wow that was mature. I think sometimes if you act before thinking, you end up hurting other people, regardless of what your original intentions were.

Wow! Gonna keep one eye on them. Looking forward to listen the upcoming album.

Yet the funny thing is that he wonders why most of the population of the city of Toronto want him out of office ASAP… I can tell ya....

“Senator [John] Kerry and I will continue to push for a behavior-based screening process both in the name of fairness and a safer blood supply.” Isn't that exactly the way the current rules work? If you had gay sex even once (the behavior), then you are banned forever from giving blood. Oddly, I can't give blood, but they can take my organs for transplant.

@cumeaternc: Maybe we should all fly over there and hold up God hates straight people signs with some bible verses…lol.  :rotfl: Turnabout is fair play...right? I love the way your evil mind works lol… I'm in... Sign me up!

@raphjd: Last year, the Italian leader brushed off criticism, saying: “It’s better to be passionate about beautiful women than to be gay.” Wait a minute… Let's back this up a few steps here. What about if you're a woman? Is it then still better to be passionate about beautiful women than to lust over a hunk a hunk a studly man? I'm just saying... There's more than one way to intemperate such a statement.

Let's back this up here for just one second… Since when is a statement like "marriage is so gay" an offensive and non-family statement? I know in Canada, such a thing would be in direct violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 19, which outlines that each and every individual is entitled to and has the right to express their own opinion. This also holds true under the constitution in the United States, where this is more commonly referred to as "Freedom of Speech". That being said, they're absolutely right that families come in a wide range of different types at this day and age. It's funny how people will turn their back on a gay statement, yet something like walking in with a shirt with a huge pot leaf on the front is perfectly acceptable. This much I do know as I have visited that park wearing just such a shirt once. It was all black with a huge pot leaf background, and large white letters across the top that read "C.I.A.". Below that in white text it read "Cannibals Inhalers Association". Funny how closed minded some people are at this day and age, isn't it?

I still think there should be some separation of church and state.

As the article says, everything he's claiming is bullshit; ie reading the disclaimer. He's just using the lawsuit for get more attention for himself.

@avalonmoore: Minister of Justice and Police, Martin Misiedjan said that the government will seek wide support to implement these recommendations. Minister Misiedjan must be quite skilled in the art of legerdemain, for apparently it hasn't occured to the Minister that it is the lack of wide support in the first place that brought about the UN recommendations. Reminds me of the secret formula for becoming a millionaire…  "First, get a million dollars …"

@raphjd: And you people complain that I'm too negative when it comes to gay issues. Do you see why I'm the way I am? Good news stories seldom irritate though, which is why I drive to work shouting at the radio. Religion + Moralising + Politics =  An :xpl: of unbelievable stupidity

my question is why do this without proper investigation?  if everyone with a supposedly revealing photo would be banned from public service then we'd all be in a state of anarchy.

@Noughty: And I also heard that it was because of a higher disease rate statistically. That was decided a long time ago, so this should be reviewed. True, but misleading… The CDC[nb]Centre for Disease Control[/nb] (Winnipeg, Manitoba) quarterly report released July 2001 noted that within North America, the largest group to be affected by communicable disease was actually that of the heterosexual female, when all such diseases were taken into account. What's more interesting is that the report went on to state that the only one single category that had a higher risk and infection rating among gay men was that of HIV, however although the infection rate for HIV was highest in gay men, by April 2001, on a global scale, both the infection rate for HIV as well as the highest population of infected persons with HIV were actually that of the heterosexual female. On this simple fact alone, one could argue that although this point holds true within North America for HIV infection rates only, imposing such a restriction would be branding being gay as a societal taboo. When all things get taken into account, HIV is not the only potentially life threatening infection out there. Two of the other life threatening and often over-looked diseases to beware of are Hepatitis C and Herpes, both of which are statistically more likely to occur in a heterosexual. With Hepatitis C in particular, it is also noted that the hardest hit category is the intervenes drug user, which holds absolutely no co-relation whatsoever to sexual orientation. Since there is no causal link between being a heroin user for example and being a gay man, that again is a gist that such legislation needs to be examined a little more closely. I'm not saying that I'm against having certain rules in place for gay men, however I believe that such rules need to be based on scientific fact, and not misconception or out-dated information, which no longer holds any validity. Such examples include if you're an MSM[nb]Men who Sleep with Men… These are not necessarily gay men, as not all persons who fit into the category of MSM identify as being gay.[/nb] for example, it would make logical sense that a screening be done for HIV prior to being allowed to donate blood. By the same token, if you're in intervenes drug user for example, it would also make sense to impose a rule to screen for HIV and Hepatitis C prior to being allowed to donate blood. These rules would be based solely on the fact that persons who meet those criteria are statistically most likely to become infected with those diseases, therefore for safety reasons, tests must be conducted in order to ensure the safety of the blood. The whole thing of not allowing an MSM to donate blood solely for the fact that they are an MSM makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since there are ways that currently exist for making sure such a procedure is safe to perform before doing so, and otherwise denying MSM's the ability to donate blood only further reduces the availability of valuable resources that are always in demand. Why is it that people often linger in fear of a stigma created by ignorance when a little proper education on such subjects would prove to be more valuable in the end?

This does actually lead me to think that places like Auschwitz (I hope I spelled that right) do actually have a purpose in the end… Although once used for such atrocities as the massacre in masses of the Jewish population, perhaps it could serve as a place in which to deal with homophobes... When you think about it, it would serve as an incentive to help stop the spread of such hatred, wouldn't it?

You never realize just how good you've got it until you find out how it could otherwise have been.

Seems that drivers license is above passport. If on her passport it is written that she is female, what right do they have to demand any additional proofs for identifying her as female or demand to put male on her license. Does the passport mean nothing, just a simple paper without any meaning?.. And as far as I know in most countries medical history is private and should be revealed only in a criminal investigation or for some other serious reason and certainly not for driver's license. I would get it if there was problem getting the passport (depending on the laws in a country), but this isn't the case. If she is legally women she is has to be treated as such in situations like this.