dre

Actually "strong breeding men" are pretty secure with themselves and could care less about gay issues for the most part. Homophobes for the most part are the weak not the strong.

You seem believe that Israel has expansionist plans and menaces her neighbors which is nonsense. What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Israel has almost doubled its size through military occupation, and has openly declared that it will permanently keep part of that land. And Israel IS a menace to its neighbors. They threatened to bomb Lebanon a few years ago for pumping water out of their own lake LOL. In any case, I dont really care if Israel has nukes, nor Iran for that matter.

He nailed nothing, and he also refused to provide a source for his assertion. Which is of course because his assertion was a faith based religious belief and those are rather hard to back up with emprical evidence. The reality is, that according to professionals that actually deal with this issue theres simply no reason to descriminate against homosexuals or lesbians when it comes to parenting. Children with gay parents exhibit no developmental dysfunction, or added instability. In his defense though... At least his posts had actual sentences and opinions in them, whereas you basically just showed up to stick your nose up his ass and chearlead with 4 word phrases.

Got a source for that horseshit?

They key is to strenthen the JCI which already getting pretty good. Thats the organization that accredits foreign hospitals and doctors. One of the challenges to fully implementing my solution is that North Americans have this misconception that if they go to Thialand, or India, or NewZealand they will be treated in a grass hut by a guy with a bone in his nose. Its simply not true. Heres where you can read a bit of general stuff about the JCI. http://www.hziegler.com/locations/middle-east/articles/jci-accreditation.html Heres an outside the box method of impelementing the the second part of my solution in my previous post. First of all open up our medical insurance system so that it will pay for procedures done outside of the country. Currently in almost all cases it does not. Then offer to split all savings wih the patients. So for example... A patient needs an operation that costs 100 thousand in Canada, but only 10 000 in India at a JCI accredited hospital. Thats a savings of 90 000 dollars. Give the patient half!... 45 thousand dollars, they can use that to arrange their travel, pay for the procedure, and hell... purchase a brand new car! And the healthcare system still saves 45 thousand dollars. This should be a incentive to increase medical tourism, which by the way is already growing rapidly due to rampant price gouging in Canada and the US. The introduction of competition will also put downward pressure on costs and wages here in Canada, and the reduced burden on the system will reduce wait times. In any case only allowing health insurance to purchase services inside Canada is blatant protectionism and puts massive upwards pressure on prices. This is where some of the worst deals are globally!

Youre emloying the broken "conventional wisdom" of the failed war on drugs. Drug use went down because instead of throwing people in jail they helped them get treatment. Incarceration is an absolutely horrible way to treat drug addiction, and it almost never works. This is countries like the US and Canada that spend zillions on the failed war on drugs generally have among the highest rates of drug use. If you decriminalize that activity and bring it out into the open then a lot of the problems go away and a lot people get treatment for their problems. How does criminalization of those things help us? It creates a massive cash engine thats used to fuel organized crime, human trafficing, sexual slavery, extortion etc. It results in some of the highest rates of drug use on earth. Throwing recreational drug users in jail does the exact opposite of protecting us and instead it often makes them into more dangerous criminals by exposing them to a network of real criminals.

