Leafless

Answer the man's question. Again: are you for or against treating everyone equally (that is, equality under and before the law)? Everyone? Pertaining to an unqualified definition of 'everyone'. Absolutely NOT!

Because the suckers in the ROC are paying for it.

So, are you for or against treating everyone equally? This is an unattainable pipe dream in an democratic society. If you want a classless society, go for it and move to some other part of the world with State control.

What Charter rights do those three groups have that the rest of us don't? It should be noted Gays, Quebec and Aboriginals are NOT denied any Canadian rights initially. They have chosen to lobby for additional rights. The feds have unilaterally decided and entrenched in our constitution additional rights while choosing to ignore the rights of many other justifiable groups with protection written into the constitution: Relating to Gays-Allowing the perverted, immoral and unnatural and potentially harmful aspects of homosexuality to be equal before and under the law without discrimination without allowing the input of Canadians concerning this important matter. Relating to Quebec- Implementation of French as a federal official language. Financially supporting promoting the intrusion of a dead, useless language to discriminate and interfere with the working language of Canada, English. Even worse advancing the use of this dead, useless language to form a condition of federal employment in the federal public service without the input of citizens of Canada concerning this important matter. Relating to Aboriginals- Government involvement in this area could exceed how Canadians should try to control Aboriginals who basically only want to be left alone to hunt and fish according to their traditional beliefs and desires. Why is government placing itself in the position that it is basically governments responsibility to create cities in the wilderness when Aboriginals are free to move to cities and be part of modern society without this huge financial burden? Why is government placing Aboriginals in the same position as Quebec and Gays by giving them the opportunity to be politically active and in the position to extract huge amounts of tax payers dollars without the input of the tax paying citizens of Canada? The fact is that any group that is the beneficiary of additional constitutional rights, written into our constitution should be subject to approval from the citizens of Canada by referendum, otherwise it could be viewed or suggest fraudulent federal tactics.

Leafless I do not have a problem understanding why you want a Christian society based on what your cconcept of Christianity is and how you do not want the state and your version of Christianity seperated. That I understand. What I do not understand is when you call gays vicious or suggest they are mentally ill or intellectually impaired in your debate. If you want to debate laws and making society Christian that is one thing- but making disparaging negative comments about gays accusing them of being intellectually imaired, pedophiles or mentally ill is what I am calling you on. I apologize for before if you thought I was insulting you. I was being sarcastic as I did not really think you were that uptight about gays until I read more of your stuff. It actually shocks me that you hold some of the views you do in this day and age. I do not mean that as an insult. This thread started out as, "homosexuality is an anomaly", which I agreed with. This means pertaining to homosexuals, that they lack the usual or ethical STANDARDS pertaining to Canadian society. In turn Canadian society is 70% Christian making it a majority Christian society. Personally I am not even a moderate Christian, but I am a principled individual and think homosexuality is wrong and morally destructive. I think Christianity, morals and the ten commandments for instance help form the basis concerning a positive outlook, to respect the laws of the country and shape the mind to help become mentally principled to be able to recognize when society goes astray. You for instance defend homosexuals in an unprincipled way pertaining to a code of conduct that does not protect the natural interest of society.

No it does not. All I want recognized is for the feds to do what they say they want to do and treat everyone EQUAL. At present the Charter discriminates by giving certain groups elevated rights and should be rewritten. All Canadians should have the same rights. No Canadians should be treated as special interest groups with special status decided solely by government. Society pertaining to social interaction within the confines of the law is created by Canadians, NOT GOVERNMENT.

It also sounds like you would like to include 'non-Christians' though you don't say it but imply it. A load of rubbish, but I can appreciate the fact that you are a devout 'sovial conservative'. All I am saying is the Charter discriminates by giving Gays, Quebec and Aboriginals elevated status decided unilaterally by government rather than society. This is not a case where government protects those without rights. It is a case where government intervenes into an area that is not their concern. Why would I be against non-Christians? Is there a section in the Charter that I overlooked and provides them also with elevated rights?

