Chloe

I was not born with a narrow viewpoint nor do I spend money or time learning to be narrow minded. I do not judge people on the basis of what they do in their bedroom, so Back-Off. I was simply stating MY OPINION on the BEHAVIOR in which people decide to conduct themselves and the level of reasoning they use in making such decisions. Granted that society does not see marriage as having any real point to it... instead I was merely trying to understand what its purpose and function is in today's world that seeks to act now and think later.

I agree with you Willy on that otherwise to RB and I Miss Trudeau, my jaw drops at your comments, and so I ask the two of you what the point of marriage is? Why do we have vows, why do we bother with the ceremony, why do we not just stop with it all together and have sex with anything that breaths! By the way sex within marriage is not just to procreate it also allows people within a marriage to have pleasure without having to worry about contracting something since they are hehmmm suppose to be committed to each other and no outside party that has unsafe sex.

I watched a Dr. Phil show recently and it was about alternative life styles. Now tell me if I'm missing something here but when did it become ok, morally ethically and so on, to allow more than one party into the bed of a married couple. Tell me how one can justify this, especially when there are kids involved. Its like saying hey kids mommy and daddy want to have sex with other people but don't worry we still love each other. Does marriage mean "no committment anymore" did webster's dictionary change the definition of what that word means? And why on earth has society said to hell with standards we just wanna have fun?

Like someone previously said, we already have the US defending us in a way. The thing is we have never really been under any extreme and direct threat but should the day come, I'm pretty sure the US would come out to defend, if for no other reason than to look good to the world community and say, "Hey we're not so bad after all." If we do go ahead with allowing the US to defend Canada, it will further amplify the fact that the US is in deed, Canda's babysitter. It will also show how pathetic a nation we are that we can't even develop a modest military made up of CANADIANS to defend CANADIANS.

Yes, that is what I meant. There are those few that can show mercy and compassion without wanting anything in return or show compassion because it will make them feel better about themselves. I just wish the world community can show such compassion to every nation less fortunate all the time and not just when the media will be able to glorify their so-called "selfless act" of generousity.

You mean from a purely Theorectical standpoint, if you show mercy and compassion, mercy and compassion it may be shown to you, should you one day need it. From a practical standpoint people don't show mercy or compassion unless their is an immediate pay off, unfortunately.

I should also add that in a way we could compare the US and Canada relations to the Canada and Quebec relations when Quebec was busy wanting to separate. We are like Quebec when it comes to US relations because like Quebec we want to be independent of a bigger entity but still enjoy the benefits of being associated with them, but at the same time mock them. The only difference is we don't need American passports or currency, we were smart enough to get that on our own.

Well its already being done legally so I'm not to sure as to why it would become the next debate. Look people, homosexuals have every possible thing they ever wanted, they are able to work for a living, hell we have prominant leaders in government and the business world that are openly gay but still retain their positons. Gays and Lesbsians are able to adopt apply for social security, buy a home, become musicians, work at a bar, cook clean, breath, and the list goes on...the only thing that they don't have is "Marriage" its ridiculous and ludicrous for them to say their rights are being deprived in any way...they have EVERY SINGLE ONE available to heterosexuals with the exception of marriage. This is what I don't get. Homosexuals are not being deprived of any basic rights, they are not being deprived of living togther, having a union, holding a job to maintain their basic needs, they have the media on their side, they have the governement on their side. They are not being deprived of their basic right to live and function in society so why is it that we say they are being deprived of their MOST basic right...the most basic right is to be toghther regardless of whether they are married or not and they aren't being deprived of that right to be together. Society hardley shones them, I mean I could go and on and on ...people encourage their existance. I also don't understand what the hurry is. No other country with the exception of two legalize gay marriages. Martin can completely ignore victimes who DON'T have a voice when it comes to conviciting the guilty in criminal court cases, children can continue to be exploited by perverse pedophiles, gun laws, the justice system in general can continue to be discriminatory against those it convicts of a crime...but the world will come to an end if we don't legalize gay marriage. The whole issue is preposterous and may I add annoying.

I'm just curious ceasar, on your position about US relations in general. Would you prefere the US go throw a nuclear bomb on themselves so that they will no longer exist and have every and any other nation become the their own leaders with bombs and nuclear weapons galor. After all you anti bush and Americans have this motto that any evil is better than BUSH.

Choice Choice Choice, people need to put the word choice into perspective. As far as I am concerned you are a person and a huamn being the moment your are concieved, why, because the potential to develop into a person, who can contribute to society in a positive way is there. Therefore you should have the right to life and nobody should dare take it away from you. A woman's right, free choice and liberty, blah blah blah, undoubtably, in this case, is only looking out for herself, and not the child who does not have the capacity to defend their right in this issue. I know people believe a woman raped who now has the repsonsibilty of a child to deal with because of it must have the right to abort, because they did not ask to be raped is right. However this is a view point I do not agree with. The child did not ask to be concieved in such a condition and thus it must also have the right to live. Women go through hardships all the time and manage to rise above it, why should having a child you don't want and giving it up for adoption be any different. Futhermore in such an unfortunate case as rape, it does not however involve the majority of women who decide to have an abortion, but its of those women who see it as another birth control pill. Since when did we constitute death as right because doctors are committing the act or law officials are committing the act. It's distatesfull, and shamefull that people would resort to such levels. I know of girls who have had abortions because they did not want the responsibilty, AND say they could have easily avoided the sitaution if they wanted. So these are the woman who should have the "liberty" to do what they want even though they are preventing a life when they knew they could prevent the situation from even occuring. What conditions constitute abortion as an okay way to go. I see none, and the whole concept chills me. Please ladies, lets fight for woman's rights with issues that have integrity and are valid.

