Melanie_

Sorry for causing the thread drift; it’s just a phrase that’s always annoyed me, but you’re right, Dave, it is splitting hairs. Back to the topic... I can see your point, Dancer, regarding the Feds giving funding to something that is essentially a benefit to a single municipality, but that’s not really what the controversy is about. This MP, Trost, went out of his way to reassure the Christian right that funding the Gay Pride parade was contrary to government policy, and that most Conservative MPs opposed the funding. So it begs the question, what specific policy is he referring to? And what is driving the MPs’ opposition to this funding? It leaves the impression that there are a lot of homophobes among the Conservative MPs, and someone needs to clarify Trost’s statements. As a reminder, here's what he said in the LifeSiteNews article, already linked in Dobbin's opening post...

I define basic respect as giving someone the benefit of your goodwill, until they do something that causes you to withdraw it. They don't have to go out of their way to "earn" it, but they can certainly lose it - as the racists, bigots and homophobes in your example. It's an optimistic view of people, maybe not widely shared when you think of how often we hear the phrase, "respect has to be earned."

I disagree. Everyone is entitled to basic respect, until they do something to lose it. Respecting people's right to an opinion, which is where this came from, is not something we each have to go out and "earn" from everyone we encounter - its just a given in a democratic society.

There is a stereotype of the rich, egotistical professional athlete who believes all the media hype that surrounds him, and sees himself as above the mundane rules that govern the rest of us. I don't know much about Steve McNair (as a matter of fact, I'd never heard his name before this, much to the disgust of my 20 year old son), but his death reinforces this stereotype - possibly unfairly, possibly not. This article points out that most of us really don't know much about those in the media spotlight, but those who follow their careers tend to transfer their loyalty for an on-field persona to a very different individual off-field. The Boston Herald

I agree, Sabre Rider. Its also interesting that Trost immediately tried to appease the Conservative Christian right, by reassuring the pro-life and pro-family movements that the funding didn't reflect official government policy. What specific policy does he refer to, and why is it more relevent to those groups than to the rest of us? Is the nonsupport of the majority of MPs based on government policy, or personal beliefs? Regardless of what individual MPs believe, if a group qualifies for funding, according to whatever objective measures have been established, they should be entitled to that funding. From dobbin's link:

Ok, I'm confused. You admit you broke the law, you say you accept responsibility for it, but you are still trying to find a way to avoid any consequences. What does money or connections have to do with it? Did you do wrong, and are you willing to accept the consequences for it? I love this line, "149 was probably for 2 seconds".... you don't go from 70 to 149 back to 70 in 2 seconds....

If you were going 149 in a 70 zone you deserve whatever comes your way, particularly because you have said you weren't really paying attention to what you were doing. It sounds like you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. Yes, we've all made mistakes, but we need to own them and accept the consequences. Suck it up, buttercup.

This is probably the most profound thing I've ever read from you.

Which definition got trashed, though? And who agreed to it? The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years - at one time wives were legally the property of their husbands, for example. The definition of marriage is constantly evolving, and there isn't one perfect definition that we can point to and say, "There. That's the one that we should keep forever."

Well, I hardly think I was ranting and raving. The post I responded to didn’t actually present an issue to discuss, it was intended to be inflammatory, and I took the bait. I apologize for the comments on the poster himself, though – play the ball, not the player.

Well, aren't you the sweet little Fascist? Eugenics on your first day on the forum...tells me how long you're going to last.

I've noticed a group demonstrating outside the Women's Hospital in Winnipeg for the past week or two. They are having 40 days of prayer for God to end abortion. Every time I pass them, and see their signs "Pray to end abortion", I wonder about their God. Do they think he needs a certain quota of prayers before he'll do something? If he wants to end abortion, why does he need anyone to ask him to do so? Is he sitting up on his majestic throne, thinking, "yes, I really want to end abortion, but not enough people have asked me yet." Doesn't it seem just a bit arrogant to be telling god what to do? The logic escapes me... if god is the almighty, as you say, he doesn't need anyone's advice.

And we kick puppies, too.

It seems to me that this judge isn't taking the best interests of the child into account. The adoptive mother will raise the child, care for it, be its mother in every sense, so denying the child a "legal" mother is counterproductive. I understand the issue, and there obviously needs to be some thought to how to prevent the "selling" of babies, but surrogates are a viable option for people who are unable to conceive naturally.

I'm still having trouble making links. Maybe one last gremlin in the system?

If you have children, here's two books I recommend: (I can't seem to make links, but these reviews are from Amazon.ca) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv. The Hurried Child, by David Elkind I'm going to a conference in May where Elkind will be a keynote speaker, so I'm rereading this book and his other classic, Miseducation, before then.

So, the biological father of the child has custody, because the biological mother has relinquished all rights to the child. Couldn't the biological father's wife then adopt the child as her own? Once the child is in the home of the couple, there shouldn't be any impediment to having the adoptive mother gain legal guardianship.

Religion has to be open to criticism – if it has any validity, it can handle a few questions. Let journalists write what they want about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion; people are free to write a rebuttal, to defend their perspective, and to prove the journalists wrong if possible. Democracy means everyone is equal, and everyone has an equal right to say what they think. Even the most biased argument must be heard, if only to give the opportunity to debunk it. There’s no place for censorship in a free society.

Oh good, its not just me. I thought I was being punished for knowing absolutely nothing about Xeon quad cores, T-mobiles, netbooks, cell phone modems, etc. I do know who Dan Aykroyd is, though....

Who said god's laws supersede anything? Some people might want to have their imaginary friend guide their lives, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to play by those rules. I"ll take civil law, thank you.

Yes, sisika, we get it. All 4 of your posts have said the same thing. You read a book - or did you write the book? You have a website, too. Do you have anything else to talk about here on MLW, or are you just here to promote your book?

If you're not trying to convince anyone anything about abortion, why make a statement like "abortion is wrong"? I'm simply pointing out that many would agree that, in this case, abortion is right. If you disagree, you are free not to have an abortion next time you're pregnant and you're likely to die if you continue with the pregnancy. Others will choose differently.

Abortion is not wrong, particularly in this case. In the Abortion Reform Poll thread, we had pretty much unanimous agreement that abortion was justified in the case where the woman's life was in jeopardy, which would apply here. This girl is better off being excommunicated - who wants to be part of an organization that protects the pedophile and condemns the victim?

Did the stepfather get excommunicated for raping the 9 year old girl? What kind of moral condemnation does the church have for him? They're probably too focused on punishing a child for doing the only thing that made any kind of sense in this situation.

Time to buy stocks in tinfoil again!