14th July 2004, 8:09 PM
Pages: 1 2
14th July 2004, 8:20 PM
If people from the past arrived now and read that they might think their trying to ban happy Marriage ! LOL!
The Worse threat to marriage right now is infidelity and sluts like Britney Spears who show no respect for the sacredness of marriage, Just get married for fun as a publicity stunt and imediately devource the next day.
The Worse threat to marriage right now is infidelity and sluts like Britney Spears who show no respect for the sacredness of marriage, Just get married for fun as a publicity stunt and imediately devource the next day.
14th July 2004, 8:47 PM
Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine
Sen. John McCain, Arizona
Sen. Olympia Snowe, Maine
Sen. John Sununu, New Hampshire
------------
Uh, they're all senators. Should I be seeing something more? States in New England?
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine
Sen. John McCain, Arizona
Sen. Olympia Snowe, Maine
Sen. John Sununu, New Hampshire
------------
Uh, they're all senators. Should I be seeing something more? States in New England?
14th July 2004, 9:29 PM
Just tell us what it is
14th July 2004, 9:42 PM
Pretty simple, four of them are from New England... so only one of the 12 New England Senators voted for this stupid thing despite the fact that 5 are Republicans. :)
Britney Spears is just an idiot. But yes, there are much bigger things wrong out there than this.
Quote:The Worse threat to marriage right now is infidelity and sluts like Britney Spears who show no respect for the sacredness of marriage, Just get married for fun as a publicity stunt and imediately devource the next day.
Britney Spears is just an idiot. But yes, there are much bigger things wrong out there than this.
14th July 2004, 9:57 PM
and on the same day in Canada
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story.../National/
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story.../National/
14th July 2004, 10:37 PM
That's great... but the US will be well behind like usual. Polls generally seem to show 1/3 in favor of gay marriage, 1/3 only for something like civil unions, and the other third opposed to anything, nationwide...
14th July 2004, 11:21 PM
It's only about 50% approve in Canada, but the Prime Minister said that it's not a matter of personal choice anymore it's a charter issue(The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the most important part of the Canadian Constitution) and it's his duty as the Prime Minister to ensure that the Charter is followed. He said the only thing that matters to him is that church's aren't forced to conduct them against there will, but the probably won't be because they are protected under the freedom of religion area on the charter, and they can already pretty much choose to refuse to marry anyone they want. The United Church which is the third largerst church in the country allows individual ministers to conduct same-sex weddings, and the Anglican Church who is the second largest church in Canada leaves it up to individual parishes, Bishops and Priests until they make a decision on the issue next year.
14th July 2004, 11:28 PM
Whats different about our constitution and the U.S one is that ours was written very recently in the 70's.
15th July 2004, 8:38 AM
alien space marine Wrote:Whats different about our constitution and the U.S one is that ours was written very recently in the 70's.Most of the 1867 constitution is still in effect.
The major changes the 1982 Constitution introduced was the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constiution, which replaced the Bill of Rights, since the Bill of Rights was only an act of Parliment it could have been suspended by Parliment at any time, while the Charter can't be. The other thing was that Canada could now ammend it's own constitution without an act fo the British Parliment
15th July 2004, 5:43 PM
Or shall I say rewriten and refined.
15th July 2004, 5:55 PM
alien space marine Wrote:Or shall I say rewriten and refined.nothing was changed in the old constitution though, the only thing that is different was the charter was added
15th July 2004, 8:54 PM
It was added too , Thus refined to fit new issues of today.
Your take a old book and add new parts to it, It could count as being rewritten and released.I am gonna check it out now.
Trudeau did add the two Official languages act and also added linguistic rights in the new charter and also rights for peoples sexual orientations and so fourth,In the originaly constitution without the new charter of rights they would have been discriminated agiast and not garanteed equal rights.
Your take a old book and add new parts to it, It could count as being rewritten and released.I am gonna check it out now.
Trudeau did add the two Official languages act and also added linguistic rights in the new charter and also rights for peoples sexual orientations and so fourth,In the originaly constitution without the new charter of rights they would have been discriminated agiast and not garanteed equal rights.