Seven out of ten Canadians identify themselves as Christian, either Roman Catholic or Protestant. denominations. That is 70% of the Canadian population making the country 'a majority Christian country'. http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=v6n2_art_27

gnam Canada is a country that has a history and traditons. It did not create itself. You first have to understand Canada is a majority Christian country and the federal government has a moral responsibility to acknowledge this fact, which it does not, and tries to treat everyone as equals to appease its self invented status as being a 'officially multicultural country'. Canadians WERE NOT involved and DENIED the right to be part of this this important decision which should have been presented to Canadians in the form of a referendum. The Liberal party could very well be considered anti Christian because of this. The Liberal party of Canada also has a powerful Quebec wing component, that at one time Quebec, was highly Roman Catholic but due to in my estimation, to a failure of God to propel Quebec politically, now shuns religion and instead now treats politics in a very religious manner, which also it seems, to be its full time occupation both federally and provincially. What I don't agree with is the criteria that the Liberals use to identify and justify certain groups status in Canada that require special rights, over all other Canadians and written into the constitution. This includes Gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals. For instance Gays have been given unilateral government decided rights concerning their perverted lifestyle as NORMAL and our federal government have decided unilaterally that nothing is wrong with homosexuals using the word 'marriage', to describe their same sex union. This is anti Christian. It is argued that Christianity does not own the rights to the word 'marriage' but by the same token applied in modern times, every country in the world uses the word marriage to describe the union of 'heterosexual couples' and not 'homosexual couples'. So, in its own right Christianity and most other religions indeed does have the right reserved pertaining to the word marriage albeit not the legal right but the traditional right. What I am proposing in a nutshell, your word, is to scrap the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or have it rewritten to exclude special status, for catered groups that I describe as 'special interest groups' being gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

Well Rue, you have not supplied conclusive evidence what homosexuals actually are or if their lifestyles can even be viewed with any kind of normalcy as compared to the majority heterosexuals. What you really fail to acknowledge is that government has no answer concerning what to do with (in Canada) 1% or around 3,200,000 of the total population of Canada. Rather than government admitting failure it has allowed gay activist to flood the country with 'gay propaganda' to condition the heterosexual population to accept perversion as 'being normal and acceptable.' Throwing gays in a legal fashion onto the heterosexual population is not the answer and this could only corrupt and complicate problems in Canadian society considerably. Only time will tell what the outcome of this adverse decision by government will produce concerning the gay lifestyle on Canadian society.

Never mind Leafless dealing a mortal blow to his arguments. Can you supply proof in percent, the number of Canadians/Americans in 'favour' or 'against' homosexuality? If you cannot supply these numbers, it is obvious we need a referendum to establish factually how Canadians/Americans really view homosexuality pertaining the total overall effect including AIDS has on Western society and if homosexuals enriches society in general.

Also: as a self-professed Christian, are you really in a position to throw stones at the quirks of others' religious practices? I also described myself as a marginal believer in Christianity, but do believe this majority Western docile religion helps with nation building, families, marriage and is a necessity for those who require spiritual leadership without making any kind of commitment to destroy all others who do not believe in the faith. Pertaining to the accusation of "throwing stones at the quirks of other' religious practices" no I don't. What I did was describe the situation as it presented itself through the eyes of 'national security' coupled with the unusual Western practise of praying in public places especially when coupled with the constant threat of terrorist action. Maybe Arab followers of Islam should realize they are not in Syria or Iraq or other Muslim countries, but in this case are in the the U.S. where the practice of praying is generally in private homes or their place of worship. I think Muslims should educate and train themselves according to the civilized religious practices of Western countries pertaining to their religious practices and stop creating disturbances in public.

Harper is opening a can of worms. Recognizing Quebec as any kind of nation is dangerous business, even if his definition concludes it is a nation within Canada. Does Mr. Harper fully realize the full implications this could present. The definition of a COUNTRY according to the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary' is : 1-a "the territory of a nation with it's own government; (a) state. ( a territory possessing its own language, people, culture etc." The real Quebec fireworks should be beginning in a short time. One other concern is, all other provinces could be seen as a territory which is :1. " the extent of the land under the jurisdiction of a ruler, State, city etc." Why not simply divide the country into ten countries and get it over with.

"Anglo-Saxon Imperialism"? And I thought Canada was so far advanced. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...d40&k=89853

I don't know why Muslim leaders should be outraged as Muslims kissing or banging their heads on the floor could very well indicate a possible 'farewell to this planet' for a date with their virgin friends in heaven. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

?? Both Leafless AND Ambrose are switching to the Quebec sovereignty side at the same time? It can not be true! What are the chances of that happening??? I am just jealous that I never thought of starting a thread with just my own name in the title.... even if it was an accident. I have no idea how that happened and don't think 'Leafless' was there in the title initially, unless someone else can verify that it was, as I did not check it until later.

