Klein wants Referendum

[peter12]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Dec 13 2004, 12:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Dec 13 2004, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Dec 13 2004, 03:53 PM
Christmas is in fact a random day that it's been proven was nowhere near the predicted birth of Jesus. What they did do was implant it over certain Pagan sacred days; like a winter festival.

That's true. After the Roman Empire became Christian, they purposely placed Christian days of celebration at the same time as pagan days of celebration. That is why Christmas is close to the winter solstice and Easter in close to the spring equinox. They figured it would be easier to convert people by doing so.

In fact, the easter bunny is directly borrowed from pagan beliefs. So are Santa's "elves" and flying reindeer. [/b][/quote]
It's true. December 25 was the day that Mithraists (probably the only religion that has ever been close to usurping Christianity) celebrated the birth of Mithra.

As Christianity amalgamated Mithra, they adopted the holiday Dec. 25.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 13 2004, 11:15 AM
That is why Christmas is close to the winter solstice and Easter in close to the spring equinox. They figured it would be easier to convert people by doing so.

True in the case of Christmas, but not true in the case of Easter. the crucification occured, according to the bible, during the Jewish Passover festival, which is measured according to the lunar calendar. Originally, Easter was originally the same day, but later modified slightly to be the sunday following Passover (which is always on a new moon). They kept it, as much as possible, accurate to the original, at least following the lunar calendar. You are right that it does more or less coincide with a pagan festival, and infact the name 'easter' comes from the Anglo-saxon goddess Eostre. But the date does have some historical significance to when these events were said to have happened.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Claeren+Dec 12 2004, 07:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Claeren @ Dec 12 2004, 07:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 03:25 AM
So, being religious and having morals is suddenly grounds for insanity?? wow... dangerous ground some of you are treading on... please never become a politician with ideas like that.

Seriously though, I have yet to see a reason why there shouldn't be a referendum.

It was mentioned earlier that minorities need special treatment, but thats not the way democracy works... its rule of the majority, simple as that... if the majority wishes to grant special rights to minorities, great, then lets do so... if not... well, thats the lay of the land, like it or not. We can't have a select few making sweeping societal choices like this. We elect representatives to represent us in daily matters... when something important and controversial comes up, its up to the people to decide, not the goons we elect. Remember, politicians are not our leaders, they are our representatives... and this is an issue where 1 representative of 100000 give or take is not gonna cut it.

Actually it is fundamentally the way democracy works. I cannot explain it to you here other then to say that perhaps you should invest some time in learning, from decently legitimate sources, about the history and intent behind not only democracy as a form but modern democratic tools like constitutions and charter rights. Minority rights in the face of a hostile majority is a PILLAR of democracy in Canada and around the world. Dictatorship, Communism, Authoritarianism, and many other subtle variations thereof all embrace or at least allow for the abuse of a minority by the majority. Democracy theoretically is the single exception, THAT is why it is supposed to be so good, not because it allows you to boss people around as long as there are less of them and more of you...



There was a story on a study about this topic in Saturdays Herald, from the U of L. It showed that the Christian right in Alberta is overwhelmingly the only group strongly against gay marriage. Buddhists and Jews are for it, Muslims and Christians against it, Hindus in the middle.

Old people are against it FAR more then young people and there is a DIRECT correlation with non-acceptance of gay rights and regular attendance at a Christian church, the more often you go to church the more likely you don’t support gay rights, with no variation at all from this rule.

Kind of ironic, the self described most 'holy' can be directly linked to the most hateful, exclusive, elitist, and/or prejudice views in Canada.

Nothing new though I guess….

Claeren. [/b][/quote]
Hmmmmm, I think you have it backwards. Look at the way the world has gone under the types of government you have suggested.

Dictatorship- Ultimate Example (Nazi Germany), originally a smal group of people who took power and persecuted another group (the jews). Were the Nazis the majority? No, I'm pretty sure the average citizen was not a jew hating Nazi, but the minority who were had all the power, hence forcing their beliefs/way of life on the majority.

Communism- USSR Small group (Pollit bureau, probably misspelled) who ravaged the coutry for decades. Pretty small minority exploiting a pretty large minority.

Democracy- Early America, The very large white MAJORITY enslaves the small white minority and tries to kill off the native minority.

I'm not getting in on the whole gay marriage debate, as if I really felt like it I could debate both sides. But I think that your assumption that democracy is different because it prevents the majority from forcing thier will on the minority is flat out wrong.

Can I give examples the other way, of course.

