Ronda

Whilst you were posting your (non-argumentative, thank you) reply, I was busily adding examples. What is your opinion on the modified post?

Ummm.. no. You said: " The government, love it or hate it, ultimately has to answer to the electorate. If there isn't support for their management, then the government will be unseated." This leads me to believe that you think that the system as it stands and the result of said system ie. our government will essentially all come out fine in the wash because they have to "answer to the electorate". I believe that statement/logic is flawed because of low voter turnout coupled with lack of political knowledge amongst voters as well as little to no government accountability. An example would be the gay marriage issue. Regardless of one's stance on this topic, I find it ludicrous that an overwhelming majority of MPs (representing the people that voted them in) voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage only to have Chretien and the Liberal government allow the Ontario courts to change that law only a few years later without appeal. They then decided to apply that new law to the entire country via "free" vote or should that fail, via Supreme Court or Senate. *IF* the MPs had voted against their constituents wishes in 1999, where was the outcry then? Where was the Supreme Court? This chain of events speaks directly to voter ignorance as well as little government accountability. I also made reference to the fact that once a government in power has changed something or enacted a policy, it may be difficult or impossible to change. To carry the previous thread to illustrate this point... assume the Liberals do make it law of the land that gays can marry. Assume further that this angers enough Canadians to elect a "right" government. What could or would the new government be able to do about that situation? A government may also be elected on the promise of making a change that they never intend to eg. GST. I then made an analogy linking your line of thinking to the idea that all corporate regulations should be removed because ultimately, they have to answer to consumers. I don't understand where the confusion is... perhaps I did not explain well enough the first time, sorry.

Great. Except for the fact that many people do not vote and furthermore, a large percentage of those who do refuse to try to educate themselves about what they are voting for. Add that to the fact that once in power, gov't's do things that take forever to UNdo... and even though they get elected promising to "undo" something (eg. GST), they frequently do nothing. Your statement could also be used to justify a complete removal of all laws and regulations that apply to corporations. I mean, if you don't like the way so and so dumps toxic waste in your backyard, don't buy their products. Sound good? Ronda

Every major religion preaches a lot of things. Most of which are voluntary. A tax system such as ours is considered immoral because the government spends as it likes and just takes your money to cover whatever it has decided to spend at whatever percentage it wants. It's obscene. I single-handedly support a family of five (barely) yet the government still manages to take a good chunk of my money every time I turn around. The municipal government hikes my property taxes up in the second half of the year after they've thought up a bunch of good ways to spend my money. Hey, next time I go shopping, I'll load the cart up and then when it comes time to pay, I'll just tell them to take the money from my boss. The government is the single most wasteful "organisation" on the face of the planet and furthermore, "helping the poor" is one thing... theft is another. Charity is voluntary - having your money taken from you and handed back out to whomever (including overpaid civil servants and corrupt government "workers") is something else altogether. Ronda

I have seen the same thing myself. Not in the "gateway drug" way, however. My mother was a social worker and doing quite well for herself and she started hanging around with ppl who smoked up all the time. She started when I was about 4-5yrs old and it was awful. She became intensely moody and smoked around 6 joints a day. I was always walking on eggshells, not sure if she'd hit me or laugh when I did something wrong. I could never have friends over because they might see or smell something. She, on many occasions, viciously accused me of stealing money and pot from her (even when I was as young as 10). It's gotten far worse as the years go by. She quit her social work when I was around 7 and went on welfare, where she's been ever since. She sits around all day, every day, smoking pot and watching tv. I've seen similar things happen with other ppl I know. In short, it is not harmless and "natural". I read some moron in a 'letter to the editor' talking about how pot is less harmful than table salt - absolute bull. It's not harmless. It's pretty stupid of the gov't anyway, to be making light of pot with good ole Jean talking about how he's going to have a joint once it's decriminalised etc. Look at their attitude when it comes to cigarettes. At least cigarettes don't turn you into a paranoid schizophrenic. Oh, and they also have filters. Yeah, and alcoholic wife-beaters likely beat their wives and lost their jobs before becoming alcoholics too. I'm not saying there cannot be contributing factors but what you are saying above is wrong. As for the brain damage, I found this info: http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/brain-d...e-marijuana.htm Permanent brain damage is not necessarily present but behavioural changes certainly are. In my own experience, having lived with someone for 12 yrs who was chronic, it can cause a LOT of behavioural changes. My mother finally agreed to go to a very reputable psychiatrist in Toronto a few years back and he told her that her problem was the drug. That she needed to get off of pot in order to function properly and correct the personality/emotional issues she was/is having. She refused, of course, and he refused to continue to treat her. I would also point out that not a lot of studies, particularly long term, have been done with marijuana so we really don't know. Maybe it's not a fantastic idea to portray alcohol as dangerous, cigarettes as deadly and pot as "natural" and harmless? Furthermore, inhaling smoke, in any form, is not a good idea.

