Melanie_

Well, I fell into that one, didn't I? Guess I better rethink what I store under my bathroom sink.....

Good question. I'd like to think that, having nothing to hide, I'd be fairly cooperative, but I've never been in the situation so I can't say what I'd do. I know I don't have a shotgun readily available for me to grab and hide with in the bathroom, though.

I'd have to look up all of them on google to find out who they are, if I were remotely interested in overhyped, overpaid, prima donna sports figures.

The big issue in Winnipeg right now is a drug bust that went bad last week. Cops executed a search warrent, and entered the house clearly stating they were from Winnipeg Police. The suspected dealer hid in a locked bathroom and fired through the door with a shotgun, injuring two officers. His defense is that he thought he was being the victim of a home invasion, and was just using what he believed to be neccessary force to protect himself. Can the cops complain of his use of force for what he is claiming was self defense?

I ask...what's wrong about that? Is that not a sample of the modern day educators' version of "positive reinforcement" to discipline? She suddenly find something wrong with that...simply because she thinks it's from the Christian aspect! She's giving a knee-jerk reaction to the concept of Santa Claus (which I think had been so commercialized anyway...and I think it is abused...and I certainly don't buy into the notions of today's educators that you need to bribe children)! A lot of left-leaning educators seem as confused as the children! You have completely misinterpreted what I said. Leaving aside the commercialism, Santa Claus is used to manipulate children into doing what adults want (caveat - I am as guilty of using this as anyone else!) The concept of God is used similarly - do what he tells you to, and you will be rewarded. If you don't, you will be punished - only instead of a lump of coal in your stocking, you will burn with the coal for all eternity. Both are based on an external motivation for rewards or punishment, not by internal motivation to do what is right because it is right. Positive discipline has nothing to do with manipulation - it has to do with people (adults or children) determining their behaviour based on their own powers of reasoning, not based on some artificial benefit or threat.

What exactly is "traditional" marriage? At one point, traditional marriage meant that wives were their husbands property; they could be abused, had no property rights, had no custody rights to their children, etc. "Traditional" marriage could also be interpreted to ban interracial marriages. "Traditional" marriages could be interpreted to promote polygamy - that's what the Mormons would like us to think, anyway. Just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it the best possible option - nothing should be left to stagnate simply because it is the way it has always been done.

Sounds like a case of racism, but one old lady's prejudices can hardly be applied to everyone. If you're only interested in anecdotal evidence, my sister in law married a Sikh man, and I am married to a man of East Indian origin. Don't let one old lady turn you against everyone you assume she represents - she doesn't.

Worksite child care happens in Canada too. But I don't think it is the wave of the future that Harper thinks it will be. His plan of providing incentives to businesses to start child care centres for their employees has gone no where - I can't picture every WalMart or Canadian Tire across the country opening their own individual child care centre.

Sikhism is a religion, not a race. Your point seems to be that Sikhs promote relationships with other Sikhs - this is true of most religions, I think.

We'll just have to disagree on that, Charles. Have you read my posts? It is the working poor that need child care the most - they can't afford to pay the costs of child care to start with, but need good care in order to work. They should be given a subsidy based on their income. It makes much more sense to direct tax money to the people who need it than to those who don't, which is what the Tory "Choices" in child care does now.

I call bullshit, mikedavid. How do you go from this: to this: overnight? Most of your posts seem to be about the immigration system, and this case sounds like it is dear to your heart, not something you came to MLW to get information about. You had an agenda in starting this thread, and had a fully formulated viewpoint already. We should all stop feeding the troll.

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes. Ah, so we need a significant number of reckless single homosexual drivers because we are invested as a society in keeping your discount. Finally an argument that makes sense.

My issue with this is that it gives the rights to the word marriage to religious institutions. What about those who do not subsribe to any religion? Many people choose to get married by a Justice of the Peace, or even by Elvis, and they are considered just as married as anyone married in a church. Churches are given the right to perform marriages by the state ("by the power vested in me by the Province of Manitoba..."), and can use whatever ceremony their beliefs endorse, but the actual marriage must be registered with the state to be valid, regardless of how the institution views their ceremony. Each institution can set parameters around who they will extend their ceremony to (you can't get married in a Roman Catholic church unless you are Roman Catholic, for example), but they can't invalidate marriages performed by other institutions or by other means (JPs). Even if they won't perform a ceremony for gays or lesbians, they can't dicate whether they can be married by someone else who has been granted the power from the state.