The real problem with healthcare costs isnt so much the healthcare system, its that Canada is a shitty place to produce products and services that are competitive. Also much like the US the healthcare industry is riddled with protectionism. If the government really wanted to lower healthcare costs and improve paient outcomes it would be really easy... hire less Canadian doctors, and move the patients out of the country whenever possible for treatment. Canadian doctors and healthcare workers in many cases cost 10 times what doctors with similar qualifications cost elsewhere in the world. They are able to pricegouge because they have effectively lobbied the government to protect them from competition. For example... a steal worker would NOT be able to charge 10 times what his foreign counterparts charge because in a global economy nobody would hire him. The solution to the problem is two-fold. 1. Flood Canada with dirt cheap foreign doctors. Theres hundreds of thousands of doctors around the world that would love to come to Canada and work for 40 - 60 thousand dollars. They cant come now because various trade associations have lobbied for overly ownerous certification processes even though many of these doctors were trained right here in Canadian medical schools. We need to make it way way way easier for foreign doctors to come here, and the best way to do it is to CRUSH various medical associations and trade associations. 2. Move the patients offshore whenever possible. A heart valve replacement can cost over a hundred thousand dollars in Canada and 200 thousand in the US. You can get it for 10 thousand in india in a JCI accredited facility where patient outcomes are comparable. For 20 thousand you can get the airfare, the operation, a week of recovery time in the hospital, and then a nice little 2 week stay at a resort to finish healing up and maybe enjoy yourself a little bit. What that means is that every time a heart valve replacement is done in Canada 80 thousand dollars is flushed down the toilet. And we wonder why costs are high? Radiology scans can be read in India by doctors with equal skills to our own that make 30 000 dollars per year. But in most cases we cant do that because the associations that represent radiologists have lobbied for regional certification rules to protect them from competiton. In many cases you couldnt even sent an electronic radiology scan to the next city to be read. LOL. This isnt rocket science... we know how to bring down costs, and the way to do it in the medical industry is not different than how we reduced the costs of electronic goods, textiles, and tennis shoes. You remove as may Canadians and Americans from roles in the production and delivery as you possibly can, then the prices will go down fast.

Actually if you go the bank and borrow money most of what you get isnt peoples savings... its entirely ficticious money thats created out of thin air. And the real beauty of it is that the banks are charging interest on money they dont even have, even though the taxpayer is the one thats on the hook for the cost of creating that ficticious money, and pay interest on all the bonds the government has to sell to keep our currency stable. Its really nothing more than legalized fraud. Having said that in general debt is neither good or bad. It really depends what you spend the money on.

My apologies to Toad Brother for the post above. I meant to quote one of the clowns that think Anarchists are "leftist" not him.

Its not a completely different situation. Why is discrimination based on sexual orientation or race, or gender any different than discrimination based on religion? Irrelevant non-response. Its normal operating procedure for the government to not sanction activity thats overly contraversal or offensive to lots of taxpayers and voters, and thats the reason that government money usually comes with strings attached. Shrugs... thats on par with the rest of your argument I guess.

You wouldnt be giving them money to not be religious. You would simply be saying that in order for an institution to get public funding and recognition that have to meet certain standards. This is completely normal for all kinds of government grants, taxbreaks, and contracts. When my business interacts with the government theres all kinds of rules I have to follow. The REAL affront to freedom here is that Canadas lesbian community is FORCED to encourage and fund this kind of behavior... if they refuse theyd be criminalzed as tax evaders. BTW... can you imagine the outrage if the tables were turned here, and a government subsidized company was dismissing an employee because they were a christian or a jew? The VICTIM CARD would come out so fast it would knock you on your ass.

No I want them to be treated like what they are... our employees. If you walk down to the IT department at the company you own to ask about an ongoing project does your IT staff have the right to remain silent?... or consult an attorney before giving you information about YOUR business? By your logic every employee in the world is living in a police state, because the people that sign their paycheck can demand answers or information or action from them. Everything they do should be a matter of pubic record with very few exceptions. You and others have bought the lie that these people need to operate in secrecy (for our own good) hook line and sinker and the result of that is that we get consistantly shitty governance. Democracy is pointless without transparency. Boooo fuckin hooo. All the more reason to not do things that would be embarassing, humiliating, or incriminating.

Gotta be careful about using the "Conspiracy Theory" label. Dismissing someone as a "Conspiracy Theorist" because their opinion sounds far fetched to you is one of the most common forms of logical fallacy and intellectual dishonesty.

