Hi M, first all been meaning to say - LOVE THE CAT! I grew up on a farm full of moggies, including one that was so bossy she attacked a cow! (The entire herd as a result were so terrified of her they'd run away if she came within 100 yards! You haven't laughed until you've cried your eyes out at the sight of twenty terrified cows, tails in the air, running 'like the hammers of hell' - as we Irish say - away from one tiny cat, who is sitting in the centre of the field, lording it over all and sundry, with a smirk that says 'I'm the boss and don't you forget it. Though she was best buddies with the dog, whom she 'brought' to see her various families of kittens! He became their surrogate father and plaything, lying in the middle of the farmyard with four kittens sliding down his back, playing with his ears, trying to bite his nose, or clinging onto his tail or onto his back while he slowly waddled around the farm yard, as their mother watched in amusement!)
Anyway, enough of the dreaming of days gone by (and 'Furry', the ferocious feline), just want to pick you up on the point you made about the court judgment equating gay and straight 'common law' couples. I'm not sure I would agree that it won't make a difference. It may not have detailed practical benefits now but
- It means that no rights can be given to non-marital heterosexual couples without being given automatically to gay couples too, whether that is in relation to property rights, morgages, inheritance, etc. In effect it means that instead of having to fight for non marital gay couples, the gay community has simply to fight for rights for non-marital couples, full stop, forming alliances with other non-marital couples lobby groups. Because whatever rights are given to straights must then be given to gay couples;
- It is a critical opening, because having established the legitimacy of gay couples and getting a legal acknowledgement of their existence, it makes the task of getting rights, up to and including full marriage, easier. It may be only the bottom rung, but it one rung up the ladder from before, and once you've made that first step, who knows where it might end. Having acknowledged the existence and validity of gay relationships, it means the law cannot then pretend they don't exist in later struggles.
So endeth the sermon for today. BTW, I'm beginning to wonder, given the number of gay people I'm coming across on Wiki (including moi!) are there any straights on it at all. Or should we coin a new phrase: homopedia: (noun) free encyclopædia on the internet on which the majority of members are homosexual.
Gotta go and write something. Give my love to Ms. Moggy! (It is a Ms, is it?) JTD 05:36 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
IIRC Montrealais' cat is called Zazou. My female American longhair cat is called Mougie (Zazou and Mougie look a lot a like). Oh, and I'm gay too (but be very quite about our little conspiracy taking over Wikipedia).Shhh! ;-) --mav
- Heh. I was being slightly facetious; sounds like I was completely misinterpreted. The article originally said that we had gotten the right to "heterosexual common-law marriage". I meant that that wouldn't make a difference in the sense that I can already get a heterosexual common-law marriage any time I want ;) - what I want is a homosexual common-law marriage with rights equivalent to those of a heterosexual one. The difference is subtle but profound!
- Anyway, not to put too fine a point on it, the sentence was simply poorly worded. I reworded it, making a semi-silly comment on what the unreworded sentence really meant. You're preaching to the converted... or perverted ;)
- - Montréalais (who is looking forward to making an honest man out of the boyf ;)
- p.s. Zazou is a boy cat.
Nice Photos!
Just want to pay you a compliment for the nice photos you took of Quebec City. They look quite professional! --Menchi 16:02 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, thank you very much! ^_^ Here is a list of some other photos I've contributed. - Montréalais
Please leave things as they are that clarifies to all people on the World Wide Web that it is PROVINCES. QUEBEC by itself is not a country and is part of the proper Canadian list. Thank you....Ron Davis
- That has nothing to do with the title of the article. Considering that every page that deals with Quebec already says that it is a province of Canada, I think the reasons I gave for moving the page are sufficient, when applied to every province. I have to wonder if you would be stressing so much if I had begun with List of communities in Ontario. - Montréalais
Oh you brave person, 'tampering' with the lists of DW/Ron Davis. Rising bringing the wrath of that almighty ego down on you. Lock your doors and call an exorcist! JtdIrL 06:57 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
- *puts on Bach's Toccata and Fugue for mood music* - Montréalais
Hah! That is EXACTLY what is playing on my eMac right now!!! JtdIrL 07:25 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Regarding AIDS: it's my impression that AIDS nowadays with the new drugs has pretty much turned into a severe chronic disease, not necessarily fatal. I just tried to locate statistics at CDC but couldn't find any; all I found was: the drugs "have greatly reduced the number of deaths due to AIDS" and "the drugs do not cure the disease". AxelBoldt 02:21 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
- I have a vague unease with saying "AIDS isn't fatal." After all, people can live a relatively long time with other chronic diseases we regard as fatal, such as inoperable cancers and degenerative diseases, and potentially die of something else first. But that doesn't mean they're not fatal. To me, a non-fatal disease is one that can either be cured, or rarely-to-never kills the patient. But IANAD. - Montréalais
Bonjour à Zazou (et vous)! I've left a comment and a question which may be of interest at Talk:Charles Maurice de Talleyrand - Someone else 07:34 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I know nothing about it. - Montréalais
Just wanted to say good work on Harvey Milk. I've been meaning to write something about him for months now, but you've done a better job of it than I would have. --Camembert
- My pleasure. - Montréalais
Bonjour, I've noticed that you have added etymologies of Canadian provinces in List of country name etymologies. I don't think, we want to set the precedent of allowing the addition of non-sovereign states/provinces in this article. Off the top of my head, I can think of etymologies of 14 states in India. Imagine, if everyone were to add their states, where would it stop? Counties, districts, cities, towns, villages? :-) Gyan 07:00 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
- Whatever, remove them if you want. - Montréalais