The intent to injure (i.e. violence) is my concern here. I find it fascinating how people who watch hockey religioulsy respond to the way hockey players play the game. When they see them pushing, and shoving and banging each other against the board, or they see another team player hit his oppenent and start a little rumble, observers watch this and even encourage them, saying "hit him harder" or "look at that chump he can't even fight back." Yet you hear on the news, that street violence is on the rise and that it needs to stop, and that on lookers who just watch are part of the problem and not the solution. People who don't do anything to stop a fight are seen as people in the wrong, but here you have a whole stadium of people who are in the wrong. What is it that makes what happens on the ice so different from what happens on the street. Why is it like the rules do not apply to those in the hockey league.

And saying he played the way he was taught is no excuse.

Yes I meant to write Todd, Furthermore, how can you get rid of fighting on the ice when the punishment does not indicate that fighting is a bad thing. If one does not have to face the consequence of his actions harshley then why would fighting on the ice stop. People only learn when something is wrong after someone dies, and it looks like that is what might happen here if we don't start somewhere, and I believe that starting somewhere involves dishing out harder punishment. If I'm approached by someone from the back on the street and I get pushed down, and my injuries are as bad as Steve Moore's what would be the punishment of the man or woman who attacked me. They would certainly be harsher than what Todd recieved. Why should he be exempt, just because it happened on the ice. He should have gotten jail time, and not just some measly 80 hour community service deal. Teens have to do community service as part of their requirement for graduation, therefore he recieved no punishement at all.

The verdict is in and it sucks. Tom Bertuzzi got a slap on the wrist for his undoubtably stupid conduct. Steve Moore who now suffers the after effects of his injury now has to deal with the fact that the accused only has to pay a small fine that probably is 1/10 of his entire salary as well as do community service. What kind of message does this send to kids and others involved in hockey. It sends the message that if you serverly hurt another hockey player on the ice then you don't have to worry about being criminally charged, and so continue playing the game with brutality. How is it, that the judge even saw it fit to carry out the trial without the victim even being present to give his victim impact statement. I just don't get the thought process of some people.

What I was asking is with regard to Iran, did people (analysts, reporters, governments, and people who hate Bush) claim that Iran was more of a threat when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction. Did people not say that. Did people not say we should be focusing on Iran because of their growing nuclear program. So how is it that people are now saying Bush is doing it again when these are the same people that said Iran is more of a threat. This what I don't understand. So now because we all hate BUsh are we going to ignore the fact that Iran is a threat or at least a possible one, and claim bush wants to exapnd his empire. My question is Iran no longer a threat?

Hahahahahaha.....Argus that was funny, I must say...but ummm ya lets see Crying I hate Bush really got Parrish far. I wonder how much of her comment will actully give her the results she wanted. Does she think Bush is sitting by his bed crying "that woman called me a NAME!!" Give me a break she has not accomplished anything with her tactics and never will if she continues her behaviour. Maybe if she flew over to one of those countries where you have grown women and men in the governement throwing food at each other while trying to solve their issues, she'd probably have more of an effect their.

Some people believe and I've heard this on T.V that allowing same sex marriage removes the standards that society has been living by for so long. Therefore legalizing same sex marriage phases out the standard we've been living by. And so if we can phase this standard out, what is keeping us from phasing out the standard of marriage from being between two people to being between three people, who will make the argument that they are all deeply in love and deserve to be together, and raising children together. After all, three people rasing a child is better than two, cuz the work load will be less between three people. This is the kind of argument people who want to be in this kind of relationship will have. Are you following. This is no joke, I heard someone saying this. Since Threesomes for some is no longer an experiement, nor is it a one time thing. there are people who are actually in these kind of relationship. Basically what I'm saying is this.... if we can redefine the definition of marriage to suit the times we live in now, when we want marriage to be between TWO people, then whats stopping us from redefinig it again for people who live in a time when Three people having a relationship want to make it legal. We can also redefine it for those who want to marry people within the family. Therefore the nuclear family concept will almost be like a thing of the past. You may see this as crazy, but the guy on T.V said that removing the standard as it stands now, which is one man one woman, for as long as its been now will only allow for more redefining in the futur in order to suit everyones needs. This is why the nuclear family is threatened by same-sex marriage.

JWayne625: "Let's remember that Germany lost two attempts at conquering the world, now they are one of the driving forces behind the European Union. Could this be attempt number three, only this time they are attempting to accomplish it financially instead of using weapons? If that is the case France is staunch ally of Germany's. Just speculating." I think that's a good possibilty, I mean why wouldn't they. People keep worrying about the US, and all but with all the anti-US hatred going on, I think the Americans are paving the way for their replacement, the EU. Doing this unintentionally of course.

It goes both ways Caesar, SOME Amecians couldn't careless about what happens to people in Iraq as long as their land is safe and secure, but it also goes for Iraqi people and Iranians, they couldn't careless if American aid workers were being killed in their streets, or the beheading of Americans not involved in the fighting occur just as long as they make their point that they hate America. People blame America for the mess that is happening but it doesn't justify the killing that people on BOTH sides are doing. Iraqis are suffering but their people aren't helpin the situation either. My point is this, don't generalize people by saying Americans are selfish. Not all of them are. SOME Iraqis are just as much to blame for the sensless killing as are SOME Americans.

So what do you suggest we stop trade with the US and start trade with another Country? And which one?

What do you say to that?

JWayne625, You make very interesting points. Do you have anything else to add?