expect that regardless of their religion, or lack thereof, that others would as well. And I think calling people bigoted that do not change their moral fiber every to meet every new wrong designated as right is very respectful. Asking me to change my mind is akin to asking me to forsake my religious beliefs. It is not bigoted to hold different beliefs than others.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills. I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament. I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it.

I can't beleive you trotted out the old "some of my best friends are <insert minority here>." I have a big problem with it for several reasons. Number one: it's an American expression, popularized by American leaders with clear American conotations. Find your own slogan, dude. Number two: Canada is a de facto secular state and I don't think its appropriate for Harper to push a particular religios P.O.V, especially now that he's PM (and if you think that's biased towards Christianity, ask yourself how you'd feel if Harper was asking for the blessing of Alah, or Vishnu or some other such deity.) Number three: I think it's a dogwhistle: a code to Canada's conservative religious right saying, basically, "I hear you, I am one of you." And, as a firm believer in secular democratic values, that scares the crap out of me. Don't make assumptions Black Dog. One of my best friends and his mother are both gay. I didn't trot anything out. And I don't much appreciate being called a liar. As far as your second comment, are we that afraid of a PM saying God Bless Canada? I'd expect a Jewish PM or one any other refer religion to bless the country as appropriate to their religion. It has nothing to do with endorsing a religion unless his policies support one religion over another. It's merely a show of love for one's country as far as I am concerned. If our next PM is an athiest and chooses not to say it, that wouldn't offend me.

You seem to have a litlle problem with reading comprehension skills there shoop. Let's review them, now take your time if you have to: And you're probably still wondering why central Ontario and Toronto voters think big "C" Conservatives like you are social neanderthals. hmm let's see now "the only poll she'd have a chance with would be on a stage". Now, maybe you're only thirteen and have never been to a strip club, so I'll fill you in: they have brass polls on stages where women dance naked. (pssst....that is what was inferred by the way) Then I went on to say "you're probably still wondering why central Ontario and Toronto voters think big "C" Conservatives like you are social neanderthals". Now, in case you haven't been paying attention lately, there has been a fair amount of discussion on here as to the "stupidity" of Ontario (and Toronto in particular) voters because they refuse to vote for the conservatives. One of the main reasons for that is that these voters are social liberals. Comments attacking MP's as whores (even if not meant in a sexual way) make the perpetrators seem anti-women. This does not go over well with ontario voters. They see these people as social neanderthals... Still with me...probably not, but let's continue anyway. What's the matter there shoopy, missed that little prerequisite there. Now, I am not by nature a violent person, however i do have a temper. If you call my wife/daughter/sister a whore, that will set it off. The point that I was making, and I do believe Sage understood it, is that it doesn't matter how you intend a remark. What matters is how it is received. Try telling your mother/wife/girlfriend tonight that she looks phat. Wait for the reaction, then tell her you meant phat with a "ph". See what I'm getting at. Well, probably not. Anyway, the way these comments (including wanting to see her naked, how come no-one has said they want to see Petey boy naked?) are tossed around flippantly here leads me to believe that the originators seem to think of women as second-class. Then you complain when the toronto media portrays big "C" conservatives as sexist and socially backwards. You can't have it both ways. whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr) A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores To compromise one's principles for personal gain. Politically correct people must not be able to understand one can use the word whore without sexual connotation. I'll give you it was a strong word. But for someone to go from running for the conservative leadership to taking a Liberal cabinet post inside 6 months, its the only word to adequately describe it. I wasn't the one throwing around the disrespectful sexual comments subsequent to my original comment. I made a point and left it at that. If you cannot understand the feeling of betrayal by conservatives and why we would be upset at her defection for nothing more than political gain (obvious to even a half-wit) I don't think I'll ever be able to make it clear to you. I was actually proud to see our party turning into a party representative of all Canadians and on its way to not just being looked at as a 'boys club'. I thought an upcoming and powerful Stronach at the top of the party would attract more women into to the fold. As far as I am concerned the feeling of betrayal is strong. It's like the political equivalent to finding out your wife is cheating with your ex-best friend.

betsy, I know that last paragraph reeks of sarcasm, but it had to hurt to write that. Its not disgusting on the basis of the homosexual tones, rather calling pedohpilia 'postive mentoring'. Anyone touches my kids before they're of age and I'll do everything I can to make them feel both the legal and physical consequences. Man or woman. Now, having said that -- I wouldn't hit a woman. [sarcastic humor a la Glen Foster] But I do think that when women do something to deserve it, there should be women you can call ... [/humor] All joking aside though, anyone trying this with my kids will rue the day they even thought of it let alone the day they got caught.

You noted what the NAMBLA believes, then linked it to polygamy in your next sentence.. That is what I was disputing, as the two are not analogous. Again, I was just giving you their argument for recognition. I was not making a link where they were not. I think its as disgusting as the next person.

But that is a completely ridiculous analogy. Pedophilia is about men preying on children, always. The vast majority of polygamy involves consenting adults. If children of any sex are involved in polygamous relationships, it must be criminalized not because there are more than two persons involved, but because children are involved. To discriminate against a relationship solely because it involves 2+ people is no different than other forms of bigotry. I was just repeating what their assertions are. I agree that any sexual activity between children and adults must remain illegal and punished as severely as can be.

