Black Dog

Why 2,000 years? Seems a bit arbitrary to me, given that marriage has existed in various forms in various societies long before that. Of course, that would give lie to your claim that marriage is soley a religius institution... According to the law, the federal goverment has teh right to define the civil, legal instiution known as marriage. If you don't want to call equal marriages "mariages" that's your perogative. But at the end of the day, what other people choose to call their relationships has sweet F.A. to do with you and your relationship. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to imagine any gay couples being overly concerned with whether or not you approve of their union or recognioze it as "marriage". The only recognition that matters is legal recognition.

Satire and you are barely passing aquaintances, hey? "Eating babies" has become a lexiconal way of saying someone is evil. Now, I happen to think Dick Cheney is quite possibly the evilest motherf**ker in North America, which places him high in the rankings worldwide. But i do not actually think he eats babies. But I digress. Now why would I want to backtrack on a statistical fact? 80 per cent of Canada's population is concentrated in urban areas. The cities in the Lower Mainland and GTA are considered urban areas, which are defined as "(an area with) a population of at least 1,000 and a density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre, based on the previous census."

Don't thank me: thank the "liberal" New York Times.

Beat me to the punch, you did. I'd go even further and add a "they knew what we'd say in response". All part of a carefully orchestrated effort to show Stephen Harper is not a Yanqui running dog. VancouverKing: A few things: considering your moniker, I'm surprised I'd have to explain that Vancouver (one of the three major cities without a Con MP) cannot be part of the "urban East" given its, uh, western location. Second of all, "urban East"?? 80 per cent of Canadians live in urban centres. Urban residents make up the majority of residents in every province from Ontario west (including Saskatchewan and Alberta): really, I don't know what point your trying to make. Third: Dick Cheney doesn't have a ranch: he has an undisclosed location. And while he might have barbeques there, the menu (babies) is nt one that would endear Harper to Canadian moderates.

Don't you mean: "That damn Harper and his anti-Americanism blah blah blah..."?

Since when is "religious expression" and legislating according to religious beliefs the same thing? Like I said, he can pray, go to chruch, do whatever it is that his religion demands. But I don't think those personal beliefs should inform government policy. Maybe bigotry is part of the human condition, I dunno. Hell, I would admit that I am a bigot in certain matters like, for example, religion's role in the public discourse.

As the Snopesters say:

I hate to break up a good circle-jerk, but really, when whoppers like the old "Al Gore claims he invented the internet" continue to circulate, one must do something. FYI: that claim is false. Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign.

We're not talking about "religious expression", we're talking taking religion from the private, personal realm and bringing it into the political. I don't care if Stephen Harper, the man, goes to church. I do care if his religious beliefs colour his policy, policy which affects Candians of all religious beliefs. Bigotry is the expressed belief in the superiority of one's own beliefs over others (it's a term that has it's origins in religious sectarianism). so, bigotry is not holding different beliefs: it's the idea that your beliefs should trump others'. Anyone who believes (for example) that gay marriage is wrong because homosexuality is wrong can rightfully be labelled a bigot. "God Bless America" is a patriotic song. God Bless America is a phrase commonly used by American presidents. Can you please tell me what other nations commonly employ "God Bless ...." in such a way?

What are you on about? Again, there's no active movement within the gay rights movement to lower the age of consent (except in cases where the law discriminated between different forms of sexual activity). If there are any such examples of mainstream gay groups advocating for the AoC to be lowered, by all means show some. There's mountains of research showing that no such correlation exisits. For example, one study of 175 male adults who had been convicted in Massachusetts of child sexual assault found that none of them were homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester ( that is: they were sexually attracted only to children and not to other adults). The problem with attempting to draw a correlation is what I call the "plumber" problem: fixing a sink doesn't make one a plumber; in the same vein, a pedophile who molests kids of the same sex is not necessarily homosexual, something right-wing anti-gay folks can't get their heads around. (To digress a moment: I had to chortle at the WorldNut article's "shocking" finding that gay culture is "youth-oriented", as though mainstream heterosexual culture wasn't rife with imagery equating youth and sexual desierability, from Brazillian waxes to Britney Spears.)

Well, let the new era of Canada/U.S. harmony begin. Errr...not so much.

Yeah, like women, blacks, and all those other uppity minorities that have histroically demanded equal treatment. The fundamental underpining of democracy is the freedom to do whatever the heck you want, so long as no one else is harmed I don't see how it's any business of yours or the governement to determine what moral precepts other people are required to follow.

