Kapitän Rotbart

De facto in the RoC, that is. Official languages were established due to spite. The English failed at assimilating the Québecers. Instead of making English the academic and working language of Québec, they made attempts at populating Québec with Anglo-Europeans (kind of like when Italy tried to populate South-Tyrol in Italy with Italians to make it less German-speaking... gues what; South-Tyrol has sovereignty-association, what many 'somewhat-realistic-seperatists' of Québec want). It was a stupid move. Think of it this way; suppose you were to live in a given area and you were to speak a language hardly used outside this region. Then your area is colonized and instead of forcing you to learn their language, they let you continue to study, work, etc. in your language and don't supply proper language training for you to learn their language. Then they populate parts of your region with foreigners who are favored by the system because they speak the government's language. You don't have the opportunity to leave your area, not even to a neighboring province/state just to learn the language. This creates rivalry. Proportionally speaking, it's like if you were expected to speak Turkish to get a high-end job, yet the language training is hardly available and few native speakers of this language were to live in your area (and you couldn't justify a trip to Turkey because it's either too far, can't afford it, affraid of not being able to come back, the list goes on). The English did a terrible job at colonizing Québec, so the Québecers made sure this would never happen again. The Liberals did a terrible job at governing Canada (scandal, favoring left-wing policies to get the support of the NDP, etc.) and the Conservatives wrote a long, expensive legislation to make sure the scandal and the benefit of a few other loop-holes would never happen again (at least not feasibly). This is called action-reaction. We have the English to blame for the current state of Québec. Most Québecers are not fluent in English and could not be considered bilingual (I thought you would have figured that when you would go to a grocery store in Gatineau). I also figure there be a larger proportion of bilingual Francophones than bilingual Anglophones in Canada, however the highest proportion of bilingual Canadians would be amongst Anglo-Québecers and Francophones in the RoC (with some bilingual Francophones in Québec and some bilingual Anglophones in the RoC). By the way, bilingual Anglophones who aren't spiteful like you and actually learned French average the highest income in Canada because language is no longer an issue for them to advance their career. Once bilingual policies have started, there were no incentives to remove them because of the large Francophone voting population. It's not discriminatory; people are not discriminated based on their background, so it can't be a case of discrimination. There is a large proportion of Anglophones and a large proportion of Francophones in Canada. This makes for a country of two languages and both languages are just as genuine. Your reasoning of language is absurd. You only look at one side/segment of Canada's history, and you ask if French is not official throughout Canada, why it is official. Most multi-lingual European countries have more than one language limited to a certain region, yet they're still official (for instance Belgium and Switzerland).

Actually corrupt federal politics and confederation in Canada allows this unfortunate scenario. To bad ALL provinces were not like Quebec and didn't sign Canada's constitution, then we would see how far Quebec would get along in French only. Thank Canadians for the gift of being able to retain Quebec's language under our existing dysfunctional political system. I did a quick check on this subject and found many articles pointing in that direction, (thinking the U.S. would be also conforming to the metric system), but not much blatantly stating that fact, although I did not spend that much time researching. Regardless, this was a well known fact in the 70's. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=a1ARTA0005262 The federal 'official bilingualism policy' is discriminatory, as Quebec's legal place in Canada relating to the French language has never been legally established in respect to the majority English language used commercially throughout the country. If French is an 'official language' and used in the federal government, then why is it not an 'official language' across the entire country. This is what makes French NOT a genuine 'official language' but one the federal government chooses to blatantly discriminate against users of the English language. 1. We also have the English to thank for not forcing all Québecers to study and work in English upon colonization. 2. Thanks for the link. Not as convincing as I would have hoped, and stating a "consideration" is kind of weak, but it's not all that relevant to this thread. 3. But the Canadians in Neu-Braunschweig who prefer to speak French are officially recognized. Québec's not the only part of Canada to officially use the French language. Why is English also not official in all parts of Canada? Just because language is regionally recognized doesn't mean there's no place for it in federal offices. Your logic is flawed.

Doctors = Medical practice, or degreed as in PHD Linguists= Word meanings Right , go see the linguist for your broken arm. Many linguists have a PHD aswell. I wouldn't see someone with a doctorate in sociology or in engineering either if I have a broken arm. These Sexperts creating their own supposively tolerance yet misleading definitions wouldn't be capable of taking care of a broken arm either. I trust linguists over sex-perts at matching words with definitions. @Rue: Teleiophiles are those sexually attracted to adults. Just because one is dominantly attracted to adults does not mean they cannot be equally attracted to children. Please go back to the Venn diagram. Admit the possibility that one can be a Teleiophile AND a pedophile OR find/create a word for one who is sexually attracted to both adults and children equally (like in the case of bisexuals who are sexually attracted to both sexes). I think everyone knows what a homosexual is and what a pedophile is. A homosexual is one who has same-sex relations or is sexually attracted to the same sex and a pedophile is one who has sexual relations with children or is sexually attracted to children. Most people are neither, most who are either pedophile OR homosexual are pedophile XOR homosexual (exclusively one but not the other) yet some are both. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Someone may not be dominantly attracted to the same-sex or to children, but if they have intercourse with the same-sex then they are gay and if they have intercourse with children they are pedophiles. They can turn away from this and be either gay or pedophile for a short segment of their life (just like one can be a smoker for a short segment of their life), but the definition is still much more inclusive than you claim it to be. I understand the age thing. Pedophilia and Teleiophilia are defined by age, heterosexuality and homosexuality are defined by gender. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Some people are pedophiles, some are teleiophiles, a small group are both. Some people are homosexual, some are heterosexual, a small group are both (bisexuals in the case). Even your definition stated that a teleiophile could be straight, gay or bi, then it makes sense that a pedophile could also be straight, gay or bi. The people who belong to all these groups are sexually attracted to both sexes and all ages. I haven't met any yet, but I admit the possibility. Just like when a man has many wives, it's polygamy. When a woman has many husbands, it's polyandry. I don't know of any woman who has many husbands, but the definition still stands (no matter how seldom the occasions to use the word may be). I don't know a word for when a given person has many spouses of both sexes, but it's unlikely to come up before the definition of marriage including same-sex couples becomes mainstream (if it does). Again I will ask you to quote the Scriptures on this. In the New Testament Christians are instructed to love everyone and it is not our responsibility to punish others for their perversions (as opposed to eye-for-an-eye, which makes the world go blind). If you really were a Jew, you'd refer to the Old Testament as the Torah, so you're losing credibility here. Plus if you claim to know a thing or two about the Scriptures and what it tells us, please quote. I don't recall an instruction to stone gays. Throwing marshmellows can be fun, but considering the few opportunities I'd have to throw them if I were to limit myself to the GBLT, I'd just rather eat the marshmellows or throw them at everyone. Challenging indeed. That is one possible event. However, sexual identity cannot be so clear before puberty because children do not yet understand sexual attractions. I'm heterosexual yet when I was in primary school, I didn't uderstand why or how people would be attracted to eachother beyond friendship. Children who think they are gay are simply putting thought into something that doesn't affect them yet, and when they tell themselves that they are gay often enough, they will believe it. The scenario of a kid thinking they're gay and then getting molested and being more confused about the whole thing is quite possible. I don't think anyone is advocating that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. I think you're crazy. I don't blame gays for anything. I may blame liberals for shoving nonsensical ideas down peoples' throats through public services at the expense of God fearing tax-payers who would be the last to pay into such propaganda, given the choice. There are so few of them gays anyway (and gay sex in itself is not a crime), so they don't phase me. About kids being sexualized... what's your point? Why are kids so easily influenced by pop music and why do people fail at parenting their children? Children raised with a good set of values and who don't fall into being superficial aren't so easily influenced by pop stars. Pop stars wear normal clothes when they're off stage, but most superficial kids don't know that. On the subject of naming things, last I heard these kids are refered to as "prosti-tots". If you tell kids that pertaining to fringe groups like homosexuals is normal, then why should they have any concept of a proper dresscode? Maybe it's because I'm not a pedophile but I don't find kinder-pageants particularly appealing. Last I heard it was those superficial moms who put their daughters in such things and invest all their savings into this. Kinder-pageants don't seem to be wrong for what they are, just ridiculous, but if moms are going to blow tons of cash on it, I say let them (however they shouldn't get enraged when the peodophile peeping toms sit in, that's like getting enraged about porn companies and other camera-men showing up at spring break as seen in the news).

