Randy Nicholas

Your facts need checking. This is all according to your seemingly narrow, uninformed opinion, as it is not based on any fact that I am aware of. Here's the thing, nobody cares what you do and do not have a problem with because none of it is any of your business. What people do in their lives and their homes has nothing whatever to do with you. What you are proposing is that we bend society to a definition we have created, rather than evaluating our definitions in context of our society. Seems perfectly ludicrous to me. What are those reasons? I read this a few times to make sure you were serious. Your conclusions are wild and not based on anything you've said. You seem to pull them out of nowhere. Where is the shifting of power? How has this shift negatively impacted our current society? I also fail to see how breeding monekys with humans can be compared to polygamy or homosexual unions. What about people who can't have children? They should be denied any physical pleasure? So in your world, only people like you get to have sex? Good thing you aren't in charge. And thankfully you represent a small minority of opinion in this country. I really don't know what you're talking about. it seems you've heard some things over the years and hve formed your opinion based on that. Taking a partner for life is not discouraged by anyone anywhere. Show me the proof of that statement. Otherwise, it's just what you say. And I'll forgive myself if i don't just take your word for it.

Army Guy - the problem here is that you are assuming I don't understand the military, or that I fear it. That's insane. The military is necessary and important, and everyone with the stones to involve themselves gets my upmost respect. it is true I don't have the same intimate understanding as someone who lives the experience 24 hours a day, but that does not make me ignorant or afraid. I didn't even enter this argument on the side of anti-military - my argument was that dr. Greenthumb and only dr. greenthumb can determine what is appropriate for his/her children. If he/she feels that strongly about it, then notice of the event should be given, and there should be no need to fear the press. If there isn't anything wrong going on, then why, according to Dr. Greenthumb, did they do it in secret and on short notice? That appears fishy to me. But it doesn't mean that I haven't read hundreds of books and studied our nation's history at University. We can't all of us be in the military. You and I have different experiences leading to different opinions. I still think it was wrong for you to get emotional and attack Dr. Greenthumb for his opinion, because it does not say in his post that he detests the military - that is something you assumed.

uhm, two men can marry and two women can marry, and still there are plenty of married heterosexual people. Marriage still exists, and to say otherwise is extremely ridiculous. First of all, marriage has not stopped everyone from having sex with everyone, it only pretends that that does not happen. the statistics of adultery and divorce are proof enough to know that having monogamous marriage does not stop promiscuity anymore than preaching abstinence to children does. Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves why we are so interested in the sexual practices of others? If you believe that only a man and a woman should be paired, then you are free to live your life that way. Simply being a heterosexual person, however, does not give you the right to dictate how life should be lived by everyone.

No. You are comparing apples to oranges, and betraying a lack of education yourself. These are not the same things, and please show me the school where they teach that it's great to be gay! Give me a break. That is because you are injecting your bias and your emotion into the discussion and not paying any attention at all to the words on the page. It is easy to twist people's arguments to make yourself feel superior or somehow more correct, but you are not contributing to the argument by slinging insults. This is all the time I will waste with you.

Argus, most of your post was quite rude, so I'll ignore those parts. It should come from a variety of sources, including the military, obviously. That is your decision to make for your own kids, but you don't get to decide for everyone's kids, see? Nowhere did I say I want the kids educated that the military is evil. Do you even know how to read? Perhaps you have some archetype in your head about everyone who disagrees with you, but don't invent things and say I've said them, and then insult me for saying them. That's so childish. It does not strengthen your argument to twist and distort what people say. Your little 'translation' bit what pulled completely out of thin air.

