Lost in Manitoba

I'm bringing up the religion issue again. If gay marriage is said to be against Christian beliefs AND this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, what if one Church decided that it was all right to have same-sex marriage. I've used the United Church as an example in the past because of their liberal social views, and for the anti-gay marriage Church I used the Catholic Church. So if it is a question of being against Christian beliefs or marriage is part of Christian heritage, obviously we have conflicting beliefs. How is this to be resolved? Do we claim one religion is better than the other?

On another note though.... Judges, though not elected, are hired to preside over the laws of the land. No, there not here to make laws, just decipher, interpret, and uphold the laws made by the elected reps. In my way of thinking, if the Judges thought that a law was invalid or went against the contitution or charter of rights, which no law shall go against, then it was their job, the job they were hired by the elected reps for, to ammend the law, or rather, bring it to the attention of the elected reps so that they could ammend it.

That's probablly a tale that many doing that job can recount. It seems that some people will vote as they always have (and maybe as their parents always had) just because of party name, not the place they stand on issues. I've noticed a few on this site even, that seem to think that they must change their attitudes to belong to a party, to lockstep to the beat of a political drum. Generally I would say that this is a bad idea and would expect only mediocre minds to do it. As much as I disagree with, say, Neal's beliefs, I would be sorry to hear he voted for a party that didn't support those beliefs. That's the way it should be: listen to the debate, decide where you stand, and look for a party that represents you. Unfortunately, like I said, I don't think most people are this proactive in their decision making.

'the media keeps calling it a quagmire' Are you saying your media has a leftist slant?

I'm all for well run crown corporations, on anything essential to our way of life- highways, power, water, telephone. I was just asking though, would HydroQuebec be a player if it had to compete in a free market?

Really good article AF. I've been wondering the same thing actually. The democrats have no great faces right now. Where did Gore get himself to? He really dropped off the radar, considering half(or more) the voters were on his side last go round. I doubt the big Clinton will take the reigns this time. Where's Ross Perot these days? Would he still be able to split votes? He was a neat little dude, seemed strange but had a lot of good ideas. I guess we'll have to wait and see how things unfold. Oh yeah, ACLU is American Civil Liberties Union, not the (Anti-Christian Liberties Union") as the article said.

Is that a gov't regulated monopoly though? As in no allowance for competition?

Interesting point, Hugo. Not sure if I've ever actually said so, but I have no idea or deeply held opinion on wether 'gayness' is genetic or learned. Really I've always just kinda thought of it as choice just as me being athletic was a choice, even though my father was athletic as well.

That was touching...

We are all to one degree or another inclined to be competetive. This motivates us to excell. The over-used expression of 'thinking outside the box', which is used for creativity and innovation, is a good way to tackle any difficult problem, not only in science. The idea of communism being able to be more efficient, doesn't take into account conformity and stifling of creativity and radical ideas. I guess the question is directed towards a communism which is not oppressive like the ones we have known, and perhaps more like a democratic socialism. If that is the case, why are we not better off? Do we have to bring all facets of life, including business and industry, onside or go even more extreme like tearing down capitalism?

My post was just to show that sensitivity training is all around us. It is not a subversive mind-control plot. It's only a way to ensure some sort of understanding cooperation of parties from different backgrounds and different lifestyles so that things can get done relatively hassle free and efficiently. Laws, codes of conduct, and even the Forum Rules and Guidelines are all a form of so-called 'sensitivity training'. And Neddy, I do agree with you that this is a great forum. As I've said, on more than one occasion, pretty much everyone on here is very well-spoken and intelligent, even those that I generally disagree with.

Pell, those are quotes from Greg.

When Socialism really does fail, Craig, then maybe you will be taken seriously. When the stock markets falls or hundereds of thousands are out of workl, can't you equally say that capitalism fails?

The leap from poverty and famine and the horrible standards of living to the western world's riches and high standards is pretty much impossible. To play catch up, on their own, is a dead end. They do need long term 'guidance' and assistance. Reform of policing, schooling, and probably, in most cases, a new style of constitution and dome sort of charter of rights. A lot of money doesn't need be given to these countries, just time and effort. I would also say that the economic focus right now is only on Africa's mineral wealth. I hope that more focus would be placed on sustainable business and industries. I definitely agree on your view of the World Bank. I've never ever heard anything positive about them.

What is this.... 'A couple things, Alliance Fanatic, you just called Gugsy a "coward," which is plainly an insult. As we all know, insults are not permitted in these forums, so that's strike one for Alliance Fanatic. You also called, Moderate, Gugsy, Neal, "brainwashed liberal sheep who cannot think for themselves." Until you issue a apology to each of these participants, you're be banned from these forums' or how about.... 'Let's cut out the "sweetie" talk, Craig. I don't imagine Rita enjoys that' Is this not what sensitivity training is? Giving common sense and manners(codes of conduct) to those without them. Damn Greg and his insidious leftwing behavior modification

'most of them ARE hedonistic and perverted though' - I've always thought you can tell a lot about a person by the friends they choose to keep Truth be told, most of my friends are like that and by and large most of them are straight. 'I am certain that if you ask any Christian or church-going person what they thought of that situation, they would condemn the behaviour. I have never met a gay person in my life who has expressed any dissatisfaction with gay pride or activism' My closest gay friend is a music Prof. at a University. He definitely isn't 'butch' but he claims to hate watching the faeries making fools of themselves. Maybe he's one of a kind, I dunno.