Although you might be right, I'm not convinced that's what motivates Harper. In my opinion, he takes the Bible far more seriously than the average Canadian. If the Bible endorsed homosexuality, promoted homosexual family values and encouraged homosexuals to marry rather than live in sin, he might be a proponent of gay marriage. That is the problem! Those who say they take the bible seriously are the most homophobic of all. Imagine, using the bible to reinforce your prejudice :angry: Mind you, the bible was also used to condone slavery. When I hear Stephen Harper say "God Bless Canada" at the end of his speeches, I want to puke Most of us have no prejudice. I have gay family members and a couple of gay friends and they know and understand why I believe th way I do. And if you have a problem with Harper asking God to bless us all, you might want to re-examine yourself because that sounds no less prejudical and disrespectful of my beliefs than you're accusing us catholics and christians of being.

NAMBLA believes that like homosexuality, pedophilia is a sexual preference and that its members deserve the same rights and recognition as homosexuals. They believe they should be able to not only engage in sexual acts, have relationships with, but also marry their partners. And the Polygamists aren't going to be far behind in the parade to demand rights and recognition.

As someone who crosses the border more than 10 times per year and who has worked with border guards in different areas there is no doubt in my mind border guards need to be armed. This Eastern Canadian obsession that guns are bad and the idiotic Liberal proposal to ban guns are just examples of leftist ignorance. Train them, arm them, and secure this country's borders NOW. Agreed. I see it even more than you do. I cross twice a day. One there and once back. If we don't they're going to keep walking off the job until they get it. About once every week the people at the border walk off the job in protest.

For what it's worth (almost nothing) I agree with this statement. As regards the benefit of the party in power, why is that even a concern? Electoral reform should be about responding to the needs of the electorate, not the party system. Also, in response to the claim that PR will not work in our strong party system, I would suggest that you're putting the cart before the horse. Our SMP system STRENGTHENS the party system and EXAGGERATES regional differences. A PR system would likely reduce this, and it would create a basis for regional dialogue. As a young voter who now has 3 federal elections and 2 provincial elections under my belt, without ever once having contributed to the selection of a representative, I think it's time that the Canadian people start seriously considering how to change the system for our own benefit. But, again, all this is pretty meaningless, since somehow PR isn't even on the national radar come election time. What about term limits? Where do they fit in here?

For me, this is a non-partisan gripe. It has been fully documented that Mulroney liked and used it as much as those who preceded and succeeded him.

The answer to your first question, is no. I suggested nothing of the sort. What I implied was that Toronto is more socially liberal. Having lived in both Ottawa and Toronto, that is my personal observation. As to your second question, WTF are you going on about??? You sound like Parizeau after the lost referendum "money and the ethnic vote". Bigot. So sexist comments are a form of social progression where you're from? Go visit Mr. Webster and you'll see that it is possible to use the word without a sexual connotation. I don't do PC.

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"? As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems. I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right? No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable. I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine. I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?" Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it. Was that directed at me? Because I am not sure what quote of mine you are referring to. Didn't mean to quote you. Oops. Sorry.

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"? As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems. I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right? No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable. I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine. I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?" Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it.

I don't blame them either but if you hadn't noticed, our entire border patrol would have to be reformed in order for these people to be armed. Lets face it, we have low wage, poorley skilled staff guarding the 49th parallel. Lets arm "Wall-Mart greeters" first and see how it goes. You really don't understand just how much training and skill is required for that job. And so far as I have been able to get out of the few that I talked to, they all agree that they're well paid and don't want to leave the job. But at what price do they pay to stay? Who wants to die on the job? For them its a distinct possibility. I really don't understand what the problem is with training these people to handle the weapons and then arming them. It's not like they're going to walk around downtown Toronto shooting each other with them.

Only 3 of all the majorities in Canadian history for which there is a record of the popular vote results would have constituted a majority under his new system. 1. 1940, Mackenzie King, Libs, 51.32% 2. 1958, John Diefenbaker, Cons, 53.58% 3. 1984, Brian Mulroney, Cons, 50.03% Are we willing to as much as do away with the majority government in Canada?

If we're going to go in this direction, I think we need to attach term limits. Also, in the last 30 years have we ever had one party get 50% or more of the popular vote? Because if that never happens we'll never have another majority government.

I never thought I'd quote Trudeau positively, but I think the reason goes along the lines of this: "Well, there's a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is go on and bleed. It's more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of helmets." And I couldn't agree more with ol' Pierre (if only in this case). That Trudeau. He's a 'love em' or 'hate em' kind of guy.

Aren't we micromanaging here? Who cares who is manning a polling station so long as they're not a raving lunatic? And who looks around the room and takes notice of the race of everyone in the room with them? I think the whole issue reeks of racism. Don't get me wrong, I am not making any accusations. But come on. If there was any country in the worl I would guess that would be beyond this kind of nonsense I would be this one. They're human, and that should be good enough.

What is it about properly trained people legally owning and operating firearms that scares people? Its not them killing everyone. Its the real criminals.

I like your first idea and they're working toward that end for the detroit-windsor border crossing right now. But I'm no too sure about the second.