Clopin

I took the time to read the thread... skimmed over Charles farming and such. Not much has been said about the matter of world perception. I don't think we should overlook how other nations' perception of Canada affects how we feel about our national identity. Ask the average world citizen: Who is Elizabeth II? and what will they say? Queen of England. Be it an accurate description or not, that will be the most common answer. And to most, when they hear that the 'Queen of England' is also Canada's head of State, that brings with it the stigma of Canada not being fully autonomous. Even if we actually are. Preach all you want about education, the simpler notion will prevail. It's about emotion and symbolism... how we feel about the issue as opposed to a rational deduction as to which option is healthier for the country. Albeit, Monarchists make valid arguments... such as the political neutrality of our head of state, I still agree we will remain immature as a nation until we cut the royal umbilical cord.

I'm actually arguing for your side na85, making a point that the state plays a pivotal role in this.

You do realize you're encroaching on religious freedoms.. and resorting back to the state to enforce the restrictions on marriage... don't you?

Help me out here.. A man wants to take a second wife... what's stopping him other than the state?

Then so be it.. Which religion shall we adopt as a guide? Or should we just let all do what they please? Should we allow polygamy for those religions that permit it? Should we disallow Catholic divorce as Europe did in the past?

Well put, Melanie.

Ever had sex with a virgin and saw what happened? Have you not heard of women completely uncomfortable with sex? Do you think gay people have 'all that sex' because of the discomfort? Did black people reach equality by re-writing history? Any idea how long slavery has been around? and still is. Physics? square peg? round hole? you really are full of it. I fear it would only be a waste of time discussing this matter further with you. So good luck spreading your word.

Last I heard, they never went through with it... One of them joked that it would never work because the other guy hangs his wet socks in the shower. It seems even the most basic concepts are eluding you.

Had to write a couple of essays on the subject at university 4 years ago, one as a scientific report on cloning, the other on the ethics of it. Strangely enough, with all the reading I did, I didn't touch upon the subject of cloning to harvest organs in my report. I was too fascinated with the notion that living mammals can come into existence without the use of sperm. It still leaves me in wonder. Has there ever been anything so groundbreaking in biology? Or in the history of science? But I guess the notion of conception in a test tube was just as inconceivable 100 years ago... maybe it takes time to get used to it. Our lives are so short in the large scheme of things; we tend to be limited in our perspectives. As much as I find the risk of the bleakest scenarios unacceptable to me personally (deformed births, uncertain consequences involving human life)... the itch of "what if" will never go away. And I'd bet my life there are thousands of scientists out there who have that itch a thousand fold. And people willing to risk all to fund it. To the general population, it's about 'why should we do it'? To the scientifically oriented, it's too much to pass up on. This is the kind of stuff that drives scientists more than finding the cure for Aids and cancer. It has a unifying effect, fascinating physicists, chemists as much as they do geneticists. It has broader implications than 'improving life'. If you understand the true nature of scientific research, you'd resign yourself to the inevitability of cloning. The laws will be there to restrict (which I'm for), but as far as trying to stop it... that boat didn't just sail, it sank at the pier. All there needs to be is one autonomous jurisdiction anywhere in the world to loosen up the restrictions, and if any good comes out of it, others will NOT want to fall behind. Statistically speaking, that’s bound to happen. The idea of building a railway to the moon never took off, and the intended goal was achieved through different means. Cloning is already underway; it's not a hypothetical concept. The means are here... it's the goal we're not sure of. I agree with CndPatriot, that there is an element of fear because of the lack of knowledge. I hope people learn about the process before getting into the moral discussion. Even for those dead set against it for whatever reasons, I hope they take the time to learn what it is.

Did you get all that from the Real Women of Canada? Sounds like the mantra lives on. Too late for the tin foil it seems.

It's a good thing younger generations are more supportive of SSM. Indicative of where the 'bridged future' is heading.

I'll stand by your right to express your opinion Leafless, that's why we're here after all. But I'm tired of derogatory remarks that trash the country and add nothing to the discussion. A little respect for the land is not much to ask. I've lived in half a dozen countries, including the U.S. in which I have more family than I do here, and I've visited dozens more. This is a great nation we live in by any standard and with all its faults, of which no country in the world is exempt. Can we do better? Always. Are we heading to the dogs? Not in your life.

