Ronda

No, and he didn't tell them that they weren't actually sick, just different, either. This is where the discussion of tolerance vs. endorsement comes in. It's utterly unnacceptable to abuse ANYONE or lecture them about their sexual practices, unless you are their friend and concerned about their health, naturally. As mentioned, I have friends who are gay or who have had experiences and it really does not factor in at all. I simply don't feel that society should be endorsing homosexuality on such a broad scale and more to the point, I don't feel marriage should be redefined since gays can and do marry under the same rules as everyone else (one person, opposite sex, no relation, over 18 etc.). Being that the topic deals with the "gay gene", I'll simply say that I just do not feel that it is as clear cut as a gene or even genetic sequence that will absolutely determine one's sexuality or sexual preferences.

Please read my post. What Hugo and I are saying is that there may be susceptibility, ie. one being genetically predisposed to obesity or alcoholism or cancer, etc. etc. etc. but this is NOT the same as there being a GENE for an INNATE trait. Hair colour, eye colour, gender, etc. are good examples of things that are innate and unchangeable. If I am predisposed to being obese, under the right circumstances, I will become obese. However, there is no guarantee. And even still, since to my knowledge no one has proven that gays beget gays, even that type of link is a stretch. In any event, you cannot say that sexuality is something innate (ie. possessed at birth and unchangeable) such as hair or skin colour would be. The likelihood of one person being homosexual over another may be greater but the environment and that person's attitudes will certainly play a much larger role than genetics.

Right. Well, Scotch, I'm trying to tell you that whatever lofty ideas you have about there being no such thing as "race" in the first place, the fact is that the colour of one's skin is genetically determined. If you want to talk about shades of black and white and suntans, knock yourself out - you're missing the point. There's a gene for skin colour and eye colour, hair colour, etc. (unless of course colour contacts and hair dye confuse this issue for someone with your obvious mastery of genetic code). There is NOT a GENE for homosexuality. There may be a genetic SEQUENCE which would make some more susceptable than others given certain environments. Does this make sense or should I try yet again?

Between Scotch and Riff, I'm kind of nauseated by this topic. You're both utterly ridiculous. "Black? What is this black you speak of?" Etc. How blindingly dumb must one be to not realise the difference between RACE and SEXUAL PREFERENCE????!! And you both keep arrogantly asserting that Hugo has no idea about genetics, while you two clowns keep bantering on about idiotic concepts like environmentally induced race. If I have a white child and raise him in a black household, his skin colour will not change. Get it? If I beat him and sexually torment him, might he have some kind of sexual dysfunction or screwed up sexual identity? Likely. And by the way, SirRiff, don't feign a sort of Clintonian memory lapse when it comes to whether homosexuality is totally hardwired and equatable to gender or skin colour. You and I had a good long chat about that in another thread, if you care to look back and see what your opinion was a couple short weeks ago. Hugo's original point was that there is no gay gene. Environment ALWAYS plays a role in homosexuality. Environment NEVER plays a role in one's hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, ability to roll one's tongue, etc. Again, KUDOS to Riff for coming along on his high horse to rant on for a few posts saying the exact same thing while simultaneously insisting on Hugo's idiocy and lack of understanding. Well put. Let me say this, SirRiff. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU! So does Hugo. Maybe you "don't like gays" either!!

Thanks, SirRiff. So 'gayness' is not genetic in the way that skin colour, eye colour or hair colour is. I'm pretty sure that was the original point but good job anyway. It's not something that should be put forth to the general public, specifically to children as being no different than heterosexuality. I personally do not feel that it needs to be discussed at all unless it comes up besides teaching your kids that you do not pick on someone or ostracise them for being different, that you do not need to avoid them or their friendship. To me, that is tolerance. Gay sex ed and blind societal endorsement is not in the name of tolerance. It takes people who are confused and attempts to pigeonhole them into behaviours that are not healthy and in some cases, ultimately unfulfilling. Is this description applicable to all gays? Of course not. Every experience is different. However, I've seen that situation with my own eyes numerous times and I do not agree with it. You don't need to teach people that gay is just the same as hetero and gay sex is wonderful and just a normal, natural facet of human sexuality in order to teach them tolerance. Based on studies that have already been discussed and based on personal experiences with gay people, I think gay sexuality (not just the acts themselves) is very different from heterosexuality.