15th July 2004, 9:41 PM
alien space marine Wrote:It was added too , Thus refined to fit new issues of today.The charter doesn't have anything about sexual orientation in it, the courts have just chosen to interpret it to include sexual orientation. The official languages act happened before the charter, and the charter has always included language rights
Your take a old book and add new parts to it, It could count as being rewritten and released.I am gonna check it out now.
Trudeau did add the two Official languages act and also added linguistic rights in the new charter and also rights for peoples sexual orientations and so fourth,In the originaly constitution without the new charter of rights they would have been discriminated agiast and not garanteed equal rights.
15th July 2004, 10:21 PM
Whatever! Your better educated then me !
But you get my point that our constitution is fresher and newer then the U.S one? Not just because of the charter of rights but because it was written in 1867 instead of the late 18th century.Old doctrines didnt stick around and get imprinted in peoples brains so they wouldnt amend it.
When Trudeau was making the Charter of rights he talked about gay rights and the charter was sopposed to help them be given equality. Just a few years earlier you could have been tossed in jail for being a homosexual.
The Charter didnt talk about orientation specifically but helped give rights to people who were originaly denied it.
But you get my point that our constitution is fresher and newer then the U.S one? Not just because of the charter of rights but because it was written in 1867 instead of the late 18th century.Old doctrines didnt stick around and get imprinted in peoples brains so they wouldnt amend it.
When Trudeau was making the Charter of rights he talked about gay rights and the charter was sopposed to help them be given equality. Just a few years earlier you could have been tossed in jail for being a homosexual.
The Charter didnt talk about orientation specifically but helped give rights to people who were originaly denied it.
15th July 2004, 10:28 PM
18th century. The 17th century is the 1600s. :)
Like how technically, the 1990s go from 1991 to 2000.
Like how technically, the 1990s go from 1991 to 2000.
15th July 2004, 11:44 PM
Shoot!
I had said 1700's originaly but it didnt sound right.
I read magazines who make that mistake alot they screwed my brains.
I will fix it.
Dont you find the stupid system so confusing? Was it the Catholic church that made this stupid system? 2000's is the 21th century and the 1900's were the 20th very confusing. Why the leap in centuries? The System goes back to the time of Christ as a basis.If we went by when recorded history started it would be like the year 5000 thats how it is in China though they use our system now but still count theirs.
22th century is 2100's hundreds and so many make the mistake of 2254 in enterprise reviews instead of 2154.
I had said 1700's originaly but it didnt sound right.
I read magazines who make that mistake alot they screwed my brains.
I will fix it.
Dont you find the stupid system so confusing? Was it the Catholic church that made this stupid system? 2000's is the 21th century and the 1900's were the 20th very confusing. Why the leap in centuries? The System goes back to the time of Christ as a basis.If we went by when recorded history started it would be like the year 5000 thats how it is in China though they use our system now but still count theirs.
22th century is 2100's hundreds and so many make the mistake of 2254 in enterprise reviews instead of 2154.
16th July 2004, 9:47 AM
When you think about it calling the 20th century the years from 1900 to 1999 would make sense (of course it's actually 1901 to 2000, but that's later). Think about it -- the first century starts with the year 1, right? Or zero, zero to 99 ideally... so the second century has to start with 101, etc. It's a little confusing, but it's the only way to do things.
As for the way that everything's off by a year, that's simpler. The guy who invented the system didn't use a number system that included zero, so the first year was 1 AD and the year before that 1 BC (it was invented in 100 or 200-something AD, I think... by, yes, a Christian of course. Before that most of the Western world used the Roman calendar, which dated things back to the founding of Rome in 700 or something BC). So the result is that everything's off by a year.
As for the way that everything's off by a year, that's simpler. The guy who invented the system didn't use a number system that included zero, so the first year was 1 AD and the year before that 1 BC (it was invented in 100 or 200-something AD, I think... by, yes, a Christian of course. Before that most of the Western world used the Roman calendar, which dated things back to the founding of Rome in 700 or something BC). So the result is that everything's off by a year.
16th July 2004, 6:27 PM
You ever think some day we will have a new revised calendar and cronology?
