Melanie_

You boggle my mind. I've decided you probably are just trying to stir the pot, and can't possibly believe what you are posting. But, just in case, I'd like to hear from you how you can support democracy yet condemn equality for all members of said democracy.

This is not about Christianity, it's about equal rights for all Canadians. And seeing as how the majority of MPs and the majority of Canadians support SSM, perhaps the "nonconformist and un-Canadian" viewpoint is yours. BTW, nonconformity isn't necessarily a bad thing. The world would be a very dull place if we all simply did the same thing as everyone else, like lemmings swarming over a cliff.

I agree with Charles, punctuation can change the entire meaning of a sentence. Try this one, which I use as a teaching tool all the time. A woman without her man is nothing. Punctuate it one way, it means this: A woman, without her man, is nothing. Punctuate it another way, and it has a completely different meaning: A woman: without her, man is nothing. But my pet peeve is "there", "their", and "they're". There must be some way for people to get their grammar straight; if they don't, they're going to undermine their message.

"White society"? "Black society"? Raising and lowering? Your prejudice is really showing now. Your assumption that whites are superior and blacks inferior is incomprehensible. My point throughout this discussion has been to see people as individuals, not as representative of all who share their skin colour. I certainly don't want you, and your attitude, being seen as representative of me.

No, I entered this thread's discussion in response to Leafless' comment that races are not meant to live together, not in response to Michael Richards' nonsense. Stating that segregation would help diffuse racial tension is illogical - when people see others as individuals, rather than as stereotypes, we will see decreases in racial tension. Segregation creates barriers that will just lead to more stereotypes and prejudices.

Where does this "six of eight candidates backed Rae" come from? I heard him say it on TV, and I've seen it here a couple of times, but my math says that if Iggy didn't back him, Dion didn't back him, and Kennedy didn't back him, only five of eight candidates supported Rae by the third ballot, where he came in third. Not the groundswell of support he seems to want to claim.

You are just too close to the issue. No, you are too far removed from it. People who advocate segregation clump others together based on the colour of their skin, not recognizing that each person is an individual. Sharing a skin colour doesn't make people any more alike than sharing eye colour or hair colour. My skin is white, and I'm assuming Leafless' is as well, but we are vastly different in our approach to just about every topic on this discussion board. I disagree - segregation emphasizes petty differences, and causes them to be blown out of proportion. This leads to unending opportunities to offend each other.

I think I've had too much wine tonight, letting Leafless get under my skin. I know what to expect from him, and usually ignore it.

Christianity has no patent on the word marriage, and no right to claim it for their exclusive use. Marriage is found in all religions, and in the absence of religion as well - people can be married without any religious ceremony at all. It really amazes me how the intolerant can be so cruel and irresponsible as to try to deny people basic respect for no reason other than ignorance.

That's right. All countries who come to the UN should just know their place and support the US no matter what. Freedom of speech is only for the big boys.

I have been married for 20 years to someone who is not of my "race" (although I would argue we are both of the human race, skin colour is irrelevent). The "entire problem" is racist bigots who think that somehow their opinion that "races are not meant to live with each other" is meaningful.

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term. I'm going to assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian forms of religion, although certainly most religions have their own versions of marriage. Of course, the Judeo-Christian traditions also allowed polygamy (how many wives did Jacob have?) and incest (Job and his daughters). Each religion has it's own version of marriage, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the word. In a pluralistic society like Canada, where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected rights, no religion has any bearing on marriage outside of the confines of its own believers. EDIT: I meant Lot and his daughters, not Job. Job's kids were just pawns to be killed off so god could prove a point.

Considering it sacred doesn't make it so. The problem with considering it sacred is that it implies that marriage is a religious term, and that religion therefore defines marriage. Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state. "By the power vested in me by the Province of Manitoba, I pronounce you...." Marriage is just as valid when it is performed by a justice of the peace, a rabbi, a priest, or a Wiccan priestess, as long as they are given the power to do so by the state. Therefore it is up to the state to determine who can marry, and who cannot.

Although I think your assessment of the potential acts is somewhat limited, those forms of sex can be found in heterosexual relationships as well. Are we going to outlaw heterosexuals indulging in those acts? Who's going to police that? Sex is rarely about "potential societal benefit" and much more often about pleasure, even among heterosexuals - I sure wouldn't want to get pregnant every time! As for polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc, they are no more connected to same sex marriage than they are to opposite sex marriage - perhaps they are even more closely connected to opposite sex marriage.

Whatever "acts of perversion" two consenting adults indulge in is their business, not yours. The issue is whether to acknowledge and respect their committment to a permanent relationship, not what they do within that relationship. Or maybe you would like to sponsor a movement to ensure all Canadians use the missionary position only at all times? Outlaw all forms of foreplay - just get straight to the business at hand (oh, sorry, no hands, business at genetalia). BTW, International Human Rights seem to deal with your concern regarding dogs, cats and sheep...

I didn't see this exchange; I'll watch for his responses to off the cuff questions in English.

I disagree with the criticism of Dion's English. Each time I've heard him speak this weekend I've thought that he expresses himself well. I don't see it as being a hindrance to his ability to lead the party.

Who are the "neither" you are referring to? Kennedy was born here in Manitoba, and lived in Alberta and Ontario most of his life. No Quebec baggage for him, and the only candidate to speak against the "Quebecois nation" issue.

It took forever for them to announce what we all knew. I felt sorry for Iggy, having the camera on him for so long when he had to know that he had lost already.

I'm disappointed that Kennedy didn't do better in the Convention - I agree, though, that he is the Leader-In-Waiting. Of the two that are left, I would much prefer Dion to Iggy. Rex Murphy is spouting off comparing PET to John Paul II, JFK, etc, then bringing in Justin Trudeau as the one to watch. Justin Trudeau hasn't shown any inclination to enter politics, but I wonder if Gerard Kennedy would have a chance if JT were to run in the next convention.

I'm the last person to try to guilt anyone into thinking they are a bad parent. I definitely have my share of bad mommy days!

~deleted~

Drea, of course not every child will have the same effects - the studies show an increase of risk, not an absolute causal relationship. Other factors will play a role - nothing happens in a vaccuum. But why would we increase the risk for our children? I am not in favour of legislating what parents can and can't do in their homes. I think it is of more benefit for them to understand the risks they are exposing their children to, so they can make an informed choice. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/sids_factsheet.htm http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/do.../FriedANGxp.pdf These studies sound bleak, and can't be applied across the board, but we can't discount the relationship between exposure to cigarette smoke and other disorders, not just cancer.

I don't like the idea of the government getting involved in a legal sense, but I would support a public health campaign. Kids who live in homes with smokers are at higher risk for upper respiratory infections, asthma, and allergies. Babies are at a higher risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Children who were exposed to smoke in utero are at higher risk for attention and learning delays - there has been some research linking it to ADHD. Parents shouldn't need to be legislated to think about thier children's health.

I agree with you, Gerry, but I don't see this issue as being about promoting one religion over another, but rather as examining the context and imagery of the First World War. Flanders Fields did have crosses to mark the graves of the soldiers, but the message of the poem is not about religion, it is about honouring the sacrifices of the men and women who died. Its too powerful and meaningful a poem to put on the shelf simply because of the mention of crosses.