Not at all. They are a minority group who would be assimilated had the English made this possible. If the Québecers go to school, work, go shopping, read the newspaper, etc. in French, all this under the English, how can you expect them to assimilate?! Thinking the US would go along? That's new to me. You must hate me when it comes to quotes by now but I am curious and up for a quick read... could you please provide a citation for this? I'll agree that our half-way metric system is silly. With time Canucks will measure their height and weight in metrics, and it's just a matter of time until we get stoves who cook in Celsius, otherwise it's pretty much fully implemented. Travelling, counselling, litre or traveling, couseling, liter? Most Canadians don't know the difference and will actually use foreign spelling. Check out this website for a good read: http://www.luther.ca/~dave7cnv/cdnspelling/cdnspelling.html Yet most MPs are WASPs last I checked (though not a majority in Québec, they have a high proportion of WASP MPs considering Québec's population). It would be cool to have more minorities represented in parliament. Requiring a skill, even if arbitraty, is not racist. Anyone wanting employment should make sure they have the required skills, and if they don't have them, they should achieve them. The policies themselves are not racist (there may be racist individuals in parliament, but then again, that depends on how inclusive you are at defining racism). Really? Please provide at least a single discriminating excerpt from their charter. I have yet to have one pointed out to me. Good for you. That's why I'm thankful most Canadians don't agree with you. Yes! Money is everyones' favorite language. I bet if large-scale bets were to be made on this, some mob would make it happen just to get their coin out of it.

You trust linguistic experts who have zero medical training , to define sexual terms, over the very same Doctors who actually decide what the terms should be and are called. Consult your liguist the next time you have a medical problem. At the least , it will be cheaper. Depends on the doctor. Rue's doctors are exclusive at defining sexual orientation, whereas a linguist (and many other doctors, shrinks, etc.) would be more inclusive in defining such things. Sex-perts don't treat any medical problems, they just write propaganda. If someone has a sex-related health issue, they'd see a medical doctor, not a sex-pert. If someone wants info on birth control, sexual orientation, etc. they'd see a sex-pert and probably be misled. The only time the degree to which one's sexual preference's dominance matters is between an individual and their shrink, accountability partner, etc. (if they have one). If someone wants to abstain from same-sex relations, relations with children, etc. or even would like to turn away from anything leading to this behavior altogether, it would be more difficult if their attraction to same-sex people, children, etc. is very dominant than if it were more of a fling. We can easily compare this to a smoker. A heavy smoker would find it more difficult to no longer be a smoker than someone who smokes a couple fags a month with friends or at parties. In both cases, the individual can easily be defined as a smoker, but in one case it is more dominant than another. My point is no matter how much or little gay or pedophile or bisexual or [insert fringe group based on sexual behavior here] one may be, the definition still includes 'em and it's their choice whether they want to be part of that community or not.

No, cultural assimilation is not "forced", it is usually voluntary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation If it was forced Quebec and Quebecers would probably no longer exist if the British did originally force assimilation. Yeah, that article says: "Assimilation may be voluntary, which is usually the case with immigrants, or forced upon a group, as is usually the case with the receiving "host" group or country." When assimilation is forced upon a group, most are willing to comply. Assimilation of immigrant populations is irrelevant to assimilating a newly-acquired colony. My point was that no group will choose to assimilate unless it is forced upon them. Please try to find a counter-example. Another blurted out personal opinion with no prove to back up your statement. The scientific communities in the U.S. and Canada were metric all along, nothing new there. But if your trying to associate a partially integrated public metric system in Canada as being responsible to create a great cultural wall between American/Canadian customs, shows how twisted your logic and thinking process is. The scientific community?! That is quite irrelevant as it doesn't represent the majority of a country's population. I never said it created a cultural wall, I just said it's a cultural difference, and otherwise English Canadians and Americans pretty much share the same similarities/differences as they did long ago. By the way, you misspelt 'prove', it's 'proof' in this case. Also, my statement is pretty much common knowledge, so there's no need for proof. There is a variation in a number of English words between the U.S. and Canada but the base language English is derived from the same people who won this country, the British. I'll let you argue that one with English Canadian language purists. My opinions are based on common knowledge. Your opinions are mentally fabricated to suit your point of view. Really? I was just about to say the same to you. 'Official bilingualism' spits in the face of freedom and democracy making Canada no different than a repulsive communist type country. That's what Canada gets when two large groups can't seem to get along. To prevent official bilingualism, a solution would have had to be found a long, long time ago. Another attempt to obfuscate important matter in this thread by implying again (without proof), with your personal opinion overriding the competency of our federal government. My "personal opinion overriding the competency of our federal gov't"?! My opinions go that far? That's awsome! My point is that there's no way to calculate the cost of bilingualism without bias. The statement stands until proven otherwise, meaning the absence of proof is enough to make it credible. There's no point quoting a website claiming bilingualism has cost us X amount of cash when it's obvious that they would include every possible expense to support their cause, even if this money would have been spent had bilingualism not been an issue. Bill-101 otherwise known as Quebec's 'Charter of the French language' is a total sham, makes a mockery out of the federal 'Official Languages Act' and the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. This begs the question ' who is running the show in Canada' the Federal Government of Canada, Quebec, the Aboriginals and why is the federal government so afraid to show leadership? Either way, I don't support any of these undemocratically imposed documents, that have transformed Canada into a corrupt ' banana republic'. Bill 101 is not in their constitution. The aboriginals are far from running the country, they simply have a leeching system. I guess same goes for Québec and all other provinces benefiting from equalization. Seeing as Bill 101 is not in Québec's constitution, do you have any discriminatory citations from their actual constitution? Banana Republic? Canada can't grow bananas! Despite language policies, Canada still has a fairly strong economy and to this day has not yet had a civil war nor insurrection. Not likely to change any time soon.

You seem to have missed one variation in your analysis here. Is a man who has sex with a girl a heterosexual, or just a pedophile? A man who has sex exclusively with females and at least once with a girl, that would make him a heterosexual pedophile, because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. If that same guy has sex with children of boths sexes, that makes him a bisexual pedophile. Sorry for the lack of clarification, it just makes sense that when sexual orientation is not specified, heterosexuality, the only significantly sized sexual orientation amongst humans would be assumed. @Rue: You could love to post the most obnoxious things, but it would help your cause. Doctor is just a title. Title or no title, these are just "Sex-perts" who supposively know how things should be. I'd rather trust linguists (which many also have Doctor as a title) in defining such things than "Sex-perts". These Sex-perts agree with you that sexual orientation is defined by a dominant sexual preference. That means a bisixual is exclusively someone who is equally attracted to both sexes. I knew a guy who considered himself bisexual, despite the fact that he still preferes women (but also likes men). Linguists make for a much more reliable source of definitions (many of these guys are Doctors too). The dictionaries I've consulted are less exclusive at defining sexual orientations. So far I've seen homosexual defined as someone who is attracted to people of the same sex and defined as one who practices homosexuality (Oxford and WordWeb). Claiming that some people could have abnormal conditions is not discriminatory. Dwarves have an abnormal condition and I don't discriminate against them. Again this comes down to how we define 'normal'. Let's avoid clinical definitions and stick to the dictionary, which defines normal as "Conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal". Still subjective, but inclusive. By this definition, I see homosexuals as not conforming to the norms of society (they don't have to, that's their choice) and I won't discriminate against them. However, I should not be expected to cater to them. Gays should be expected to live in a heterosexual world and not expect others to give them special treatment because they're gay. I'll give an example. If I lose a loved one in my family, I'll probably feel sad (and the possible reactive emotions' list goes on), however society doesn't change; I have to learn to continue living in this world without this loved one. If someone chooses to have an active sex life with adults or children of the same or opposite sex, they still have to take local laws and society into consideration. The behavior of these individuals may change, but society should not be expected to change nor to cater to those choosing alternative lifestyles. To summarize, I trust Doctors in linguistics over Dr. Sex-pert in terms of definitions and no, I do not discriminate when I consider homosexuals abnormal; using a very inclusive definition of 'normal'.