16th July 2004, 6:30 PM
Not unless there's some huge, earth-changing event.
16th July 2004, 6:33 PM
Honestly, calling the year 2000 part of the 1990's is just plain stupid, because it's not in the 1990's! I say, FORGET the whole "there was no year 0" thing and just go with what the numbers say. I know that the very first person I see who says, on New Year's Eve 2009/2010, "technically, the new decade starts in 2011 because there was no year zero" will be PUNCHED IN THE FREAKING FACE!
16th July 2004, 6:49 PM
I thought it was the year 2001? Its funny cause now I know why people say the year 2000 was not the begining of 21th century.Amazing I learn more in TC then I did in High School.
Truth is in reality this is the 20th century and the last century we were in was the 19th century,because the creator of the Calendar smoked crack and counted the year 100 BC as a century,He made us leap ahead.
Truth is in reality this is the 20th century and the last century we were in was the 19th century,because the creator of the Calendar smoked crack and counted the year 100 BC as a century,He made us leap ahead.
16th July 2004, 6:51 PM
... but that's the way it is! Willful ignorance is still ignorance, DJ. :)
16th July 2004, 6:56 PM
2000 isn't "part" of the 1990's, 2000 is last year of the 20th century.
16th July 2004, 7:29 PM
Um, the first decade was from 1-10. So 2000 is the last year of the 1990s. Think about it, which decade comes after the '90s? the '00s. Which start in 2001. ... okay, so saying that the '90s didn't start in '90 seems stupid, and it kind of is, but it's the facts. You don't have to like them, but it IS the way things are and I doubt that they're changing anytime soon.
21st July 2004, 6:33 PM
In Canada it's illegal for gays and lesbians to get a divorce
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/...40621.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/...40621.html
Quote:Lesbian couple seeking country's first same-sex divorce
Last Updated Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:44:04 EDT
TORONTO - A lesbian couple in Ontario may face problems getting what is believed to be Canada's first same-sex divorce because the law limits divorce to male-female couples.
The two women, identified only as M.M. and J.H., were married in Ontario on June 18, 2003, a week after Ontario's Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage.
They separated five days later.
However, the Divorce Act, which is federal legislation, defines spouses as "either of a man or a woman who are married to each other."
Toronto lawyer Martha McCarthy and her client, M.M. have asked the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to issue an order that the federal definition of spouse under the Divorce Act is unconstitutional. She said the federal government is due to respond next week.
"It's unconstitutional to give straight people the freedom to divorce, and not gays and lesbians," said McCarthy.
She said she has written to the federal government asking it not to fight their court challenge.
"In September, there could be gay marriage and gay divorce in the province of Ontario," said McCarthy.
The Ontario court was the first to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada. British Columbia, Quebec and the Yukon soon followed.
The federal government referred a draft bill changing the definition of marriage to the Supreme Court for its consideration. Hearings on the issue are scheduled to begin this fall.
Written by CBC News Online staff
21st July 2004, 7:23 PM
That's pretty strange... :)
22nd July 2004, 2:43 PM
That's kind of weird...
12th August 2004, 12:50 PM
Damn gay marriages! To hell with them!
Yes! Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri voted yes. Good for him.
Say the Missouri state congress just voted against gay marriage. YEAH! Good ol' Midwest. No queers in the Midwest, I tell you what!
Well too bad we moved away from such a great Republican state. I'm in Arizona now where the governor is a lesbian. :(
Yes! Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri voted yes. Good for him.
Say the Missouri state congress just voted against gay marriage. YEAH! Good ol' Midwest. No queers in the Midwest, I tell you what!
Well too bad we moved away from such a great Republican state. I'm in Arizona now where the governor is a lesbian. :(
13th August 2004, 9:55 AM
nickdaddyg Wrote:Well too bad we moved away from such a great Republican state. I'm in Arizona now where the governor is a lesbian. :(Aww, poor homophobic Nickdaddy
13th August 2004, 10:01 AM
I bet if he gets Fable he's gonna spend the entire game hitting on gay men, luring them into the woods, and beating the hell out of them.
13th August 2004, 11:32 AM
Whoa, you can do that on Fable? Awesome-possum!
