gc1765

You dont' think he'd get arrested as soon as he arrived in Mexico? Unless he has a fake passport and plastic surgery, I doubt it. How would he even get to the airport without being caught by western troops?

Argus, You can speak all you like about the evil aspects of Islam, and I won't refute your examples. But try to keep your arguments in the context of the debate. This thread is about cab drivers refusing to allow alcohol in their cabs. The post I replied to claimed that this is an example of muslims trying to force their beliefs on us, and gave a few more examples. The examples I provided about Christians forcing their beliefs on others is on par with the examples that were provided about Muslims forcing their beliefs on others, including not allowing alcohol in their cabs. I never said anything about Christianity being more dangerous, so don't attribute arguments to me that I never made.

Refusing to allow alcohol into taxi cabs involves violence and death??

This sounds familiair, kind of reminds me of another religion: Boycotting walmart because they say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" Trying to get "Intelligent Design" taught in schools Trying to keep stores closed on Sunday Refusing to sell morning after pills If your examples show that muslims are trying to impose their belief on others, then christians are doing the same.

A taxicab is a vital public utility, not a church. How would you feel about cabbies that refused to carry people of color? I'd boycott them as well of course. Then again, I'm sure the charter would protect that from happening, so I don't think I have anything to worry about.

Almost forgot, let's also boycott pharmacies where the pharmacists refuse to sell the morning after pill. Boycotts are an excellent way for anyone to help bring change. P.S. Why would you want to get rid of same-sex marriage supporters from your church? That's very unchristian of you.

I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

How would bin laden get to mexico?

What about my masturbation analogy? How do you explain something as prominent as masturbation? The level of testosterone might not have as much to do with environment as it does with genetics. The level of testosterone produced is controlled by genes. Genes that lead to more or less testosterone production could be one possible cause. Testosterone has many other effects in humans, so having more or less of it may provide some other advantage. The point is we don't really know whether a homosexuality gene(s) provide any specific advantage. If we use your theory that homosexuality is caused by too much or too little testosterone (for the sake of argument, let's say that not enough testosterone leads to homosexual males)...then perhaps too much testosterone has a disadvantage for survival, which is certainly a possibility. If there is no connection between genes and sexual orientation, then why are most humans/mammals straight? It must be genetic, no? Theoretically, masturbation should also have bred itself out before ever entering the genepool. P.S. I should probably note that I don't believe there is a single gene responsible for sexual orientation. There are probably a lot of factors (genes) involved. So it's also possible that the individual genes may not be bred out through evolution.

If one church does not agree with their lifestyle, they can find a new church. If no church will marry them (which is very unlikely) they can start a new church or give up on religion. I know that if I were gay and a church did not accept me for who I was, I wouldn't want to be a part of that church anyways. I think we should call same-sex unions and opposite sex unions by the same name, since they should be the same. I don't care if people want to call that a civil union or a marriage, makes no difference to me.

Excellent post. I agree.

The 'simple' answer is to have the government give equal rights to anyone, same-sex or opposite sex. You can call it a marriage, or call it a civil union, but it should the the exact same regardless of sexuality. Then, if you want to be married in a church, let the church decide who they want to marry so they still have the freedom of religion. Anyone opposed to this idea? If so, why?

Leafless, I read your entire post and I didn't see any reference to multiculturalism or racism, and I didn't see anything that backs up your "view" about multiculturalism flanning the flames of racism & bigotry. However, I am still happy to debate your post regardless if it is not what I asked for. If you can't back up your original statment "multiculturalism is fanning the flames of bigotry & racism" or any of the other "views" I've asked you to back up, that's completely understandable. Just let me know that you are not capable of backing them up so that I can stop wasting my time asking you over and over. We can still debate any other views you have about the charter, so long as you back them up somehow. Canada is a representative democracy (ignoring our 'non-functional' monarchy). The representatives we elect make decisions, in this case to ratify the Charter. Our democratic system is not perfect, but that's how it works. We dont' have referendums for very many issues, most decisions are made by the representatives that we elect. That being said, I haven't heard too many people who are opposed to the charter, so I'm willing to bet that it would have passed a referendum quite easily. Not sure I understand your point here. Care to elaborate? This is another one of your "views" that needs to be backed up if we are to have any sort of debate. For example, HOW are charter rights discriminating against your Christian related rights (aside from the SSM issue which I already addressed in a previous post)? See my comments above.

Fox news already tried that approach See the clip on the daily show Here (click on "fallout boy")

I don't think Canada has surrendered it's heritage or culture because of multiculturalism. I don't think Canada has lost anything because of multiculturalism. Has it gained anything? I don't know. I think it's important for people to be themselves, I don't care if I personally gain anything because an immigrant is allowed to keep his or her own culture. I suppose some people may have learned about other cultures, had new experiences, tried new things etc. as a result of multiculturalism. There could possibly be some economic benefits as well, through increased trade & investment with other countries.