@Rue: Finally a quote. Just as you don't view the Bible Book as a righteous authority, I don't view the Lutheran church as a righteous authority. That's exactly my point! Rarely can something be defined as both an apple AND rat poison, yet it is still possible! Most apples do not contain rat poison, and most rat poison is not in apples. Most gays are not pedophiles, and most pedophiles are not gay. However, there are individuals who can be defined as both a pedophile AND a homosexual. Pedophilia is defined by age (I was always aware of that) yet homosexuality is not. A man who has sexual relations with a woman is straight; with a girl is a pedophile, with a man is gay; and with a boy is gay and a pedophile. A man who would have sexual relations with a boy but not with a man would probably not fit in socially with the greater part of the GLBT, however because homosexuality is not defined by age yet by gender, such a pedophile could also be defined as gay or bisexual. According to The Human Face of Pedophilia, a "Teleiophile" is "A minor who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to adults". - http://hfp.puellula.com/Manifesto.html Because this isn't a mainstream word and my dictionary doesn't pick it up, I can only go by the majority of results using my friendly search engine (Google) which agree with this definition over the one you quote from those Lutherans. I appreciate the research. The works on pedophilia don't advance your point, I'm sure we can all agree that age is a condition for pedophilia. However, you have not yet proven that homosexuality is conditioned by age. If someone consents to homosexual relations, even though they much prefer sexual partners of the opposite sex, they are still then gay or bisexual. What the Lutherans who wrote those "definitions" meant by Teleiophiles is people whose first love is adults (same or opposite sex) yet may have sex with children. I disagree. Here's an example: If John Doe has a sex life with his wife, his maid and his male neighbor (he really loves adults), yet sodomizes a boy, he's become a pedophile. John Doe may not be pedophile by nature, but how many kids must John Doe molest to be considered a pedophile? It's like occasional smokers. If they smoke, they're smokers. They are smokers until they quit for good. They may prefer to not smoke and would typically be non-smokers if it weren't for [whatever their excuse is] yet they smoke, therefore they are smokers. There may be a difference in behavior between someone whose first love is children and another whose first love is adults, yet if they both molest at least one child, they are pedophiles (until they turn away from this behavior for good). If someone has sex with someone of the same sex, whether same-sex partners be their first love or not, then the person is homosexual (until they turn away from homosexuality for good). Someone who is not homosexual would not consent to gay intercourse. Someone who is clearly not a pedophile would not molest a child, no matter what the conditions would be. Anyway, look at it more like adhesive labels. An adhesive label can easily be applied, it's a little trickier to remove it (yet still feasible), and multiple labels can be applied. For a virgin you seem to know a lot about fetish (your earlier mentions of Lolita syndrome, heterosexual sodomy and agressive intercourse in the Playboy mansion). This suggests a pornography addiction or too much time reading Wikipedia articles about sexuality. I hope it's the latter. @guyser: Whatever that means. I do not discriminate against people having abnormal conditions. Rue insists that one's sexual identity is defined by a mere dominant preference and quotes the Lutherans to back this point. Any dictionary would be much more inclusive in terms of defining homosexuals and pedophiles.

@AshNazg: Well said. Yes being heterosexual is a personal choice, but it's a no-brainer for most people. The morality of homosexuality only matters when refering to religious institutions. Being sick is biological, yet not preferable, so justifying something as being 'biological' doesn't work. And I will agree that it would be ridiculous to try to justify homosexuality as anything but abnormal. Masterbation does not change one's sexual orientation (until a category is created for wankers, where 95% of 15-23 year old guys will fall into... and there's no point arguing that they are anything but straight other than the few who are GBLT). That's a myth. Suicide rates amongst homosexuals have never changed, whether in a society where homosexuality is opressed or celebrated. No study has shown a lower suicide rate amongst homos in San Francisco than in Cuba or Soviet Russia. That is, where only sexual orientation is taken into consideration and all other variables are caeteris paribus. Or allow freedom of speech and let God sort 'em out. I don't need society turning towards expecting people to give special treatment to gays like we do to minorities by skin color, religion, language, height, etc. I will assume that one is straight unless I am told otherwise. We can evolve to a completely artificial world, all is possible. Fortunately I won't be around when such craziness becomes a reality, that is, if it does. The doctor may tell a patient off for being fat. For those not pertaining to any religious institutions, "sin" is a non-issue and the morailty of homo relations shouldn't matter (I couldn't care less about each person's 'feeling' towards homosexual relations' morality). Only social engineering matters in this case, and yes homosexuality is an anomaly and I should never have to assume that "there might be gay people in the crowd" and make special accomodations for those who are. Gays may choose to stay gay but they have to learn to live in a world of straight people. As long as there are people crazy enough to believe that some are born gay, there will be crazy people believing people are born saved/unsaved (Calvin's nonsense) like at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. We have yet to see in which direction society swirls.

@Rue: Please supply me with a link to this manual. I have yet to see a definition that determines one's sexual partner's age as a condition to be either GBLT or not. That's innacurate. A homosexual is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, regardless of age and consent. I'd rather base my beliefs on a book of Truth written long ago than on a 'feeling' or 'emotion'. The quotes are real. Everything we have documented on Adolf Hitler is also real, yet no one seems to deny his existance. Why? It's not a religiously controversial, so everyone agrees that it's true. That doesn't make it any more nor less true than the accuracy of the quotes in the Bible book. Please quote! Sex is a beautiful thing, porn is a perversion. Don't fora have the purpose of discussing views? Either way, the Christian churches accepts people for who they are, but like all religions, there are rules. In this case, most major religious institutions do consider active homosexuality immoral. Unless your authorities claim this, why do you even care who considers this a sin? Your emotions and feelings are much less credible to me than institutions who have been standing for centuries/millennia. Some people consider drugs wrong or sinful, others don't. I don't care what you consider homosexual relations, what matters is it is still identified as a sin by the major institutions and there's no point arguing that homosexual relations are not a sin. Doesn't make sense. Other variables would be taken into consideration, otherwise the study wouldn't be valid, nor published. Most smokers ending up with cancer get lung cancer. I haven't heard of cases where smokers who have not engaged in receptive sodomy getting anal cancer. Smoking is about as dangerous as eating mould, but straight people still average greater longevity and have lower risks of anal cancer (unless they also participate in receptive sodomy) than homos. Congrats for still being a virgin. I will assume that some straight people also participate in receptive sodomy, but that still doesn't justify sodomy nor homo relations. Anyway, my point is, religion or no religion, I want homosexual propaganda out of my country's gov't, schools, etc. We all pay taxes for our social services, and when the gov't adopts a certain bias contradicting the belief of large groups of concerned residents, they are shoving their opinion down our throat.

