PocketRocket

As long as there are tax implications which go hand in hand with marriage, the goverment cannot afford to get completely out of the way. The way the Canadian government financially penalizes married couples simply for getting married, it is definitely in their best interest to stay involved, if only periferally.

There has been a question of spousal rights when it comes to pensions, insurance, employee benefits and so forth. In many cases, spousal rights of these sorts have been denied to gay partners.

Personally, rather than "Ham Sandwich" I prefer "PocketRocket Sandwich", with two Swedish female roller skaters as the bread Butter is okay too, but I'll pass on the pickles, thanks.

Came back to address this later quote.... I would say rather than "authorized" by a priest, "blessed" or "sanctified" by a priest. Catholic marriage ceremonies are indeed quite, um, ceremonious, but can hardly be said to be the only way to get married. Unless you denounce ALL marriages which are NOT performed in a Catholic Church, then you cannot use Catholicism alone to justify your argument against SSM. You also state here that you are entitled to your personal position. Agreed. As long as you recognize the fact that your position is indeed personal, and should not be imposed upon others with differing beliefs.

I thought we had danced this dance to death, but apparently not, so here we go again.... This seems to be the main argument against SSM among those who oppose it. If marriage is indeed a religious institution, then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us to WHICH religion it belongs. Catholicism??? Protestantism??? Buddhism??? Shintoism??? Quetzocoatl-ism??? Marriage has been around for far longer than most, if not all, organized religions. Marriage ceremonies are as varied as the number of different cultures which perform such ceremonies. In ancient times, a knight and maiden would jump over the knight's sword, and they were thus married. In several North American Indian tribes, the father of the bride would perform the ceremony by simply draping a blanket over the shoulders of the bride and groom as they sat together. Some African tribes performed the ceremony by having the father of the bride hand over his daughter with one hand, and a cow with the other. Could any of these be considered "religious" ceremonies??? Some religions approve of, indeed even encourage, polygamous marriages. To most (not all) Christian sects, a polygamous marriage is considered sinful. In Canada and America, polygamy is illegal, except where it can be shown that it is part of the multiple spouses' religion. IOW, the law recognizes the right to polygamy where the individual's religion approves of such a marriage. Therefore, under the law, as under religion, no single definition of marriage exists. So, in short, no one religion can lay claim to marriage as its own, and the law cannot decisively define what exactly a marriage is. This, IMHO, nullifies the religious angle, simply because marriage predates most, if not all, organized religions, and the variety of religions allow a variety of types of marriage and marriage ceremonies. On the other hand, we have the legal institution of marriage as recognized by most western nations. A couple can be married in a courthouse by a judge, or at sea by the master of the vessel, most often the captain of a ship, but such ceremonies have also been performed by owners of large pleasure craft. Contracts are drawn up laying out the obligations of the parties involved. This makes marriage a legal institution. So, if we agree that church and state are to be two separate entities, then the religious question cannot come into play in making a decision on the legality of any specific type of marriage. This gives us not one, but TWO good reasons to throw out the whole religious argument. If we also agree that a marriage performed by someone OTHER THAN a church official is legal and binding, then this gives yet another reason to toss out the entire religious argument. (Sorry, I am not criticizing either your religion, or your personal beliefs here, but rather your desire to impose your personal beliefs on others) In view of the facts cited above, SSM becomes just another type of marriage, the legality of which is the only thing in question. Consider also that history does include cases of SSM, as far back as the middle ages, a few of which were actually approved by the Vatican, and this further nullifies the religious angle, and lends further support to the current question of SSM simply by historical precedent. (A simple Google search provides historical examples of SSM) That is a matter of opinion. Being that you are not part of the minority in question, and being in opposition to SSM, this makes your last statement simply a matter of opinion, not fact. However, you cannot question the fact that Homosexuals do indeed make up a minority of our population. Therefore, if we consider the right to marry a "right" as recognized by law, then it does indeed become an issue of denying "rights" to a minority of the population, ie; the right to marry the person of your choice. Does this make it a minority rights issue??? I guess that hinges on the two questions brought out above; are Gays a minority, and is marriage a right.