Dictaorship - Iraq, Sadam and tnd the Sunni Moslem majority, persecuted and killed thousands of Kurds (the Minority)

Communism- China, the chinese majority are have been persecuting the tibetan minority for decades

Democracy- Blacks get the vote despite opposition from the white majority (in the south at least, though I'm sure there were some in the north none to happy about it).

That being said, I think you should really think about what you say before you tell someone to go study up on a subject and then throw around incorrect absolutes to back up your point.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Dec 13 2004, 03:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Dec 13 2004, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually it is fundamentally the way democracy works. I cannot explain it to you here other then to say that perhaps you should invest some time in learning, from decently legitimate sources, about the history and intent behind not only democracy as a form but modern democratic tools like constitutions and charter rights. Minority rights in the face of a hostile majority is a PILLAR of democracy in Canada and around the world. Dictatorship, Communism, Authoritarianism, and many other subtle variations thereof all embrace or at least allow for the abuse of a minority by the majority. Democracy theoretically is the single exception, THAT is why it is supposed to be so good, not because it allows you to boss people around as long as there are less of them and more of you...



There was a story on a study about this topic in Saturdays Herald, from the U of L. It showed that the Christian right in Alberta is overwhelmingly the only group strongly against gay marriage. Buddhists and Jews are for it, Muslims and Christians against it, Hindus in the middle.

Old people are against it FAR more then young people and there is a DIRECT correlation with non-acceptance of gay rights and regular attendance at a Christian church, the more often you go to church the more likely you don’t support gay rights, with no variation at all from this rule.

Kind of ironic, the self described most 'holy' can be directly linked to the most hateful, exclusive, elitist, and/or prejudice views in Canada.

Nothing new though I guess….

Claeren.

Hmmmmm, I think you have it backwards. Look at the way the world has gone under the types of government you have suggested.

Dictatorship- Ultimate Example (Nazi Germany), originally a smal group of people who took power and persecuted another group (the jews). Were the Nazis the majority? No, I'm pretty sure the average citizen was not a jew hating Nazi, but the minority who were had all the power, hence forcing their beliefs/way of life on the majority.

Communism- USSR Small group (Pollit bureau, probably misspelled) who ravaged the coutry for decades. Pretty small minority exploiting a pretty large minority.

Democracy- Early America, The very large white MAJORITY enslaves the small white minority and tries to kill off the native minority.

I'm not getting in on the whole gay marriage debate, as if I really felt like it I could debate both sides. But I think that your assumption that democracy is different because it prevents the majority from forcing thier will on the minority is flat out wrong.

Can I give examples the other way, of course.

Dictaorship - Iraq, Sadam and tnd the Sunni Moslem majority, persecuted and killed thousands of Kurds (the Minority)

Communism- China, the chinese majority are have been persecuting the tibetan minority for decades

Democracy- Blacks get the vote despite opposition from the white majority (in the south at least, though I'm sure there were some in the north none to happy about it).

That being said, I think you should really think about what you say before you tell someone to go study up on a subject and then throw around incorrect absolutes to back up your point. [/b][/quote]
Interesting but you are wrong.

-I did not say that because Democracy is designed to protect the minority from the majority it was always successful in doing so. (or that it has not undergone evolution itself, this experience in practice being the basis of the reasoning behind protecting minoritiess from majorities). Simply, all i was saying is that the ideals behind democracy, ideals we have seen in practice progressing over the past 2 centuries, is one of minority rights.

-Nor did I say that other forms of government are ALWAYS a majority v. a minority, but rather that it is simply more likely to be the case is that the minority has no rights. The Majority often has no rights as well though, but so what?


That alone dismisses all of your points but many are wrong beyond the fact they do not contradict what i said:

I assure you the first 2 examples were majorities v. a minority.

Nazi's: Hitler was ELECTED leader with 288 seats won and a majority 33% of the vote in the 1933 election (The next highest was 16.9%, or half). While still a slight minority v. the combined total of the half dozen opposition parties, (many of whom were rightwing like his own) he was widely popular and accepted as leader. Much more so then George Bush today....

He managed to gain authoritarian power because of that endorsement which he used, as head of a facist regime, to persecute the minority jewish population.

While not everyone accepted genocide as the solution, he was also effective in blaming the jews, ~1%(~!!!!!!!!!!!) for many/most/all of Germany's problems. Bringing a majority to bare against a minority.

There is little doubt this was a majority v. a minority, in fact it is an example of a FAILED democratic nation.



