CanuckPuck

Labelling: two "L's" (as well as being a left-wing-know-it- all I am also a stickler for Canadian spelling). Right. 'Contemptuous dismissal'? LOL! I don't see dismissing hatred and ignorance as contemptuous. Frankly, when someone says the love I feel for another human being is not equal in the eye of the law and is of lesser value than someone elses, 'contemptuous' is the only way I can respond. Actually, my reaction can be defined more as 'flabergasted'; 'amazed'; 'shocked'; 'bewildered' and 'dumbfounded'. The only reason for not recognizing gay-unions as a 'marriage' is HOMOPHOBIA. Hatred and fear of homosexuals. Period. No more. No less. The religious 'right' do not want homosexual unions recognized as a 'marriage' because of their views on homosexuality.

You have already heard the arguments and you don't agree. Fair enough. This is not a human rights issue. These as you say are the carefully chosen words by the Liberals. It turns out that the support of the Charter and what they define as human rights trumps all. Or not we will see when they vote. The Conservatives have said that all the rights of married couples should be transferred to gays and lesbians who enter civil unions. Not being termed a marriage is the question. For many faith traditions the word marriage has a very specific meaning. That is also enshrined in the constitution. I don't know what a radical gay would be but I think Dona Summers would more likely be the singer of choice. I may be bizarre but don't hate me because you aint me. Bizarre is only in the eye of the beholder. I don't hate you; I just don't understand you(unlike homophobes who do hate because they don't understand). As for the term 'marriage', both sides are fighting for symobolic reasons, or the 'principle' of the matter. For this reason it is important to include same-sex unions under the term (legal or otherwise) 'marriage'. If anyone disagrees, they obviously (yes, obviously) feel that homosexual relations are not at par with heterosexual ones under the law and in 'the eyes of God'. They regard them as different, and not only different, but 'inferior' and not equally worthy. 'Civil union' is nice: but it holds the same 'respect' as the 'don't ask don't tell' policy in the U.S. I don't see any other reason why someone would not want to include gay-marriages under the title 'marriage' unless their decision is based on their feelings about homosexuality (yes?) which is safe to assume is low. What we have here are a bunch of frightened heterosexuals (most of whom probably never read the Bible a day in their lives) who somehow feel including gay-unions under 'marriage' will somehow diminish the status of their relation: it will not. Labelling gay-marriages as 'civil unions' treats relations between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples as 'different' (and not just for the obvious gender reasons). Donna Summer? No. Judy Garland maybe. Now that's really gay. Kinda like the Bruce Springsteen of the str8 set.

'Radical gays'? What exactly is a 'radical gay'? Is it a gay person who listens to Barbara Striesand really loud? What's a 'radical straight'? Well I guess that would be Stephen Harper! That man and those who support him are bizarre -- at best. They chose their words very carefully: 'Liberals are attacking marriage'; 'the rights of a small portion of Canadian society'. Insane! The only 'attacking' that is happening is coming from those who oppose gay-marriage. As for gays being a minority: so? Their human rights don't count? What other 'minority' group will Stephen Harper discount as being worthy of equal representation under the law? The bottom line is that marriage is symbol of two people's love for each other and not their sexual orientation; two men or two women getting married is not going to prevent a man and woman in any way from getting married. If some heterosexuals that changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples diminishes opposite-sex marriage, I ask: HOW? Again, marriage is a symbol of love: not a symbol of your heterosexuality.

(Isn't foetus spelt with an 'O'?) Whether to abort a pregnancy is not an easy decision for any woman to make. The circumstances for each woman is different. Certainly many women who are pro-choice would never consider having an abortion themselves. There are many facets of this argument for and against the rights of the foetus and the woman; but the main one is that a persons body and life-choice should not be controlled by the state. Not brushing aside the argument that we are all responsible for our actions and must take accountability for them, etc., we can not say the rights of the foetus override the rights of the woman if she willingly engaged in sexual intercourse, but does not override the rights of the woman if she was raped or a result of incest, etc. (many say abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest). How can the rights of a foetus be held in so regard if they are that fickle?

First of all, I am going to use your word "farrigthwingers" (as one word) from now on in everyday speech. Thank you. Of course he's irrelevant. He has been irrelevant since he took office. His entire political career has been one big bizarre joke; however, a very dangerous and destructive joke.