Well, hello to you. Well, "Welcome to Canada, eh". Well, for one thing suicide cannot possibly be called murder, whereas euthenasia can. This is not, however, a moral or religious difference. I cannot help you with morals here, at least not until I have another coffee under my belt. Hmm. A very polite young person. That's so wonderful to see in this day and age. But, but, but I still need more coffee Cool nickname. Okay, more seriously, let's take a whack at your question. Euthenasia is another word for "mercy killing". It is typically practised with pets who are either old and ill, or injured beyond hope of recovery. In the case of humans, it is used quite rarely, and most often with people who are in deep coma, and again, when there is no hope of recovery. Recently, there was a case in Florida, a young lady name Terri Schiavo (spelling???). You may want to do a Google search on that case. It may give you some of the answers you are seeking. Suicide, on the other hand, is when someone takes their own life. Whether this is done out of a sense of duty, as was fairly common in feudal Japan, or out of some sense of desparation, it still comes down to being a personal decision which affects others in only a periferal manner. You may be familiar with a novel entitled "Death of a Salesman". If not, find a synopsis somewhere. It too may help you out a bit with the suicide angle. One gray area would be assisted suicide. Some see this as a form of euthenasia. If someone is in such bad shape that they want to cash in their chips, and simply need someone to supply them with the means to do so, then the person who is supplying the pills/gun/knife/whatever (which will be used by the suicidee to take his own life) is considered to be "assisting" in the suicide. In some areas, this is considered a crime, almost on a par with euthenasia, also considered by many to be a criminal act. The question of morality I leave to you, as I this this to be a personal judgement call.

When you're behind in the polls, youuse whatever tools you need to try get your ratings back up. The Libs will almost certainly go on the attack immediately, if not sooner. All part of the game, unfortunately.

I don't really have an agenda, per se. But I am sort of having some petty laughs mocking your loony, poorly articulated conspiracy theories. Yes, he has been a wonderful source of amusement, hasn't he??? Hopefully he'll be around for quite some time.

Actually, you had asked for help as to how you could attach a graph, so it was a direct answer to your request. The "please don't" was my own humorous(??) addendum to the information which you had requested. So, no diversion, but rather a direct answer to your question. Strike one. Well, thank you, it was a bit funny, wasn't it?? However, your post explicitely said they were "holding hands". I asked for proof of this. While the request was phrased humorously, it was directly addressing your allegation, so it cannot be called diversion. Strike two. Well, this one came from someone else, so I cannot take responsibility for it. I can, however, agree with both the accuracy of the statement, and its general sentiment. "Hate filled belligerence"??? BWAH-HAH-HAH-HA-HA. Sorry, but your paranoia may be sad, and sometimes amusing, but it is certainly not of sufficient consequence to arouse "hate" from me, not even mild anger. Exasperation, perhaps. And if I was going to attack you with either hate or belligerence, it would not be done in the form of a one-liner. Sorry. Strike three. While I may agree with you on some (only some) of the tendencies of the American far-right, it is still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is Harper, and his role in the upcoming election. All of you repetition will not serve to add relevance to this non-issue.

Only a few TML12, and Cretien would have much rather given the inspectors more time. "Only a few". So that means it was not a secret, or not deception??? Is that like a teenage girl saying to her parents "I'm pregnant, but only a little bit"??? I tend to believe this line of thought myself, but whatever does it have to do with the missile shield, or Harper's role in the upcoming election??? See reply above. See reply above But not any of the troops that Canada sent "secretly". Probably because we sent "only a few" troops secretly, so we were involved, but "only a little bit". BTW, congratulations on a post without any capitals, large fonts, or colours. I knew you could do it if you tried. Even if you only tried "a little bit", and even though, by comparison with some of your other posts, you used "only a few" words. None of this is, however, related to Harper and the upcoming election. Not even a little bit.

Wow. This could well be very interesting. I recall listening to a science show on CBC radio a few years back about how our brains appear to be "Hard wired" to believe.....in something. It went in depth into beliefs in various religions, and claimed that our brains just seemed to be programmed in such a way that made it very easy for people to believe in certain things that they had never seen, heard, touched or tasted, ie; deities. In other areas, we are prone to doubting anything which we have not witnessed with our own senses. When you consider the vast majority of people who believe in some deity or other, in both organized religions, and a few remaining small, isolated tribal religions, I find this very easy to believe.