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible? This is what makes defending homosexuality a bad joke. There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot. Legalizing homosexuality and SSM all could be a terrible mistake with no one to blame but government who was to foolish to wait until the cause of homosexuality is firmly established. You again miss the point. Homo-sexuality occurs in every animal life form and that in itself would suggest it is not an anomoly but a common form of behaviour in all life forms-most likely as a built in way to assure population control. More to the point if you opened your mind and read you would realize there is ample conclusive evidence to indicate that homo-sexuality can be biological or genetically inherited and based and/or it can be learned from the environment but that learned homo-sexuality is clearly different in characteristic and features and how it is manifested. There is a reason the American Medical Association and every other medical association and psychological professional association does not describe homo-sexuality as a mental illness or abnormality anymore. There is a reason why when autopsies have been performed on lesbians they found distinct brain structural differences when compared to straight women and that their brain structure was identical in formation to male brains. If you want to be a dinosaur and stick your head in the sand be my guest and yes you are a bigot when you encourage or incite people to believe being gay is "vicious". That is most certainly hate mongering and you should be called on it. If you want to go around calling gays immoral no one can stop you but as I said if you want to judge other people, you yourself also have to be willing to be judged for your own actions and since you seem to trying to defend your right to call gays immoral then they have the perfect right to call you the same for even saying that. Also if you look at the legislation you are talking about it does not "legalize" hetero or homo sexuality. What it has said is you can't define laws and make exceptions only for hetero-sexuals precisely because neither being gay or straight should be considered illegal or legal. The days of defining homo-sexuality as illegal in the criminal code have long been over in case you haven't noticed. You are again confusing the concept of homo-sexuality being a crime listed in the criminal code with human rights principals enshrined in the Charter of Rights that don't define things as legal or illegal, simplu guarantee equal or consistent treatment of the application of law. Yes, I fully realize homosexuality occurs in animal life. But on the other hand what distinguishes humans from animals is the much larger mass of grey matter called the brain, functioning as the coordination center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity. This is the significant factor that leaves animals by the way side and is the primary factor why humans have the capability to form civilizations. It has been decided by the majority of civilized countries around the world religion and heterosexual marriage is the accepted factor that forms the base of all civilized societies. Homosexuality is classified as a mental disorder in the U.S. military. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200200,00.html But homosexuals have caused such a furor with demanding exclusive proof that homosexuals are not mentally deficient as compared to heterosexuals, that in effect society has no option but pertaining to Western society to allow it. But this in fact does not allow homosexuals to declare homosexuality as just as normal as heterosexual because like I said previously there is no conclusive proof of this, unless of course you can provide that proof which up to now you have NOT that homosexuality is not only immoral but in fact is a mental illness. Totally setting aside science, the emphasis as been on the good of civilized society to determine what civilized standards are pertaining to the functioning of a country. Since we have never had a national referendum the homosexual issue it is now imperative that we do since government has improperly legalized homosexuality WITHOUT CONCLUSIVE PROOF. The U.S military has decided homosexuality is a mental illness and in the case of Canadian society it should be up to Canadian society to decide whether to accept homosexuality as normal and not a mental disorder. This is why I think (parts) the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' are badly flawed and Canadian citizens should not allow 'any' aggressive (possiably mental) minorities to steer the country in an undesired path. BTW- Everything I say, you seem to relate as if I am the only one in Canada who thinks this way which is total BS and is the primary reason we need a referendum for Canadians to answer important questions relating to the functionality of their country. And one to address why the government thinks it has the power to promote the interest of 'special interest groups, and enshrine governments decisions as 'rights in our constitution'.

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible? This is what makes defending homosexuality a bad joke. There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot. Legalizing homosexuality and SSM all could be a terrible mistake with no one to blame but government who was to foolish to wait until the cause of homosexuality is firmly established.

SSM and gay pride parades are trademarks of the gay lifestyle and both are connected reinforcing the gay legal position pertaining to 'equality rights'. At present gay pride parades could be funded (and they are in our city) by city taxpayers. The same goes to when government must defend gays from perceived or interpreted hate literature or the feds are put in the position to defend gay rights at PUBLIC EXPENSE. A single example of this is in parliament itself when many days are devoted to debating 'gay issues and implementation of laws ' including SSM at public expense. Then if gays are recognized as equal to heterosexuals, textbooks in schools must all be altered to include that fact as well as as promoting the gay lifestyle all at taxpayers expense.

Now your talking like they do in Quebec where they think French is the majority language. It would be if they were a SEPARATE ENITY or country but their not, they are part of Canada. The fact remains they are part of Canada so any calculation based on language, culture, colour or other identifying characteristic must be calculated relating to ALL citizens of Canada. It seems you are in agreement with the fact that Canadian families or Canadians that have developed with the country since it's creation should not have the right to be included in any issue that could have a diverse affect on ALL Canadians concerning its beliefs and traditions and customs and laws.