Scotch, Your attitude baffles me and you clearly cannot actually defend your position beyond basically telling me to chill out. I'll look forward to your automatic acceptance and cavalier attitude when gay activists strike down decency laws and age of consent laws (see 365gay.com) or when the good folks at NAMBLA start having parades, assuming they aren't at the gay pride parades already. Also when polygamists scream for "equality". If this is not your position, you do a really poor job of expressing yourself and should come up with some better arguments.

No, Scotch, people think they DON'T procreate because of the fact that they are usually (obviously) coupled with someone of the same sex. Common sense would dictate that such partnerships would not beget children. People do not feel that gays CAN'T have children. The flipside is people like you who think that gays CAN'T get married, or that they are not allowed because of who they are. This is not the case. Gays DON'T get married for the same reason sister/brothers don't get married or underage couples. The same reason people in this country only take one spouse instead of a few (or few hundred). Gays CAN marry. The people they may WANT to marry do not fit within the confines of the very definition of the word "marriage". Just like many people in our country. In fact, judging by the number of immigrants in this country, it would not surprise me (though I haven't looked it up) if polygamists outnumbered monogamous gay couples. And frankly, I think they're worse off. I would rather live with my chosen partner and claim marriage benefits after a year than have to leave them in a hellhole while I moved to safety.

Sorry, what? Generalisations, you say? I didn't find any statistics regarding what I said and I believe I mentioned that I was making a generalisation. Yes, households with children ARE at a financial disadvantage. Even if one is not at home, which you brought up, daycare is bloody expensive. And, contrary to what Scotch might lead you to believe, not many gay people have children - particularly ones that live with them in a gay household.

Yes, they can. They can marry too. They can procreate the old fashioned way with someone of the opposite sex or by adding the opposite sex's genetic material artificially. They can also marry someone of the opposite sex or they could live with someone of the same sex and attain "marriage benefits" after a year. What's your point exactly???

Yeah, and it sucked. Anyhoo. Point taken, excuse me whilst I go experiment with scarring myself to see if it's really me and so I can feel right at home in the "scarred community". The first thing I'm going to do as soon as my scarring is as shocking and obvious as possible is to hire a good lawyer and sue every magazine and tv show in existance for not helping to celebrate my new gorgeous self through proportional representation and anyone who's ever dared to suggest that my burning or cutting my skin could possibly be dangerous. Science be damned! It's all propaganda, I tells ya! You have more chance of dying from, oh I don't know, being eaten by a humpback whale than dying from excess burning and cutting. According to my sources, anyway... you know, the cool people I go to school with.

Well, that's why marriage is understood as a sexual relationship that is entered into in order to begin a family, ie. childrearing. It is absolutely NOT an "arbitrary decision". That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Shall we enter into the reasons people can't marry their dog or their daughter even though they may live together and have sex??? The idea of commonlaw relationships and gay marriages and you now talking about how adult children living with parents are not considered married, etc. poses a problem. I know people who are in college, opposite sex, living together for cost reasons alone who end up being classed as "commonlaw". It is not the case and they do not wish it to be. I've read cases of twins who live together and wish to partake in marriage benefits and are angry they cannot. You touch upon this idea. The point is that marriage and all the laws surrounding it directly address the unique nature of a romantic, sexual relationship between a man and a woman who, 9 times out of 10, if not more, end up being father and mother. The primary purpose of the marriage relationship is not to be a stamp of approval, nor to provide a tax break, or allow one to take advantage of someone else's medical benefits. The purpose is to bind two people together firmly who will likely breed and raise children or at the very least be a lifelong familial connection. Sharing benefits and tax breaks, for example, speak to the special circumstances that are involved in such a relationship. Marital benefits are there because of marriage; marriage is not there to get marital benefits. The benefits of marriage directly speak to the dynamics and circumstances involved in a heterosexual union. People got married before such benefits existed and the benefits were borne out of an understanding of what heterosexual marriage commonly consists of. Therefore, it is not discrimination that a person cannot marry someone of the same sex. Or of the same family. Or someone underage. Or more than one person. No-fault divorce and fierce individualism has already warped most people's view of what marriage is. If you do not understand how recognising gay "marriages" will further damage the institution, you do not understand what marriage is supposed to be about. For one thing, if marriage is nothing but a stamp of approval and free benefits card which is bestowed on a sexual relationship, what is the point? Heterosexual couples almost always have children and this tends to complicate divorce and give those couples at least a sense of responsibility to the other spouse. (I realise you can find exceptions to what I'm saying, I am referring to the norm) With gay couples, there is never a biological link, simply a sexual relationship. What's to stop them from divorcing? What's the point of making it at all difficult to divorce?? In heterosexual couples, generally, one spouse is at home and the other, therefore, is at a definite financial disadvantage. This is also a factor in marriage law. Gay couples very rarely have anything close to this type of dynamic. Bottom line is that if marriage is to be redefined and reframed as something that reflects nothing but an adult's sexual partner, there is no reason to endorse it nor to avoid divorce. To once again quote Aldous Huxley's intro to Brave New World... he says that he doesn't doubt that in the future "marriage licenses will be given out like dog licenses, renewable once a year" - Oh, and you can have more than one "dog" at a time, too. This generation, who has grown up with no fault divorce already has the idea of marriage completely wrong. I shudder to think what the next generation will grow up believing.

