The Terrible Sweal

Sodom and Gomorrah were actually advanced urban centres of learning and sophistication. This naturally drew the ire of the backward, puritanical, back-desert Yahweh-crowd, with their penchant for violence, propaganda and revisionism.

So probably protecting the cotton industry has nothing to do with the U.S. marijuana prohibition, eh?

So as long as bigots are bigots, there can be no justice? We must accept ignorance and tolerance because people are ignorant and tolerant? I understand that this may cause a problem for the children. But the ignorance of some people is no reason to deny others the choice of adopting a child. And the problems faced by the child are caused by the bigots, not the homosexuals. Yes, but if your primary interest is the best interests of the adoptive child, it is a valid question whether they should be recruited to endure the alleged social stigma. Of course, to answer the question one needs to consider how much risk the alleged stigma really imposes, and how badly it might affect a child in the context of the real world.

No one has a 'right' to marriage. The state creates an optional social status called marriage and provides certain legal implications. Citizens have the right to be equal before the law. Therefore no government program, be it student loans, or CPP, or marriage is allowed to be provided unequally. Listing the many areas in which homosexuals are accorded thier right to equality does not alleviate or change the fact that there is one area where they are not. They have, like everyone else, more than just that right, i.e. to be treated equally by the government. Once it is established that someone is entitled to something, there is no cause for delay. If your house burns down, and the insurer wonders what your hurry for your cheque is, how would you feel? Well, why not just ignore it, and tell your MP you don't want her to make an issue of it.

G & M Paul Koring I suspect this quote transmits a tenth of Koring's cynicsm. And I wonder whether this quote reflects Pettigrew's vanity or his ambition or some strange view of Canada. Paul Wells picked up on the quote too. Pettigrew expressed a very familiar Canadian perspective, voiced by our governments of various stripes throughout our post WWII history. His comments are scarecely new, nor radical, and despite the alleged amusement among some, in fact similar opinions have been expressed by US and European commentators in the past.

hmmm. so basically, you mean proportional representation, but with only 100 seats? well, i'll vote no, then. I think PR is an unwise method. i think our problems stem party frm the failure of or politicians to be stand-up individals representing teir constituents. by disconnecting legislators frm their geographic roots, and making them creatures of party lists, i think we worsen this parliamentarians' malaise. i think we should instead have prefernetial balloting, and legislator recall.

What "deviance" are men "permitted" that women are not?

Did anyone see the vicious hatchetjob the media did on Paul Martin over the Syria comment. Outrageous and disgusting. Martin said: "... it is clear that, if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it is because peace should be kept, and there was certainly a failure." But here is how one media source 'reported' it: "Paul Martin said yesterday that Syrian troops are in Lebanon to keep the peace, ..." Now if that isn't the most outright abusive distortion, I don't know what is.

I think there is a subtle, but profound problem with this characterisation, Michael. The point is not to find the best "compromises", it is to find the best choices. There are times (many, many times) when the best choice is decidedly not to compromise. Digression: Perhaps this is an essential distinction between 'classical liberal' (e.g. Winston Churchill) and 'modern liberal' (e.g. Jimmy Carter).

I don't know. I know a lot of extremely self-righteous pagans. I also know a lot of even more extremely self-righteous rationalists, and a lot of self-righteous scienticismists, too. Experiences with various individuals was not my point. I was refering to the institutonal characteristics of the main monotheistic religions compared to well known examples of historical pagan religions.

Well historically one of the main issues that has driven violent confrontation has been disagreements about religion. Also, religion is a human artefact, so it's hard to say it stands separate from human choices and actions.

Well historically one of the main issues that has driven violent confrontation has been disagreements about religion. Also, religion is a human artefact, so it's hard to say it stands separate from human choices and actions.

Well historically one of the main issues that has driven violent confrontation has been disagreements about religion. Also, religion is a human artefact, so it's hard to say it stands separate from human choices and actions.