"The Harper government's handling of last week's environmental conference in Nairobi gives new ammunition to sovereigntist forces in their quest to take Quebec out of Canada, says former Parti Quebecois premier Bernard Landry." -------------------------------- The country of Quebec as spoken before it has been declared a country by anyone according to Bernard Laundry. How something like this (that should not even be considered newsworthy) that shows so much disdain for a federal minister and the present Conservative government is unbelievable. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...42c7&k=6197

If you do not believe Quebec has benefited greatly with their 'special interest' catered to and made law in 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', especially the section prescribed to 'official languages', I am sorry to say is out to lunch. ------------------------------------ You seem to think SSM does not affect anyone. Your WRONG. The legal ramifications of SSM affect all Canadians in financially supporting homosexual ideologies and lifestyles, even down to the public funding of gay parades. This also includes legal cost pertaining to legally supporting and defending homosexuals issues that are directly related or associated with SSM or their lifestyles. This also has a negative affect on reducing the impact religion per se has on the country, that could cause many Canadians to lose faith in religion and turn to crime oriented diversities. ---------------------------------- All important issues relating to referendums could be tacked on every federal election, resulting in little cost to society. But again, you fail to acknowledge the importance that the government does not have the right to 'bulldoze' what it sees as 'rights' when all along they are accommodating the concerns of special interest groups. Canadians have every right in the world to override such a biased determination made by unauthorized government initially. -------------------------------------

These links only took about five minutes to find through google. The first two talk a little bit about child sexual abuse statistics: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/fami...sxagrsex_e.html See the section about "The Abuser". No mention of sexual orientation. http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp Again no mention of sexual orientation. But here's the link everyone really wants... http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html Here is the executive summary of the paper: In summary, there is no evidence that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. You ask me to provide links to prove what I am talking about then turn around and provide you own. No doubt there are an abundance of links promoting homosexual culture and lifestyle. We all know and realize, articles containing criticism of gays are being removed from the net as perceived hate propaganda. Canada is proving over and over again what a banana republic it really is.

Can you give me an example of the rights of a "special interest group" overriding the rights of all other Canadians? then I gather you agree that gays should be able to get married? Since when are rights decided by referendums? Could we have a referendum on the question of whether Catholics should just fuck off? Then you support same sex marriage? oh. You mean *except* for same sex marriage. But why? Oh. Because you say so. -k Gays do have the right to get married, like the rest of heterosexual Canadians, not to each other being the same sex. This was never determined by Canadians if this special interest group 'gays' have the right to supersede perceived rights concerning the status of the majority. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Your views of having a referendum on the question 'Catholics should just fuck off' clearly shows your arrogance towards religion in general. This might not be your fault entirely to be so arrogant, perhaps you were born this way. I think gays should be told by government loud and clear 'to fuck off with their ridiculous perverse demands' without a referendum. ----------------------------------------------------------------- You seem unable to understand I am voicing my opinion on SSM. It is not only I, but all Canadians that should be given their right to establish the criteria on whether the special interest of gays should constitute any kind of right to be written into the constitution especially considered under 'equality rights'. You also fail to understand gays already had the same rights prior to SSM as all other Canadians. -------------------------------------------------------------------

Leafless, None of the links you provided even mention SSM or provide any backup to your claim. At least the third link, was relevant to the issue. Thank-you. The point of the issue relates to the initial quote: "Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday." In other words what right does the government of Canada have to entrench constitutionally the interest of basically 'special interest groups' to overide the rights of all other Canadians. All Canadians including these 'special interest groups' ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS', so it is not a matter of any group being denied rights. The end result will be that these groups whether they are relating to Quebec, Aboriginals or gay interest groups, could be seen as renegades (lacking principles or no principles) by all other Canadians with undeserved special status that could actually worsen relations between Canadians and these 'special interest groups'. This should indicate that if the feds agree that for instance Quebec requires special assistance, help them in their own province. Don't try to force all other Canadian provinces to succumb to the demands of Quebec and give them special privileges that affect English Canadians and other provinces. The same condition applies for gays with the first requirement being that all Canadians should be given the opportunity to decide if this gay rights including SSM is a legitimate cause. Gays already have the same rights as any other Canadian, prior to SSM which IMO is not a legitimate issue initially. The same thing should apply to Aboriginals having the same rights as everyone else, outside of the land issue which is separate. These rights pertaining to 'special interest groups' have been for the most part, nothing more than a Liberal invention designed to win votes and to establish what amounts to a 'transfer of power' from English Canada to Quebec. Those of you who do not belief for whatever reason in referendums on major decisions affecting ALL Canadians, should think twice.