The Terrible Sweal

That would be completely unnecessary. Section 15 already says "everybody".

You're going nowhere here. Same-sex advocates, then the courts, and now the government have all 'given reasons' for the change. It is high time that opponents of SSM, who have called repeatedly for 'debate' on the issue, to explain the basis of their opposition with some semblance of lucidity. This has been sadly lacking so far. Let the collective reasons of the relevant court decisions stand as the reasons in favor of the change to permit same-sex partners to be married at law. The majority of our highest legal institutions have explained in painstaking detail why the definition should change. Will opponents of SSM please identify the defects of reasoning they find therein? Otherwise, to borrow a phrase, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to their opposition. Let us begin with this question: Do opponents of SSM agree that this is strictly an issue of public policy and law? If not, please identify any other fundamental criteria and explain why and how public policy and law should give effect to them. Next: Specifally, what harm to individuals or society do opponents think may flow from the change? To make a lucid position, it is important to specify and support any causal connections claimed. It would also be useful to indicate why the possible harm out-weighs the suggested benefits, from the point of view of public policy or any other relevant rubrics.

I came across a rather succint argument here. which is another of your deductive negative arguments. I would be most interested to garner your thoughts on it. It's an interesting proof, and valid in a way, but the proposed conclusion goes further than the argument supports, to whit: The flaw with that is the unwarranted insertion of the term 'nature', and the consequent assertion of something 'supernatural'. What basis is there to assert that the universe is the sum total of what is 'natural'? Why assume that what is outside the universe (as defined) is not 'natural'. Without a developed understanding for the term 'nature', all this argument does is prove that the universe must have had a beginning from a 'super-universal' source. Which, 'begining' being what it is, is merely axiomatic. Of course there is also the possiblity that the explicit assumptions of the argument (i.e. the laws of thermodynamics) are not all they are cracked up to be, but that's a different issue.

I'm sorry, but I have occassional difficulty decyphering some of your jargon. Is there some particular content in the phrase 'dialogue with their voices'? Anyway, as for foolish demands, you certainly seem to persist in one. To whit, the demand by a woman that someone else other than the woman take responsibiltiy for what she herself thinks. If you as a woman don't want to participate in the beauty rat-race, then don't. And is it your contention than women as heads of corporations behave more environmentally? I'd love to see your data. - Women are more susceptible to lung, heart diseases, depression, broken hearts, the famous headache line, etc. because of their genetical make-up women are more susceptible to sexually transmitted infections, so they have to use drug fixes and then they become addicted The media takes its profit driven angle and want to make sure the fair women are cure using the beauty myth. So yes women are more susceptible, women have the symptoms, the gap exist, the market is driven, the motives are shrewd and manipulative is at its best. What I mean is men are not so pressured as women to look beautiful. I don't know why you think women are more susceptible to lung and heart diseases. Mortality figures clearly indicate women have longer life expectancy. As to broken hearts, again, I doubt you have any evidence in support of that. As to headaches, I fail to see how they are important. As to the rest of that whole passage, it seems you have concluded women are more susceptible to media regarding health products. Does that, in your view, extend to other topics as well (such as beauty?), and on what basis? 1. How exactly did they manage to determine that the media "barrage" was the causitive factor in producing these opinions? 2. What says that holding those opinions represents 'low-self esteem'? 3. What percentage of the women who have these opinions are making a healthy assessment of their actual state of fitness? 4. What percentage of women with these opinions go on to make actual unhealthy choices based on these opinions? That's some very odd logic. There's a very long list of carreers that only a small percentage of aspirants will actually succeed in. Movie stars, astronauts, pop musicians, super-models, professional athletes, politicians, top-flight professionals, the list goes on. Just because success in these fields is difficult does not mean aspiring to them is 'reason for concern'.

Oh, no. That's completely wrong. The court has not changed the Charter in the least. The courts have simply clarified that "everyone" includes homosexuals. Great! I'd be most appreciative if you'd explain it, then.

Who is the God of Mayonaisse that can deny Miracle Whip users their right to free expression? You say 'mayonaisse is what it is and only what it is'. I say that 'civil mayonaisse' can include edible oil products. If I am the legitimate civil authority, then civil mayonnaise is whatever I say it is. Now, if you have public policy reasons why only egg mayonaise should be so defined, feel free to put them forth.

Actually, my post addresses nomenclature by specifying that I am talking about civil marriage (i.e. that kind which exists as a legally-mandated condition). As such, the nomenclature exists as the government may create it. As pointed out, I agree that the rules of civil marriage are going to change. What I don't grasp is: 1) what it is about the proposed change that makes it a change of essence (as you seem to believe), rather than a change of detail, (as it seems to me). After all, a man named Bob may say one day that he is a bricklayer. Then when he gets a different job, he will say he's a chef. He still remains a man named Bob. 2) even assuming that the change is one 'of essence', what realistic negative outcome arises from it?