I heard the CBC talking about the NDP not qualifying for party status and saying that the Liberals would probably change the law and make it 7 seats required so that the NDP could still "participate". I sure bet they'd do that if it was the PCs. I am pretty sure though, that the Liberals will now (as opposed to before) change or make whatever laws they want and no one will be able to do a thing about it. So much for lefty liberals wanting more than anything to prevent concentration of power.

DJ, I think many fetologists or embryologists would disagree with your statement. It is not obvious at all. By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, it isn't like two cells in a petri dish. I had an ultrasound at 6 weeks (when most women would find out) and my son looked like a little worm, admittedly... however, there was clearly a head and more clearly a strong, beating heart. The most obvious feature was actually the heart beating. It was amazing. It's not an inanimate lump of nothing.

Skin colour and gender are innate. They are not altered by environmental influences - tanning beds and surgery aside. The original theme was basically that the parallel between gays and black emancipation/feminism cannot rightly be made because homosexuality is a behaviour, not an innate quality. I believe that's where we got on this tangent. Whether or not we redefine words and essentially reorder our society to please/satisfy the more extreme elements in the homosexual population is not really what we were discussing. As the topic heading suggests, we're discussing whether homosexuality is 100% genetic, like one's skin colour or gender, or if it is not. I believe that it is obvious homosexuality is not. Also, point taken about height - however, height is still not EVER a matter of choice, convenience, experimentation, etc. I think enough evidence exists that homosexual tendancies quite often involve CHOOSING certain behaviour. Therein lies the key difference. I think it's more akin to alcoholism or smoking. One could say there exists genetic predispositions towards alcohol/substance abuse, ie. "addictive personality". However, that doesn't mean one WILL be an alcoholic, only that they may be more inclined. Environmental influences and experience play a large part and the subject always has some level of control over what they do. Height certainly does not fall into that category. It is not a behaviour. Oh, and before you mention it, I do not buy the feminist notion that being a woman or man is about how you feel inside...

This continues to baffle me, Riff. You, a geneticist, should probably concede that at the very least GENETICALLY, a fertilised implanted human egg is nothing BUT human. It's preposterous for you, of all people, to argue the "half human/potential human" argument. Blackdog, I see the point you are making, however, does that mean that every person who is having a rough time would be better off dead? Every kid not raised in a suburban, middle class well-adjusted family (assuming that's not an oxymoron) should've been killed before hand? You cannot predict which kids will be abused nor if the abuse will permanently damage them should it occur. I was abused as a child/teen until I left home. I was pregnant at 19. My first son was a prime candidate for abuse, poverty and abortion. I did not abort, I do not abuse and he is very well looked after. Although my life looked very bleak to social workers I saw during my teens, I am doing very well now and raising great kids. I would prefer not to have been looked at as a poster child for abortion in my younger years, if you see what I mean. And by the way, all those kids that your friend was talking about.... their mothers had the option to abort and did not. Abortion does not prevent child abuse. In fact, I'm pretty sure saline and butchering count as abuse in their own right. Other than that, I've pretty much said all I need to say on this subject elsewhere on this forum.