Russia: The Bolsheviks were by far the majority in Russia (the primary state of the union) by their very nature. They handed their power over the a ruling elite specifically to create a world where the majority (the poor/workers/peasentry/majority) would have a state of their own. The fact that they were then exploited has nothing to do with who was a majority but merely who was charged with protecting the interests of that majority.


The third is another beast all together:

Early North America was not a Democracy at all, frontiers by their nature are without government. If anything it was anarchy... the whites through most of the genocide of the natives of north america were a minority, at least within the lands of the natives themselves.

By the time Democracy/Settlement came around the whites were admittedly the majority.... in fact it was through this struggle against the natives and the civil rights struggle following it, and womens suffurage as well, that democracy itself was defined in the way i initially indicated. While initially allowing for persecution of many groups it slowly but surely brought down these barriers and liberated the rights of each group that was discriminated against.


The Iraq example is simply wrong, it is a minority over another minorty but more significantly a majority, more so if the Kurds and Shia united.

In Iraq, the Sunni's (~30%) are a majority over the Kurds (~22%) (Barely) but are a minority themselves v. the greater population of Shi'a muslims (47%). While the Kurds were often self-ruled the shi'a majority has been virtually enslaved to the sunni minority in iraq for thousands of years, hence many of the problems we see today in Iraq. Ironically, the ideal of Democacry is not working there specifically because there is no confidence in minority rights for Sunni's.


China: The Tibeten situation has little to do with internal government systems and a lot more to do with the imperialism and nationalism of the Chinese. To put it simply.


And you are correct, the Blacks gaining their freedom and slowly various rights over the years in America DESPITE the wishes of the majority is an EXCELLENT example of what i was saying.


And i wasn't trying to tell him he was stupid, simply that he was wrong and some quick research would show why.

You should perhaps do the same....
(Just bugging you!)



Claeren.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I never said you were trying to call him stupid. But that's a different point.

Okay fine, I'll take your points as correct as I don't have numbers in front of me, but let's take a look at them.

First Hitler. You said it yourself, 33%, last time I checked, that wasn't a majority.

Communism. Yes, the Bolshevicks were the majority, but Communism after the revolution became eliete few forcing their will on the minority. If that wasn't the case then why were the ones that were actually members of the Communist Party living relatively lavisly while the millions of regular Russions, Ukraninas, Georgians etc, starving?

Refuting my Sadat point reinforces my point. Fine, the Sunni's were a minority, okay, so now it's an example of a minority exploiting a majority.

Numbers aside, look at the nature of each government, (Communism not withstanding, because really, communism should have a government)

Dictatorship and Authoritarian means there is one or a very small group on top who run the show (nothing ground shattering there), so by defintion, they are a minority who can very easily impose their will upon the masses. Really all you need is the support of the army and you can do whaterver you want. Regardless of whether Sadam was a Sunni, or Hitler got 33% or 51%, the fact of the matter is once they are dictators, none of that matters, becasue they are the only ones who can make the decision.

Democracy on the other hand is rule by the majority, so that is the prime situation where the majority can force it's will on the minority. Right now Black people have the vote, but if every white person in the country got it in their head that they wanted to ban black people from buying cars, there wouldn't be much that the black people could do about it, because they are outnumbered, and out voted.

That being said, it is the charter of rights in most countries that prevents that sort of thing, and yes, that has become somewhat ingrained in democracy, but that by no means it is necessary.

The whole point of my first post was to show that what you said was somewhat of an absolute, and that the arguement can be made either way.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 12 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 12 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 06:14 PM
I think the fact that there won't be a referendum is a Parliamentary power trip. These guys love the idea that they are toying with something big for once.

It's not a power trip, it's a recognition no country serious about equality and protecting minority rights should let the majority dictate what those rights are.

This notion that, "it's acceptable to repress anyone we want to as long as 51% of people agree with it" goes against some things that are fundamental to Canada.[/b][/quote]
Hog wash! Each society sets its social rules based on the wishes of the majority. To allow every minority to impose their "rights" on any society will lead to an ungovernable society that is ruled by anarchy.

Furthermore, this discrimination argument just doesn't stack up. I'm very discriminatory in choosing who my friends are. I can assure you that I will reject any person who imposes their friendship on me. Does that mean that the courts should rule against me and force me to have a friend I do not want?

The courts should be acting to protect the will of the majority or we'll become so fragmented that we stand for nothing. What kind of a democracy allows the court and the will of every minority to decide the policies of a country?

