Melanie_

You'll have to find a more unbiased source than WorldNetDaily to make your point; the article seems to tell about half the story, and is very slanted. I tried to find some information elsewhere about the case and wasn't successful, but I did follow the link to the lawyers' home page. I'd be wary of lawyers who have their own agendas to push - are they out for the best interests of their clients or are they trying to further their own causes? However, to the point of your post, on the surface I would agree that there should be no barrier to the establishment of a Christian club in a high school, just as there should be no barrier to the establishment of a gay club. As long as no one is compelled to join either one, and members are respectful of those who don't choose to join, what's the problem?

The ACLU isn't against Christianity, it is against forced prayer in schools. When a prayer (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wicca, whatever) is read over the PA system, everyone is subject to it, and is expected to respect it. Its the imposition and promotion of one set of beliefs over another that is the issue here, not which set of beliefs it is. Johnny, there is an older thread in the Moral and Religious Issues forum called Prayer in Schools that you might be interested in reading. I'm sure there are others there as well, but this one was quite long and well debated.

Concerns may have been expressed, but that hardly seems like a valid reason to shut down. Having an employee who is gay doesn't mean it is promoting a gay lifestyle or funding something they consider to be a sin. I expect there will be reasons behind shutting it down other than simply having a gay employee.

No one is using these soldiers deaths. This is a discussion forum - we discuss. There is no obligation to participate in any particular thread, so if you find this one distasteful there are many others that may be more to your liking. Give your head a shake. Actually, I started the thread because I looked at their pictures and was struck by the futility of it all. Their deaths aren't any more or less significant than that of any of the other 2500+ Americans, and who knows how many Iraqis, in this war.

They have the opportunity to prove that in response to the massacre in Haditha. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2602069_pf.html It's an "Alleged Massacre" by U.S. Marines in Haditha. There hasn't been any charges filed against these Marines. Don't jump the gun like John Murtha who has already tried and covicted these Marines when no charges have been filed.. "Alleged massacre", I stand corrected. I will be waiting to hear the outcome of the investigation, and you are right, they are innocent until proven guilty.

They have the opportunity to prove that in response to the massacre in Haditha. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2602069_pf.html So what you are saying here is that the US invaded Iraq for its own gain in the middle east, not for any high minded ideals like freedom for the Iraqi people. Iraq was a convienient spot, with a leader the US didn't like anyway, so they were chosen for invasion to give Americans easier access to other countries perceived to be sources of terrorism. For this, those two soldiers were tortured and killed. PS: You forgot to mention the easy access to oil that comes with a "US friendly democracy".

From the article quoted above. I expect the Pentagon will catch up with reality eventually.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13432770/ Take a look at these boys' faces. I know this sounds trite and overplayed, but they were so young, and had so much to live for. And what will their deaths accomplish? Just a deeper seated need to repay the killers, continuing the cycle. The whole thing is just pointless - kill an American, kill an Iraqi, keep going and going and going.

The problem with that is the danger the Americans have created for these men if they are returned to Iraq or Afghanistan. If they are perceived to have cooperated with the Americans while in custody, they are in greater danger when they return than when they left. And that is a direct result of the Americans holding them without trial for this long, never establishing if they actually were terrorists or simply young men caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When we punish a child, generally the idea is to let the child know that their behaviour was inappropriate; I think it is just as important to teach the appropriate behaviour in a given situation. Kids are learning all the time, and they really don't know all that is expected of them, so they will make mistakes; they also don't have great impulse control, so even when they know that they shouldn't do something, the lure of doing it can be powerful. A parent's job is to help them learn right from wrong, and to learn how to be in charge of their actions, so when they are on the C-train they know better than to be rude to people and they are able to act on that knowledge. Physical punishment might help them fear the consequences of behaving badly, but it doesn't really teach them to make good choices for the sake of good choices. Often I think spanking is more about relieving the parent's frustration or exerting power than it is about teaching the child good behaviour.

I use my first name, and I've sometimes thought that was a short sighted decision, but I didn't have much experience with internet forums at the time. Generally, though, I'm not shy about sharing my opinions, and I don't feel the need to hide what I think, so I don't really have a problem with having my name attached to my posts.

Oh my God. I've just logged in after being away for about a month and an half, and this topic is STILL active! Give it a rest, people!

How do you attribute any of these gains to race? You could make a case that the culture of a society allows for advances in science, arts, or technology, but the races of the people living in that culture are not necessarily homogenous.

I don't know for sure what is in effect for SSM, but Revenue Canada isn't likely to hold one standard for opposite sex relationships and a different one for same sex ones, especially as these relationships become more mainstream. Legalizing SSM will make it more likely that the standard you are being held to will also apply to gay couples. But my point was, if you were simply sharing an apartment, not in a common law relationship, you can appeal.

Calm down. I suspect this will change now that same sex marriage is legal, so you have no need to oppose SSM on these grounds. And again, if you were simply sharing an apartment, not in a common law relationship, you can appeal.

If you are cohabitating with someone, opposite or same sex, I think it is considered a common law marriage. If you were just sharing an apartment, you may be able to appeal (maybe one of our lawyers here, sage or FTA, can clarify that). If it was a common law marriage, your tax returns and eligibility for GST rebates will be based on both incomes. I don't see how it matters whether it is opposite or same sex partners, though.

I agree, Bubber. Fixer, there have been several good threads on the topic, with well reasoned debate from both sides, and they are still active. Join in there.

Monty - I don't think I have ever said that I don't trust a parent's judgment. Having licensing regulations doesn't impede a parent from making a choice, it just reassures them that the options they have to choose from have already passed the Child Abuse Registry check, the Criminal Records check, and have met basic health and safety standards. I have no beef with private business, as long as they adhere to the regulations and standards that have been set by the licensing body. A misconception you and several others seem to have is that people who work in child care centres are government employees. In the Manitoba system, most centres are non profit, and are run by a board of directors made up of parents of children in the program. They hire a director for the program, who hires staff. The government provides some funding in the form of operating grants based on the number of children a program can accomodate, subsidies for low income families, and grants to include children with special needs. They also inspects regularly to ensure compliance with the regulations, but otherwise each program is independently run. In fact, parents have much more input into non profit centres than they do into privately owned centres.

I agree that ADD is often "diagnosed" more for the sake of the teacher maintaining order than for any real disorder in the child. Also, other disorders, particularly food allergies, often have the same symptoms as ADD - but it is much easier to give a kid Ritalin than to cut dairy products out of their diet. For those interested in a good book, very readable and written by a Canadian doctor with ADD, read Scattered Minds by Gabor Mate. I don't buy into his theories 100%, but they give some good food for thought.

Canuck - that is a point well made.

I'm all for polygamy, as long as I get to be the first wife and boss the other ones around. No more housework for me!

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

And I'll make the same argument in reverse. The legal definition is not erased because religions choose not to recognize it. The legal definition trumps the religious definitions, simply because as you said there are so many different religious interpretations. There is room for all of them, as long as the basic legal requirements are not violated. So, if a church chooses not to perform a same sex marriage, that doesn't mean that a same sex marriage performed elsewhere isn't valid.

Exactly. The state defines marriage, and then grants the right to perform marriages to others. Those others can also put their own parameters on who they will and will not perform the ceremony for, but they can't put a binding definition on the word "marriage".

Not me, I was just quoting Betsy. Marriage is a legal definition, and the right to perform marriages is granted from the government to clerics within a religion, justices of the peace, Elvis impersonators, etc. "And now, by the power granted to me by the Province of Manitoba, I pronounce you..."