I have witnessed recruiters spewing propaganda. I'm nto assuming anything. At worst, I'm taking someone else's word for it. It wasn't my child, it was Dr. Greenthumb's. If he felt it was propaganda, who am I to judge? You're right. I should have spoken better there. However, I did not say it ONLY provides those opportunities to disadvantaged youth. It is however, the only thing I mentioned. Thank you for clarifying that, but the military does in fact offer opportunity to people who have very little opportunities does it not? And that is why Dr Greenthumb has every right to not want his children being recruited for the military, or have them participate in recruitment sessions of any kind. His kids, his determination. if he thinks it's propaganda, it doesn't matter what you or I think. It is not a personal attack on you. To tell the honest turth, drawing my own experiences as a child, we had a lot more imagination than that. I never was interested in cops and robbers or pretending war. We played out disney movies and the last uncorn, played tag, marbles, and things like that. As I look at kids today, the only time I see them playing at war is with simulation video games. We've had different experiences of the world you and me. Clearl Before, or after they join? It seems you're a little emotional on this topic, so I'll try to be as delicate as I can because it is not my wish to offend you at all. I have nothing but respect for what you do. But listen, I watch the Army commercials on TV, and they are NOT designed to make people understand what it is, they are designed to dupe people into thinking it will be a vacation so that they can then get people in there to convince them to join. Some people are afraid of that. THAT'S what propaganda is. Flashy and false. If the recruiters aren't using flashy and false, then i have no problem with them. The TV commercials are that, so i have a problem with them. And I still believe Dr. Greenthumb, who was the first victim of your emotional attack, has the right to decide what constitutes propaganda in his home without it offending your sensibilities. Absolutely right.

Perhaps I'm not the only one that needs to read things more slowly? I did not say whoring around is okay, I said it is tolerated in our society. It is. Prove me wrong. "your apparent sense of morality is disturbed to say the least" Yes, you conceit that you don't have the whole picture on my 'sense of morality' by using the word 'apparent', but there really is only a few ways to interpret this, and all of them imply my morality is disturbed based on your observation of my opinions.

You make some interesting points, and highlight some compelling reasons to keep polygamy illegal. But, to me, if a woman has chosen to enter a polygamist relationship and later finds it is not the situation for her, she can leave. I'm certainly not arguing that decision dynamics in a polygamous family are easy, but my point is it's not our business. If in a married couple the husband threatens divorce if the wife doesn't go along with adding a new wife, and the first wife is completely against it, then maybe the two aren't appropriately matched to begin with? People have a right to their choices and a right to their mistakes. We should not have laws to 'protect' people from the possibility of divorce. Some people who make the decision to stay married even though they may be against the circumstances are again, making their own bed. If you want to legislate protecting people from abuse, then marriage should be completely outlawed for everyone, even monogamous ones, because the same tools of threatening divorce to get what one wants are used, such as making women put up with adultery or abuse. Why do we care more about stopping the women who may want to experience a poly amorous lifestyle from experiencing abuse than we do women who want only to follow our societal model? Doesn't make much sense to me. To answer some of your questions, I think all parties would have to agree to add a new person to the mix, and then democracy should decide everything from that point on, from what to do with the money, to who gets to stay. And lets not forget, legalizing polygamist marriage is not going to suddenly create millions of polygamists to destroy the fabric of our society. These people are already here, they already exist. Legalizing Gay marriage did not create homosexuals, it only let us out of the shadows of society. To your last statement, I completely agree. The rights of the individual are supreme, which is why an educated and independent adult should be allowed to choose how to share their life and their love, and with whomever and however many people they want to. But when you get into situations where you have secluded communities practicing polygamy in secret, you enter a different territory. I'm not arguing that we should allow these compounds and 'communities' to operate, because it leads to the very things you are talking about. But you cannot paint all polygamists with the same brush. It is as foolish as trying to legislate morality, which is also inconsistent with the Charter.

Why is that? Why should my opinion on this matter mar my sense of morality at all? My moral ethic includes leaving adults alone to enjoy their lives how they see fit, so long as their actions have no impact on mine or anyone's enjoyment of the same freedom, and polygamist relationships, where it DOES NOT include incest, child slavery or forced marriages, do not impact ANY person's life, which means it is none of our damn business. If you are going to call me morally disturbed, at least have an argument to counter mine. It's called debate. Anyone can go around making personal judgments and attacks and calling for votes.