Please don't give me this "rights" crap. Every breath we breathe is a gift that we're receive whether we like it or not. Life is a privilege not a right. The gay community may think they have it so tough here in Canada, but where would they be if they lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Sammie@Dec 14 2004, 12:33 AM
Hog wash! Each society sets its social rules based on the wishes of the majority. To allow every minority to impose their "rights" on any society will lead to an ungovernable society that is ruled by anarchy.

This isn't even about a minority trying to impose things on the majority.

In a free country, minorities are given the right to pursue their own goals. It's about acheiving the ability to impose rights for themselves - not imposing things on others. Gay people getting married imposes nothing on anyone.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the majority in Canada do believe in freedom for minorities.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 13 2004, 03:20 PM
Dictaorship - Iraq, Sadam and tnd the Sunni Moslem majority, persecuted and killed thousands of Kurds (the Minority)

A slight correction. The Sunni Moslem are a much smaller minority than either the Kurds or the other Moslem sects.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally posted by moon@Dec 11 2004, 08:01 AM


If they are getting paid by the government then they should marry everyone, but if they are in the private sector they should have the right to marry whomever they want. Just like anyone in the private sector should be able to hre and fire anyone they wnat.

You have a stupid haircut? see ya. You are too fat for me? you're gone! you're gay? get the hell out of here. You're black and I'm a racist? no job for you. When it comes to the private sector I could care less why people get fired or don't take on customers. They run the company, they put the money into the company and they take the losses of the company. If they don't want to hire someone for whatever reason they should not have and if they wan to refuse someone service they should be allowed to as weel for whatever reason they feel necessary.

I'm not usually one to judge and I tend to keep my opinions fairly free of any strong biases., but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So now we can only count on the public sector to uphold human rights? Just because you own your own business you are allowed to discriminate against anyone you want? That's insane. Imagine going to McDonalds and not being able to get a Big Mac because you were Chinese. Or to go into Chinnook Centre, only to be told to leave because you were wearing a turban. Talk about one monumental step backwards as far as upholding human rights.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 13 2004, 04:17 PM
Nazi's: Hitler was ELECTED leader with 288 seats won and a majority 33% of the vote in the 1933 election (The next highest was 16.9%, or half). While still a slight minority v. the combined total of the half dozen opposition parties, (many of whom were rightwing like his own) he was widely popular and accepted as leader. Much more so then George Bush today....

He managed to gain authoritarian power because of that endorsement which he used, as head of a facist regime, to persecute the minority jewish population.

While not everyone accepted genocide as the solution, he was also effective in blaming the jews, ~1%(~!!!!!!!!!!!) for many/most/all of Germany's problems. Bringing a majority to bare against a minority.

There is little doubt this was a majority v. a minority, in fact it is an example of a FAILED democratic nation.

Did you forget to mention that the 1933 election was the only election and that by the time of the declaration of the war in 1939 and the REAL persecution of the Jews there is little doubt Hitler was a despot and a dictator.

[moon]

Originally posted by Crazy Flamer+Dec 13 2004, 05:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Crazy Flamer @ Dec 13 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Dec 11 2004, 08:01 AM


If they are getting paid by the government then they should marry everyone, but if they are in the private sector they should have the right to marry whomever they want. Just like anyone in the private sector should be able to hre and fire anyone they wnat.

You have a stupid haircut? see ya. You are too fat for me? you're gone! you're gay? get the hell out of here. You're black and I'm a racist? no job for you. When it comes to the private sector I could care less why people get fired or don't take on customers. They run the company, they put the money into the company and they take the losses of the company. If they don't want to hire someone for whatever reason they should not have and if they wan to refuse someone service they should be allowed to as weel for whatever reason they feel necessary.

I'm not usually one to judge and I tend to keep my opinions fairly free of any strong biases., but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So now we can only count on the public sector to uphold human rights? Just because you own your own business you are allowed to discriminate against anyone you want? That's insane. Imagine going to McDonalds and not being able to get a Big Mac because you were Chinese. Or to go into Chinnook Centre, only to be told to leave because you were wearing a turban. Talk about one monumental step backwards as far as upholding human rights. [/b][/quote]
Well that is your opinion I think if someone starts and runs their own business they should be free to do what they want when it comes to hiring, firing or who they want to deal with.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Dec 13 2004, 05:33 PM
Please don't give me this "rights" crap. Every breath we breathe is a gift that we're receive whether we like it or not. Life is a privilege not a right. The gay community may think they have it so tough here in Canada, but where would they be if they lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Now that's a dog's breakfast if I ever did see one.