@capricorn English is easier than French for Ottawans, because English is the majority language in Ottawa. However, I browsed a couple websites and here are my findings: http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/l...pectations.html Website provided by the National Virtual Translation Center. Here are the criteria for the research: "It must be kept in mind that that students at FSI are almost 40 years old, are native speakers of English. and have a good aptitude for formal language study, plus knowledge of several other foreign languages. They study in small classes of no more than 6. Their schedule calls for 25 hours of class per week with 3-4 hours per day of directed self-study." This was to achieve general professional proficiency in reading and speaking. French was in the first (easiest) category, learnable in 575-600 hours. Spanish was also listed in this category. http://perso.orange.fr/enotero/langues.htm (website in French with links to sites in English) States that 1 500 to 2 000 hours would be required to achieve enough proficiency in the English language to complete English language studies in public education (the French Baccalauréat). I will assume that they are refering to 15 to 20 year olds. From my personal observations, bilingual francophones in Ottawa can manage a working ability in Spanish after 360 hours of class in high school. I'll admit it's tricky to compare monolingual high school kids to multilingual 40 year olds, but I don't think I could justify 1 500 to 2 000 hours of language training to learn another language. Anglophones can still learn French very feasibly. Spanish is said to be the easiest of the world's most spoken languages (in terms of language speakers) and the NVTC ranks it in the same difficulty category as French, so as difficult as learning as second language may be, French is no where near being a particularly difficult language. As the NVTC states, it's really difficult to compare, because people have such varied language backgrounds (and different levels of second language training), so it's difficult (or impossible) to determine absolutes of "one language being easier than another language for all people". If it takes roughly the same amount of time for an Anglophone to learn French as Spanish, and Spanish being the easiest international language to learn as a foreign language, French can't be that difficult. I don't know if we could say the same about the English language, being a language of exceptions. Francophones in most parts of Québec would find it just as tough as those living in non-English speakin countries to learn the language because they didn't have your opportunity to "learn it on the streets". @Leafless: Assimilation in terms of language is usually forced. The 'absorbing' body enforces their school system immediately on the 'absorbed' body. People learn languages for their own benefit. Some people learn languages for when they go on vacation, some to work within a certain community... and some to simply increase work opportunities. People will learn a language if it's available and they see the need, however at the exception of a handful of individuals, most people do not have the intention of losing their family's language in order to gain another one (and the less people feel they need second language training, the less likely they are to learn a second language... no matter how many opportunities may be waiting for them in another language in another locale). The typical scenario upon colonization is: generation A only speaks their mother tongue; generation B is bilingual because they speak their parents' language at home and they learn the newly implemented language at school (and are forced to use that language) and then generation C usually only speaks the new majority language of their locale, because generation B felt less attached to their inherited language. This didn't happen in Québec because the English never changed the education system, so anyone going to public schools in Québec wanting to learn English would have to learn it as a second language, meaning most won't learn it. Why do English Canadians learn French? (I'll give you a hint, it's the same answer). Personal opinion?! Would I state it if it weren't my opinion? Silly statement of yours. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation. First mention is linguistic assimilation. Second mention is irrelevant to this thread (biology assimilation) and the third mention is cultural assimilation, with its definition, possible relevant terms and the example of religious assimilation of the Jews (and it mentions that assimilation often occurs with immigration). Notice the three mentions are not in alphabetical order, meaning it's probably in order of importance. English Canadians have the same similarities/differences with Americans as a century ago. We have the same amount of similar/different food, similar/different holidays... etc. If anything, English Canadians are now less like Americans since Canada switched to metrics. Canadian English however may be threatened by American English (other than writing color with a U), but that's another example of language usually being the major issue in terms of assimilation. You're welcome to try to prove my 'opinion' wrong. Again, I wouldn't state it if it weren't my opinion. Maybe you'd state things which weren't your opinions, because you seem to have to point out what my opinion is. Without official bilingualism, we'd still have costs and government corruption. It's inevitable. Keeping a record? That depends on how you identify gov't expenses. If you include all salary paid to bilingual employees, then yes, you'll tabulate a large expense which would have been spent on salary anyway. What if two or more people disagree on the definition of the expense of bilingualism? Good luck tabulating it... any numbers tabulated would show bias directly affecting how one defines these expenses. I suppose you don't think highly of most Ottawans, who breathe politics. I don't support any of the parties myself but for reasons other than language. It is reciprocal. Canadians can receive public education in their parents' domestic language anywhere. However, it's tricky if you're not from the locale's minority language (English in the QC, French in the RoC) to get public education in that language. Even though Québec didn't sign the constitution, they still pretty much comply with everything in it. By the way, I ask you again to point out the specific parts of Québec's constitution which you find discriminating (if that's still your opinion).

The English did not fail at assimilating French Quebec. They did not want to be assimilated. After the fall of Quebec City in 1759 and under British rule, the 65,000 French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec had a single aim - to retain their traditions, language and culture. You are totally wrong to assume, "no people voluntarily choose assimilation; it's always forced." I would assert, English Canadians in general, have voluntarily choose to be U.S. assimilated, as many Quebecers also have chosen that route, outside of language which they retain for political reasons and pure spite, stemming from the fact relating to their outright hatred of anything English. It would be an outright lie to suggest Quebecers have not been U.S. assimilated outside of their language. Yes the English failed at assimilating the Québecers. The Québecers did not want to be assimilated just like no one chooses assimilation. How could English Canadians be assimilated by the USA? Assimilation almost exclusively refers to language when refering to a people of a given locale. English Canadians may devour American mass media, yet the local cultures between the RoC and the USA are still quite different (food, religion - proportionally speaking in terms of denominations... the USA has tons of culture that never reached Canada significantly). People of all countries consume American mass media, it does not mean that they are any less of their own culture. Nonsense. I have pointed out the many aspects of Québec's culture other than language that is unique to the QC. Only in Québec can one buy a poutine at McDonald's. Suggesting that Québecers have been assimilated in all aspects other than language would be either a lie or a sign of great ignorance. Thirty-three years of bilingualism have cost Canadian tax payers $700-Billion dollars, which is more than our national debt. http://www.languagefairness.com/Cost.php That's a very biased website. Are you a member of this "language fairness" community? Please give me a source without such a strong bias. By the way, when these costs are added up, they are not taking into consideration the fact that they would need staff to work certain jobs anyway, so staffing these positions with bilingual candidates is not really an additional expense, despite the fact that it seems your sources includes the salaries of all bilingual employees (money which would be spent anyway). At the expense of running Canada like a 'banana republic' by corrupt French PM's, under the guise of emulating a democracy where the judiciary can also determine what can and cannot be legislated and then rubber stamped by our so called, self serving elected representatives. I thought you didn't like any of our PMs, not just the ones from France.

