Melanie_

I'm not a real Hollywood follower, despite my recent posts re: Woody Allen/Mia Farrow/Soon Yi Previn. But this is so sad, not just because he was an Oscar nominated actor, but because he was a young man, with everything to live for. I'll be watching for the autopsy results, while at the same time chastising myself for contributing to the exploitation of his death. God help me if I actually buy a magazine - I'll be on the slippery slope to hell.

I'm sure many people shun Woody and Soon Yi. I can't imagine how her siblings, his children, react to their relationship, or to the daughters, their half-sisters/nieces. Or how Mia Farrow feels about her grandchildren, the children of her ex-partner, who is now her son-in-law. But in the end, whatever social taboos have been violated, there is no legal impediment to the relationship, and the shunning they may experience may not hold any relevence for them. Rue, I think you make some very good points regarding the imbalance of power in sexual relationships within families. What we are seeing here is the tension between personal choice, and exploitation. Who's to determine how that tension is resolved? When does that imbalance of power end, or does it ever? Can we trust adults to make choices independently, or does the government need to intervene? My first reaction is to be repulsed by incest, but I'm not convinced that my personal reaction should serve as a guide in other people's lives, particularly self aware, consenting adults.

To return to the original question.... I recently read an article about Woody Allen, and he mentioned that he and Soon Yi Previn had been married now for 10 years, and have two daughters. He never formally adopted her, but he did have children with her mother, both biological and adopted, and he acted in the role of a father for her for many years. Many people saw this as being close to incest at the time, but it has been accepted as two consenting adults choosing to be with each other, regardless of the ick factor. I think we would see the same reaction to a relationship between adopted siblings. I think you've raised an interesting question here, Renegade, regarding the twins on CNN. What makes someone part of someone else's family? Is it just about genetics, or is it about the emotional ties connecting them? And do our taboos against incest make sense in all situations? I understand the concern regarding impairments in children, but that doesn't account for taboos against relationships where there is no chance of children being conceived.

That sounds a bit threatening. Are you suggesting that deviance from "the one true religion" will result in god visiting his wrath upon us for not maintaining our Christian heritage? Should we all tremble now? There is no true religion, just mythology. Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Allah, Buddha, God...... a good myth can guide people's actions, help them see the distinctions between good and evil, inspire them to strive for a better life..... they are powerful and serve a purpose, but they are myths, not facts.

Here you go, guyser.... a sandwich.... a pop..... and some Scotch Bonnets just for you. I may be a feminist, but sometimes the granny in me just wins out!

We can say yes to loving relationships between consenting adults, and we can say no to relationships between humans and animals, who are incapable of giving consent. See how easy that is? No bible necessary.

What exactly did feminists "get" that you feel contributed to the moral decay of society?

Major General Mackenzie...... What do you see as an appropriate role for Canada in Darfur?

Oh, I'm thinking about a fine sandwich I could make you right about now..... I hope you like lots of tobasco!

Are you saying the civil rights movement and women's rights movements forced and intimidated people? Civil rights activists and women's rights activists brainwashed the rest of society? It makes me wonder if you would like to see a return to the days when women and blacks were the property of white men. Yes the law changed, finally. An outdated, immoral, repressive, disrespectful, and judgmental law was changed to be more accepting, tolerant, and open to diversity. We should all celebrate that.

The difference is that same sex marriage is legal in this country, and this teacher's partner is equivalent to any other teacher's husband or wife. Beastiality, polygamy, incest, and pedophelia are not related to homosexuality, and are illegal behaviours, so your argument is pointless.

Homosexuality should be "normalized", as there is nothing wrong with it. It won't increase the amount of homosexuality, it will just let it be out in the open rather than hidden as it has been in the past. People either are or are not homosexual. If it were simply a matter of exposure and influence, homosexuality would have been eradicated long ago, as there is so much more exposure to heterosexuality, and the influences of heterosexuality can be seen everywhere.

Here's an article for you, Keng. Winnipeg Free Press Bravo to this teacher for being honest. If other teachers can put pictures of their husbands, wives, kids, dogs, etc. on their desks, there is no reason for this teacher to be stopped from putting a picture of his partner on his desk.