Oh and Dark Lord Neo, I'm not afraid of gays, why call me homophobic? I despise, so you can called me anti-homo or something I guess.
Well whatever you call it, homophobic or anti-homo, it should also be known as "the right way to think," make that "the right, only way to think."
Oh and Dark Lord Neo, I'm not afraid of gays, why call me homophobic? I despise, so you can called me anti-homo or something I guess.
Well whatever you call it, homophobic or anti-homo, it should also be known as "the right way to think," make that "the right, only way to think."
13th August 2004, 12:10 PM
...
13th August 2004, 12:15 PM
:troll:
Anyway, yes from the mathematical perspective, all decades, centuries, and so on should be considered to start in XXX1 as opposed to XXX0. But, it's much more attractive to think of it in the terms of just IGNORING the past and focusing ONLY on what the numbers themselves say. I'd say the same thing if it was binary mind you. Of course, we'd be celebrating binades every 2 years that way (1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000) (10 = 2's place, 100 = 4's place, 1000 = 8's place, 10000 = 16's place), but hey, eh. I'll just consider 1 BC to be the year 0 :D.
I do kinda wonder why no one brought up the issue until 2000 though... I mean, decades and centuries obey the same rule, so why didn't anyone say anything when 1990 rolled around and it was technically not the new decade until 1991 (making the SNES a system released first year of the 199X's).
Anyway, yes from the mathematical perspective, all decades, centuries, and so on should be considered to start in XXX1 as opposed to XXX0. But, it's much more attractive to think of it in the terms of just IGNORING the past and focusing ONLY on what the numbers themselves say. I'd say the same thing if it was binary mind you. Of course, we'd be celebrating binades every 2 years that way (1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000) (10 = 2's place, 100 = 4's place, 1000 = 8's place, 10000 = 16's place), but hey, eh. I'll just consider 1 BC to be the year 0 :D.
I do kinda wonder why no one brought up the issue until 2000 though... I mean, decades and centuries obey the same rule, so why didn't anyone say anything when 1990 rolled around and it was technically not the new decade until 1991 (making the SNES a system released first year of the 199X's).
13th August 2004, 12:25 PM
...
..
..
13th August 2004, 12:32 PM
Quote:I do kinda wonder why no one brought up the issue until 2000 though... I mean, decades and centuries obey the same rule, so why didn't anyone say anything when 1990 rolled around and it was technically not the new decade until 1991 (making the SNES a system released first year of the 199X's).
Because it's so much easier for everyone to ignore annoying but true things like this, perhaps. :)
13th August 2004, 1:23 PM
nickdaddyg Wrote:Oh and Dark Lord Neo, I'm not afraid of gays, why call me homophobic? I despise, so you can called me anti-homo or something I guess.If you're not homophobic then why did you bring up the fact that you're govoner was a lesbian and use it in a negative way.
nickdaddyg Wrote:Well whatever you call it, homophobic or anti-homo, it should also be known as "the right way to think," make that "the right, only way to think."That's what biggots use to say about racism.
13th August 2004, 3:00 PM
Quote:That's what biggots use to say about racism.
And it is just about as sensible.
Quote:If you're not homophobic then why did you bring up the fact that you're govoner was a lesbian and use it in a negative way.
Because homophobes are frequently in denial about it...
13th August 2004, 8:00 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:Because homophobes are frequently in denial about it...Studies have shown that the most homophobic people have had at least some homosexual thoughts or urges themselbers, or actually are homophobic and are overcompensating by being homophobic
13th August 2004, 8:12 PM
Which studies?
And yes ABF, it is a true way to see it, but honestly, considering new decades and such to start when the year flips over is valid as well for a different mathematical reason.
And yes ABF, it is a true way to see it, but honestly, considering new decades and such to start when the year flips over is valid as well for a different mathematical reason.
14th August 2004, 2:33 PM
Which studies? I don't know, but I know I've heard that before. And not just once or something.
What do you mean?
Quote:And yes ABF, it is a true way to see it, but honestly, considering new decades and such to start when the year flips over is valid as well for a different mathematical reason.
