Two things on my mind
#1
Question for you all: Is the right to marry a human right, a civil right, or a priveledge like any other "licensed" activity? (like driving, fishing, pyrotechnics) Because I don't recall marriage ever being a right.
Now there are rights to equality, this I don't deny. When the constitution was brought home and the charter was written, sexual preference (or sexuality for lack of a better term) was specifically left out by a debate and a free vote. Now we seem intent on including in the not-too-distant future. So be it.
There are precidents set of separate-but-equal and even distinct-society. From what I've been reading, those oppose to sex-sex-marriage are (for the most part)in favour of civil-unions with all the same legal and social benefits as marriage. So what we have here is a pissing contest over the definition of a word.
Personally I'ld like the government to get out of the business of licencing relationships. It doesn't make sense to me. The further I can distance myself from the government the better. Tax credits/benefits shouldn't be given to those just because they're in a relationship, I mean, how fair and equal is that? Instead they should be given these priveledges to those raising little ones in order to makes child rearing easier and encourage population growth from within our nation. Don't you feel singles are being discrimidated against?
#2
Watching the election in Iraq and learning alot about the essence of democracy. There has been some talk in this community about how to improve our system. Porportional Representation is something many here advocate and is currently the system through which the Iraqis are voting. I get the feeling that those with the biggest population showing up at the polls will run the country (although I could be wrong) The Kurds will have little power yet again.
But what has stuck me, as mentioned by just about every media, serious or Rick Mercer, is the number of anonymous candidates. They might be scared of assasination or whatever but it posed a question in my own head, "What are they running on, if not their personality?"
Rather then voting for the package, it's the contents that count. Here we might not like Stephen Harper or Paul Martin. We might not trust them. If all our candidates ran their campains on 1)platform 2)policy 3)track record etc, etc I think we could better elect somebody to run our country. We wouldn't have to weight things so arbitrary as hairstyle, relationships and good breeding. It would suddenly be more serious, I think. Something to consider anyways.
Question for you all: Is the right to marry a human right, a civil right, or a priveledge like any other "licensed" activity? (like driving, fishing, pyrotechnics) Because I don't recall marriage ever being a right.
Now there are rights to equality, this I don't deny. When the constitution was brought home and the charter was written, sexual preference (or sexuality for lack of a better term) was specifically left out by a debate and a free vote. Now we seem intent on including in the not-too-distant future. So be it.
There are precidents set of separate-but-equal and even distinct-society. From what I've been reading, those oppose to sex-sex-marriage are (for the most part)in favour of civil-unions with all the same legal and social benefits as marriage. So what we have here is a pissing contest over the definition of a word.
Personally I'ld like the government to get out of the business of licencing relationships. It doesn't make sense to me. The further I can distance myself from the government the better. Tax credits/benefits shouldn't be given to those just because they're in a relationship, I mean, how fair and equal is that? Instead they should be given these priveledges to those raising little ones in order to makes child rearing easier and encourage population growth from within our nation. Don't you feel singles are being discrimidated against?
#2
Watching the election in Iraq and learning alot about the essence of democracy. There has been some talk in this community about how to improve our system. Porportional Representation is something many here advocate and is currently the system through which the Iraqis are voting. I get the feeling that those with the biggest population showing up at the polls will run the country (although I could be wrong) The Kurds will have little power yet again.
But what has stuck me, as mentioned by just about every media, serious or Rick Mercer, is the number of anonymous candidates. They might be scared of assasination or whatever but it posed a question in my own head, "What are they running on, if not their personality?"
Rather then voting for the package, it's the contents that count. Here we might not like Stephen Harper or Paul Martin. We might not trust them. If all our candidates ran their campains on 1)platform 2)policy 3)track record etc, etc I think we could better elect somebody to run our country. We wouldn't have to weight things so arbitrary as hairstyle, relationships and good breeding. It would suddenly be more serious, I think. Something to consider anyways.