Probably about 1/2 the legal system or more is centered around victimless crime. Ending prohibition of recreational drugs would not only shrink the legal system by more than half it would have a positive impact on society in general. Heres a good case study that dispells a lot of the myths spread by the pro-criminalization crowd. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html When ALL drugs were decriminalized in portugal... Drug use among ALL age groups DECLINED. HIV infections among all age groups DECLINED. Deaths from drug use DECLINED. And the number of those recieving treatment went THROUGH THE ROOF. System of a Down set it best...

I think some of its pretty good!

I just cant believe the Canadian government raped all those little kids then ate them!

We dont need to change it but we should make sure we dont endorse it. Let outfits like this do what they want but just make sure they get no public funding, tax breaks, or government recognition of the degrees, certificates, and diplomas they hand out. They'll come around pretty fast if you do that and I dont see freedom suffering much at all.

The poor poor victimized Roman Church... Clearly people critical of church's rich history of child-rape and cover-ups are just like people who hate jews..

No actually those are statements by the elected leadershp of most of the associations representing almost all the professionals that work in related fields. Those are the people that see the issue first hand and spend much of their lives studying it. And you have it backwards anyways. Coming out and saying that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and adopt children isnt politically correct at all... in fact its political suicide in the US and most of Canada. The politically correct and politically expedient thing to do is to either sit on the fence or climb on the wagon with the bigots and homophobes, because theyre a much larger voting block than gays or lesbians. The bottom line is theres absolutely no empirical support for your position (not that you even have one). Which is why your post consisted of... well... nothing. The fact is that gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation are not defining factors in what makes people good parents.

It has gotten so far out of hand that a chain smoking pub owner, can't even legally open a bar that caters to other smokers, even if he is the only worker, and calls his pub "non smokers keep out" Of course not. Allowing that guy to serve the general public would be no different than allowing a restaurant to serve contaminated drinking water, or a daycare with asbestos insulation or lead paint on the walls. Until then I will correctly assume that they are just trying to force other people not to do things that they personally don't like. You would be wrong in my case. I would vigorously oppose any move to ban tobacco. But workplace air quality standards are just good common sense. For me its not about smoking or cigarettes, its about air quality in places that serve the public. If that air quality can be achieved by using robust ventilation systems while still allowing cigarettes then that would be fine with me. Do we ban everything that might cost the health care system money, or just the things that whiny special interest groups bitch about? The important difference here is that when you eat too many cheese burgers you harm yourself but you dont harm everyone else in the restaurant or the employees preparing the food.

It can... You can keep the air clean with robust ventilation systems, and I have no problem with establishments doing that provided theres testing done from time to time to make sure the air is clean. People can choose to accept the risks or not accept them, that is called choice, or freedom, look it up. You ever think that they might find that staff from among the millions of people who.... gasp! choose to smoke themselves?? None of that shit matters. In the modern world we have standards on workplace conditions and safety, because when we didnt have them people didnt live very long. The fact that theres idiots out there that are either too stupid to care about their own health too desperate to refuse a job on that basis doesnt change the fact that all of those morons are going to come crying to ME, and the rest of the tax paying public to pay for their healthcare when they get sick, so society is a stakeholder in those decisions.