Depends on what we understand by "non-procreative" sex. Heterosexual relations are, in general, open to proceation. If infertility is not related to behavior, there is nothing abnormal about the behavior. @AMAI: It is indeed behavior that one could change if they accept its wrongness. One is not bound to practicing homosexual relations, even if they are only attracted to the same sex. I do not want to suggest that one sin could equate to another. I simply wanted to explain that most major religious institutions define homosexual and all extra-marital relations as sinful (which Rue somehow interprets as evil). @Rue: Please be concise! Please, next time do not exceed 1 000 words (including quoted text). I was unaware of any myth about pedophiles=homosexuals. I do not claim that homosexuals are pedophiles or vice-versa, but I just wanted to point out that any reliable numbers you quote will show that there is a higher rate of pedophiles in the "male-kiss-male" category as the "male-kiss-(explusively)-female" category. The rate of pedophiles, even amongst those engaging in same-sex pedophilia is incredibly low and I would neve assume that a homosexual is a pedophile, I was simply pointing out that there is a higher rate in that group due to the fact that the homosexual population is insignificant, even in the gay capitals. Please quote these clinical definitions. You yourself earlier stated that heterosexual relations are also not defined by age. My point is that sexual relations are not defined by age, meaning a man who has sex with a male, regardless of age, is either gay or bisexual. Please quote this "clinical definition" to prove me wrong (with a reliable source please). Stating "well that's your opinion" is indeed a typical liberal response, no offense intended (find me a conservative who has stated that and I will take my comment back). However, I have never suggested that I fear gays (I fear pedophiles just as little; they don't attack us "grown-ups"). Those engaging in same sex relations with children also fall into the GBLT group. Why do you even care to fight this definition? Just because a man has sex with a woman doesn't mean he's any less part of the GBLT if he also has sex with boys. By the way, the NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) never claimed (to my knowledge) adult-child relations were non-homosexual when manifested by an adult and child of the same sex. I'm sorry about the misconceptions that came with your up-bringing. Because no person is perfect, we are all sinners. That does not mean that we are evil. This probably explains the huge missunderstanding on this post. You missinterpret my statements are re-word them in completely inaccurate ways. Please do not re-word my statements. Is a thief evil? Only God knows that thief's heart. Theft is still a sin. An active homosexual commits a sin, yet that doesn't make him evil. Homosexuals are sinners, just like the rest of us. Those who abstain from homosexual relations, even if they are only attracted to those of the same sex, are not commiting any sin related to being a homosexual. I state again, being a homosexual is not a sin, but practicing homosexual relations is (so is all extra-marital relations). I do not know which homosexuals have an active homosexual sex-life, meaning I do not know who is commiting these sins, and I'd rather not know; other peoples' sex lives are none of my business nor interest and I do not judge people by sexual orientation; those of the GBLT may be more, less or even just as sinful as me and I have no interest in judging them. You can feel free to start your own church and call whatever you like a sin, but unless you have an institution to back you, I don't need your opinion on what is and what is not a sin. If you don't pertain to any institution, why do you even care what a sin is? I do believe that the practice of same sex relations is a sin, and so do most major religious institutions. One does not have to practice such relations, even if they are attracted to the same sex. I don't see how you see this as a game. If you don't pertain to a major religious institution, you are then only obliged to local laws. I'm sorry that you were raised to think that because sin is evil, sinners must be evil. Think of being a sinner as not being perfect and sins are what we commit when we act in an imperfect manner. Sex is a beautiful thing, that's why it's morally practiced between a man and a woman married to eachother. Please do not confuse sin with evil. Don't get me wrong here, most people engaging in extra-marital sexual relations do not have the intention of harming eachother. These people may not be evil of nature, but they act upon their "imperfections". Again you use "your personal [...] views". I wouldn't state it if I viewed it otherwise! You keep arguing that homosexual/extra-marital relations are not immoral, yet who are you to define morality? What book do you use to define morality? Why should I believe your opinion when I believe in what was writen long ago? If you must criticize my beliefs, yours make even less sense; claiming that such acts are not wrong and hoping that your socio-liberal friends will be in agreement with you. A quick run-thru on the justification of my belief with regards to this post: 1. There is Absolute Truth. If there were no absolute truth, the abscence of absolute truth would be an absolute truth in itself, meaning there must be absolute truth. 2. The Bible Book (Holy Scriptures) is a good authority. See http://www.gracethrufaith.com/selah/the-bibles-authority and read it completely before arguing this statement. 3. Jesus said he is the way, the Truth and the light (John 14:6) 4. That would make Jesus a liar, a fool or the messiah. 5. Jesus had neither the characteristics of a liar nor of a fool, therefore we can conclude that he is the messiah. 6. The Bible book states that practicing homosexuality is a sin (in several passages including 1 Cor 6:9-10), read more at http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/hompbia1.htm Do you have any reason for believing that homosexual/extra-marital relations are not a sin? Other than rape, sexual relations do not tend to have cruel intentions, and sex is not a bad thing, but rather a gift from God. God gave us rules. We all have the freedom to act as we like, but that does not change whether something is a sin or not. Nobody is forcing you to even believe that sin exists, but if you want to determine certain actions as sinful or non-sinful, you'll need an institution to back you because outside religious institutions, no one cares about the sins you commit (unless they are also related to local laws). I don't judge others because I am not intersted in the personal lives of those who do not wish to share their lives with me. There's no point in me judging others, because it doesn't achieve anything. I leave judgement up to Jahovah, I let God sort 'em out. Unless someone pays me to work in court, there's no incentive for me to judge others. Except in countries where the practice of homosexual relations is illegal (such as Nicaragua, Jamaica...). As for stating "healthy", read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/723699/posts. "The risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. [...] A Michigan homosexual newspaper admits there is no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk. Condoms offer only limited protection." GBLT people may be healthy in all other aspects, and even if they do manage to avoid STDs, but STDs are not the only reason GBLT people average shorter life spans. This is no judgement (in case you were about to make such an accusation), and feel free to try and prove otherwise, this is a forum afterall (but use reliable sources). Those are some terrible questions which can only be correctly answered with other questions. It's like if I were to ask you "do you still rape boys?" (either yes or no would be a terrible answer). Please ask relevant questions. I will answer with a comment though. Firstly, it doesn't matter what I claim to be. Secondly, I stated that everyone, whether I like them or not, are sinners (including myself). I do not claim anyone to be pedophiles. I simply stated that there is a higher rate of pedophiles in the population practicing same-sex relations (regardless of age) than in the population practicing opposite-sex relations. This is true, given pedophiles who have same-sex relations with children pertain to the GBLT (which there is no reason for believing otherwise... your clinical definitions don't make sense... please provide a concrete reliable source stating that man-child relations are neither homosexual nor heterosexual).

Nunavut, NWT and Yukon, considered as a unit, have lots of that. When the people aren't too drunk or besotted from gasoline sniffing to dance or sing that is. I'll second that, but the territories are not provinces and Native Canadian culture is not a mainstream culture of any of the 10 provinces. Neither is French a mainstream culture of any of (nine out of ten) provinces. In Canada our culture mimics the U.S. culture including Quebec, so back off with the BS and Quebec's language of 'New France' that has been obliterated since 1759. The only reason French is still alive in Quebec is because of the efforts of corrupt federal French politicians. Individual cultures pertaining to groups, are basically only relevant to those groups and that is providing they have the society that can support their culture, without the collective help of other cultures, (Canada at large) or the more precisely, the tax payers of Canada. French Canadian culture is a mainstream culture in Québec, and they are celebrating their culture regardless of government intervention. The only reason French is still alive in Québec is because the English failed at assimilating the Québecers upon colonization. As I mentioned earlier, no people voluntarily choose assimilation; it's always forced. What the taxpayers are paying for is federal bilingualism. It's not that big an expense considering the kind of money all governments waste on the most useless things (like redecorating the prime minister's house every time a new PM is elected). Plus we have something to show for this expense; we are a country of two languages. It's not gonna change any time soon.

I was using a mid-point between the numbers you found and the ones I found. I was saying "roughly" for the purpose of my point, precision doesn't matter too much in this case; +/-5%. Please learn the diagramme if you haven't, and if you had, please read it again! Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram Firstly, what you've mentioned in your response of sexual relations with a child being neither straight nor gay is totally absurd, because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation; it's a disorder. Back to the Venn diagramme. Get your colored pencils and a sheet of paper if you need a visual. Lets say you have cirle A: those practicing heterosexual relations. Cirlce B: those practicing homosexual relations. Circle C: those having sexual relations with minors. Those practicing abstinence stand outside the three circles (say in area G). Most people are in and only in Circle A. Circles A and B have a very small overlap (bisexuals). No one can be in circle C yet neither pertaining to circle A nor circle B. To say that gays are pedophiles is to suggest that most in circle B are also in circle C. That is not at all what I stated. Circle C is much smaller than circles A and B. In fact, even if everyone in circle C were also in circle B (if all pedophiles were gay), they would still be a very small minority within circle B. I'm fully aware that a majority of those in circle C are in circle A and not in circle B. However, due to circle B's small size, there is a higher proportion of pedophiles in group B than in group A. Please understand this thouroughly before you acuse me of saying that gays are pedophiles. The only reason I mentioned this is because you stated earlier that gays are not pedophiles, and I'll agree that most aren't, yet a higher proportion of those falling in group B are also in group C than those in group A. Moral judgment? Nonsense. How many times does someone have to commit theft before they are a thief? It only takes once for someone guilty of theft to be caught and identified by the law as a thief. This has nothing to do with religion. You tell me, how many people do I have to kill to be a murderer?! How many walls must I spray-paint to be a vandal? You tell me. No age for hetero- nor bi-sexual relations? Red herring. I'm aware of this, it doesn't change anything. If a man has sex with a girl, he's sexually active. If that man has sex with a boy, he's homosexual or bisexual. Same deal if that man has sexual relations with an adult of the same/opposite sex; however having sex with a child makes him a pedophile, aswell as sexually active (and in the case of man-boy, gay aswell). Pedophilia may not be typical homosexual behavior, (fancy that, most gays are not pedophiles!) however a case of man-boy is a case of homosexuality. I do not preach that gays are evil. In fact, I'm sure gays are overall law-abiding citizens (unless they are active homosexuals in countries where the practice is forbiden). I believe that extra-marital relations are immoral and mariage can only be shared between man and woman. I'm glad there are objective people like you who would disagree. That's why I propose the desecularization of marriage, that way the church I belong to can marry whoever they like without pressure from the liberals (and if I disagree with my church, I can simply leave, whereas simply choosing to not pay taxes to a gov't I disagree with isn't so easy), and gays can freely consider themselves married or not by their definition if they please. If my gov't doesn't have an opinion and lets people marry on "their own terms", it's best for all of us. The hate?! I don't hate gays, nor do the people who wrote that page hate 'em. Westboro Baptist Church hates gays, and they base their beliefs on Calvinism, believing that people are born a certain way. Hey, that's essentially what you believe, isn't it? Gays are sinners and so am I. We commit different sins though (well, not necessarily in the case of inactive homosexuals who practice no sexual immorality because they do not participate in extra-marital sex). I do not define gays as sinful. I define the practice of homosexuality a sin, amongst many other things. In terms of morality, all extra-marital relations are equal. In practice, homosexuality is something else, because it's an extra "point of no return" in one's life. Those practicing heterosexual extramarital relations are just as wrong, but it would be less of a challenge for them to later practice sexual relations within marriage than for those who have known the homosexual relations (going by the definition of marriage that it be between man and woman... gays can consider themselves married if they want, but I still have the freedom to not recognize such a marriage, and every institution should also have the freedom to choose whether they recognize it aswell). I pray to God that the sinful gays be saved?! Where in the world did you find that? Did I say that was my prayer? I don't know God's intentions with certainty, and human intentions only get in the way with God's plans. I'd rather keep my prayers without the intervention of my intentions in case my intentions are wrong. I will assume that God knows better than all of us what's best for each of us. I don't hide behind religion, I'd prefer with keep this discussion secular. Even if I weren't Christian, I still would have quoted the same source, because they provide an objective perspective on the topic, and it is written professionally (hate-free that is). I appreciate the pun. I never stated that pedophiles are gays. I am fully aware that most pedophiles only do man-girl relations, but due to the fact that the GBLT is very small to begin with, there is a higher proportion of pedophiles who have man-boy relations in the GBLT than those having man-girl relations in the straight group (see my earlier explanation in this reply using the Venn diagramme). Please pray for our salvation. Every prayer helps. IMHO, if you pray with bad intentions, you're only wasting your time. Is everything relative to you?! Is there anything absolute? The absence of absolute truth is an absolute truth in itself. A certain "norm" must exist. By the way, I post my opinions, so stating "that's your personal opinion" is absurd because if it weren't my opinion, I wouldn't state it (I might refer to it, but I wouldn't include it as my own statemeny). Please don't use the typical liberal response of "that's your opinion". I've heard it only too often and it doesn't mean anything because I clearly wouldn't make a statement I believed were false. Face it, humans were created in a certain way. People go through puberty, opening their eyes to the possibility of having a relationship open to fertility. Any distortion in this process is abnormal. It is completely normal to have homoerotic fantasies, but such fantasies do not make someone gay; it's only if they act upon these fantasies resulting in homosexual relations. I hope it's the last time you say it, because it's absurd. No sexual relations can be neither homosexual nor heterosexual. Pedophilia not a sexual orientation (nor is beastiality). You are making an accusation. I do not hate gays and I never said I did. If you please, let's keep this thread secular. You seem to be losing it over religion, which should be saved for another post. I couldn't care less who you are aswell, however you ridicule my comments with nonsense. I ask you to please be concise, because your posts are much too long and say too little. Please quote where I litteraly state that gays are pedophiles. I've never heard of this stereotype before you mentioned it on this post, all I knew was to prove that there is a higher proportion of those involved in male-male relations (of any age) who are pedophiles than those involved in male-female relations (of any age). Even your numbers prove this. I'll use an example with numbers to make this more obvious (using hypothetical, feasible numbers so don't argue the accuracy). Let country Lummerland have a population of 100 000. Say 10 000 are GBLT. The remaining 90 000 are straight. Say Lummerland has 4 pedophiles. 1 pedophile molests boys (he may molest girls aswell, this is irrelevant). The remaining 3 only molest girls. 3 of 90 000 is 0.000033333%. 1 of 10 000 is 0.0001%. The latter is a higher proportions, however small it may be. That was my point.

Rue, I'll admit that although I skipped most pages of this thread prior to my first post and that I probably quoted a biased source, I read everything you wrote, no matter how absurd it may have been. The source I quoted may have been biased, but pretty much all sources on that topic are biased. Whether it's 20 or 30% of pedophiles who belong to the GBLT, that's still a huge proportion cosidering lets say roughly a quarter of pedophiles are gay, yet gays represent lets say 1.5% of the total population. Maybe 75% (roughly) of pedophiles are clearly not gay, yet they belong to the remaining 98.5% of the population. Now I comment. What myth? I never said that gays are pedophiles. Look at it this way: if you devide a population based on hair color, you'll get roughly the same number of pedophiles in each group. If you devide population by sexual orientation, you have a much higher rate of pedophiles in the GBLT than outside the GBLT. Figure this: 1-2% of people are gay. Much less than 1% of people are pedophiles (I imagine). So even if all pedophiles were gay, most gays would still probably not be pedophiles. The GBLT simply has the highest rate of homosexuals. I will still assume that a homosexual is not a pedophile due to the fact that even if all pedophiles were gay, they'd still be a minority amongst gays. Children may not look physically like adults, yet boys still have a penis and girls still have a vagina. If a man has sex with a boy, he is having sex with someone of the same sex, meaning it's homosexual relations (this definition is not limited by age). You could take all the variables you like into consideration, like the fact that some boy-molesting pedophiles wouldn't have relations with a full-grown man, but they may not have relations with a full-grown woman either. I consider all possibilities, but the fact that a man who rapes a boy would be a participant in same-sex relations doesn't change. A pedophile may prefer those of the opposite sex, but if they have same-sex relations, they have had homosexual relations and are therefore a homoseuxal. Someone is guilty of their acts until forgiven. It only takes once... if one commits theft once, they are a thief. If one participates in homosexual relations once, they are homosexual (or bi-sexual). The list goes on. This remains until one repents and makes a firm commitment to not persue such acts. Homosexuality is tricky though, one can be an inactive homosexual, and this is where the Catholic Church is the most gay-tolerant large religious institution. I explain. All major (religious) institutions claim that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. However, the Catholic Church admits the possibility of being an inactive homosexual. In other words, one who is (exclusively) sexually attracted to those of the same sex yet choose abstinence. These people are doing nothing immoral according to the Catholic Church (extramarital relations are immoral in the Catholic Church whether hetero- or homosexual). Other institutions would not understand "inactive homosexuality" and would simply keep praying until the devils go away (and that the person no longer be homosexual), or simply exclude the gay individual from the community, including Evangelicals, Muslims and Jews. Nonsense, younger looking women are not children. Unless these straight guys go bellow legal age for intercourse, they aren't causing any harm to society. A homosexual is someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex. The definition I have from WordWeb is "Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex". No mention of age in that definition. Any community can use any part of any research they like. The source I quoted provided some numbers. As I said, these pedophiles may not be predisposed to homosexuality, but if they have sex with a kid of the same sex, then they fit that definition mentioned above. These Christian groups are giving an objective look at some data. There was no "hate" (to my knowledge) in the source I quoted. Quoting numbers presented by a certain group in itself is not un-"Christian like". I'll admit that I am Christian, but you are using a personal attack (refering to religion) by your nonsensical comment. I pray for whoever I please, and if I pray for a homosexual, I make the same prayer I make for straight people; that God's will be done. By the way, this post is about homosexuality, not about pedophilia. I simply wanted to comment that you were wrong in stating that there were no correlation between homosexuals and pedophiles. A large number of pedophiles engage in man-boy relations, meaning they fit the definition of 'homosexual' (regardless of whether or not they would engage in man-man relations). I never accused gays of being pedophiles, I just said that there is an existing correlation (as weak as it may be, gays are still more likely to be pedophiles than straights). Those pertaining to the GBLT are more likely to have a higher education than straight people though. I'm kinda curious, but I wonder if pedophiles are more likely to average higher education than the general population. My point for this thread is that homosexuality is not normal and we should not be expected to not assume that everyone is straight, for the simple reason that 98+% of people are straight.

