Clopin

I'm willing to bet Navdeep Bains, and Ruby Dhalla are not going to lose their seats because of their vote on the issue. And if there was any recoil by their voters, they're both 'likeable' enough to overcome it. Their age also helps people accept their position. Wajid Khan on the other hand was under considerable pressure from his constituency to oppose ssm, he definately would have suffered a defeat had he supported it. Even though the sikhs and muslims are gernerally opposed to ssm (muslims more so), you'd be surprised by the level of support there is. At least I was.

Are we talking about the muslim constituency or the arab in particular? Don't know what the numbers are as far as number of Arab votes in Canada compared to the Jewish... but the Muslim constituency in general certainly outnumbers the Jewish in Canada. I think a more supportive stance towards Israel is a good thing. Moses and Jesus are recognized in Islam, and yes... it's the same God.

I'm surprised news of this spread so quick. I was just in Sweden this afternoon (it was in Sweden not Norway) and I thought it might be interesting to add that the priest was quite apologetic in his statements to the press. It seemed to me like it was due to public pressure as the vast majority of Swedes thought he was out of line by using the particular words he chose. Religious sermons are being censored for political reasons all over the world, even Saudi muslim clerics are more tempered in their deilivery these days. No more Jew bashing.

Anyone read the articles that came out a few days ago about the Vatican's position on creationism? You can do a search on the Google News section for more articles. They actually reject the notion as it is currently interpreted. Sorry if it's already been brought up in the thread... did a quick search I didn't find anything on the topic.

From what the media seems to say: younger Quebecers are even more of the separatist vein than their elders. Is Boisclair more of a threat to the federation than anyone in the past 2 decades? I can't say I know much about him but I'm under the impression he has a galvanizing effect on the party, as well as Quebecers in general and could garner more support. The notion of Canada splitting seemed so surreal to me most of the time... not so much now. It's quite disorienting actually. Or am I giving this guy too much credit? As I type.. the Bloq Q on cpac are applauding a 'free Quebec' remark. Clarity Act coming into use soon?

Everyone is making good points... it's not an easy thing to find the right balance between protecting Canadian culture and promoting multi-culturalism... and I'm not sure I buy into the idea that Canadian culture IS about multi-culturalism (with respect). I've been quite vocal about this since my first year at university. I've lived all over the world (partly because of my father's vocational obligations) and I've spent years growing up/studying in Europe, Africa, Middle East and Japan (only vacationed in rest of Asia). I hold much respect for different cultures even if I disagree with their practices. But it was always like a hot coal in my pants whenever I heard Canadians boast their conceptual superiority to Americans because we don't adopt the 'melting pot' ideology... and instead let everyone be to create a 'mosaic'. We as Canadians have a lot of things right... but this isn't one of them. Our fabric is weakened when we have communities ghettoized. Our sense of unity as a nation is diminished when language and cultural barriers are set up. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect new immigrants to be able to communicate with one of the official languages comfortably before giving them citizenship. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect new immigrants to know what Canadian values are in general and be prepared to assimilate themselves into the mainstream. I sometimes get the feeling Canada is being treated like some pit stop - a huge resort to live in comfort without obligation, without allegiance. I wonder how many immigrants hold their highest allegiance to this country. I wonder how many Canadian citizens would put their previous home country's interests above Canada's, I hope they're not many... but the flip side is that those who do are usually the older generations… and as slow as the process might be, it will change with subsequent ones, even if they are sent back home to get hitched One qualm: I do wonder what constitutes a funny last name.... I wonder if your real name sounds funny to me Argus... lol Can white people have funny names? As for Hollywood and immigrant workers: I've worked at DreamWorks studios in Burbank for two years... and I was amazed at how far they went in scouting for talent. People were being flown in from as far away as the Philippines.

you're right, no one is forcing them to marry women, but since it's not in their capacity to make a marriage with a woman work, they are forced out of marriage altogether.

One of the porblems with using the notwithstanding clause is that it could imply that the conservatives actually concede to the fact that gay and lesbian couples should have equal rights when it comes to marriage. essentially, invoking the notwithstanding clause means they're saying: 'notwithstanding' the fact that same-sex couples are guaranteed full equality under the Canadian Charter, they are going to be denied the same right to marry as is excercised by heterosexual couples nonetheless. As for giving gay men the right to marry women.. lol... it's a joke. And anyone who uses that as an argument is simply insulting their own intelligence. Anyone seen the Larry King interview of the former wife of Rock Hudson? let's have men marry women they have absolutely no attraction to and no intention of having sexual relations with.. then they can come and tell us what it's like to live such a life. Is it ok to live a lie and marry someone you're not attracted to sexually? If you honestly think yes, and believe that a marriage need not involve a sexual context, then your argument might deserve a sporting chance. But if you believe marriage includes a sexual aspect, then the argument goes nowhere.

just for reference.. Here's a link to the APA's section on their conclusions regarding sexual orientation: APA on Sexual Orientation and another on their findings regarding gay marriage and parenting: APA on Gay & Lesbian Parents

It seems I'm out of bounds when I say that opponents are being defiant and have no sound argument.. but it's perfectly legitimate to say proponents have no substance to their arguments. Not only that, a bogus genetic argument is brought into the picture. I suggest some of us pick up an 8th grade Bio book to learn the basics of genetics, just learn the significance of phenotypes and their relation to the genome. Let’s also make sure we avoid getting our information from GeneticsForTheRighteous.com before we speak of scientific findings with any authority. Any source that claims genetic differences between a male and female of a species is comparable to the difference between, not only different species, but a different genus altogether is, at best, a questionable one.

It seems somewhat juvenile when people express their opinions in a defiant manner instead of trying to back up those opinions with convincing arguments. Who cares whether an individual agrees with the concept of SSM or not if they don't put forth a sound argument? Who cares if Tom, Dick AND Harry say they would never see two men or two women as married? Who's seeking their approval anyway? Marriage is already equally accessible to all in most of Canada and will soon be to the rest of the nation. No one lives forever, and the younger generations don't see a problem with the concept. Let those who want to bitch and whine about it do so to their heart's content. For the rest of us with more common sense: either appreciate it or get over it.