BTW: "heritable - adj : that can be inherited; "inheritable traits such as eye color"; "an inheritable title" [syn: inheritable] [ant: noninheritable] Capable of being passed from one generation to the next; hereditary. Capable of inheriting or taking by inheritance. " What's the issue, exactly? Why do you continue to argue semantics as if the entire issue hinges on the interpretation of a word? What Hugo originally said, which I agree with, (as does the scientist who wrote the cited paper) is that there may be some genetic predisposition but it is not the same as being black, which you would obviously directly inherit from your parents.

Yeah, me too, if they're handing degrees to you. I wouldn't be questioning your qualifications and education if you didn't bring it up in the first place as some sort of immediate trump card. Not to mention your insufferable arrogance when questioned. The original point, if we can stop talking about you for a second, was that sexuality is not genetic in the way that hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, and gender are. I don't need a degree to know that is true, Riff, just a brain, eyeballs, and a little life experience. That was ALL the original point of this thread pointed out. You're making a moron of yourself arguing that it isn't so. Whether sexuality is determined in some degree by genetics (which I disagree with) is questionable. Whether it is SOLELY genetic, like the above mentioned is IMPOSSIBLE. Again, no degree needed.

Riff, Nothing specific, but the key difference is I don't stroll into every conversation stating that I'm some kind of pseudo-expert because of my "background in genetics". Your attempts to trump all conversations and "clear up misconceptions" because of your "qualifications" is what aggravates. You can offer an opinion and debate it. Nobody is saying you can't. The issue is the way you keep talking about how you can't have a real conversation about these issues because no one on here can understand on your level. Please give it a rest. Yeah, by the way, Riff... since there is no proof of any kind that homosexuality is genetic, your background in genetics doesn't really help. That should technically put the issue to rest but you and others keep harping on anyway. And I've brought up many instances where people I know have "changed teams", so to speak, as did Craig just now. To paraphrase Craig, I doubt people's genes just "kick in" suddenly... and then back out again. As for the rest of your post, I don't have time to read it, I work. I guess people with your background, what is it Phd in Everything?? don't have to do much of it to get by. Nova: That's another charming misconception and libellous piece of garbage hot off your presses. I don't recall anyone ever saying they'd like to "kill them all"... except maybe yourself and possibly Aidan Pryde a while back talking about religious people.

It wasn't fake. Your posts disgusted me to exactly the level that I expressed. Oh, so the problem is that you didn't learn to read when you were supposedly getting an education. I don't recall reading anyone stating that they had "genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally". You're always presuming to speak for the scientific community as though you are privy to information that the rest of us idiots are not. It's not so. I'm sure many "scientists" either just as "qualified" or more so disagree with what you consider irrefutable. So stop acting like you have all the answers. You don't. You have an opinion. And your questionable scientific "credentials" give your opinions exactly zero extra weight. Quit coming into conversations with the informercial style "As a geneticist, I must correct the following opinions.... " Ditto for the posts about abortion, evolution and genetic engineering. Thanks for the opinions and information but don't assume that when you waltz in with your "extra informed" opinion, you trump all others because of your stellar "qualifications".

SirRiff, You are sickeningly arrogant. You assume that everyone can OBVIOUSLY see that you are right, etc... That you are so educated, you couldn't actually have a proper conversation because nobody on this board is as learned as you. Does it actually ache sometimes to be so brilliant? To be so far above? So liberal, so caring, so intelligent, so gosh-darn RIGHT all the time? Please spare us in future and TRY to just stay on topic. I know it's difficult due to other people's blinding ignorance and refusal to recognise that you know everything but please try. It would be an interesting conversation if it weren't for your constant assertions of intellectual superiority.