They can marry. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not related to them, not already married, etc. etc. If I want to marry, I can. If I want to marry my brother, tough. Ditto for my sister. Why is that so hard to grasp?? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if there was a law that said "HOMOSEXUALS AND/OR BISEXUALS MAY NOT MARRY!" I would be all for striking it down as discrimination. However, changing the rules to incorporate a person's personal choice of partner is not the same thing. Changing the definition of marriage is a different matter. If marriage "discriminates" against gays because they are only attracted to same sex partners, does it discriminate against bisexuals half the time?? This is where your slippery slope argument comes into being. There are polygamists who immigrate here and have to leave their "excess" wives back at home, with the children conceived of that union, in order to live here. Is that discrimination?? What if I want to marry a couple other people as well as my husband because they have a good benefits package? You may have heard the term "Friends with benefits"... That's about to turn into a much more literal term.

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation in order to acheive some kind of a middle ground or at least greater understanding of different points of view, Blackdog. I'm not trying to throw stones around regarding which group of people is more fitting of stereotypes. I'm happy to leave our portion of the conversation with you thinking Christians are bigots and me thinking gays are perverts but that really doesn't accomplish much, does it?

I pretty much agree with you there, Lost, and I feel the same way, for the most part. I will say that I know quite a few gay people and most of them ARE hedonistic and perverted though! I don't let it stand in the way of a friendship - I simply object to the societal reconditioning necessary to normalise this kind of behaviour and attitude. Perhaps this colours my viewpoint. For example, I don't know of a lot of gays who are against gay pride... and gay pride is quite lewd and disgusting, if you've ever been. When I hear a gay activist speak of pushing sexual limits within society and decriminalising public sex, I don't really see it as an isolated viewpoint because the gays I know support that view. With regards to the different denominations of Churches, I see what you mean, but I don't know if I completely agree with that because while there may not have been a public denunciation by other denominations ( I honestly don't know), I am certain that if you ask any Christian or church-going person what they thought of that situation, they would condemn the behaviour. I have never met a gay person in my life who has expressed any dissatisfaction with gay pride or activism. NAMBLA has never come up, however on their website they mention acceptance by many mainstream gay activist groups.

Black dog, I'm on my way to work so I don't have a lot of time. Let me say that I accept your point about the Church and how they should've put a stop to the things that were going on within some parishes. Granted. However, this does not mean that all their teachings are useless or that the Church now has no right to speak out about moral issues. I would also point out that gay groups not VOCALLY discrediting NAMBLA and in fact, allying with them in some cases, damages the gay credibility. Not to mention the groups themselves and their wishes to legalize public sex amongst other things and Gay Pride. (Have you been?? I have, and it made me sick.) I find it hard to believe that these are the uncontested spokespeople of gays and yet, we're meant to believe that their "lifestyle" is no different from heterosexuals.

I want you to stop making massive generalisations, Lost. That's what it boils down to. The "institution" is not to blame for cases of sexual abuse that have happened within the Church. You accuse everyone else of being hate-filled and discriminatory and inflammatory etc. but here you sit with your very bigoted and prejudiced opinions about religion and religious people. I love your moral relativist viewpoint, too, that the Church can not make any judgements on anyone's behaviour because all who are affiliated with the Church are not sinless. Your view of "any sort of equallity" (sic) is interesting as well. Yeah, you know... gays unable to vote, denied the right to live, unable to get jobs, the list goes on. Oh, and an institution that is involved with sexual abuse, particularly of minors.... hmm... difficult... Oh wait! How about NAMBLA ? Hang on though... that's a gay rights group who are fighting against "ageism" and the freedom to have "consentual" sex with young boys. I guess that doesn't count. Sorry, I guess the only ones wanting to get it on with young boys are those perverted (non-homosexual, of course) Catholics. And here's an interesting quote from a homosexual "boy lover" from the above mentioned website regarding this topic: Basically, a homosexual's opinion that the "abuse" is in many cases "intergenerational man-boy love" and that the sex itself was more to do with homosexuality than Catholicism. A different opinion, I suppose.