I actually do understand where you are coming from. You and your Church's right to practice the faith must be protected. I just don't see it as even a remote possibillity that a Church would be forced to perform a ceremony against the very tenets of its faith.

Neddy, About the SK story you related. Is intent taken into account for hate crimes? I would assume a judge would look at the lengths the offender went to commit the act. His intention, I'm assuming, was to hurt these people or at the very least be hurtfull. I don't really understand my own feelings on Freedom of Speach vs. Hate Crime, IMHO it is something that can be easily abused. (such as in the case going on now with the BC teacher) About the difference of civil union and a marriage, my point was they are both state-sanctioned civil unions. The difference is that you choose to call it something else, ie. marriage or more specifically a Catholic marriage. Its a matter of perception. If a gay couple had a civil union, what would people say? Probably 'They got married'. People would refer to it as a marriage. In the court of law, they would have no less rights than the Catholic married couple. They maybe would refer to each other as 'spouse' 'husband' 'wife' 'better half'. In the public eye, a gay couple would be as married as the straight couple in terms of culture, lifestyle, legallity, and authenticity. The only way a married gay couple would be different than a married straight couple is the sanctioning of the Church, with all it's spiritual and cultural legacy, and that Church's congregation. If you believe and lead an active Church life, I would imagine that is one big difference. If your church doesn't believe in homosexuallity, that is one thing a gay couple will never be a part of.

'not VOCALLY discrediting NAMBLA' I was actually thinking of this earlier on today, Ronda. It would go a long way for PR for various mainstream gay groups to speak loudly against NAMBLA or legalized public sex. In the public perception, I think, Many people associate all gays with this kind of hedonism or perversion. I truly doubt that support of NAMBLA is commonplace among the gay community but thats only my opinion; a vocal campaign would reassure me that my faith is not misplaced. Looking at it from another side though. Not all the denominations of Christianity actively pay attention to each other, nor do they often criticize each other. The Anglican bishops didn't actively denounce the Catholics for the molestations and their subsequent cover-ups. Or, There's plenty of 'whacko' Christian sects whose ideas are bizzarre and extremist, at best, and yet you don't see a lot of activism against them by other Churchs. I think it boils down to is, though there is a gay culture around, homosexualls aren't part of a union with little cards. They don't vote at meetings or have a shop steward to speak for them. (come to think of it, heterosexualls don't have any of that either. I hope the neighbor's trailer-park personallity doesn't reflect bad on me.)

Really though it's all simply 'civil union'. Without the aprovall of the clerk/magistrate/whatever the religious marriage is not considered valid.... If a priest marries you and your wife at a private ceremony with no witnesses and no certificates to submit to the courthouse, are you considered married by society at large?

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that I have a different political lean than the three of you but in some things I must agree. I agree with Sir Riff in that the US is part of the global market, and as such has a self-interst in having a stable world. I also agree with Neddy in that it is hard to sell a war that really doesn't appeall to Americans at large. How can you justify sending your children (and many of my friends) to end a civil conflict in a country that seems to be intent on killing itself and that has really little to offer economically or strategically. The price tag of war is another issue that the average American takes into account. You see a deployment costing a billion worth of taxes while you struggle to find a community with good teachers and honest policemen. The burden of humanitarian support (aka millitary action) must be shared with other nations. The UN is one way to go but as we've seen, the UN is all to often hobbled. Why in the world that non-democratic countries or those with gross human rights abuses are members of the UN is a mystery to me. Something other than the UN and something other than NATO, needs to be created. A universal charter of rights and freedoms, set non-negotable economic sanctions, and protocol for millitary blockades and intervention. One thing that I think that needs to be changed in any new organization is the concept of veto. Veto is power and that power can always be abused. In its place have a minimum number of votes to strike down a motion. But as I mentioned, certain events should have non-negotiable results, simply to prevent months or years of buruecratic red tape. Anyway, I think I strayed from the topic.

I apologise for the generalisations Ronda. And you are of course right that the institution, the Church, is not responsiblle for the individual actions of the priests who commit sexual abuse. Ultimately the guilt is on the individual. I don't think the comparison of NAMBLA to the Church works though. A priest is in a position of power and authority, much like a teacher or a coach. There is an absolute trust put on him by the parents and the community. And so when that trust is broken, the crime becomes even more dispicable. NAMBLA may be a bunch of perverts, but they are openly perverts who are trying to go through the acceptable channells to get the laws changed, such as courts and gov't. Obviously this topic is of interest to us all, otherwise we wouldn't be running so may threads on it right now. I have no real vested interest in the outcome of gay marriage rights. My life will not change one bit, yay or nay. I do however have a problem with close minded religious sheep. Going to the bible to interpret right or wrong is no better than muslim radicals making sharia laws, and I'm determined not to ever live in that sort of society. If you want to live your life according to your traditions than thank your lucky stars that you live in a country that appreciates individual freedoms.

OOOOOOH. Lets just take the last century. Can you name one other institution, just one, that has been involved in as many sexual abuse allegations or charges as the Church? I'm not implying that the faith itself is corrupt, just the institution. I'm also not implying that the Church doesn't do many, many good things for humanity, such as schools and hospitals. What I am saying is that for an institution that has been plagued with child rapists to come out and condemn homosexualls and to deny them any sort of equallity is nothing more than hypocracy. Remember, just name one.

As an institution the Catholic Church specifically, and Churches in general, probably have the worst record of sexual abuses in history. They really shouldn't try to take the moral high ground.

Pell, typically the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent.