bobocop

so I choose to marry my 10 year neice, who cares, it's no one elses business. what I choose to do behind shut doors, is my business and mine alone. so I choose to beat my wife and my religion tells me I am allowed, who cares, it's no one elses business. different strokes for different folks. Really.....who cares

I am not opposed to gay marriage. What I am concerned with is the precedent this may be setting. The further we move away from our Judeo-Christian law, the further our society as Canadians may degrade. The main reason for letting gay couples enter into a marriage is it is their right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is the next step, my religion dictates that I can marry more than one women. Oh, and by the way, I own these women and oh yeah, my religion allows me to beat my property.

canoe.ca Two lads were abused, caged, chained, scared for their lives for 13 years but their "parents" are sentenced to 9 months. That's right, 9 months. Their childhood taken away from them and the "parents" get a slap on the wrist. This just makes me sick. Gotta love liberal turn style justice.

Thanks NoelandMero You have given me pause for thought on this issue. It falls under the slippery slope problem. You may have assisted in adjusting my stance somewhat on this issue. I do want to follow this through. If we allow gay marriages, we then open ourselves up to polygamists due to religious believes. Do we then open ourselves up to removing women’s rights, female castration, and hounor killings? I think we can stop at a union between two consenting adults. The after affects from the slippery slope can be halted due to an erosion of societal values.

I for one wish they would give them what they want and we can lay this issue to rest. I don't understand why we would stop a church from allowing homosexuals to marry if they want. It does not negate anything I have with my own wife. If does not harm my family. Society may even be more tolerant to the 2% of the population as a result In closing, let's get on with it and deal with real issues.

I think Argus' point is well taken! If the liberals put Micheal Moore's rant on their front web page as a reason not to vote Conservative then perhaps the Conservatives should put this filth on their page as a reason not to vote liberal. If you have a degenerate of society believing that the Conservatives are a bad thing as a result of personal issues with their platform, I believe by default that it's a good thing.

Agreed...but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I will stand by my contention that if you are in prison as a result of you committing a crime regardless of economic situations, you are ineligible to vote. 'B' who committed a crime (and could not afford to pay the fine) had a disregard for society's laws. If you are in jail, you are painted with the same brush as the rest of the inmates. If we are removing privileges due to economic circumstances, do not commit the crime. I get your stance Antboy but I don't believe extreme cases should be allowed the same rights that we do. If that means that some criminals are treated unfairly as a result of economics, I believe a greater good is achieved.

No, what I am saying is that if you are a law abidding citizen, you have no concerns regarding your eligibility to vote. Sorry but I don't believe that monsters such as Clifford Olsen should have a say in what happens in this country. No slippery slope, you are a criminal in jail, you don't vote. No have lost that right until you have served your sentence. Abide the law like the vast majority of citizens do, you vote.

I am somewhat confused, why would a film maker whose primary purpose is to entertain and make money alter my vote in any way.

They would not be denied a basis right due to a lack of money, it would be denied as a result of an offense committed and received a fine as a result. If you wish to vote, don't committ the offense.

Ottawa I am one of those long time Liberal supporters that will be voting conservative in this election. Among other issues, tired of all theft, waist and high taxes. My family have recently lost a close friend. Her death was due to manslaughter. The person who committed the act will spend two years behind bars. That's it! Harper's speech regarding replacing the Liberal turn-style form of justice with the Conservative "Lock and Key" swayed my vote immediately.

Harper is out there talking about his policies everyday. His profile is rising in the media and he is gaining momentum. If Martin wanted to debate Harper, I am sure his response would be a total 180. When you are running a race, you don’t keep looking over your shoulder, you keep your focus on the leader (which happens to be the current prime minister) and your eye on the prize. Layton needs all the media attention he can get and this is just another item in his bag of tricks. Harper ain’t falling for it. (Being an old Tory, I can't believe I am defending Steven Harper, what's this world coming to!)

Harper and Stronach not debating is a totally different situation then Harper not debating Layton. Stronach was a legitimate contender to the Leadership of the Conservative Party. Layton is not a legitimate contender. Putting Layton on the same platform as Harper would be elevating Layton’s political status. This spring is going to be a two horse race, there is no need to cloud the issue in bringing a third along for the ride. Harper is not being hypocritical at all, he’s showing he knows how to play the game. There is no reason to give the illegitimate validity. Willy pretty well summed it up nicely, Layton can debate Harper anytime he wants after he wins a seat.

Oh wait: you're serious. Wow. NDP's issues. Let's see...nope, no NAMBLA....no foced pride parades....don't see anything on S&M...and the terrorists criminals, drug dealers, and pimps don't even get a mention. So, A.F.: do you have anything at all to contribute or are you just going to keep talking out of your ass? Troll. I don't see - sinking our credit rating - adding mountains of debt but I guarentee these issues under a Jack Layton government

I don't consider myself an expert but here is my take on it: Harper is a westerner Harper was(is) a separatist He believes easterners are a defeatist lot He couldn’t get the job done with Crietein in power, he can’t do it know. Give me a fiscally responsible Tory over a social conservative reformer anyday.