Since politics is the art of the possible, it's interesting to imagine all the barriers and red tape that lawmakers are slow to traverse, when they could do so much more in an expeditious manner if they so desired. This must be due in some degree to the bias that lawmakers may have against other types of relationships. They may even believe that those types of relationships are wrong ― and unworthy of their fervent support. If only they could open their hearts and their minds to the wonderful variety of relationships available to people, and do their best to make laws that instead of holding people back, set them free.

I know for sure under Canadian law (particularly the portion better known as "Christopher's Law"), such an act would be considered a sex crime, which in most cases, carries a minimum of a 2-year sentence (per count), as well as having to register annually with the sex offender's registry.

@raphjd: Ironically, these muslims are being tried under a law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11. Now that is irony at its finest…. That's kinda funny actually.

A few people commented on Twitter at the time, they were amazed that anyone still watched porn on dvds. It's astonishing that public money was wasted on investigating and prosecuting this. I would love to know the thought process of the individuals responsible for it going to trial, and why no one thought this would be a bad idea.

That's just sad on so many levels… WOW

Oh let's not forget about the obvious contradiction… Ronney stated: @leatherbear: "At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community, I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view," BUT WAIT… THERE'S MORE... He continues to state: @leatherbear: "If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people – that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me." Can someone please explain to me how someone can "not discriminate against gays in any way" and claim that they won't find anything in them that will suggest that they believe that people with a "different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country" could be apposed to gay marriage? It stands to reason that that all unto itself is a contradiction, seeing as how equality rights INCLUDE marriage rights. For this reason alone, one could easily argue that by not supporting gay marriage, you're supporting the view that people with a "different sexual orientation" are to be treated differently just for the simple fact that in doing so, you are clearly stating that you support the inequality that society has slapped against gays by not supporting gay marriage. Maybe it's just me, but I see that as a huge contradiction all unto itself. Can someone please explain to me how this is not just a case of saying one thing, yet clearly by action alone proving that you're against the very thing that you claim to be for? I ask this because I certainly don't get how this can be the case, when his actions of not supporting gay marriage suggest the opposite of what he is saying in that statement. I think this is just another "throw us under the bus" for votes situation. Unfortunately, at this day and age, we see it far too often.

It's funny how the one thing that was never mentioned in the whole article is how well the staff at the school knew the parents of the kid. I say this as it was a support staff member of my high-school that outed me to my parents under such circumstances. In my case however, they only did so because I trusted and confided in this particular staff member and they got to know my parents well enough to know that it wouldn't cause any harm at all to do so, and would actually make explaining certain things easier. It all boils down to circumstance in the end, and how well the parents were known, etc. The argument that it could have made a bad situation worse is true, but misleading since there is a great chance that the staff knew the parents and knew the situation. I'm not sure I could formulate an opinion on either side on this one.

This reminds me of a video I found on YouTube that made the point of "Being a hater doesn't make you straighter". Guess it was right after all lol

@leatherbear: LAGOS, Nigeria – A bill originally designed to outlaw gay marriage in Nigeria likely has consequences far beyond its initial scope – criminalizing gay groups and organizations could jeopardize millions of dollars of Western aid geared toward stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa's most populous nation. WOAH!! Back the f*** up a second!! Where does the Nigerian government get their facts from? According to Statistics Canada, in 2003, the number of heterosexual females known to be infected with HIV on a worldwide group officially raised above that of any other category of person. This was primarily stemmed from the HIV epidemic in that geographical region, namely the whole part about that geographical region's days of "HIV in the 80's" being what they're living now. It is was also noted that the greatest percentage of heterosexual females infected were located in this general geographical region of the world. All that being said, the question is this: "How would banning of gay marriage help prevent the spread of HIV when the majority of the cases in that area are in heterosexual females, unless the government is only examining the statistics within North America where the greatest population infected with HIV is in fact homosexual males, or they are otherwise uneducated on the matter and use one of the common myths of HIV as an excuse?"

@leatherbear: There are nearly 1.2 million people who have HIV in the U.S., but just 28 percent of them have what is called a "suppressed viral load," which means that they have less than 200 copies of HIV per millilitre of blood, the report said. I'd like to know where this report received their facts. According to medical science that is known to anyone who is HIV+ and is receiving medical treatment for it (such as myself), it is known that the point of having the virus "suppressed" is to have what is referred to as an "undetectable" viral load, which actually equates to less than 50 copies of the HIV virus per 1mL of blood. Anything over that is a detectable load, which bears a count. I think the study may have confused this information with the first guideline required for AIDS diagnosis with respect to the CD4 count.