See edits above.

As far as I know, the only aspect of the age of consent laws that mainstream gay groups like EGALE want changed is that which sets the age of consent for anal sex higher than that for other forms of sex. I'm not aware of any movement to lower to AoC below its current level. Your evidence is a tiny handful of debatable points raised in the "WorldNet" article (not exactly an unbiased source BTW) by some ex-politician noted for propigating "research" who's findings run contrary to pretty much every bit of research ever done on the subject of pedophilia. I'm not about to take it too seriously. Right. So "hidden agendas" are for gay groups not, say, mainstream Canadian political parties.

Yeah: thank goodness that the new Harper conservatives have nothing to do with the old Mulroney P.C.'s. Oh. Wait. The real work begins

I think what you're looking for his a minimum threshold: that is, a party must get certain percentage of the vote in order to be entitled to representation in Parliment.

Good thing I didn't call you a liar, then. I simply pointed out that "some of my best friends etc." is a hoary cliche associated with people accussed of being bigoted. That's not to say you are...well, you get the point. See, I wouldn't expect a Jewish, Hindu or Muslim PM to ask for the blessing of whatever god or gods they worship. Religion is a private, personal matter, best left out of politics altogether, even in as seemingly an innocuous form as "God Bless Canada." (I also fully expect that many of the people who support Harper's borrowed catchphrase would have a collective shit if he used something like "May Allah's blessing be upon our nation.") Then he should really end his speeches with "I love Canada."

I can't beleive you trotted out the old "some of my best friends are <insert minority here>." I have a big problem with it for several reasons. Number one: it's an American expression, popularized by American leaders with clear American conotations. Find your own slogan, dude. Number two: Canada is a de facto secular state and I don't think its appropriate for Harper to push a particular religios P.O.V, especially now that he's PM (and if you think that's biased towards Christianity, ask yourself how you'd feel if Harper was asking for the blessing of Alah, or Vishnu or some other such deity.) Number three: I think it's a dogwhistle: a code to Canada's conservative religious right saying, basically, "I hear you, I am one of you." And, as a firm believer in secular democratic values, that scares the crap out of me.

Um...swinging is legal. Always has been. The SCCC ruling dealt with the leaglity of clubs for people engaged in wife/husband swapping. Also: given the nature of the activity, its entirely reasonable to operate on the assumption that the vast majority of swingers are consenting adults. And interestingly enough, they are challenging the "traditional" definition of marriage on the basis that it restricts their freedom of religion: the same argument used by religious groups oppossed to SSM. Isn't it ironic, don't you think? Really: as long as everyone involved is an adult and knows what they are getting into, who cares? What do pedophilia and bestiality have to do with relationships between consenting adults?? Because that's an essential element that gay relationships, swinging and even polygamous marriages don't share with those behaviours.

Anyone bother to read the article? Absolutely nothing in the article about the Canuck guards "running away".

Perhaps you should read the rest of the article, which demonstrates that NAMBLA has been rejected by mainstream gay organizations: Also, this:

Under a mixed-member PR system, voters would get two ballots: the first for a local candidate (chosen through the usual process) and one for the party (with those candidates chosen from a list put forward by the parties). This system is used by a number of countries, notably Germany, new Zealand and Scotland.

There's volunteers from each party/riding association at the polling stations. But the people who count the ballots, sign people uop etc. are people off the street (my gf was one of them this time out and she has no political conections whatsoever.) It wasn't the question that makes you abigot, so much as the fact you view the prescence of ethnic volunteers as a cause for alarm, to the extent that you question whether you'd continue voting. Also comments like this: Which imply that all members of ethnic groups are gang-affiliated and thus untrustworthy, would support the bigot label. Which is exactly what you're doing. Way to go.

Thing is, despite the conventional wisdom, polls have consitently shown that the American public opinion favours abortion. For example. The last thing the Dems need to do is turn their backs on that middle ground (not to mention alienate their progressive base) in a ploy to win votes from people who wouldn't vote Democratic under any circumstances. If anything the Democrats need to work on reframing the issue. And a good way to do that would be to expose the hypocrisy of the G.O.P and the pro-life side. After all, we're talking about a faction that opposes abortion, yet also actively campaigns against contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, the morning after pill and any other measure designed to curb unwanted pregnancies. That's a terrible idea. And I think this op-ed sums up why that is.

I meant the Big Two are the big winners under the status quo.