Michael Hardner

I agree Cybercoma... You will find, though, that many who support samesexmarriage will argue against polymarriage using the same fallacious arguments that are used against samesexmarriage. Principles are logical, geometric, Cartesian, perfect. When they are applied to imperfect human affairs you end up having to support some awkward ideas in order to stay consistent. I argued with somebody (on rabble) who stood steadfastly on the woman's right to have control over her body (ie. abortion) as a principle. Unfortunately, fetuses aren't theoretical and a 1 day old fetus is very different from a 9 month old fetus. My friend couldn't let go of his principle, though, and he ended up arguing that a woman had the right to abort a fetus right up to the minute of birth. Also that he as a man had no right to opine on the issue. But... You are an open minded individual. Let's get married.... to a third person....

In that case, I guess you won't mind it if we collectively point out that you're a fourth rate court jester, who's about as funny as Family Circus. The comedy forum is the other way. The adults here have some things they want to talk about so go play with your safety scissors and felt remnants. I like what Geoffrey wrote here: Because it provides an ABSOLUTE measure of right versus left, irrespective of time. Fiscally, what WAS right wing in the 1950s would today be very left wing and what WAS left wing in the 1920s would be right wing today. Maybe we can define some kind of center, fiscally ? Now that I've said that, it seems like a daunting task. And I think it's a mistake to add social issues. These seem to constantly change as time goes on, becoming more progressive on a continuum.

I supposed you DID say I was laughable. Glad to help make your day, oh happy man.

Sort of but not exactly. Age discrimination is prohibited up to age 65 I believe, and women's only health clubs haven't been tested. Business do have the right to choose their clientel but we draw the line based on the law. Ok. Exactly. Thanks.

theloniusfleabag One COULD argue anything, yes, including that. But there's really no argument there is there ? And so we have the constitution being used to bar discrimination against gays, which I agree with 100%. Same sex marriage should be legal in my opinion. But I seem to be more apalled by the 'NO STRAIGHTS' nights than you are.

Auguste: I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post. If you read it again, you'll see I stated that these drinking establishments have 'HOMOSEXUAL ONLY' nights. That means STRAIGHTS NOT ALLOWED IN. They ask you if you're straight and if you say 'yes' you can't come in. Not true, though, if you are serving the public. I don't think you can legally put a 'NO BLACKS' sign in front of your store. There was a case of a bar that kicked out two women for kissing and they were taken to the tribunal and told it wasn't legal. It seems to me that you missed what I said. See above.

Spike22: It's Hardner and yes I write my own stuff. There's nothing stopping you as a straight person from taking a 'faggy job' (your term). If there was a school that barred straight people you might have a point, but you don't now.

Hollus: Ladies night as far as I know doesn't bar men from entering. Heterosexuals are barred from entering certain clubs in Toronto. If that's not discrimination then what is ? You can't open a restaurant with a sign that says 'no gays' can you ?

I am one of those rare people who stands up for gay rights (I have been doing this for over twenty years now) for religious rights, for non-religious rights and for straight rights. I guess you can say I have a strong constitution. On another thread, there was a discussion about a Knights of Columbus Hall that refused to rent to two lesbians who were going to be wed. Part of the discussion was directed towards the motives of those women - whether they really wanted to rent the hall or they were just trying to 'make a point'. Of course, legally it doesn't matter. But let me ask generally - would you give support to a gay person or straight person who persued a rights issue only to make a point ? For the straights, there are opportunities for challenges out there - several clubs in Toronto now host openly discriminatory 'homosexual only' nights. This is clearly discriminatory, but hasn't yet been challenged. A friend of mine, who is gay, wanted to have his friends meet him at a bar to celebrate his birthday, but the number of men allowed in is restricted as it's a dyke night. How do you feel about such practices and how would you feel about a heterosexual challenge to the law ? Would you do it yourself ?

Except for the violence part this did happen. Religious people are often offended by slurs against their prophets, and they have every right to express that. Christians were offended and protested The Last Temptation, Robert Mapplethorpe's work, and most recently Chris Ofili's dung splattered Virgin Mary. The Mayor of New York called it 'Catholic bashing'. Said slurs are protected in Western countries, but what is the point of them really ? They're facile and immature sideswipes that do nothing but inflame extremists on both sides. Thoughtful people forged a peace between religion and the state in the 18th century and for them the issue has long been put to rest.

Hicksey this one's for you: Well, I confess I used phraseology which implied that I'm right and you are wrong. Of course, I do think that but I try to use less values-laden language in these discussions. I think people who are against gay marriage are like my long departed grandmother. She was a saint, a person who did the most for everyone she knew and strangers, and intelligent too. And she was racist to the bone. The PC crowd would villify my grandma, because they could never consider her in the context of her society. (Ironically, they have a little trouble with tolerance.) They wouldn't see that she treated people of other races with grace and politeness. Her whole personality for them would be defined by one opinion on one issue. Likewise, I have relatives who have trouble with the same sex marriage issue. Are they bigots ? I don't think so. I disagree with them, but I don't disrespect them. I apologize, Hicks, if I used an exclusionary tone with you. I do respect other people's views and I will try to do better next time.

They don't enjoy the same rights and benefits as I do. They are legitimately barred from teaching in religious schools (in theory, not in practice) for example. And there are still some backwaters where they are mistreated. I'm sorry but you don't get your way on this. Conducting business in Canada means adhering to the law. More likely, the RC church - which is one of the most conservative - will eventually come around as others have.

