CCGirl

What??? Let me elaborate. Sexual intercourse can't happen with gay people, one or the other lack essiential elements to make this successful. Anal intercourse isn't a natural process (mostly because it makes no sense from biology or anything else) and isn't sex in the same way. Lesbians can't possible even compare. I really don't want to get into the intricacies of homosexual relations because personally I find even the concept disgusting. But we need to let people that aren't hurting anyone their freedom to do whatever. Just stop pretending its the same as straight people. It's not on any level. Your defintions dont count! Who says anal intercourse isnt natural? Anal intercourse is practiced widely by HETEROSEXUALS...not just homosexuals!

What???

Why, are heterosexuals lobbying to lower the age of consent? Never heard of that one. What? Do you think the age of consent should be the same for both hetero and homosexuals? Why is it that the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexual females is 14, but the age of consent for homosexual males is 18. How's that for a double wammy bias? Gender and sexual orientation!

Why, are heterosexuals lobbying to lower the age of consent? Never heard of that one. What? Do you think the age of consent should be the same for both hetero and homosexuals?

Why do people think the government should impose age of consent laws at all?

None of this is relevant. Sources are credible when they are free of bias, are reporting studies, are held in high esteem through peer review, etc. Citing an opinion piece in an online "Chrisitan" news source, is NOT proof. And citing a fox news article is just .....well....funny Please cite some scientific journals or studies based on research. Opinion pieces don't count! EDIT: Do you support the idea that the age of consent for homosexuality should be different than for heterosexuals?

First of all, your "sources" are not credible. World Net Daily? Fox News? Second, paedophilia involves adults being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. How does this have anything to do with Homosexulaity? Give it up, this is a red herring argument/outright lie perpetrated on society by the fundies.

Equality is a "so-called" right? Since when?

Yes, they do lose their right to PUBLICLY express ANY religious belief. I do not want to hear referal to God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jehovah, Yahweh or any other deity! He is free to attend church, pray, etc. on his own time. No, great leaders can seperate their private and public duties. I expect an MP/PM to NOT impose their own beliefs on the population at large. Once elected, you agree to represent all of your people. We do not live in a theocracy. Besides the USA, name ONE other country that says "God bless <Nation>". This is unheard of in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter. :angry:

From their website: Not sure what this has to do with "gay rights" or SSM.

Yes, I have heard of NAMBLA. I am waiting for you to post links as to their motivations regarding "gay rights". What do you want to discuss about them?

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

When people say they want to "preserve the traditional definition of marriage", what exactly do they wish to preserve? Marriage has evolved through the ages, do you wish to preserve the definition of women being property? Women needed their husband to help them get credit? Or how about when marriage is used to secure bloodlines? Or what about the definition of marriage that made it illegal for mixed race marriages. For the people who believe "they" own the word marriage: Link

Does it matter? Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve. A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses. So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed? There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care." Gay marriage has nothing to with the charter -as it has already been decided upon.............the charter allows civil unions by default. Gay marriage, on the other hand can not be passed; Its ironic but true that the charter would have to be violated (freedom of faith) in order to allow same sex marriage to occur. Even more ironic is the fact that the only way out of this (legally) is the use of the "not with standing clause". What a load of cr*p Cite some sources for this stroke of genius please. Pierre Elliot Trudeu. :angry: Bull! People need to post sources if they are going to make uninformed opinions.

Does it matter? Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve. A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses. So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed? There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care." Gay marriage has nothing to with the charter -as it has already been decided upon.............the charter allows civil unions by default. Gay marriage, on the other hand can not be passed; Its ironic but true that the charter would have to be violated (freedom of faith) in order to allow same sex marriage to occur. Even more ironic is the fact that the only way out of this (legally) is the use of the "not with standing clause". What a load of cr*p Cite some sources for this stroke of genius please.

If you actually believe being straight was a choice you made, I would question whether you really are. People are raised to be straight. They don't know any better until they're of age. Most try hetero first and decide they don't like it and then try homo and decide they like it. A choice is a choice is a choice. What? Please cite credible sources for this ridiculous statement. Do people actually remember choosing to be straight or gay? Going through puberty, I do not recall "deciding" whether to like men or women!! No, you are not respecting them! If you respected them you would offer them equality. You may have your religious beliefs, but why would you want to impose them on the rest of society?

Have you ever met one of those university-campus far left-wingers who say "marxism is misunderstood" and that China is not Marxist, etc. China is nowhere near Marxist! Actually, noone is!

The people in POWER have serious ties to the Carlyle Group. So I guess you are happy the Liberals lost because they appointed this American ambassador who had ties to the Carlyle Group and I suppose you also want our new Prime Minister Harper to replace him... I am not "happy" that the Liberals lost, but I do believe in the expression absolute power corrupts absolutely. This was a necessary loss, they need to get their house in order. However, I am under no illusion about Harper either. We will have to wait and see what happens when the muzzles come off the lunatic fringe of the party Hey, I live in one of the most corrupt provinces of the country!

The people in POWER have serious ties to the Carlyle Group.

Why would Harper get rid of McKenna? The USA LOVES him, he is best buddies with Bush I and is (or was) on the board of the Carlyle Group along with some of the bin Ladens.

They? Their? Sorry, Separate but Equal is NOT equality. Remember segregation? Why do you feel religion has a monopoly on the word marriage? So we should legislate away equality if people are different? you are okay with this? Them? The "definition" of marriage has evolved over the ages. It has absoltuely nothing to do with religion. It was originally practiced to secure property rights, ensure bloodlines, etc. Women were included as property. Was it okay to change the definition of marriage to give equality to women? But you want to deny them the right to get married, thus denying then the same rights as a "married couple". I am confused Children grow up seeing what is around them as the norm. Hate and prejudice have to be taught. Agreed. I too was married in a civil ceremony. I am just as married as the couple who married in a church by a priest/pastor. Apparently it does matter to some people that the word marriage is used! There is NO difference , that's the point! All couples wishing to marry are entering into a contract. Whether it is done in a church, synogogue, city hall, or the beach, marriage is marriage. People opposed to Equal Marriage need to mind their own business and wonder why 1/2 of all "straight" marriages are ending in divorce!

Besides needing to do alot of self-examination, the Liberals need to inject some new blood into the party, perhaps wooing younger people with leadership skills. I still believe that the Party is in denial, Frank McKenna is mentioned often and MacLeans Magazine has done extensive articles on the possibilites of McKenna. Frankly, I see McKenna as way too right wing for the Liberal Party, but I also felt Martin was too. :angry:

Hi I am new here too! Frank McKenna.

Of course we should support equal marriage!