I brought that up as sort of a snide sidenote. It was not my central point. Furthermore, I do believe that human life is especially sacred and I believe that human life exists within an unborn baby. Unborn babies are as important as born babies. I am not campaigning for "rights" for them - that was your idiotic conclusion. ("If chimps are 97% identical to humans, should they have 97% of rights too...) I do, however, think it would be just as horrible to inject a pregnant chimp's womb with saline and kill an unborn chimp as it would be to kill a "born chimp". Shall we discuss the "potentiality" of unborn chimps? How it is ok to kill them in utero but not once they're born... because they aren't really chimps yet, just "potential chimps"? Thank YOU for knowing how to read. What I said was: "Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%??" And by the way, to clarify for both of you... I'll again stress that I don't really care because chimps and humans are not the same thing anyway but the percentage is actually between 95% - 98.5% Here's a link from a story in Sept. 2002... I think you're both working with old information. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_dnachimp.html Now, I know from being told over and over again, that you are utterly brilliant and educated beyond all normal levels but let me ask you this: If you "cannot possibly" share 98% of your DNA with a baby, how can you share 99.999999% with a chimp. Unless there's something you're not telling us. Is it any particular chimp? A second cousin or something? Yeah, nice debate skills they're teaching you. And by the way, most people open books and actually read them... you cannot actually get information from books by physical contact alone. Maybe that's where we're running into problems here. I never said 'humans are not animals' in the way that you claim. We are all living creatures, with blood and eyeballs and legs, etc. Granted. HOWEVER, humans are VERY different in nature and yes, they are ABOVE animals. You are attempting to apply some post modernist crap to this argument by stating that since we all belong to the animal kingdom, we're the same. That humans are arrogant for thinking that they're above animals or that they are more complex etc. I do not agree. Now you are attempting to make me out to be stupid because I said we are not the same as animals. We may share a kingdom but not a genus. A pen and a computer are not 'the same' even though they are both inanimate. And one is infinitely more useful than the other.

Nova. I did not fail Biology. Did you fail English? You're so obtuse, it makes my head ache. Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%?? Not that it matters to me anyway, to be honest, but do either of you even know what you're talking about? I never said I was "better" than everything else on this planet. You're the one using that term and insisting that if I point out that humans are OBVIOUSLY far more intelligent than and different to animals, I must mean that I look down my nose and consider myself "better". I'm not particularly a 'creationist' or an 'evolutionist'. However, I do believe that not enough evidence exists for me to state 100% that evolution is what happened and the earth began with a bang. Unless, of course, you know someone who was there and can therefore explain to me, in great detail, how something comes from nothing. Or possibly your master of the universe learning faculty has published a paper? Regardless, animals and humans are different. And unborn babies are 100% human. Not 99.9999999%. They acquire .0000001% of DNA on that magical ride down the birth canal, do they? And you ask ME if I failed biology... Riff, I'm not answering your question about chimps getting 97% of human rights. It's stupid. Sure, let's start with the right to vote... they can't do any worse than you. Oh, and after that the right to marry, apparently without that fundamental human right, the rest is irrelevant anyway. As I've said before, Nova, the fact that it's humans studying animals and not vice versa should be a small clue for you about who's more advanced. And the fact that "we have more complex minds" does actually speak volumes about our nature. If you could stop the psuedo-intellectual posturing for long enough to actually read what you're trying to shoot down, you might see that what I'm saying makes sense. The fact that humans debate at length over the morality of things they do and a number of other distinctly human behaviours say much more than physical composition. Blood, bone and electrical impulses exist in many living creatures but human beings are distinct. Aristotle felt that living things should be classified by their nature. He felt that humans were the highest form of life because they possess the ability to think philisophically and seek knowledge through asking and answering questions (in a very small nutshell). He essentially felt that living things equalled more than the sum of their parts. I suppose that being so highly educated, you would simply write off Aristotle as being some idiot that must've failed biology? Another case in point: Plato defined a man as animal, biped and featherless and this was admired. Diogenes brought a plucked chicken to Plato's next lecture and said, "Here is Plato's man." Possibly there is more to being human than DNA?