Betsy: Yes, the two struggles are very similar. When the Civil Rights Act was introduced, many people had 'practical' reasons that it was a bad idea. For example, it was bad for business etc. They didn't see equality as an issue that needed to be prioritized. I believe that gays are persons and have every right that straights do. Being Catholic myself, I feel it is completely unChristian to treat gays with anything less than Christian love. It's still considered a sin for somebody to remarry after divorce - would the KoC deny such a marriage ceremony ? I doubt it. Christians are supposed to live by example, and sinners will be drawn to the faith. They're not supposed to put up walls and castigate sinners. Rather than follow the Gospel and opening their hearts, the KoC people are hardening their hearts. It's easy and natural to do that but in no way Christian. And religious ceremonies will stand. They can't be changed and I will oppose any effort by the state to do so. Yes, they were probably trying to make a point by renting the hall. It's still within their legal right. How is it disregarding their religious belief ? The RC chuch doesn't disallow same sex people from loving each other, just from the sexual act itself. If the RC church can provide shelter for prostitutes, I don't see why the KoC can't provide shelter for a same sex wedding.

Thanks for your post.

So I guess it worked. Quebec didn't separate. Canada ? What modern democracies ever espoused official multiculturalism and failed ? Well, certainly some of what they say is true. I can't disprove that there isn't an alien abduction ring being run by Liberals either. Rather than drowning each other out, let's post facts as I did when I posted the immigration numbers. Middle East AND Africa. Ok. Well, you've changed it then. You're also including all of Asia as a third world country. ( Where does Australia come in, I wonder ? ) We're down to quibbles here, but you've changed your original statement and that's ok. You didn't say that you said 'why are so many from Arab countries'. Why are you not admitting that you said it based on your own feelings, not based on knowledge ? Do so, and you're off the hook.

Or getting people to accept religious definitions of marriage, or protesting depictions of Jesus in film... It's all the same thing. I understand when religious people of any faith is insulted by a slurr against their prophets, and I think it's something that's facile and unfair to them (in both the case of the comic, or The Last Temptation) but blasphemy is free expression and needs to be allowed.

It's nearly the same thing, but not exactly the same. I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. Canadian Muslims have gone public in condemning violence. I have known second generation Muslim immigrants and there is no difference. I think you're confusing mainstream Christians with lapsed Christians. The Roman Catholic church has taken extra steps recently to remove gay priests. Most practicing Christians oppose homosexuality. The effect of Western thinking affects people who live within these borders more than you think. I have known mainstream Christians, Muslims and Jews that pay little attention to the rules of their religion. Islam is the dominant religion in an area of the world where there is little education, no freedom of the press, many other factors that hinder free thought. The mistake that most people make is that they evaluate the actions of protesters and so forth apart from these factors. If they take the culture into consideration at all, it is to blame the religion for the backwardness of the people.

That's a lot of people but in the context of the question it doesn't make sense. Why do so many come from Arab countries ? And the number could be 10%.

I guess public health announcements are a bad idea then ?

Thanks for the update Gunner... this is why I'm on here - to learn. I thought Harper was going to ban the last $1000 though. I think that the CPC's low budget and straightforward ads actually added to their appeal last time around, while the Liberals' glossy high money productions seemed excessive. ( To me, anyway. )

They may be a religious organization, but they aren't free to discriminate under the law. You have a point here. Unfortunately, this cause tends to be focussed on Christians, not Jews or Muslims who hold much the same views. If the RC church owns rental property, should they have the right to deny housing to gays ? How about denying housing to non-Christians ? That argument was also used against LBJ's Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. The argument said that if black Americans were allowed to go into any restaurant, the whites wouldn't go out to eat and the restaurant owners would go bust.

Geoffrey: The charter prohibits against discrimination against "other groups". That, obviously, is open to interpretation but homosexuals in society today are definitely a group that are discriminated against. It's within anyone's legal rights to appeal to the supreme court, so go ahead. That system doesn't work. Blacks were discriminated against in many ways until LBJ's Civil Rights Act was passed.

You are correct, Melanie. It's the same as Christians who protested The Last Temptation of Christ. EDITED TO ADD: Or for that matter, religious people of all stripes protesting the non-religious state's definition of marriage.

Well, I did read your post and I'm sorry but I don't see any link between Trudeau's push for official bilingualism (which was ostensibly done to counter against separatism) and unleashing an immigration policy with a secret agenda to distract the RoC away from Quebec. I know history but you have no proof of your belief. Your statement is quoted by you above. Here's what you said: "why are so many of these immigrants comong from troubled Arab countries?" You obviously didn't know the numbers and were just talking through your hat. I posted that it's 22% and now you want to include third world countries in that question, and you come up with a figure of 70% somehow. Here's how to make a good argument, Leafless. State your thesis, then the facts that support it. Saying essentially 'Trudeau liked Quebec therefore multiculturalism and Immigration was set up to distract the RoC from Quebec' doesn't constitute proof of anything. At this point, you should probaby just withdraw your statement and again another time with some evidence.

I believe they had to rent the hall. Read what seabee said. You can't legally refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple for example. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the charter, as is freedom from discrimination for homosexuals. When those rights clash, the parties take the case to court and a ruling is made.