I'm curious how many double income earners, each in the six figures, actually use child care. My gut tells me they are more likely to hire a private nanny than place Precious Pooky in public child care. My job takes me into child care centres on a regular basis, and what I see are children of middle income families whose parents are working hard to provide for their families. I'm not advocating a free for all system, but rather a system that provides standards and regulations to ensure the best possible care for kids - parents can foot the bill, unless they can prove they qualify for subsidy.

ClearWest, I can see that you are devout in your belief, and that it serves a purpose for you. But you have presented a simplistic and illogical argument for all of the points listed above, based on the premise that god is mean spirited and vindictive towards those that don't do as he says. Not a selling point in trying to convince others to join in your beliefs, if that is what you intended.

How are anyone's rights being violated by extending equal rights to gays? My heterosexual marriage hasn't been impacted at all. If you are going to argue the increased health costs of AIDS, please remember that marriage implies monogomy, so it actually should decrease the costs associated with AIDS if we reduce the numbers of sexual partners anyone has.

Geoffery, I know this will sound condescending, but it is not intended to be. You are young, and are not yet a parent. When you are, you will see that as a parent, you see your kid differently than any one else. People who work in child care develop strong relationships with the children in their care, but they are not the same as the relationship between a parent and their child, nor should they be. Parents choose the way they raise their children, and influence them in ways their caregivers can't and shouldn't. Working parents are just trying to provide for their families, which is not an abdication of responsibilities, but rather an acceptance of them.

Even if they spend less time with their child than their favourite local government employee? Yes. Parents know their children best, and have a more vested interest in them than even the most dedicated child care worker. Child care centres who receive funding from the government are generally still independent, aside from being regulated - just as restaurants are. Child care workers are not government employees.

Killing and stealing obviously infringe on the rights of others. Necrophilia doesn't involve consent, and public sex and nudity impose themselves on others who aren't given the choice to consent or not. Same sex marriage involves consenting adults who were being restricted by someone else's vision of what they should be allowed to consent to. No one's rights are being violated by SSM.

National Daycare is a misnomer; regulated child care is a provincial responsibility, and each province's system is different. The current "Choices in Child Care" program, in reality a return to the old "Family Allowance" program, bypasses the provinces and provides cash to all families with children under the age of six, so part of your vision is already taken care of. I have no problem with continuing the Family Allowance, but that really doesn't address the needs of parents who still need to place their children in care. More importantly, it doesn't address the needs of children to have consistent, nurturing caregivers who can provide them with developmentally appropriate care while their parents are at work or school. It certainly does nothing for the parents of children with special needs, who still need to work but have a very difficult time finding affordable care in the private sector. I'd like to see the Feds provide provinces with assistance in setting up and monitoring high quality child care, whether that be centre based or home based. Families can and should pay for the care, unless they can show that they qualify for a subsidy based on a defined sliding scale. Also, just to clarify, all parents raise their children themselves. Childcare is a support, not a replacement, for parents. Parents who work are still their children's primary caregivers.

Wait, Cybercoma, you're missing the best part. The oh-so-righteous Lot, the only man worth saving among all the "sinners" in Sodom and Gomorrah, then proceeded to father children on both of his daughters. But of course, this was portrayed as being not his fault, as the daughters deliberately tempted him - I think abusers have used that argument ever since.

Anyone is free to reject SSM on moral grounds, by choosing not to marry someone of the same sex. The problem is when that person tries to impose their version of morality on someone else. The counter argument is often that SSM proponents are imposing their morality on their opponents, but this is untrue - no one is being forced into SSM.

Seems to me OlyWest (hog barns, for those of you not from Manitoba and even marginally interested in this thread, which probably is only of interest to jdobbin, Bubber and me) was scrapped because of the environmental activists rather than any need for a moratorium on hogs. This is an agricultural province, regardless of the constant attempts to be cosmopolitan - I don't understand why hog barns should be placed under moratorium; people eat pork, and there is a market to fill. Food production is what we do here, and there is much to be proud of in that. Environmental concerns could have been addressed without losing the entire project.

Cool....cept those wooden shoes are freezing in winter. The tulips will look nice in spring. Windmills galore...... and everyone can put a finger in a dyke. I'd ask first though.

So let me get this straight: in your world - Jesus is reduced to a charlatan, as are the people who witnessed his miracles, - everyone who has ever had a vision or seen/felt a presence of God are nuts, - all mediums and psychics are bogus, and - every religion is wrong. Hmm, centuries of belief out the window. Thanks for clearing that up for us. As Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." (Waiting for the accusations of being a Commie) All those centuries of belief were based on simple people trying to understand the world, and falling back on a paternalistic safety net. (Now I'm a feminist Commie) God reminds me of another fairy tale figure you may be familiar with around this time of year. You know, "He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake." Remember boys and girls, if you are really good you will get rewarded, but if you are bad.........