Melanie_

I hope he runs in my riding in Winnipeg, I'd vote for him. I think our former Liberal MP, Reg Alcock, has already said he won't run again, so Winnipeg South is in need of a good Liberal candidate.

Prove it.

I'm glad you're back safe and sound, moderateamericain. Interesting observations!

You don't need a backup plan because you are pretty sure, and I don't need one because I am equally sure. No problem.

I don't really think a back up plan is necessary, but it seems like it would be a false plan anyway, easily seen through by any potential higher power. Oh well, to humour you, I'll consider my options. Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite? Odin, Freya, Thor? Anubis, Isis, Osiris? Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu? Christian God in any one of the many denominations that all claim to understand him best? Allah? Yahweh? The Earth Mother? Gitchi Manitou? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Iluvatar and the Ainur from Tolkien's The Silmarillion? Or maybe I'll just make up my own and call that my back up plan. But do you have a back up plan? You seem to think there are only two options - either you are right, and all is good, or atheism is right, and there is nothing to worry about. What if we are both wrong? Maybe we will find ourselves barred from the gates of Valhalla together, or condemned to Hades, or spirited off to another dimension and turned into Orcs. Maybe we'll be reincarnated as a goat. Maybe Fred Phelps is right, and only the 8 of them will enter heaven, and the rest of us will burn in agony for eternity. Seems like you need a back up plan, too.

Sure, Betsy, whatever gives you comfort...

Yeah, that one always cracks me up...

When? December 8 you said BTW, if a Canadian calls another Canadian a lying piece of sh**, does that make it true?

There are plenty of human rights that do not have international support - I'm not even going to start. If we make international support the criteria for extending human rights, we may as well let the entire concept of human rights die right now.

Right... that's what he meant.... "Ugly fatty" and "hot chick" are not value judgements in his mind at all.... But if you watch the Dove video, the photoshopping and digital enhancements show us that there is no one who meets this criteria on thier own. Yet this is the ideal that women are supposed to aspire to. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about "ugly fatties" and "hot chicks," and the pressure women face to conform to unrealistic and unattainable standards.

What exactly is an "ugly fatty"? Pretty subjective, but obviously you are making a value judgment on the worth of an individual based on their outward appearance. I think we all can hear your knuckles dragging behind you. Jerry Perhaps recognition that women don't have to fit a certain mold to be considered beautiful is too challenging for those who see the world in such simplistic terms. Try this movie, if you can handle it.Calendar Girls

I'd call allowing religion to determine social norms to be even more of a non democratic dictatorship. I'd rather have a judicial decision than one based on the irrational belief in mythical sky beings.

Manipulation is defined by the Oxford Dictionary Online as: control or influence cleverly or unscrupulously; alter or present (data) so as to mislead. Oxford Dictionary Just as parents mislead their children to believe that their behaviour will lead to rewards from Santa, or to being terrorized by the boogeyman, religions mislead their followers to believe that their behaviour will lead to rewards from god. My point was to draw the analogy, and you seem to agree. BTW, as a left leaning educator, I can assure you that manipulating children is not part of what I teach my students about positive discipline.

My claim was that the definition of marriage has changed over the years, decades, millennia - you are deflecting the argument to say that I only was referring to the gender of the participants. If you read my post there are other issues, notably ownership and race, that have also changed. Why do you think women no longer have to vow to obey their husbands? Why do we now say husband and wife in the marriage vows, instead of man and wife? Polygamy was accepted in biblical times, so obviously the definition changed at some point to "one man, one woman". I wonder how many people protested then that the "traditional" definition (one man, many wives) was being changed?

I'm all in favour of people pursuing their education, but this seems like a slippery slope. What else should high school education be a prerequisite for? Should we grandfather this new law - how many 50 year olds out there didn't complete high school, but are still permitted to keep thier license? Getting a driver's license may not be a right, but it is something that someone can achieve via their own skills, with or without a high school education. Taking away this accomplishment just reinforces high school dropouts' sense of failure, rather than giving them a tool to help them make their way. Not everyone is academically inclined, but that doesn't reduce their value as a person who has other talents to work with. This seems unneccesarily punitive to me.

Nope - a marriage isn't valid until it is registered with the state - church endorsement is not required. Why should people who don't believe in religion be subject to restrictions based on someone else's superstitions? Civil unions are a cop out - people don't want to get "civil unioned", they want to get married. Voting on minority rights implies a power imbalance in favour of the majority. What the citizens want is secondary to the basic human right to equality before the law.

Here is the crux of the argument. Religions may have a vision of what marriage is, but that vision doesn't apply to those who don't subscribe to religion. Many people have no need or interest in making a promise to some magic sky pixie, but that doesn't mean they don't want to make a promise to their life partner. That is why religion can't be given the mandate to define marriage for others.

Please distinguish for me the difference between "old customs" and "tradition".

The government doesn't deal in sentimental value, it deals in equality for all citizens. The government is there to represent us, I agree - and that means all of us, not just the majority. You can't vote on minority rights, as there is a power imbalance inherent in that. Someone here used to have a great quote as their signature: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner."

Did you go back and read the post? Would you deny that at one time women were considered the property of men? That is where the custom of giving away the bride comes from - the father passes the ownership of the woman to the new husband. Interracial marriages were also seen as a deviation from "tradition". As for polygamy, how many wives did Jacob have? Seems to me there were four listed in the Bible, a popular source for Christians when they are defining tradition. When you talk about the "traditional" definition of marriage, whose traditions are you upholding? Christian, Muslim, European, African, First Nations...... I'd say there are many traditions, not all of which I would like to see upheld or returned to. Traditions that have outlived their value can be changed.

Are you sure you can speak for all blacks? Why should Canadian gays and lesbians be content with what happens in England?

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed many times; see post #65. And who gets to decide morality? I would argue that "morality" is being violated by those who deny equal rights to all members of society.

There's nothing wrong with physical beauty, as long as we all remember that beauty is only skin deep. When you say we need more of it, I wonder what you are doing to enhance your beauty on a day to day basis? Women are often marginalized or deified dependant on their outward appearance, regardless of their capabilities, intelligence, or other accomplishments. Beauty is part of who we are, but not our defining characteristic. And the pursuit of beauty, even when its attainment is unrealistic, is what I interpret the video to be taking a stand against (as well as selling soap, BTW).

Many people would object to giving the power to determine who is and isn't married solely to religion. Marriage isn't about religion, it is about two people committing to one another. If some want to do so with a religious ceremony, fine, but others, homosexual or heterosexual, may choose to make their vows in a nonreligious ceremony. They shouldn't be barred from using the word "marriage" based on their rejection of religion. As it is, even with SSM, churches can refuse to marry anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs. This has always been the case - you can't get married by a Catholic priest unless you are Catholic. But that doesn't mean you can't get married by someone else who also is authorized to perform an equivalent ceremony.

I'm having trouble following your argument, but I think you mean "quota system", not "status quo". Status quo means the system as it currently is in place, which I think you are supporting, not trying to change. As for why women aren't in politics.... I can't speak for the entire gender; I'm going to assume every woman has her own reasons why she does or doesn't enter politics. Family committments seem to be a likely reason to me. But politics has been an "old boys club" for so long, I think any woman who enters politics should be aware that she will have to break through that barrier, even today, although we certainly have come a long way. Women are perceived to only be interested in "women's issues"; this is the equivalent to a benevolent pat on the head and a "we'll take care of the big stuff, sweetie."