American Woman, I did take the time to read the Rolling Stone article, and I agree with your posts on this thread. How can we just turn a blind eye to perpetual imprisonment and torture of people who have no legal recourse? Either prove they are guilty or let them prove they are innocent, but simply holding them in concentration camps goes against the "freedom" this war is supposed to be about. Omar Khadr was a child soldier, trained from early childhood to fight for the cause his parents believed in. He was a victim of indoctrination and child abuse, and his parents should be held accountable for that; but he is accountable for his own actions. Let a trial determine what those actions were. Unless he is tried and convicted of something, if and when he gets out of Gitmo he is a free man to go where he wants.

You read an awful lot into a casual encounter!

Jerry, I generally agree with what you are saying, but I think the only common morals and values we can expect of all Canadians are the ones mandated by law. Laws have to be impartial, based on the common good. Often the things I hear people complaining about regarding immigrants are things I wouldn't want to see defined by law - how they dress, what language they use in their own homes or day to day life, what religion they choose to follow, what family structure they are comfortable with (large extended families vs. nuclear families). If anything in their culture or background contravenes Canadian law there may be a reason to reexamine the law and determine if it is impartial or not, but the bottom line has to be that if the new custom is not for the common good the law won't be changed. I teach child development, and one of the most common discussions I have with my students involves setting boundaries for children. You need to have firm parameters, but what they do within the confines of those parameters is up to them. Its like having your lane of traffic - you can drive as close as you want to the edge of your lane, but you can't cross it. I think the same analogy can apply to immigrants, and Canadians in general - the law defines our boundaries, but what we do within the parameters of the law is totally up to us.

Wow. Just..... wow. I'm speechless reading the remarks of Keng and OB. I'll just echo everything Rue said - thanks for expressing it so well. Oleg Bach.... a "gentler version of the final solution".... this is repulsive.

Dkz - there are multiple threads regarding Mahar Arar on this forum. If you are interested in reviving one of them, you can do a search, read the entire thread, and add your thoughts. It seems that you are hijacking this thread, though; the topic is the father who killed his daughter.

I was thinking about this thread this morning as I read about the settlement awarded to residential school survivors. Residential schools were an attempt at forced assimilation, with disastrous results. While I doubt anyone would advocate using this strategy again (although I could be wrong), 7 people voted for forced assimilation in this poll. What new strategies can be used to carry this out, without committing the mistakes of the past? How can forced assimilation occur without trampling the rights of the minorities it is being forced upon? I’m not trying to trick or trap anyone, I’m just really curious about how people see this being accomplished.

Children are socialized to learn right from wrong, but the motivation for good or bad behaviour changes as they mature. Young children are motivated solely by rewards and punishment, and organized religion depends on adults never progressing past this early stage of moral development. From what you are saying about your own spiritual journey, it sounds like you can find comfort in religion without using it as a crutch or depending upon it to think for you.

Good point, Jefferiah. Religion for most of its history has served the purpose of guiding those who are incapable of figuring out for themselves what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Sometimes people who require external controls look to religion to determine their actions; the promise of eternal life and threat of eternal damnation is a rudimentary but effective check on their selfish and antisocial predispositions. Manipulative, but effective.

Oh goodie! The tinfoil hats are here, just in time for New Year's Eve!

How much time have you actually spent studying the topic of family? The "traditional" nuclear family is an anomoly of our times and culture. The truly traditional family structure consists of extended family units, with multiple generations living together under one roof, or in nearby homes. Often these "traditional" families are ruled by a patriarch, so that the women's lives are controlled by men. No thanks. Tradition can stay in the past!

Check out the Caucasians thread, where this idea was debated at length (too much length, and it degenerated into a real mess, but it's interesting reading!) My interracial marriage is still going strong after 20++ years.

Deporting all nonwhites is laughable. You don't need to be white to be Canadian, or name your first born Dougie, or stay home Saturday night until Don Cherry has spoken. Leafless' view of Canada reminds me of the wild eyed Imams we sometimes see on TV - they may believe what they are saying, but they don't speak for everyone.