What do you mean?
14th August 2004, 6:29 PM
I can't remember wich ones, I'll try looking for them though. I've seen multiple studies that stated this.
14th August 2004, 8:39 PM
I MEAN that 1900 is 100 years after 1800, that's a century. Yes, that works on any year one could pick, but my point is that it works!
17th August 2004, 9:18 AM
and who's behind those studies? liberals. they just say that to have something to get back at anti-gays.
oh and i mention my lesbian governor becuase i'm anti-gay, i'm not afraid of her though, so where's the phobia Dark Lord Clinton?
oh and i mention my lesbian governor becuase i'm anti-gay, i'm not afraid of her though, so where's the phobia Dark Lord Clinton?
17th August 2004, 3:05 PM
nickdaddyg Wrote:oh and i mention my lesbian governor becuase i'm anti-gay, i'm not afraid of her though, so where's the phobia Dark Lord Clinton?Right there in the fact that you are anti-gay
27th August 2004, 8:30 AM
that doesn't mean I fear them, stupid.
I mean if a gay guy walked down the street, I wouldn't be like "AAAAaaaagh! Get away, I'm scared!"
All I would do is think, "Being gay is so disgusting wrong, and they should have no marriage rights."
I mean if a gay guy walked down the street, I wouldn't be like "AAAAaaaagh! Get away, I'm scared!"
All I would do is think, "Being gay is so disgusting wrong, and they should have no marriage rights."
27th August 2004, 10:09 AM
What if he looked at you funny?
27th August 2004, 6:38 PM
I'd probably just keep walking, unless he was giving me that "Hey there, sailor" look and then I might be just a bit freaked out.
24th September 2004, 12:47 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/...40924.html
Quote:Nova Scotia legalizes same-sex marriagesAlmost half the provinces and territories allow it now, and the federal government is supposed to introduce legisislation allowing it late this year.
Last Updated Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:52:21 EDT
HALIFAX - Same-sex marriages will be allowed in Nova Scotia following a ruling Friday morning that said banning them is unconstitutional.
Applause broke out in the Halifax courtroom as the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling made the province the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Earlier this month, a court in Manitoba made a similar ruling. Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and the Yukon all allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Nova Scotia is the first Atlantic province to allow the marriages.
Justice Heather Robertson's ruling effectively changes the definition of marriage in Nova Scotia to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
The couples who launched the court challenge are:
Brian Mombourquette and Ross Boutilier.
Kim Vance and Samantha Meehan, who were married in Toronto when Ontario legalized same-sex unions in 2003 and wanted to have their marriage recognized at home.
Ron and Brian Garnett-Doucette, who want to marry after being together for nearly 20 years.
After the ruling was delivered on Friday, the Garnett-Doucettes walked into a provincial office to file for a marriage licence. Confident the ruling would go in their favour, the couple had picked up wedding bands on Thursday.
"I can't express how excited I am," said Ron Garnett-Doucette, who's ready to plan his wedding.
To his partner Brian, the ruling means more than "just having what everyone else has and not having to fight for your rights all the time ... We are equal now."
Neither the federal nor Nova Scotia government opposed the challenge.
"We certainly did not want to waste taxpayers' money," said Nova Scotia Justice Minister Michael Baker.
The federal government tried to convince courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec in 2003 not to change the definition of marriage, which Ottawa has jurisdiction over. It failed in all three cases.
In the Yukon case heard in July, the government didn't oppose the constitutional challenge, but asked for the challenge to be adjourned pending a Supreme Court of Canada review of draft legislation that would change the definition of marriage.
The court rejected that request, and ordered the federal and territorial governments to pay the plaintiffs' legal costs.
Nova Scotia has given gay and lesbian couples some marital rights since 2001 through a domestic partnership registry.
Premier John Hamm said on Thursday he would abide by the court's decision, but wouldn't say whether he supports same-sex marriages.
In New Brunswick, meanwhile, Attorney General Brad Green says his province won't recognize any marriage other than those between a man and a woman until the federal law is changed.
Written by CBC News Online staff
25th September 2004, 9:46 AM
Good for them!
Pages: 1 2