Source? Sounds like a subjective personal religious belief masquerading as a statement of fact. Lets see what some of those professionals that actually study the issue say, shall we? American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry “The basis on which all decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the best interest of the child. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals historically have faced more rigorous scrutiny than heterosexuals regarding their rights to be or become parents. “There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child. “Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children. “The AACAP opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation against individuals in regard to their rights as custodial or adoptive parents as adopted by Council." American Academy of Family Physicians On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) adopted the following position statement at its October 2002 meeting: “RESOLVED, That the AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation. ” American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (2004) On same-sex unions. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers adopted the following position statement at its November 2004 meeting: “BE IT RESOLVED That the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers supports the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses.” “BE IT RESOLVED That the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers encourages the United States Congress and the legislatures of all states to achieve the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses. ” American Academy of Pediatrics (2002) The American Academy of Pediatrics issued the following statement in support of gay and lesbian parenting and called for equal access to co-parenting and second-parent adoption rights for gay and lesbian parents in February 2002: “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When two adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition. “Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only one biologic or adoptive legal parent. The other partner in a parental role is called the "coparent" or "second parent." Because these families and children need the permanence and security that are provided by having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal adoption of children by coparents or second parents. Denying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having two willing, capable, and loving parents. “Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning second-parent adoption by partners of the same sex. In addition, legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners, such as the law approving civil unions in Vermont, can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships. “Many states have not yet considered legislative actions to ensure the security of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Rather, adoption has been decided by probate or family courts on a case-by-case basis. Case precedent is limited. It is important that a broad ethical mandate exist nationally that will guide the courts in providing necessary protection for children through coparent adoption. “Coparent or second-parent adoption protects the child's right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents. The legal sanction provided by coparent adoption accomplishes the following: 1.Guarantees that the second parent's custody rights and responsibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or become incapacitated. Moreover, second-parent adoption protects the child's legal right of relationships with both parents. In the absence of coparent adoption, members of the family of the legal parent, should he or she become incapacitated, might successfully challenge the surviving coparent's rights to continue to parent the child, thus causing the child to lose both parents. 2.Protects the second parent's rights to custody and visitation if the couple separates. Likewise, the child's right to maintain relationships with both parents after separation, viewed as important to a positive outcome in separation or divorce of heterosexual parents, would be protected for families with gay or lesbian parents. 3.Establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents' separation. 4.Ensures the child's eligibility for health benefits from both parents. 5.Provides legal grounds for either parent to provide consent for medical care and to make education, health care, and other important decisions on behalf of the child. 6.Creates the basis for financial security for children in the event of the death of either parent by ensuring eligibility to all appropriate entitlements, such as Social Security survivors benefits. “On the basis of the acknowledged desirability that children have and maintain a continuing relationship with two loving and supportive parents, the Academy recommends that pediatricians do the following: Be familiar with professional literature regarding gay and lesbian parents and their children. Support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children. Advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex partners through the judicial system, legislation, and community education. ” American Anthropological Association (2004) On same-sex unions. The American Anthropological Association issued the following statement in February 2004: “The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. “The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. ” “The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. “The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. ” American Bar Association (2003, 1999, and 1995) On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Bar Association adopted the following position statement in August 2003: “RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports state and territorial laws and court decisions that permit the establishment of legal parent-child relationships through joint adoptions and second-parent adoptions by unmarried persons who are functioning as a child's parents when such adoptions are in the best interests of the child. ” On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Bar Association adopted the following position statement in February 1999: “RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the enactment of laws and implementation of public policy that provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ” On child custody and visitation. The American Bar Association adopted the following position statement in August 1995: “BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the enactment of legislation and implementation of public policy providing that child custody and visitation shall not be denied or restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. ” American Medical Association On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Medical Association adopted the following position statement at its June 2004 meeting: “WHEREAS, Having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents promotes a safe and nurturing environment for children, including psychological and legal security; and “WHEREAS, Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only one biologic or adoptive legal parent; and “WHEREAS, The legislative protection afforded to children of parents in homosexual relationships varies from state to state, with some states enacting or considering legislation sanctioning co-parent or second parent adoption by partners of the same sex, several states declining to consider legislation, and at least one state altogether banning adoption by the second parent; and “WHEREAS, Co-parent or second parent adoption guarantees that the second parent's custody rights and responsibilities are protected if the first parent dies or becomes incapacitated; and “WHEREAS, Co-parent or second parent adoption ensures the child's eligibility for health benefits from both parents and establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents' separation; and “WHEREAS, Co-parent or second parent adoption establishes legal grounds to provide consent for medical care and to make health care decisions on behalf of the child and guarantees visitation rights if the child becomes hospitalized; and “WHEREAS, The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association have each issued statements supporting initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children; therefore be it “RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child. (New HOD Policy)” American Psychiatric Association (2002, 1997, and 2000) On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Psychiatric Association adopted the following position statement at its November 2002 meeting: “The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives that allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives. ” On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Psychiatric Association adopted the following position statement at its December 1997 meeting: “1. Sexual orientation should not be used as the sole or primary factor in child custody decisions. ” “2. Gay and lesbian couples and individuals should be allowed to become parents through adoption, fostering and new reproductive technologies, subject to the same type of screening used with heterosexual couples and individuals. ” “3. Second-parent adoptions which grant full parental rights to a second, unrelated adult (usually an unmarried partner of a legal parent), are often in the best interest of the child(ren) and should not be prohibited solely because both adults are of the same gender. ” “4. Custody determinations after dissolution of a gay relationship should be done in a manner similar to other custody determinations. ” On same-sex unions. The American Psychiatric Association adopted the following position statement at its November 2000 meeting: “The American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits and responsibilities. ” American Psychoanalytic Association (1997 and 2002) On marriage. The Executive Council of the American Psychoanalytic Association endorsed the following resolution in December 1997 (reaffirmed in March 2004): “Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage. ” On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Psychoanalytic Association adopted this policy statement in support of gay and lesbian parenting in May 2002: “The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is in the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. With the adoption of this position statement, we support research studies that further our understanding of the impact of both traditional and gay/lesbian parenting on a child's development. ” American Psychological Association (1976, 1998, and 2004) For full text of APA policy statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns, see APA policy lgbc. Discrimination Against Homosexuals [Adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA) Council of Representatives on January 24-26, 1975.] “1. The American Psychological Association supports the action taken on December 15, 1973, by the American Psychiatric Association, removing homosexuality from that Association's official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association therefore adopts the following resolution: “Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities; Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations. “2. Regarding discrimination against homosexuals, the American Psychological Association adopts the following resolution concerning their civil and legal rights: “The American Psychological Association deplores all public and private discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing against those who engage in or have engaged in homosexual activities and declares that no burden of proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon these individuals greater than that imposed on any other persons. Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, state, and federal levels that would offer citizens who engage in acts of homosexuality the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private (Conger, 1975, p. 633). ” Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651. On marriage rights for same-sex couples. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted this position statement on July 28, 2004: “WHEREAS APA has a long-established policy to deplore 'all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians' and urges 'the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men' (Conger, 1975, p. 633); “WHEREAS the APA adopted the Resolution on Legal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples in 1998 (Levant, 1998, pp. 665-666); “WHEREAS discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation detrimentally affect psychological, physical, social, and economic well-being (Badgett, 2001; Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Meyer, 2003); “WHEREAS 'anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution' (American Anthropological Association, 2004); “WHEREAS psychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples (Kurdek, 2001, in press; Peplau & Beals, 2004; Peplau & Spalding, 2000); “WHEREAS the institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges; “WHEREAS the United States General Accounting Office (2004) has identified over 1,000 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges, for example, those concerning taxation, federal loans, and dependent and survivor benefits (e.g., Social Security, military, and veterans); “WHEREAS there are numerous state, local, and private sector laws and other provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges, for example, those concerning taxation, health insurance, health care decision making, property rights, pension and retirement benefits, and inheritance; “WHEREAS same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage; “WHEREAS same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples (United States General Accounting Office, 2004); “WHEREAS the benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable; “WHEREAS people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status may especially benefit from access to marriage for same-sex couples (Division 44/Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Joint Task Force on Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, 2000); “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges; “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT APA shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples; “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT APA encourages psychologists to act to eliminate all discrimination against same-sex couples in their practice, research, education, and training (“Ethical Principles, ” 2002, p. 1063); “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the APA shall provide scientific and educational resources that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding sexual orientation and marriage and that assist its members, divisions, and affiliated state, provincial, and territorial psychological associations. ” American Anthropological Association. (2004). Statement on marriage and family from the American Anthropological Association. Retrieved May 11, 2004, from http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073. Badgett, M. V. L. (2001). Money, myths, and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cochran, S. D., Sullivan, J. G., & Mays, V. M. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health service use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 53-61. Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651. Division 44/Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Joint Task Force on Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients. (2000). Guidelines for psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 55, 1440-1451. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945-951. Kurdek, L. A. (2001). Differences between heterosexual non-parent couples and gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 727-754. Levant, R. F. (1999). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 1998: Minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council of Representatives February 20-22, 1998, Washington, DC, and August 13 and 16, 1998, San Francisco, CA, and minutes of the February, June, August, and December meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 54, 605-671. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697. Paige, R. U. (2005). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the legislative year 2004: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives, February 20-22, 2004, Washington, DC, and July 28 and 30, 2004, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Minutes of the February, April, June, August, October, and December 2004 Meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 60, 436-511. Peplau, L. A., & Beals, K. P. (2004). The family lives of lesbians and gay men. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 233-248). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111-123). Thousand Oaks: Sage. United States General Accounting Office. (2004, January 23). Defense of Marriage Act: Update to prior report [GAO-04-353R]. Retrieved May 19, 2004, from http://www.gao.gov. On parenting. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted this position statement July 28, 2004: “WHEREAS APA supports policy and legislation that promote safe, secure, and nurturing environments for all children (DeLeon, 1993, 1995; Fox, 1991; Levant, 2000); “WHEREAS APA has a long-established policy to deplore 'all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians' and urges 'the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men' (Conger, 1975); “WHEREAS the APA adopted the Resolution on Child Custody and Placement in 1976 (Conger, 1977, p. 432); “WHEREAS discrimination against lesbian and gay parents deprives their children of benefits, rights, and privileges enjoyed by children of heterosexual married couples; “WHEREAS some jurisdictions prohibit gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples from adopting children, notwithstanding the great need for adoptive parents (Lofton v. Secretary, 2004); “WHEREAS there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999); “WHEREAS research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001); “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services; “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the APA believes that children reared by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent; “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second-parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples; “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT APA shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services; “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT APA encourages psychologists to act to eliminate all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services in their practice, research, education, and training (Ethical Principles, 2002, p. 1063); “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the APA shall provide scientific and educational resources that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services and that assist its members, divisions, and affiliated state, provincial, and territorial psychological associations. ” American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073. Conger, J. J. (1977). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1976: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 32, 408-438. Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651. DeLeon, P. H. (1995). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1994: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives August 11 and 14, 1994, Los Angeles, CA, and February 17-19, 1995, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 49, 627-628. DeLeon, P. H. (1993). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1992: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives August 13 and 16, 1992, and February 26-28, 1993, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 48, 782. Fox, R. E. (1991). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1990: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives August 9 and 12, 1990, Boston, MA, and February 8-9, 1991, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 45, 845. Levant, R. F. (2000). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1999: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives February 19-21, 1999, Washington, DC, and August 19 and 22, 1999, Boston, MA, and Minutes of the February, June, August, and December 1999 meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 55, 832-890. Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children and Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004). Patterson, C. J. (2004). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley. Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052-1069. Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344. Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159-183. Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families- A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153-166. On parenting. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the following position statement in September 1976: “The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases. ” Reference: Conger, J. J. (1977). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1976: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 32, 408-438. On legal benefits for same-sex couples. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted this position statement in August 1998: “WHEREAS there is evidence that homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities (Conger, 1975) for individuals; “WHEREAS legislation, other public policy, and private policy on issues related to same-sex couples is currently under development in many places in North America (e.g., Canadian Psychological Association, 1996); “WHEREAS the scientific literature has found no significant difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples that justify discrimination (Kurdek, 1994; 1983; Peplau, 1991); “WHEREAS scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households (Patterson, 1994); “WHEREAS APA has, as a long established policy, deplored 'all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians in such areas as employment, housing, administration, and licensing ...' and has consistently urged 'the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men' (Conger, 1975); “WHEREAS denying the legal benefits that the license of marriage offers to same-sex households (including, but not limited to, property rights, health care decision making, estate planning, tax consequences, spousal privileges in medical emergency situations, and co-parental adoption of children) is justified as fair and equal treatment; “WHEREAS the absence of access to these benefits constitutes a significant psychosocial stressor for lesbians, gay men, and their families; “WHEREAS APA provides benefits to its members' and employees' domestic partners equivalent to those provided to members' and employees' spouses; “WHEREAS psychological knowledge can be used to inform the current public and legal debate on 'same-sex marriage' (e.g., Baehr v. Lewin); “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT APA supports the provision to same-sex couples of the legal benefits that typically accrue as a result of marriage to same-sex couples who desire and seek the legal benefits; and “THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT APA shall provide relevant psychological knowledge to inform the public discussion in this area and assist state psychological associations and divisions in offering such information as needed. ” Return to top Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 59 (Haw. 1993). Canadian Psychological Association. (1996). Policy statement on equality for lesbians, gay men, and their relationships and families. [Available from the Canadian Psychological Association.] Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651. Kurdek, L. A. (1993). The nature and correlates of relationship quality in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual cohabiting couples: A test of the individual difference, interdependence, and discrepancy models. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical issues (pp. 133-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patterson, C. J. (1993). Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioral adjustment, self-concepts, and sex role theory. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical issues (pp. 156-175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peplau, A. L. (1991). Lesbian and gay relationships. In J. C. Gonsiorek and J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 177-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Child Welfare League of America (1988) The Child Welfare League of America's Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services states: “Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation." Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted "on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future. ” National Association of Social Workers (2002) The National Association of Social Workers approved the following policy statement at in August 2002 at the NASW Delegate Assembly. “Legislation legitimizing second-parent adoptions in same-sex households should be supported. Legislation seeking to restrict foster care and adoption by gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people should be vigorously opposed. ” National Association of Social Workers (1994). Policy statement on lesbian and gay issues. In Social Work Speaks: NASW Policy Statements (pp. 162-165). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers. North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998) The North American Council on Adoptable Children issued a policy statement in 1998 (amended April 14, 2002) that states: “Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents. Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care or adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration.

I couldnt care less if a religious person holds office, as log as decisions about reality arent made based on supernatural beliefs. Most moderate religious people manage to keep a healthy degree of separation between the office they hold and their personal spiritual beliefs. But I would definately not want to see religious hardliners and fundies in government.

No its a TERRIBLE message that puts ANYONE that disseminates ANYTHING at risk, and potentially subjects all kinds of Canadians to the whims of repressive regimes and repressive policies in foreign countries. If a Canadian sent an email to a person in China that had political speech in it that was illegal there, they are breaking Chinese law in the same way Mark Emery broke US law. Under this absolute shit pile of a decision that person could be extradited to China to face the same persecution for that subversive political speech that a Chinese person would face. Again the person would have broken no laws in the jurrisdiction they are subject too. Thats just one example, but theres literally endless possibilities. No Canadian should ever be extradited to a repressive regime for acts that are completely legal here. End of story. Canadians do not fund our criminal justice system for the purpose of subjecting us to Foreign laws. This decision is LOSE LOSE for everyone... we lose tax revenue and we are spending tax dollars enforcing repressive laws in a foreign country.

What does the fact that the recession didnt hit us as hard as it hit some others have to do with Harper? Canada was not hit as hard because we have had better banking practices for nearly 30 years, and most of the institutions that do investment banking in Canada have other activities to fall back on, and there isnt anywhere near as many dangerous credit products in our financial system. If there had been companies like CountryWide up here giving 400 000 thousand dollar mortgages to people that make $15 bux an hour we be up to our necks in shit too!