You're a riot. Sure, Nova, and my dad can beat up your dad. Whatever. (Oh, and incidently, the word "yours" is not written with an apostrophe ie. "your's".) Anyway, yes, I'm saying humans are not animals. That's exactly what I'm saying. Whether we share 1% or 99% of our genetic makeup with starfish is irrelevent. Human beings are not starfish. If you think you are as primitive and guileless as any living thing on earth because you share a percentage of genetic material with them, you're ridiculous. Do you think groups of animals get together and debate whether they should or shouldn't attack another animal? Whether killing is right? Do you think naturally omnivorous animals sit around and wonder if they should eat a strictly vegetarian diet based on moral grounds? Furthermore, I'm not about to get too into this topic since it's been beaten to death elsewhere before you got here but I'd bet my left arm you're pro-choice and we share 100% of our genetic makeup with unborn babies. You're a nut. Oh and by the way, I know your education is top notch and all but they've been sloppy with teaching you the basics, my friend: hu·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn) n. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica. adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty. Having the form of a human. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

Nova, You frighten me. You're completely deranged. I do find it fascinating that somewhere along the line in these types of morality debates, the very basic concept of "Are human beings animals?" has to be addressed. Human beings are not on a par with animals. You mention rats and their lack of "rights". I would point out that the fact that human beings could and would even come up with a concept of "basic human rights" more than a little telling. If you see no difference between yourself and a rat, I pity you. In fact, I pity you anyway. You seem quite steeped in self-loathing. Or possibly teenage angst. The reason that human beings are governed by morals, ethics and laws while animals are not lies in the fact that human beings are capable of grasping these concepts and following such guidelines in the first place. Those who refuse to are ostracised and/or imprisoned. In short, most human beings recognise another's right to live because they are capable of doing so. Animals are not. Animals prey on the young of other animals because they are easier to kill - they do not, and CANNOT stop to consider what the loss might or might not mean to the parents of the victim, to say nothing of the victim itself. Humans typically are horrified when children are injured or killed and it is only the absolute scum of the earth that would target a child. I know you may've heard SirRiff on here talking about how strikingly similar humans are to daisies and chimps but there are fundamental differences between humans and animals, regardless of what some cartoons might suggest. These differences are readily apparent even to children. If you cannot pick them out, I suggest you study harder and spend less time regurgitating your commie history prof's political views.

Yeah. You know, if you'd been around a couple months ago when all the political quizzes were flying around here, you'd know that there are virtually NO hardcore right wingers here! As for the genocidal, ignorant fanatics... I don't know. Most of us "right wingers" and in fact, most of the policies of the Alliance are actually centrist. It's you (and a portion of the Canadian populace) that's so far left that you think anyone right of Karl Marx is an extremist.

Nova, You're absolutely the most arrogant person I've ever come across. Bravo, my 17 year old brainiac. Anyway, why exactly does it shock and horrify you so much that America "cares more" when America is attacked than when attacks and wars in other countries happen? Why does that floor you so much? If you were to get robbed and called 911, would you expect the operator to tell you how easy you had it and ask you why on earth you weren't out there worrying about other people who were being raped and killed this very second? Would you then expect them to tell you it was your own fault since you didn't have a decent security system in the first place? Or maybe that you should be ashamed anyway, for having such a nice house and that maybe if you shared more of your stuff with others, they wouldn't rob you... Do you see where I'm going with this? Of COURSE they consider it more of a problem when a terrorist organisation hijacks a couple planes and kills 3000 civilians on US soil than when warlords and tinpot dictators war and mismanage resources in third world countries. It doesn't make them callous, arrogant or at-fault - it makes the US government more concerned with the US than with Libya or Rwanda! What is so difficult to understand? I presume you would've found it appropriate if, two years ago today, GWB got on TV and told the American public that it was really the fault of America that 9-11 happened and that we needn't make too big a fuss since there were people dying all over the world. If he'd gone on to explain how America is a rich country and if all those greedy American b@stards could just give all their money to taxes, the government could redistribute the wealth (somehow) and we could all live in peace, happiness and harmony. Kinda like a Beatles song. Wouldn't that have been swell? I'm tempted to go back into the reasons why the US has acted the way it has in different situations in the past but I don't have the patience. Please see other threads. Suffice to say that the US wasn't sitting there thinking "Hmm... whom shall we rape and pillage today? How can we possibly murder more people for our own gain? I'm so bored, can we please go install a bloodthirsty dictator and sit back for the fireworks!?" Please give it a rest. I don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't realise there was a clear path to oblivion and I surely didn't know the US was purposefully striding down it. "Destabalizing regions across the world"?? Was Iraq stable before? Do you consider Saddam Hussein a stabalising force? I'm sorry, Nova, you'll need to enlighten me a little more, I'm not as educated and worldly as you are. I must be ignorant... after all, I grew up in a border town, American stupidity is bound to rub off. So what? Apparently Winston Churchill didn't, and good thing. Oh well, he was just a warmongering cowboy anyway... not like that peace-loving Chamberlain. Slaves. Yes, the US had slaves. As did, and DO other countries. This bothered a portion of the US population enough that there was a war framed around the issue. A very bloody one. Slavery was abolished. Yet, the way you tell it, Americans did and do LOVE slavery. Interesting. And, BTW, giving your opinion and having a discussion is one thing but coming onto a forum yapping about how no one else has ever studied history and how brilliant you are and listing the credentials of your supposed learning institution has quite the opposite of your intended effect.

On a sidenote: In my town this week, Harper is speaking at a conference about border security Friday which I'll be attending and I noticed on the way to work that Stockwell Day is a guest speaker at a local church Sunday... so I might check that out too.