Yet another round of windy assertions, all still falling far short of meaningful. I think you need to use your critical faculties with more rigor in your womens studies course.

what an utterly specious basis to purport to distinguish pagans and monotheists! there were plenty of kind peaceful people who were pagans and plenty of vicious mofos among monotheists. on the other hand, one real distinction between the two is the vast self-righteusness the monotheists often demonstrate.

RB, you are full to the eyeballs with nonsensical gender-warfare bumf. you demonstrate this by resorting to jargon and distraction each time you are confronted by a point or question that demonsrates an inconsistency between your claims and reality. yes, men make aesthetic evaluations of women. however, you have yet to indicate why that equates to oppression or conspiracy as you appear to believe.

i found everyone's responses interesting, but I think i may have posed my query inperfectly. what i wanted to investigate is what is the nature/content of those things we consider moral "obligations" ? what is the character of the oblgation? when someone says we 'should' or 'must' help, are they merely using a shorthand phrasing for 'it would be wise/kind/useful to...' , or is there a more imperative quality to it?

No, civil marriage as it exists today is a special privlege the state confers on persons who form couples that qualify. Right now only opposite sex couples qualify because the law grants them the privlege (NOT right) to marry. however, because "everyone" has the right to equal benefit of the law, it is impermissible for the state to grant the privilege of civil marriage only to persons who's couplehood involves persons of a spcific gender. So: two important points: 1. the right involved is not a right to mrriage, but a right to equal treatment at law 2. the concept of discrimination based on the gender of someone's choice of spouse could sustain the call to allow SSM, without even going into sexual orientation.

kimmy, just because you don't sequit something doesn't mean it doesn't sequit. I must say that don't grasp why you feel it would be useful for me to enumerate who and what ought to be proud of things. Let me try to clarify my point a little better, taking you as the example. You are an Albertan and a Canadian. Alberta is a province of Canada. You express a divergent level of pride as between the two. I merely wonder at the rationale for this divergence. So, I look at your reasons, and I wonder these things: are you unaware that many other parts of Canada were settled by diverse groups? do you not realize that the whole country was empty and remote when people settled here? are you unware that your ancestors got there by building on the very same accomplishments of many who came before them? Also, I don't understand why time of arrival is prideworthy. But I also don't understand how you can take something prideworthy about Alberta away from the country it is part of. The good things about Alberta equally accrue to Canada's credit. That's such complete sullshit.

It may have recently become apparent to the public, but it has been the fact since the Charter was enacted. It was not "added" by ay court.

I recall it differently. In response to your failure express anything which sensibly explains what you mean by being proud of being Albertan, I gave up. I replied, that my Canada includes Saskatchewan in reply to August. I believe I indicated that you didn't understand me, as remains evidently the case. Perhaps. But certainly repetitively, and usually accompanied by a put-down of some selected untermenschen du jour. All histories are 'distinct'. Some 'identities' are illusory. Some pride is warranted, some is not. BTW, it's fortunate that you were ale to get so much ad hominem mileage out of "rostrum". You clearly need the satisfaction. But just fyi, the word I intended was "nostrum". I deeply regret my profound error.

Maybe that's something for Albertans to be proud of: being holier than thou. In one breath you complain that central Canadians look down on others, then the rest of your post is a wildly chauvinistic screed against other Canadians. Ah yes, Abertans lead the country ... in the fields of petulance and self-regard.

But what wonderful things have people done together in Alberta? I mean other than mostly abide by the law and get fat and comfortable through their luck at living in a rich part of Canada? What is there about that which so fires your pride especially for Alberta? Has Alberta stood alone against a great evil? Has Alberta laid down doctrines admired by the world? Has Alberta produced great cultural artefacts or movements? ... ???

That's being disingenuous. Do you mean they were there but we didn't see them?How many rights are there now that we just can't see? You seem determined to be obtuse on this point. Once more: the charter s. 15 says "everyone". The courts confirmed that includes homosexual persons. That's not really the issue here. No one is saying that gays can't shack up if they want to. Come on. Shacking up is decidedly "not really the issue". Some people are clearly saying gays can't get married.

The relevant portion is "without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin..." No, the relevant portion is as highlighted: