na85

If religious definitions must fit within legal definitions, then the state controls religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and as such is free from state control. If religious definitions are not required to fit within legal definitions, then you're giving religious organizations carte blanche to do what they please, and fuck the law. Allowing this would set a bad legal precedent that religion can trump the law. If I form a church and my definition of murder is that it's not murder if the victim is a homosexual, or a visible minority, can I claim religious freedom if I am tried for murder or a hate crime? Again, there are limits to everything. Your religious freedoms don't take precedence over someone else's equality rights: Taken directly from the Charter. You'll notice that even though sexual orientation is not mentioned, that list is neither exhaustive nor exlusive. All it says is "in particular". Beyond those items (race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability) every person is still equal before and under the law. This is especially poignant given that we've just concluded marriage is a legal definition, and that it cannot be superceded by a religious definiton.

So what, you're saying that because Italy's team sucks balls we should eliminate women's hockey from the olympics? Makes perfect sense. While we're at it, let's disband men's hockey too, since Kenya's team is so terrible. Heaven forbid they might get schooled by superior players and embarassed. Canada wins because we have superior female hockey players. You do them an injustice by dismissing their skill and prowess.

Legally speaking we vote for the candidate and the party the candidate belongs to is irrelevant. So you are wasting your time trying to make it sound like there was some criminal mis-doing here. Frankly, I am wondering where these protesters were back in 2002 when the Conservative MP for Richmond defected to the Liberals. Made the national news for maybe one day. There was no hand wringing about about democracy being denied. Just because it happened in 2002 and got next to no attention doesn't mean that the current situation is any less meritous. In 2002 I was 16 years old and not interested in politics. The circumstances were different, else there would have been a similar level of media attention. Newbie raises a valid point: MPs run under a party banner because they either subscribe to or identify with the values and ideas put forth in said party's platform. Why run under a particular colour if you plan to switch sides later? Why not run as an independent? The fact is, in large cities it's not always possible for everyone to get to know their candidate personally.

..which is why Stronach should lead the libs. She could finance the entire campaign with daddy's plastic.

You're entitled to your rights only as far as the protection of your rights does not infringe upon the rights of another.

It's pathetic that our athletes are competing at the global scale? "Our" athletes? What gives you the right to take collective possession of someone? It is pathetic and sad to see nationalism and sports mixed together. I don't think tax money should be used for such purposes. What DO you think tax money should be used for?

I agree. However, I was arguing earlier that many such institutions have changed, and marriage itself is a plastic ideal. It has not remained constant through history.

I agree, our speed skaters are going to pwn the competition. Does anyone know if Catriona LeMay Doan still skates? I can't remember the last winter games. It's pathetic that our athletes are competing at the global scale?

That's possible, although I was under the impression from my first-year bio classes that the fetus is actually androgynous until about 12 weeks when the labia in a female fetus can be detected by ultrasound. However I am not 100% on this. Try to read the whole argument before joining in, we've covered some of that before. First of all, definitions change. A hundred years ago "click" wasn't a verb describing the action of a mouse, and "mouse" was only a creature, not an input device. Should we persecute Bill Gates for "stealing" the definition or the culture of our society? Secondly, your example about being made a "nudist jew" doesn't make any sense, nor is it related. If you wanted to be known as a nudist jew and started your own sect of judaism based on nudity then yes, yes you should be recognized and protected as per your rights to religious freedom. How this relates to homosexuality I can't fathom.

I agree with geoffrey in that the anti-ssm side is too highly populated with immature arguments and wild conjecture. If we could get past all that, I think that the resulting debate would be very interesting indeed.

I'm not being a sore loser, surprisingly enough. I just find it very stupid and uninformed when elected parties claim to have "a mandate of the people" when they only got 30% of the vote. I'm not saying that the libs or the NDP should be in power this election, obviously the cons won fair and square. My point is that with such a low supporting percentage you really can't claim that Canadians as a whole are behind the cons. I couldn't find any numbers on the 2006 turnout so after about 2 mins i gave up and used the 2004 numbers. 65% is pretty good.

I think you mean illegal...and yes I agree with that. Yeah that was a typo on my part

well said

Oh please. The Canadian people gave them a mandate? The national voter turnout numbers are extremely low (55% of the voting age population voted in 2004) and on top of that, Harper only won a minority government. This means that something like 30% or so of Canadians voted for Harper. You think this is a mandate given by the people?

I never said I agreed with limited abortions, I just said I could live with it. However, I don't think that the rape rate would skyrocket if abortions were made legal. It wouldn't make rape any less illegal, nor would it reduce the punishments that accompany a rape conviction.

I could live with that.

Ahh okay I see where you're coming from now. That's an interesting point. I myself think I had a fairly normal childhood. Both my parents are around and they have a healthy marriage, I went to a public school (french immersion woot!) and got picked on about what I would judge is the average amount for someone who wasn't cool until high school/university. I am straight. I have several gay friends who grew up in similar conditions. There isn't much difference to speak of in our childhoods. One of my gay friends' father moved out, I believe they are divorced. However other gay friends have intact families. To the best of my logical reasoning, the reasons behind the difference must be some genetic factor since our upbringings were so similar, perhaps a soft impressionable area of the psyche that is shaped during infancy/puberty?

Let's keep in mind that I'm actually not a wife beater, k? I expected no less than angry retorts. The same people who hate killing babies would kill me. Interesting how morality works. Freaks that knock up girls for fun would be close to the top of my list for capital punishment... maybe it wouldn't result in death, just a real good ass kicking. A good ol' fashion castration of the sexual predator might be in order. I'd help the daughter raise the child and encourage her not to have an abortion. Not all rape victims have the luxury of a good father. I expected no less than angry retorts. The same people who hate killing babies would kill me. Interesting how morality works. Does that mean you do think it is killing babies or was that a Freudian slip? To be honest, I was just quoting them. As for whether or not it's killing babies... tough call. You're killing cells, that's obvious. Either way, I still believe abortion to be a necessary addition to the repertoire of medicare.

Well one of us is missing the point, that's for sure. The way I understand it, he wanted you to be gay for a week because we all know you can't do that. It would be like me trying to become a 6-foot 5 black guy for the week, it's just not something one can make a choice about. You then replied and asked him to eat kittens for a week. I could make a choice about eating kittens.

Ah... i don't see how eating kittens and killing nuns relates to being gay. If I wanted to, I could go from being a kitten eater and back in a week. I couldn't just become gay if I wanted to. Nice try though. Marriage was originally defined such that the woman (or in many cases, women) were the property of the man. Do you stand for that, as well?

I expected no less than angry retorts. The same people who hate killing babies would kill me. Interesting how morality works.

Italy has pretty much proved that having no parties is a bad call.

For all the bible-thumpers out there, would you still be anti-abortion if I slipped your high-school daughter a roofie and did the nasty? What if she got pregnant? Dropping out of school would pretty much ruin her life.

HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... sorry, I thought you were joking. Fox News? Credible?