I'm all for educating our citizens on the usefulness, history, and pride of our armed forces, but there is a difference between education and propaganda. The military provides an opportunity for some youth who would otherwise not have any opportunity at all, but I would be just as furious if my children were forced to attend a military seminar they didn't know was going to happen, and were told propaganda designed to get them infatuated with the idea of joining the Army. That is not because I have no respect for, knowledge about, or unfounded fear of our military. It is because I believe people who join the military should do so with a complete understanding. There is a difference, sir, between educating our children in the wonderful things that our Military has done throughout its history, and handing out marketing swag. I don't believe Dr. Greenthumb was attacking your career or the careers of any soldier, rather the methods of recruitment that have children believing that joining the army will be all about hanging out with your buds and traveling the world with cool gadgets. I think you'll agree there is much more to a career in the military than that. I know of 116 soldiers last seen in Afghanistan who would.

What other reason is there to stop adults from a consensual behaviour? Extreme it may be, but really, what impact does it have on anyone or anything if a sterile brother and sister, or two brothers, or whatever pair we can imagine, who are of age, decide to have sex with each other?

Yeah, I kinda simplified too much there. Truth is Petro Canada and Suncor do many of the same things, but it's their primary focuses that are at either end - Suncor with the refining, and Petro Canada with distribution and retail. Combine both of these, and you get a more complete and functioning company. It's just too bad it can't be a Canadian company.

I don't believe this is a blow to competition in the market. Suncor does not have any retail outlets, and Petro Canada does not do any refining. This is just a match that makes sense. They can deliver their services at lower cost, which should translate to better competition globally.

I like Jack Layton, but cooperation between parties in the house is not treason, it is the point. That they can work together to accomplish things means they are doing their jobs. Though he may not like what they are doing, it doesn't mean that there is no official opposition. The NDP under Jack Layton have gone as far as they can go. In the last election Layton thought he had a chance for the PMO, now he's become slightly more realistic in thinking he can be Leader of the Official Opposition. As I see it as long as he keeps acting like this (he comes off as an angry child because the libs under iggy didn't give throw parliament into chaos and give the ndp a few cabinet posts) people are going to continue to ignore him.

You know what, in society, we have no problem with polygamy. We don't. Distasteful as some say it seems to them, people whore around all the time, cheat on their spouses with multiple sexual partners, anonymously, unsafely, and I think we should recognize that there is a part of the human psyche that may drive some toward polygamous behaviour, and when it comes to sexual relationships between adults, you waste all the trees for legislation as are available. People get their sex. People have polygamist relationships all over the place, more than you may realize, just not legally registered. But if a group of adults want to live their lives like a real family with one husband and three wives, they have to do it in ultra secret compounds, where the inhabitants become increasingly dependent on the hierarchy and are forced into situations that no person should be forced into. That said, as long as you have consenting adults, I don't see a problem. If these adults could legally and publicly declare their marital situations there would be much less need for these closed-off compounds with shallow genepools and teen-wives. If a man feels he can support a large family, and he finds women only too pleased to share the responsibilities of satisfying his sexual appetite, and they all enter into a legal arrangement that allows for no confusion, brainwashing, or silly 'tradition', then it should be allowed. That is how we will stop the seedy and gross old men in these compounds from hiding their pedophilia behind their faith. When will we learn in Canada that shoving things under the carpet does not clean up the mess? It only appears to do so. You can write anything you want on the law books and spend as much money as you want trying to enforce your view on others, but at some point you have to realize you're banging your head against a wall. Declaring polygamy illegal and then arresting them as you find them isn't going to accomplish getting rid of these compounds. People are going to do what they want, and if they have to do it in secret, they will, and forcing them to do it in secret often leads to making the problem worse than before you made the thing illegal. As for incest, this is different as well, and it serves nobody to lump everything not heterosexually biblical into the same class. The most insulting thing a person can say is that Gay marriage has opened the door for polygamy and bestiality and incest, and that people for these causes will be attacking the definition of marriage until it becomes okay to marry your same sex brother and your cat. Incest is illegal because it often results in unhealthy babies that suffer the effects of poor genes for the rest of their lives. The more brothers and sisters and cousins that have children, the weaker their genes get. This argument does not apply to homosexuals. Other animals cannot give consent to sex with a human because they are not gifted with language. Again, does not apply to homosexuals. I'm glad this topic is open for discussion. There are still a lot of misconceptions about things among people. Dear government, more money for education, please.