I doubt Harper is going to win, but if he does...

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Apr 27 2005, 11:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Apr 27 2005, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 27 2005, 05:09 PM
Not to get off-topic, but why not call it a 'civil union' and leave it at that and/or just let the churches decide what they want to do?

I believe that is has been mentioned several times by other posters that the supreme court has ruled that you cannot have two definitions for the same thing. In this case 'marriage' and 'civil unions'. The only difference between the two being sexual preference. Therefore it is discimination to have the two terms.

Anyone can correct me if I've got anything wrong. Surprising how many times this is asked and how many times it's answered... [/b][/quote]
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/...doc_31348.html

You are indeed right. Of note:

The Supreme Court of Canada explicitly stated that “civil unions are a relationship short of marriage”

The only reason for promoting civil unions is to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and deny it to same-sex couples. That is unconstitutional and in direct contradiction to the Charter

Wow, so it's all come down to two words then? We can't reach a compromise here and maybe give same sex couples a coupon to the donor bank/adoption agency (depending upon what sex) when they're.... 'unionized'... in order to create a difference between the two words? As if the fact that one consists of same-sex couples while the other would consist of opposite sex couples isn't enough here?

Haha, I think with this post i've managed to pull a complete 180 on this issue now. Came into it supporting gay marriage, left not caring, came back in it with this post not caring, am now leaving supporting a compromise of some sort (and thus, not gay 'marriage') cause I don't think I could stand all the whining from the CPC, among many others, if the Bill for gay marriage actually passes. Not to mention the opposite from all those supporting it, heheh...

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by kn+Apr 27 2005, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kn @ Apr 27 2005, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Apr 25 2005, 11:31 PM
Closed mindedness is trying to impose a value system that only some hold on to that's based on superstition and prejudice.

Are you equating religion and superstition? [/b][/quote]
I would

[Flame On]

Originally posted by kn+Apr 27 2005, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kn @ Apr 27 2005, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Apr 25 2005, 11:31 PM
Closed mindedness is trying to impose a value system that only some hold on to that's based on superstition and prejudice.

Are you equating religion and superstition? [/b][/quote]
Well my views are more complicated than that but as far as you're concerned yes.
Certainly the institutions of religion are.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame On+Apr 28 2005, 12:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Apr 28 2005, 12:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Are you equating religion and superstition?

Well my views are more complicated than that but as far as you're concerned yes.
Certainly the institutions of religion are. [/b][/quote]
Yup. Religions take great concepts, like 'treat others as you would have them treat you', and then dresses them up like whores with stories, falsehoods, myths, tales of fantasy, and bureaucracy.

I doubt I could really argue against the Ten Commandments as the basis of a legal system, they seem to make pretty darn good sense. But thats where Christianity stops making sense, and starts saying 'obey me'.

Anyone ever get dragged to Catholic Church as a kid Sunday mornings? Do you remember some of the corny songs they made us sing? I was thinking about the lyrics the other day, and recalled hymns full of TONS of obedience-talk. "You are my God, and I will obey you always" type stuff. In retrospect, it was very cult-like.

[MarchHare]

I doubt I could really argue against the Ten Commandments as the basis of a legal system, they seem to make pretty darn good sense.

Really? I'd allow thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not bear false witness (aka perjury), but I certainly wouldn't make the rest of them any part of a legal system.

"You shall have no other gods before Me."

The Charter says I'm allowed to worship any god(s) I choose. Freedom of religion and all that...

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

What the hell does that have to do with anything in modern times?

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."

Sorry, freedom of speech, also protected by the Charter.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

Why?

"Honor your father and your mother."

Again, why should this be made a law?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 28 2005, 02:27 PM

Really? I'd allow thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not bear false witness (aka perjury), but I certainly wouldn't make the rest of them any part of a legal system.

"You shall have no other gods before Me."

The Charter says I'm allowed to worship any god(s) I choose. Freedom of religion and all that...

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

What the hell does that have to do with anything in modern times?

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."

Sorry, freedom of speech, also protected by the Charter.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

Why?

"Honor your father and your mother."

Again, why should this be made a law?

Well, first off, I don't believe my post was a comprehensive analysis and implementation study on the Ten Commandments as the basis for a State-Legal system. Nor did I see myself 'arguing' for the institution of Christian Shari-ah, so you don't have to make it out like I did.

All I was suggesting (potentially poorly worded) is that the Ten Commandments make sense, for the most part, from a common sense point of view.

Clearly the false idols/no gods before me don't really apply, and its unfortunate that those two were included under my statement, I certainly retract them.

You should probably note that the Ten Commandments are a HUGE basis for the modern western legal system.

No one said that "this be made a law", I was just arguing that the Commandments make a lot more sense than the rest of the bible/teachings.

Disagree? Are the Ten Commandments looney holdovers from Biblical Times? They hold no validity at all when talking about the modern legal system?

You certainly went through a lot of effort to point out the obvious; the Ten Commandments are NOT currently law in Canada. Thanks for the lesson.

[MarchHare]

You should probably note that the Ten Commandments are a HUGE basis for the modern western legal system.

No one said that "this be made a law", I was just arguing that the Commandments make a lot more sense than the rest of the bible/teachings.

Actually, the few commandments that aren't specific to Judaism/Christianity (such as laws against murder, theft, and perjury) are common to the legal systems of most every civilization, regardless of religious origin. I would say that the basis for most Western laws comes from the Code of Hammurabi, which (I believe) predates the Ten Commandments.