Those kinds of comments are completely unwarranted. You put the effort into presenting your views then decimate it by insulting the nation.

Don't recall any from TO. Watching rerun though (leg injury... slow night). Anyone catch the white wrist-band on Jack's right wrist? looked like he came into the debate right after hitting the gym, ready to kick some prime ministerial ass. heheh

Pretty sure there was one from Mississauga.

Proabably the only occasion where I felt all leaders were cast in a good light. Martin didn't seemed tired to me, on the contrary I've always been impressed with the level of energy this man has, and tonight was no exception. Harper was calm and collected... I didn't see any supressed frustration that any leader of opposition would have to struggle with. He was great! Layton was his usual confident self, and looked much better in contrast with what he did last year. Good engagement skills. Duceppe: direct, unflinching (though I'm sure the blood pressure was pushing the red line with Martin's uppercut on separatism) Regardless of what we think of their ideologies or where they stand on the issues... you need to be quite extraordinary to be able to do what they do.

Isn't it a similar format to the U.S presidential debates? I don't think it's a bad idea... it's an opportunity for those in the general public who are not political enthusiasts to get some general idea about the party platforms. Anyone know if Harper made it a policy not to shake Duceppe's hand? He persistently refused to shake prior to the debate.

This is analogous to instances where organizations like Focus on the Family used registered domain names such as DonBoudria.ca amongst others to promote their cause... it's a sneaky way to go about business, but unfortunately completely legal in Canada. I think the Americans are ahead of us in that department, where laws are in place to curtail this kind of exploitation.

lol

Maybe Martin's political faux pas was worthwhile after all: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story...1664723,00.html

cellphone? I think it was the translation feed when Martin spoke in French.

When religion is 'militarized', or treated as public policy, people lose the spiritual element, because... well, they have no choice but to abide. There is little room for discussion when it comes to matters of religion in countries with strict muslim regimes. But I think things are changing. There really IS some contrast in Saudi Arabia... I'm sure the majority of the country is immoderately religious, or at least governed by laws that are so, but where I stayed in Jeddah - a 20 squared km resort-like compound - they had mixed swimming pools and women were free to walk out in shorts if they pleased. A more conservative attire is in order for outside the compound, but no head covering is mandatory for foreign women. I've been out with female friends to restaurants hassle free. It's not total freedom over there (or here for that matter) but was more than what I expected. Women still can't drive there for some strange reason... Saudis themselves are hard pressed justifying that one. I think it's the only nation worldwide with such a law. As far as gay men, I didn't find it to be as drastic as proclaimed by many in the west. I've met a few gay men there who don't bother hiding their sexuality. They're not ostentatious or boastful about it either, but they were comfortable enough to stay and work in the country when they had the choice to leave. And gay characters on TV were not uncommon (no explicit sexual connotations but there was no mistaking it). Though I would agree that it's still a very strict society, relative to ours, my sense is that they aren't actually heading towards harsher ways. The turmoil caused by terrorism there and the crackdown by the government on it is bringing forth the incongruity of religious opinion to the masses, and gives courage for the moderates to speak out. Along with the far far more evenly tempered sermons (government keeps track of those guys) at mosques. Ire on Israel and the Jews used to be expressed on a weekly basis in Mecca during supplications before Friday prayers... but no longer. Iran is a different animal altogether.

I love women with high egos!!! and dont you start dissin' my choice in 'weman'. lol... this is a fun thread.

It seems everyone but gay men are falling for Angelina... Straight men and women, bisexual women and lesbians are all jumping on the Jolie express. Why is it Madonna managed to draw the gay crowd more than AJ? Maybe StatsCanada could investigate! I didn't overlook the link on the first post, one might miss the point of the thread without reading the first post I've actually been referred to the article months ago. And I was gonna present a few links to stats by advertizing companies as a counterargument... but I'm gonna join with August and kimmy in putting it to rest.

Openly gay MPs in the HoC constitute more than 1%... that's just the OPENLY gay ones. If we are in a situation where even women are not represented fairly in terms of numbers in parliament... make your own deductions.