That is a completely different story. Canada does support rebuilding Iraq; we didn't believe that the invasion was appropriate. That is a big difference and quite expecting in our Peace keeping type of role. I completely agree with caesar here (which may be a first... ) I have also wondered whether things in Iraq would not have become such a mess had Canada and other nations become involved in the process sooner. -kimmy As recent history records, Canada and other nations were involved soon enough to prevent the debacle (i.e. before it began), but the U.S. bulled ahead without us.

You appear to have overlooked my post about sets of persons and their qualification and effect on marriage. I would be interested in knowing why that has failed to convince you.

Who's poll is that? I detect a slight conservative slant to the questions.

But no-one can grant that freedom but the hypothetical woman. Look, you even call it 'self-conscious'. It is entirely within the power of your 'self' to stop being 'self' conscious and entirely outside the power of anyone else to prevent you from ceasing to be self-conscious about it. Your position is confusing. It's like you standing there holding a dollar and asking "Give me this dollar." Are you suggesting that women in particular are more susceptible to media conditioning than men? There are assumptions about everyone and it is manifested in the media by everyone.

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us form such drivel, would you. Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all. Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway. Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say. Where then, does it say that? It says it right here, and it also says a lot more. To try and use one wrong to justify another is ridiculous. Eating shelfish is not seen in the eyes of god as an abomination as is homosexuality. It is seen as an unclean food. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22 http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/20.html#13 Hey, where's you quote from? The one I've got doesn't go into their blood upon them.

That's absurd. Besides, even if marriage were a treaty, nothing about that fact would, in and of itself, preclude the existing parties from agreeing to admit additional parties. The logical deficiency (discernible so far) in your position, are twofold: -first, your premises are suspect (what proves that marriage is a treaty in a war); -second, your conclusion that SSM should be opposed is not established by your premises (even if they are correct).

That makes no sense, at least to me. Civil (i.e. non-religious) marriage is whatever the civil authority says it is. Consider: Set A = all cases of two opposite sex persons who have established a 'lifelong' committed intimate partnership Set B = all cases of two same sex persons who have established a 'lifelong' committed intimate partnership Presently, marriage for civil purposes equals all cases within Set A who follow the mandated procedures for legal formalization of the partnership. Let's call these people Set C. The legislation proposes only to change the qualification for Set C to include parties from Set B who follow the mandated procedures for legal formalization. The result: -Set C continues to exist, -no-one presently in Set C will be affected, -no-one in Set A will be affected, and -no-one aspiring to move from Set A to Set C will be affected.

But there is no question the legislation will change civil marriage. The questions are: i) given the reasons tendered FOR making the change, what are the reasons for NOT making the change? and ii) evaluating both sets of reasons, for and against, what are the more persuasive from the point of view of public policy?

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us form such drivel, would you. Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all. Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway. Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say. Where then, does it say that?

Puh-lease. By this logic you can support bestiality!

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us form such drivel, would you. Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all. Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway.

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us from such drivel, would you.

Why is that necessary? What do you care?

You're trending strongly leftward, economic-wise.

So are you an all-around conservative, opposed to any and all change? Or do you apply some selectivity to allow for some things to change? BTW, of course, no-one is proposing to legislate how anyone should feel about anything.

If you agree that homosexuals should have the same rights 'in all but name', then I think you need to explain: (1) what difference you think the name itself makes; and then (2) why you think its proper to retain that difference, despite your asserted acceptance of the principle of equality. Failing such explanation, perhaps you need to acknowledge that there is in fact some element of anti-homosexual bias in your position. 1) I've already answered that. I am a traditionalist who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others (or words to that effect)--and should remain so. It's that simple--no hiddren agendas--no moralizing. All definitions by definition define the parameters of a word. I have no desire to see the definition expanded to include same sexes. So your only reason is that you're opposed to change? Interesting.

No, I don't agree at all. He promised to defend Canadian values of civil rights, and he promised more democracy for MPs. So far, at least up to the point of the vote going against the legislation, he's delivering both. Are the two not at cross-purposes? Not at all. So far projections indicate that the free vote will pass the legislation -- ta da! -- both goals met and discharged. Only if Parliament fails to pass the legislation does it come time for Martin to confront a choice between the two objectives of defending rights and improving MP freedom. Even if the bill is defeated, depending on what he does next, he can legitimately claim to be defending the Charter. Public policy is not a one-off event. He didn't promise to succeed at every stage in every arena. He promised policy, not outcome.

If you agree that homosexuals should have the same rights 'in all but name', then I think you need to explain: (1) what difference you think the name itself makes; and then (2) why you think its proper to retain that difference, despite your asserted acceptance of the principle of equality. Failing such explanation, perhaps you need to acknowledge that there is in fact some element of anti-homosexual bias in your position.