Ok. And the thing that grabs you is that it must be related to racism and inequal opportunity?? You seriously don't think there could be a host of other reasons why kids growing up poor or in worse neighbourhoods do not go into post secondary education in the same numbers as their well off counterparts?? Maybe peer pressure? Maybe drug or alcohol issues or other social problems? Attitude problems caused by or excaberated by rough upbringing? You actually think that the study you cited proves conclusively that our country's policies must be racist? That all kids are the same and have the same drive, ambition and ability but our racist policies favour white rich people? I think you see what you want to see. I don't think so. I think that many kids, minority race or not, that come from broken homes and poor families do not take advantage of "opportunities". Many times what looks like a good opportunity to a kid that's been raised in a nice stable family seems like a drag to a kid who's been raised in difficult circumstances - like college for example. The fact that the majority of poor families are minorities is another million dollar study waiting to happen, I suppose. However, given the incredible amount of wealthy, powerful minorities that exist, I don't think that racial discrimination is the dominant factor. Abercrombie and Fitch was mentioned for it's "racist" policies. I had just read an article on that which I will post here for those who care to read it. Something similar that I recently experienced (to give you all the jist of what the article is about) was a meal at Mandarin in Toronto. Every single solitary employee in that restaurant was asian. All of them. Is it racism? "Abercrombie & Fitch, a chain that some say markets a ''classic American look,'' faces a lawsuit, filed by a group of ''civil rights organizations,'' aided by a law firm that specializes in ''anti-discrimination cases.'' Why? The clothier allegedly suddenly either fired or demoted Hispanic and Asian floor salespersons in favor of women possessing this so-called ''all-American look'' -- presumably blonde surfer types. (Note: A friend recently visited an Abercrombie & Fitch store and noted at least two Asian saleswomen.) Abercrombie & Fitch, according to the lawsuit, suddenly terminated an Asian-American floor saleswoman, with three years experience, longer than any other employee in their Costa Mesa, Calif., store. Similarly, management allegedly asked Hispanic workers to either accept non-visible positions, such as stock clerk, or to leave the company altogether. According to an attorney for the plaintiffs, ''Through means both subtle and direct, Abercrombie has consistently reinforced to its store managers that they must recruit and maintain an overwhelmingly white workforce. The company has systematically cultivated an all-white ''A&F Look'' and then faulted Latino, African American, and Asian American applicants, potential recruits and employees for failing to fit this racially exclusive image.'' The plaintiffs further claim that Abercrombie & Fitch ''direct that minority Brand Representatives (salespersons) be fired, moved to a stockroom or overnight shift or have their hours 'zeroed out,' which is the equivalent of termination.'' One plaintiff said, ''Abercrombie's corporate representatives came to our store on an inspection tour, pointed to a picture of a white male model and told the manager that he needed to make the store 'look more like this.' Within two weeks, five Asian American employees, including me, were terminated and an African American Brand Representative was transferred to the night shift at a different store. The store then hired about five white Brand Representatives to replace us.'' Let's analyze this. A popular Los Angeles Thai restaurant features an all-Thai, female waitressing staff. The restaurant, part of a chain, hires Thai women, some relatives of the owners, but many outside the founding and operating family circle. Meanwhile, Black Entertainment Television hires black hosts, black news anchors, and plays predominantly all black videos. And, on a cable news/talk TV show, the host featured a debate on abortion between two . . . supermodels, one taking the ''pro-life,'' the other the ''pro-choice'' position. Supermodels? As a friend and successful Hollywood writer recently put it, ''On television, people don't like to watch unattractive people.'' Somebody, quick--draft a law to prevent a producer from selecting less-than-expert guests who possess photogenic faces. Yet, though a private organization, Abercrombie & Fitch face government laws preventing it from determining how, for ill or for good, to best meet its perceived marketing niche. Never mind that customers, employees and prospective employees who feel ''discriminated against'' can refuse to patronize an establishment that refuses to hire those who ''look like us.'' At least one of the un-hired applicants found work at Banana Republic, another clothing establishment that, according to him, ''has almost all minorities working there.'' Does Banana Republic's sales staff result from laws pressuring companies to seek a ''diverse work force,'' or because Banana Republic's marketing niche seeks a ''diverse'' clientele, or because they simply hired based on their perceived quality of the applicant? In either case, a private business ought to have the right to hire and fire as it pleases, just as employees may quit and customers may refuse to patronize the store. My father, for nearly 40 years, ran a cafe in a heavily Hispanic area in Los Angeles. He found, however, by limiting hiring to non-Spanish speakers, he scared off clientele unable to speak English, and, thus, business suffered. He eventually hired bilingual Latinas, providing comfort to a large segment of his clientele, and watched his business increase. My father worked like a dog, waking up at 4:30 in the morning, to open at 6:00, with his hours from 6:30 to 2:30, and then spent several hours after closing, cleaning, and prepping for the next day. The government never knocked on his door to inquire about his lack of employee ''diversity.'' But, it appears, a large business such as Abercrombie & Fitch must live in fear of the federal and state ''anti-discrimination'' police. Rosa Parks, and others in the civil rights movement, quite properly objected to discrimination by government, in Parks' case, a municipal, tax-supported bus company. This includes, by the way, public institutions like University of Michigan. Yet, the Supreme Court, in a ''split decision,'' still allows schools to take race in consideration as a factor in admissions. As for Abercrombie & Fitch's alleged motive to fire certain employees, the solution remains a vibrant, thriving, low-tax, low-regulated economy to provide choices and options for workers. Also, Abercrombie & Fitch's hiring practices perhaps create entrepreneurial opportunities for others to cater to the ''offended'' clientele. We have a word for this. We call it capitalism."