Does it really matter? Did the fact the actions of the SS and Gestapo were not typical of those of the average Wehrmacht soldier make the defeat of NAZI Germany any less necessary? You are trying to apply western niceties to somewhere they have no business. Just because people who carry out terrorist acts also engage in what might be considered legitimate warfare doesn't make them any less terrorists. I think there's a difference between an unprovoked terrorist attack (like 9/11 or blowing up schools), the imperialist nazis and those who are 'defending' their country. If a country is attacked by another nation, that country will usually try to defend itself. In the case of afghanistan, they are 'defending' themselves using guerilla warfare. I certainly don't agree with their tactics, but there is a difference between attacking someone who attacked you first and attacking someone unprovoked. I still think it's 'wrong' for the taliban or whoever to attack western troops but not as 'wrong' as bin laden attacking america or someone attacking a school. Now, I don't actually know who in afghanistan is commiting these 'terrorist' attacks. If they are the same people attacking schools then they are terrorists. But if they are only attacking military targets, then I would call them insurgents or 'guerilla warriors'. Same with Iraq.

It's a good idea for reducing certain pollutants. Not sure how it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions though...

The fact that multiculturalism has not eliminated bigotry and racism is not a good argument. It's like saying that police officers are a bad thing for preventing crime because they have not completely eliminated crime. You haven't yet convinced me that it has somehow advanced bigotry and racism. If this is in reference to same sex marriage, then I agree with you to a certain extent. Government should recognize unions (or marriage, whatever you want to call it) between, and give equal rights to, both same sex and opposite sex couples. It should then be up to the religious institution to decide who they want to marry or not. I don't see what this has to do with multiculturalism or racism though... How are your Christian beliefs (I am assuming you are Christian here given how much you talk about Christianity) threatened by immigrants? Are you losing faith because there are immigrants in this country? Or because they are allowed to retain their culture? If there is a religion in Canada that opposes religious freedom, then I would certainly be opposed to that. Luckily, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to guarantee us the right to religious freedom. Can you back up your view that Quebec's rights are discriminating against Canadian freedoms? I'm not sure what you mean by "political instability". The only thing I can think of is Quebec separatism, but that has been around for much longer than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And this still has nothing to do with your original statment regarding multiculturalism & racism. Or is this in response to another view of yours (if so can you specify which so I know the context of the argument)? Can you back up your view that Charter Rights are abusing Christian values (if that's what you are saying)?

Genes for homosexuality won't necessarily be bred out of the genepool, because sexual gratification (whether it be to a member of the same sex or opposite sex) is selected for through evolution. The best way to think of this is to look at masturbation. It's pretty obvious that masturbation does not lead to children. In fact, it uses up sperm which could be used to produce a child and satisfies us so that we will be less likely to have sex and produce children, yet I think it's pretty safe to say that it's quite common This is because the underlying motivation, sexual gratification, is the same for opposite-sex couples, masturbation and same-sex couples. The other possibility is that homosexuality is a recessive trait. That means that two heterosexual parents can still have a homosexual child. Riverwind's example of cystic fibrosis is another example. Except that the genes which cause cystic fibrosis are a mutation of genes that are important for survival. Theoretically, those mutations could be bred out of the genepool, but cystic fibrosis is a recessive disease so that won't necessarily happen. In fact, most genetic diseases are recessive. Cancer is another example. You would think that it would have bred out of the genepool as well, but cell replication is essential survival, so it's easier said than done. There's probably a lot of other good examples as well... EDIT: Actually, sickle-cell anemia is a very good example. Sickle-cell anemia is a recessive genetic disease, caused by mutation in the genes coding for hemoglobin. A heterozygous (one normal gene and one defective gene) person will be healthy, but will also be resistant to malaria. Therefore, this mutated gene will not be bred out of the genepool and will actually be selected for (to some extent, but not to the extent that more people will get sickle-cell anemia). Link Also, there is probably more than one gene which determines homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, complicating things even further.

Ok, care to show me where you "supported" this view: "multiculturalism is fanning the flames of bigotry and racism by allowing so called minorities to advance their cultural and religious claims." ? I'm not even looking for a source to back you up, I'm looking for any reason WHY you think multiculturalism is fanning the flames of bigotry, a simple argument to back up that view (or any other views you haven't backed up) will suffice.

The Conservatives are now denying that this is true Link I guess we'll have to wait and see if they are telling the truth...

This is from a republican? Sounds like the NDP. I wonder how long until posters on this board start ridiculing him and calling him Taliban Frist?

No one is preventing anyone from celebrating any culture in Canada. I don't know, personally I'm friends with quite a few immigrants and as long as they speak english (which all of them do) I have no probelm communicating. Sure, there are differences but I dont' see any problem with that. I can still be friends with someone and feel comfortable around them without sharing the same background. At worst, there are some people (both locals and immigrants) who won't interact socially with those who are different. But there is no reason why a tolerant person can not interact socially with someone who has a different religion, or eats different food etc., so long as they both speak the same language. Not if the locals are tolerant of the foreigners.

Exactly. I see that you understand it's important to support your views. Now, care to support all the statements which you made earlier. If you re-read my posts in this thread, I've already pointed out quite a few. While you're at it, do you want to answer the questions I asked in my previous post (or any post before that if there are unanswered questions)?

I don't know about this. There is already a lot of competition between dealers and the price is still relatively high ($10 per gram) compared to what the government could charge. If the government charged $10 per gram, they would make a huge profit, which would increase government revenue. I think this is one reason why even a non-pot smoker such as myself can support the legalization of marijuana. Even if dealers charged less money than the government, I think most people would pay a little more money to get their pot from a reputable source like the government rather than a 'dealer' (especially those who never used to smoke pot because it was illegal). I don't see many people distilling & selling their own liquor now that prohibition is over.