Please don't give me this "rights" crap. Holy Smokes.

Every breath we breathe is a gift that we're receive whether we like it or not. I can't really decipher this one but I think it is in reference to some hocus pocus that you might believe in and you can believe it (it's your right!) but try to get it into your head that everyone else doesn't, so we don't want to live by it.

Life is a privilege not a right.

I'm pretty sure I have a right to life. So do you. Biology gave me the privilege but I don't know enough about it (or the address) to thank it for my life.

The gay community may think they have it so tough here in Canada, but where would they be if they lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

I love this line of logic. "At least you are better off then them so stop complaining".

People don't really go for that kind of thing. Do you want to make more money Sammie? Why bother, at least you aren't homeless.

Or maybe you could move to Iran or Saudi Arabia if you don't think homosexuals should have "rights".

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally posted by moon+Dec 14 2004, 01:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Dec 14 2004, 01:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I'm not usually one to judge and I tend to keep my opinions fairly free of any strong biases., but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So now we can only count on the public sector to uphold human rights? Just because you own your own business you are allowed to discriminate against anyone you want? That's insane. Imagine going to McDonalds and not being able to get a Big Mac because you were Chinese. Or to go into Chinnook Centre, only to be told to leave because you were wearing a turban. Talk about one monumental step backwards as far as upholding human rights.

Well that is your opinion I think if someone starts and runs their own business they should be free to do what they want when it comes to hiring, firing or who they want to deal with. [/b][/quote]
It's not a matter of opinion. and if it is, keep it to yourself. Its a matter of upholding certain civil liberties EVERY citizen is entitled to. You do not have the RIGHT to dicriminate in this country, nor should you. What if we had the right to murder women that committed adultry because they were now viewed as vile and dirty creatures? Should you be allowed to kill them? Of course not, even though it may be your opinion that it would be ok to do so. Yes, you are free to have your own opnions. But in some cases, you ought to keep them to yourself and not let your own racist views govern your actions.

[calf]

Originally posted by moon@Dec 13 2004, 06:05 PM
Well that is your opinion I think if someone starts and runs their own business they should be free to do what they want when it comes to hiring, firing or who they want to deal with.

Just a point of interest:

The Human Rights, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act of Alberta

4## No person shall
(a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods,
services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily
available to the public, or
(B.) discriminate against any person or class of persons with
respect to any goods, services, accommodation# or
facilities that are customarily available to the public,
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical
disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital
status, source of income or family status of that person

Discrimination re employment practices
7(1)# No employer shall
(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any
person, or
(b.) discriminate against any person with regard to
employment or any term or condition of employment,
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical
disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital
status, source of income or family status of that person or of any
other person.

not to forget:

Note: Although it is not expressly stated in the Act, as of April 2, 1998, sexual orientation is "read in" to the Act by the Supreme Court of Canada as a protected ground of discrimination in Alberta.

[moon]

Originally posted by Crazy Flamer+Dec 13 2004, 06:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Crazy Flamer @ Dec 13 2004, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well that is your opinion I think if someone starts and runs their own business they should be free to do what they want when it comes to hiring, firing or who they want to deal with.

It's not a matter of opinion. and if it is, keep it to yourself. Its a matter of upholding certain civil liberties EVERY citizen is entitled to. You do not have the RIGHT to dicriminate in this country, nor should you. What if we had the right to murder women that committed adultry because they were now viewed as vile and dirty creatures? Should you be allowed to kill them? Of course not, even though it may be your opinion that it would be ok to do so. Yes, you are free to have your own opnions. But in some cases, you ought to keep them to yourself and not let your own racist views govern your actions. [/b][/quote]
How am I a racist?

I would not discriminate against anyone if I owned my own business.

[The Familia]

Originally posted by KowOfLang+Dec 13 2004, 06:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KowOfLang @ Dec 13 2004, 06:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I hope you are being sarcastic. I believe you are, but one can never be sure unless the winking smily is put up! In fact Christmas is a Christian holiday. It's the birth of Christ. People in North America celebrate it because Christianity is the dominant religion out here. Christmas is not celebrated in some other religions. People who don't follow or believe in Christianity have altered the form of Christmas. They now celebrate Christmas as a time for family and friends to get together and give gifts. This is all cool, but the original underlining message of the birth of Christ is being lost. Personally I see Christmas has become nothing but a coorporate joke. Buying countless gifts for people, only to have countless gifts given to you. In essence nothing more than a huge shopping spree on yourself. Nice holiday eh?

Thanks Tips [/b][/quote]
Thanks tips? what kind of a useless post is that? If you knew what I was talking about than why did you respond? Obviously I was making a point from another post. Heres a tip for you. Your an assclown! )

[icarus]

Originally posted by calf@Dec 14 2004, 01:49 AM
Note: Although it is not expressly stated in the Act, as of April 2, 1998, sexual orientation is "read in" to the Act by the Supreme Court of Canada as a protected ground of discrimination in Alberta.

Nooooo! I just handed in an essay this morning on this precise case, Vriend v. Alberta. The particular topic was judicial interference of legislative will with respect to reading in.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 13 2004, 07:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 13 2004, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Dec 13 2004, 05:33 PM
Please don't give me this "rights" crap. Every breath we breathe is a gift that we're receive whether we like it or not. Life is a privilege not a right. The gay community may think they have it so tough here in Canada, but where would they be if they lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Now that's a dog's breakfast if I ever did see one.

Please don't give me this "rights" crap. Holy Smokes.

Every breath we breathe is a gift that we're receive whether we like it or not. I can't really decipher this one but I think it is in reference to some hocus pocus that you might believe in and you can believe it (it's your right!) but try to get it into your head that everyone else doesn't, so we don't want to live by it.

Life is a privilege not a right.

I'm pretty sure I have a right to life. So do you. Biology gave me the privilege but I don't know enough about it (or the address) to thank it for my life.

The gay community may think they have it so tough here in Canada, but where would they be if they lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

I love this line of logic. "At least you are better off then them so stop complaining".

People don't really go for that kind of thing. Do you want to make more money Sammie? Why bother, at least you aren't homeless.

Or maybe you could move to Iran or Saudi Arabia if you don't think homosexuals should have "rights".[/b][/quote]
You really don't consider or want debate the thoughts of people you disagree with, do you? You just take little parts of comments people make out of context and ridicule that person. It may surprise you to know you speak for far fewer people than you claim. I'll put my logic up against your logic any day. The rights of a society must take precedence over the rights of the individual. If any changes are to be made to the way a society the society should make that decision, not some minority and not the court.

[kipperfan]

Bottom line is................................and people wont like it.........but...............those who are opposed to Gay marriage are either: a) religous extremists b)homophobes c)biggots d) or they just dont understand basic human rights, equality or the canadian charter or rights and freedoms.

Get into the 21st century, this kind of discrimination is sick.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 13 2004, 08:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 13 2004, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Now that's a dog's breakfast if I ever did see one.

Please don't give me this "rights" crap. Holy Smokes.

Every breath we breathe is a gift that we're receive whether we like it or not. I can't really decipher this one but I think it is in reference to some hocus pocus that you might believe in and you can believe it (it's your right!) but try to get it into your head that everyone else doesn't, so we don't want to live by it.

Life is a privilege not a right.

I'm pretty sure I have a right to life. So do you. Biology gave me the privilege but I don't know enough about it (or the address) to thank it for my life.

The gay community may think they have it so tough here in Canada, but where would they be if they lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

I love this line of logic. "At least you are better off then them so stop complaining".

People don't really go for that kind of thing. Do you want to make more money Sammie? Why bother, at least you aren't homeless.

Or maybe you could move to Iran or Saudi Arabia if you don't think homosexuals should have "rights".

You really don't consider or want debate the thoughts of people you disagree with, do you? You just take little parts of comments people make out of context and ridicule that person. It may surprise you to know you speak for far fewer people than you claim. I'll put my logic up against your logic any day. The rights of a society must take precedence over the rights of the individual. If any changes are to be made to the way a society the society should make that decision, not some minority and not the court. [/b][/quote]
There has been plenty of debate in this thread.

When someone says "I don't care about their rights and what I believe is the truth whether you like it or not" the time to debate is obviously over.

You can try to put your logic up against mine all you want. You are not using logic when you trot out some religious cliché and declare it an absolute universal truth that everyone should live by.

As for "society should make that decision", I think the horse is out the barn for you on that one. Not so long ago Canadian society voted in another 138 Liberals, 19 NDP and 54 BQ members and everyone and their dog knew the party line on the same-sex marriage issue. You moral-majority is a serious minority.

So what's next? After this passes into law the sitting government, the people and the courts will have decided pretty overwhelmingly to see this change through. Who will you call out next to be the final authority on this? The clergy? Yourself?