Article from Calgary Sun which raises a very interesting point: By DR. ROGER GIBBINS -- For the Calgary Sun The debate over legalization of gay marriages brings into focus a larger debate about the place of religious values in politics. In short, what values should legislators bring to the table in making public policy decisions? Supporters of legalization have reacted with anger to the intervention of religious leaders, and particularly Catholic leaders such as the Pope and Calgary's Bishop Henry. More importantly, they argue that MPs should leave their religious values at the door of the House of Commons when voting on legalization. The message is clear: Politics and religion should not mix. Now admittedly, this belief that politics and religion are the equivalent of oil and water is deeply embedded in western democratic states, which began to emerge at a time when religious wars were causing havoc in Europe. It is not surprising, therefore, that a means was sought to quell religious conflict. Religious conversion, it was decided, should not be pursued through or by the state. However, does separation of church and state mean religious values should be taken off the table in the debate over gay marriages? Before wading into this contentious issue, I should clarify my own position. My political values are liberal and secular, largely unshaped by religious values, although this is a statement of fact rather than one of pride. (Even as a statement of fact it is somewhat misleading in that liberal beliefs themselves are deeply rooted in Christian values and traditions.) On the matter of gay marriages, civil unions sanctioned by the state should be open to a variety of relationships, and I am not offended by marriage as a state contract being open to gays. At the same time, there should be no government pressure on religious communities with respect to the solemnization of marriage. There is no inherent contradiction in the Government of Canada recognizing gay marriages, but the Muslim or Catholic communities refusing to do so. Separation of church and state must work both ways. But, is there any reason why my secular beliefs should prevail over those who approach gay marriage from the standpoint of religious values? More generally, is it inappropriate to bring religious values into play when taking political positions? I would argue no. All would agree that political debate should not be devoid of values. The issue, then, is whether we can draw a line and say some values are legitimate while others are not. The proponents of legalization come from a value perspective that gives primacy to individual freedom and the universal application of human rights. However, I'm uneasy with the argument these values are legitimate, while values embedded in longstanding religions are not. True, Canada is a deeply secular society that stands in increasingly sharp contrast to the U.S., where religious values are much more likely to inform public life. Although the 1982 Constitution Act begins with the phrase "Whereas Can-ada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God ..." this is not a description Canadian governments or courts take seriously. Yet does this mean secular values should trump religious values in political debates? If MPs should leave their religious values at the door of the House of Commons, then what values should they take inside? Why are some values legitimate and others not? Or, if we expect our MPs to be devoid of values, then the only course open to them is to listen to their constituents and reflect their views, the ultimate dumbing down of representative democracy. This would also mean, and not incidentally, the proposed gay marriage legislation would fail as a slight plurality of Canadians now oppose legalization. A final point in this difficult argument is the reality of a new multicultural Canada where many communities hold religious values dearly, and where the projection of these values onto the political world is seen as a personal responsibility. While Canadians as a whole may be largely secular, many Canadians are not. Can we therefore say to such communities that it is illegitimate to have political viewpoints shaped by religious values? Can we say to First Nations that their religious beliefs have no political application? At the least, this would be inconsistent with freedom of speech and religion protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Where does this leave us? Over the next year Canadians will be engaged in an intense and often acrimonious debate over legalization of gay marriage, even though the courts are unlikely to be swayed by the democratic process. This debate will engage strong convictions on all sides of the argument. So be it. However, to argue that only certain types of values should be brought into play makes no sense. Values forged in the mosque or Sunday school are as legitimate as those forged reading the Globe and Mail over a cappuccino. There is no reason why my values as a secular liberal should trump those of a traditional Muslim. To argue they should is to ignore the complex, multicultural community in which we live.

And I would wonder how many of these women actually feel good about what's happened after the fact? When the relationship with hubby is ruined and the lover is gone. Security has its bonuses and people who constantly abuse others' trust tend to not be very fulfilled individuals nor very happy in the long run.

Are you for real? Extra marital relations are actually not very enjoyable after the orgasm. Hate to burst your bubble. Most people are capable of making emotional commitments and therefore find it emotionally upsetting to break said commitments. Divorce is also very painful. For EVERYONE involved. Especially children. I can't even communicate how utterly absurd I find your outlook whilst keeping within the guidelines of this message board. Try marriage, try affairs and try divorce. After that, try being a single parent. Then we'll talk. Until then, please try to avoid impressionable minds.