(Quote from title bar of thread) Was this a pun or a typo???

Try using the "Insert Image" feature. Or, rather, please don't "Soulmate (or soul mate) is a term sometimes used to designate someone with whom one has a subjective, emotional feeling of deep affinity, friendship, love, strong intimacy or compatibility." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulmate And I'm sure they make a LOVELY couple. All three of them. I'm surprised you haven't claimed that you saw them all together at that sex-club in Quebec Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures. I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher. River God quote: If I go forth, and make wild claims in big letters and bright colours, perhaps that will make my claims true. With a nickname like RiverGod, hopefully the song they sing will be "Smoke on the Water", right after you and your conspiracy theories get nuked. My word, you are certainly obsessed. PocketRocket quote: Your habitual use of Big Letters and different colours are an attack on our sanity. It is in fact obsessive compulsive behaviour. I find this is very annoying stuff. Your continued repetition of the same mantra is very disturbing stuff.

Thank You But it doesn't seem to have affected his habit. I think he/she/it is addicted to big, colourful caps

(Following quote addresses Green Party as part of debate spam from Chronic) While I don't agree with posting the same message in several threads, I don't see that there would be any harm in including the Greens as part of the debate. I mean let's look at the situation just a few years ago. The PDC's had been reduced to two (???) seats, and were still included as part of the leaders' debate in the next election, even though they had lost party status. The Greens have a credible platform, at least as credible as some others, and, as it has been argued here, if the BLOC is included in a so-called "Leaders' Debate", when they have no desire to either form a government, or, for that matter, even to advance Canada is any way (hard to do when you're trying to split up the country), then I see no reason that the Greens should be excluded.

And perhaps the moon will fall out of the sky

You mean to say it wasn't conceived and designed by Mulroney??? OMG

1))I don't know anybody who is anti-American, but neo-con fanatics want us to think that it's anti-American to say anything bad about any member of their government. 2))Look at all the politician bashing on this forum. By that definition, everybody here is anti-Canadian. 3))The fact that people are standing up to political decisions shows that they have faith that their countries can become better. 4)))You are right though that people should be providing creative solutions to problems, instead of just mud-slinging. 5)))The worst thing to do is to take a fanatical-reactionary approach where you end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. 1)) Well, being that we are NOT Americans here in Canada, then it doesn't matter WHAT the neo-con fanatics think, does it??? 2))) I am lookint at it, and it seems to me that you're doing a lot of it. 3))) And this is a good thing. 4))) Good observation. So what solutions have YOU been providing, other than accusing Harper (whom I dislike immensely, but still may vote for, I haven't decided yet) of being the second coming of the boogyman??? 5))) No, the worst thing is repeating yourself endlessly IN BIG, COLOURFUL, CAPITAL LETTERS AS THOUGH THAT MAKES EVERYTHING YOU SAY TRUE.

Who know's, KIMMY. I guess the ways of River Gods are mysterious to us mere mortals.

Robertson's staff calls this damage control???? So exactly where in the Bible does it refer to any Israeli prime ministers???

Your claim is just pure conjecture. Heck, it could even be a part of the "scary" tactics. You could be a planted "mole"...a professional "spinner" for the Liberals paid to go to website forums. While I often find myself at odds with HITI because of what I see as extremity of his/her opinion, I find this accusation laughable in light of the fact that it came from the person who started the two threads I've listed below. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=85620 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=85824

And this thread is for what????

I can immediately think of 1 group who will directly benefit from a handgun ban; the Hell's Angels. Currently, in my area, a 25cal handgun goes for about $500. A Glock will run you about $1500. 30cal about $650. etc. These are, of course, roughly the prices you'll pay if you buy from the Angels or an associated group. (all estimates courtesy of an acquaintance with periferal association with Angels) An outright ban on ALL handguns will, of course, cause the price of these black-market weapons to go up. Can you say "Playing into their hands"???

You actually need to ask that question??? Granted, the general public's memory is very short, but all these things coming down the pipe right now are making Martin look exceedingly transparent.

Damn, I hate that Liberal-biased media