Nunavut, NWT and Yukon, considered as a unit, have lots of that. When the people aren't too drunk or besotted from gasoline sniffing to dance or sing that is. I'll second that, but the territories are not provinces and Native Canadian culture is not a mainstream culture of any of the 10 provinces.

Why does the problem with dual citizenship stop at the governor general and the prime minister? Even a potential prime minister, which could be anyone really. Why shouldn't every member of Cabinet, who all minister the Crown, not be Canadian only? What about all the members of the Privy Council? The RCMP? The Armed Forces? All the people in these organizations swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada, and serve her and the country, but what happens when they also have allegiance to a foreign head of state/constitution/flag/whatever as well? I'm not saying I have the answer, but it's something to think about: if it's not going to be all or nothing, then where do we draw the line? I'd say being born Canadian should be enough (and I wish that were the one and only criteria to enter Canadian politics). America and Mexico would never let someone born outside the respective country to become president and it makes sense. However, there's no reason to stop dual-citizens from entering politics; having another citizenship does not make a Canadian citizen any less Canadian than the rest. Seriously though, if Dion voted in French elections, that's his business. I'd vote in foreign politics had I been dual citizen... why not? Citizens of a given country 'should' vote, including those living abroad. Taking from Dion's platform, he'd probably vote left, against the Nationalist biggot who was elected. I'm conservative myself, but nationalism is simply authoritarian corruption, so it wouldn't matter if it were fascism or communism (and a French politician who doesn't like Germany is not going to be governing favorably).

Rue, please quote your sources. I quote mine: - http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.phpMost molestors are straight, but a huge rate are gay, pertaining to a very small (and insignificant) proportion of the total population. Face it, if someone is gay, they are more likely to be a pedophile than their straight fellow men. The article uses numbers from The "National Opinion Research Center, [who] in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual." Straight pedophiles will find ways of molesting girls. Straight male rapists are more likely to rape a woman of any age between 7 and 77 than to rape a guy. Makes sense that the most common case is man-rape-girl, because most rapists are men (almost exclusively) and a majority of them are straight. The fact that almost a third of molestors belong to up to 2% of the population means they are up to a high rate within that group. There are many factors that can make someone turn to homosexuality. We're all born with distinct personalities and some may have a higher predisposition to homosexuality than others, but there is no proof that anyone is born gay. As I said earlier, believing that one is born gay is as ridiculous as believing that one is born saved or not, Calvinist ideology which inspired the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. There is no proof to this theory. One could not possibly know that they are gay prior to puberty because they cannot comprehend romantic love at that age. These are simply cases of cunfused children who consider themselves 'different' and try sorting this out without proper direction. I will admit that all unproven things are possible, but there is no reason to believe that people are born gay. Being molested is a point of no return. It will trigger some sort of behavior which would most likely otherwise not be triggered. Not necessarily homosexuality, but it's a very possible outcome. Children not having been molested do not go through this 'point of no return' and are not forced to think about sexuality so early in their life that they are less likely to pertain to a minority group of any kind.

Like I said previously, The British did not know what to do with Quebec. Their language and religion were not compatible with the British and that is the reason for the 'Quebec Act', let them co-exist among themselves. Why would they be considered refugees if they had fled back to France? The place was called New France prior to the British win on the 'Plains of Abraham'. The Quebec French elite that fled back to France were not considered refugees. The elite who returned to France were probably born in France. Those who stayed were already at least a few generations Canadian by then. If they were to go to to France, it would be a first for them and they would already have to adjust from living in another continent with another culture, etc. They were forced to make compromises and if they felt that way initially, why did they even think about joining confederation? Why did they not stand on their own two feet, if they felt they constituted the status of a country? Yes, they were forced to make compromises... my point exactly; they never chose assimilation! Why is that so difficult for you to understand? By the way, the Québecers were the first to call themselves Canadians (http://www.agoracosmopolite.com/leadership_candidate.htm) and the idea of seperation came much later... at the time they were really keen on being part of the maple leaf. I think you have perfectly described the political ideologies of Quebec, with Quebec being the latter. Québec is not making such nonsense statements as you are. You have that wrong. What you mean is, Quebec shares the same similarities and differences with CANADA as any other province would for the simple reason Quebec would not exist without the good fortune of being a province in Canada. No, I mean the Québecers share many of the same similarities and differences with mainstream North American culture as many other countries do. Most of the RoC has no distinct culture; they're sell-outs to the mainstream culture for the most part. No I am not trolling, I am serious, Quebec has been assimilated, as a group of refugees, many who think Quebec still belongs to France (the same problem Britain had) but continue to be in an advanced state if illusionary denial by thinking they are a legitimate French country, competing culturally with Canada. Nonsense, the Québecers don't like the French (their lack of support in both world wars is a good example of this). They don't have to compete culturally, most Canadian culture comes out of Québec. Québec probably has more distinct food and produces more music than the entire RoC combined. All Canadian provinces do have a distinct culture. But your right about not being able to face your arguments which to me, are actually fabricated arguments based on your false belief relating to Quebec importance, superiority and distinct culture, which in my mind do not exist. Yeah, all provinces have distinct culture, but can you provide examples of dances, music, cuisine or other cultural manifestations celebrated throughout and exclusively in a given Canadian province? Please give me examples of the RoC proveinces' distinct culture. I bet there is some, but I've been to most provinces and haven't seen a significant difference between provinces in the regional cultures of the RoC. I am right that you can't face my arguments because you refuse to recognize Québec's culture. Importance and superiority? More nonsense; I never claimed Québec were more important nor superior to any of the RoC provinces. Québec is just like any other provinces politically, it's simply populated by a people sharing a very different culture from the RoC who agree on the minority official language. There's nothing wrong with that. How could they be refugees classified nationals? That makes even less sense. The only case where Québecers "could" be refugees in Canada is if they actually do seperate and some cross the border into the RoC to stay, because if they do become their own country, then and only then would they be foreigners in the RoC. By the way, that's "government's" with an apostrophe because it's possessive, in correct English spelling. I'm actually playing the devil's advocate because you write total nonsense about the QC. I don't actually care about Québec in perticular, to me they're just like any other province with nice landscape who respects human rights just as effectively as the RoC, but I couldn't help but defend Canada when I see your completely absurd comments. I was hoping to discuss bilingualism in Ottawa in this thread, but you keep relating it to Québec (despite Ottawa being in Ontariario, last I checked).

Most provinces are supported through equalization. Canada's cultural programs are often reciprocal... many Francophones and Anglophones do cultural exchanges, usually an internship in either the QC or the RoC where they can work on their 2nd Canadian language. What Québec wants to do with their money is their business, but federal money spent on culture is invested in a reciprocal manner.

hat country are you talking about? The Germans occupied France and the French were under control by the German forces, unlike Quebec that was now an English colony with the left overs that did not flee back to France. They were refugees and political prisoners of the British and continued living their previous lifestyle as they were in no postion to do anything else, or fight to the death which they didn't do. Yeah, some political prisoners... hahahahahaha. They could still work, go to school and to church and had all their rights in terms of practicality. Why would the "left overs" flee back to France? They were no longer French by this point. Had they fled to France, then they'd be refugees. Then why don't they have their own country? Why have they accepted being FORCED to live with the English? I don't think Québec 'accepted' being colonized by the English. They made compromises. I don't have to leave North America, we have it ALL right here. The more you know, the more you are aware of how little you really know. The less you know, the more you think you know. You seem to be an example of the latter. There's a whole world out there, so much happening outside our continent. You should at least go on vacation somewhere outside North Am, it just might broaden your horizons. One thing North Am doesn't have are the two most touristic cities in the world; Paris followed by Madrid. We also don't have pyramids (unless you include Mexico), we don't have the world's largest music store (which is in Germany) nor do we have all the world's historical monuments like Noah's Ark. Had you visited countries outside North Am, you'd probably see that Québec shares most of the same similarities and differences with the USA as any other nation would. All provinces are part of Canada and all provinces possess cultural distinctiveness, which is no reason to claim special rights because of it. All Quebec has to do is grow up and realize New France is gone forever. That wasn't the point. You were trolling about how Québec has been assimilated into North American culture, and I was pointing out that Québec really does offer plenty of distinct culture and then you state that all provinces have distinct culture. This is a red herring. Seems like you can't actually face my arguments.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Shows your slow comprehension capacities. You were trolling about the Charter and I pointed out that equal rights affects only nationals, not foreigners/refugees. It's a good thing that Canadians, regardless of background are to be treated equally. The ways you misinterpret the Charter are frightening. I don't agree with the Charter. I think it is a total sham and an insult to Canadians. I consider the Charter relating to Quebec, totally corrupt and implemented by traitorous politicians. I have said this many times throughout this thread. Don't make me repeat myself by bringing up the same Quebec BS. It's good that you suggest that what you've been bringing up about Québec is BS. I will agree with you on that. You're the only one who seems to be insulted by the Charter. Please point out the corruption in Québec's Charter. Please quote them and point out whatever you find outrageous. I doubt you'll find any 'discriminatory' rights. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Because of your poor comprehension skills. See it as QC vs. Canada, the feds. (simple, isn't it?) QC can hold a referendum on whether or not Québec is to leave Canada. The feds can hold a referendum on whether QC should be booted out of Canada or not. It makes sense that QC would have referenda. The Basks and several other minority groups in this world have tried to seperate from their country (the Portugal is an example of successful seperation). It makes sense that the feds not have referenda on booting QC out because no country wants to renounce territory.

I guess your definition also fails to define the Québecers at the time of English colonization. They didn't take refuge in a foreign country (they stayed in their country because they were no longer French at this point), nor were they fleeing from war nor persecution nor natural disaster because none of such things were waiting for them anywhere. Nice try, but you failed to define Québecers as ever having been refugees. They did not stay in their country, for the simple reason it was no longer their country. What they were forced to stay in was a foreign land belonging to the English. Please understand that statement. The embarrassing fact (now that you are making nonsensical statements) is they had no place to go, they were foreign French refugees, trapped in a foreign land. They could not afford the voyage back to France like their elite leaders, who left them stranded and at the mercy of the British. It was still their country. Going by your logic, would you also consider the French in German-occupied France to be refugees or even foreigners? That would be absurd. The change of government did not have much of an effect on the Québecers at the time. They still ate the same food, wore the same clothes, practiced the same religion and most certainly spoke the same language, even after the English had colonized Québec. This doesn't seem anything like a group of refugees who couldn't afford to go home. Nonsense. Don't make false statements, because Québec has not accepted assimilation. I quote a website: - www.renardus.org/cgi-bin/genDDCbrowseSQL.pl?node=AAHSZ&ID=212With regards to technology, Québec uses it's own French Canadian keyboard. They have a different taste for cars (Pontiac Parisiennes and certain other cars are much more likely to have Québec plates in Canada). Anything else would be incredibly inconvenient (different sockets and voltage... etc.) and are not even really relevant to culture. By the way, Québec is one of few people who use American text books. Because certain things like accounting and law are nothing like in France, the Québecers can't use French academic resources, yet they manage to publish their own as opposed to using English language text books. That's something that many countries have not achieved (most countries use American textbooks in universities even in countries where no English is spoken; people do their studies in English because their language may not support it). The French language also keeps up with vocabulary for technology where most languages simply adopt the English words. French, even in Canada, is no where near being an obsolete language. People listen to American music in all 192 countries in the world. Does that mean they've all been assimilated? According to Leafless, when it comes to Québec, it does. What about the tons of people no where near English-speaking countries who only listen to American music? I don't think a kid in Hungary nor Turkey who only listens to American music has been assimilated... same goes for a kid in the deep woods of Québec. Do you honnestly think 'American' frozen food is any different from the frozen food in Europe? I haven't noticed any difference... it's all frozen food. Have you even ever left North America, at very least for vacation?! The whole world watches American films (well, maybe not Cuba or North Korea, but otherwise pretty much the entire world is pluged into American cinema). Of course they have Canadian-type socialist parties... they're Canadian. Facny that. Yet Québec musicians can live wealthy touring only in their province. There's an obvious demand for local music/culture. By the way, CKTF in Ottawa/Gatineau plays about 50-50... half in English and half in French. They also prefer to play the music in English which is most popular in Québec, which may differ from the charts in Ontariario/the RoC. Remember, Québecers are not French. The Québecers originate from Normandie for the most part, making them ethnically Scandinavian Viking, yet this goes far back that Québec doesn't really retain culture from Normandie. Québecers are neither ethnically French, nor culturally. They have their own culture meaning their own food, so it would be quite ignorant to assume that everyone of a given language likes the same type of cheese (think about the difference between American and English food). Using European sockets, currency, etc. would simply be inefficient. They're not aspects of culture anyway. This suggests that you may be insane. If you cannot see that Québec has its own distinct culture, there's no point going on about this.

I see all humans alike, and many humans do have their issues. It doesn't make them sub-human. However, it seems that most pedophiles are attracted to the same sex. There's a low rate of gay people, and amongst those gay people are most child molestors. Even if I knew one was gay, I would into assume that they molest children (because there's still probably a minority of gays who are also pedophiles) but to say that gays are just as unlikely as heterosexuals to be pedophiles is probably false. The pre-pubescent cannot know if they are gay nor straight. They have not developped that part of their mind. Kids believing that they are gay prior to hitting puberty are convincing themselves that they are something that they might not really be, putting themselves through hardships for nothing. Wanting to kiss girls at 5 years old is nothing like wanting to get laid with them. Fraternal love and romantic love are two very distinct types of love (the Greeks had the 4 words for Love, we only have one). That's a theory with no concrete proof. What came closest to proving this was an article I saw on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5120004.stm. It has a lot to do with number of siblings, and other 'environmental factors' as I would identify them. Do you have a link refering to someone proving or at least claiming this? There are many cases where guys hook up with tons of ladies and eventually turn to the guy side looking for something different. I had already mentioned that there is no proof that people are born gay. Suggesting that some are born gay is almost as silly as suggesting that Calvin was right (well, the Westboro Baptist Church thinks Calvin was right...). What non-judgemental counselling? All counsellors are biased. Those working as counsellors for the GLBT community are biased towards 'gay-tolerance' and will encourage one into believing that homosexuality is normal, which it isn't. A psychologist would never recommend that one starts smoking cigarettes, even if the person claims that they always knew they'd be a smoker, nor would they encourage people to join the gothic sub-culture. I'm sure transgendered people really believe that they are in the wrong body... and they are quite wrong for believing that. They have a psychological issue that needs to be sorted out. Doesn't make them bad people nor sub-human. Being molested leaves a mark on one's mind. It's a point of no return in one's life. Those having been molested take different paths in their life than they would otherwise. Some abstain from sexual activity altogether, even though they may have become a great parent. Others usually end up quite promiscuous, and amongst them many end up gay. Not all gay people were molested as children, but there is probably a higher rate of gays molested as a child as opposed to heterosexuals molested as a child. Why would training from a lesbian lower the divorce rate?! The GLBT community does not have a lower divorce rate than amongst straight people. Québec is more liberal than the RoC. It's even worse when people associate homosexuality as a spiritual manifestation. It's comforming to the desires of the flesh, not those of the spirit. Many people may have a dream/fantasy of getting laid with a person of the same sex, someone much older/younger, cartoon characters, extra-terrestrial beings, etc. doesn't make these people of minority sexual orientations. It's whether they act upon these fantasies or not changes everything.