Yeah, absolutely, Lost. In fact, it's all a front. The saints, the churches, the Pope... heck, even Christ himself! It's all a scam cos Catholics really hate gays (and blacks and women) and love sexual abuse. Why don't you get real? While you're at it, since you expect everyone who disagrees with you to actually research a topic before making a broad statement, why not give it a try yourself? Hey, using your logic, maybe the priests who have abused people were feeling stigmatised and ostracised by hate-mongers like you and were just acting out... you know, like how a little brother does to a big brother bully?

I don't really care for this topic but I would like to point out that the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are far more numerous than "religious morals". I really reject the idea that the only people who would oppose it are "religious nuts" or people (as Pellaken would say) who "get their morals from a book". I don't understand how points are made on a logical basis to oppose this move, and the answer is invariably something to do with not letting religion dictate morals. It's silliness. Religion is opposed to murder too, but we don't consider the law which prohibits murder to be religious fanaticism at work. Ask Craig and Moderate Centrist, or me, for that matter. Read the billion other entries about gay marriage and you'd find that the reasons include more than religious dogma.

But it doesn't bother you that politicians are overrun by lobby groups constantly?? It doesn't bother you that, for example, EGALE lobbies the gov't ferociously??? How do they represent Canada? But a Catholic leader being reminded that they count themselves Catholic and the Catholic church is against what they're doing is a problem? At least the Church is doing it publicly instead of behind closed doors or in a court room, the way lobby groups do things.

No. Call it anything BUT marriage. You cannot call it something which it is not. That is where I have my main issue. A marriage is a man and a woman. The man is the groom and the husband and generally goes on to be the father. The woman is the bride and the wife and generally goes on to be the mother. That's the way it is. If I walk into a Church, or city hall to get married and tell them I'd rather be referred to as the husband and I'd prefer to be called Paul instead of Ronda, they'd look at me like I was nuts and they wouldn't do it. When gays get married, one may call themselves "bride" or "bridegroom" - (which actually means "groom" anyway) and the other may be the groom or they're both the groom. Who's the "wife", who's the "husband"?? If they have kids already or they adopt, who's mommy? Are they both mommy or daddy?? You get my point. Re-defining marriage is calling something that which it isn't. There should be some distinction. That's what language does for people... defines things in terms that we understand. It would be like me noticing that men get special treatment in some areas and insisting that since I am an EQUAL citizen, I should be allowed to call myself a man too, and be referred to as one. We all should. Or a black person calling themselves white due to perceived preferential treatment for whites. It's stupid. Is it a "segregation era, seperate but equal-style action" to even call women women or blacks black?? Having gays get married and be married with no difference at all alluded to from straight couples, it implies a sameness that does not exist. Gays can be EQUAL citizens without redefining words and entering into an exclusive institution that will continue to be "discriminatory" after it is redefined to include them anyway.

I don't see why bishops or the Pope would aggravate you when numerous well-funded lobby groups do a much more efficient job. What's so wrong with a religious person?? They are hardly dictating policy. They are making their positions known and stating what their religion's position is. The Pope's no fan of abortion either but we're doing that anyway and I have yet to hear an MP or ANYONE say they are against something because "the Pope says so". They may agree with the religious reasons and agree with what the Pope says, that's a different story. Besides, just because a religion holds a position, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong". They are against lots of things that you would likely be against too. Would Muslim or Jewish leaders making statements aggravate you as much?

That's funny, Pellaken. You seem pretty sure that the government should tell people how to live and spend their money. Read every other post you've ever written for confirmation. Why are you so sure that people against gay marriage get their "morals" or indeed every thought that enters their head from a book, anyway?? It's getting really old. I am capable of thought, Pellaken and I think gay marriage is a BAD idea for numerous well thought out and documented reasons posted elsewhere. All you keep saying is that others get their thoughts from a book and EVERYONE should get married. Period. Great comeback. Very thought provoking. Please back up your arguments with facts or at least logic, besides "people can do what they want" - stop and think of the well of arguments that can be posted against that for a moment... I mean, what are you suggesting now, anarchy?? You lurch from Stalin-esque welfare schemes to total unbridled individualistic hedonism and lawlessness? Please.

I apologise, I don't remember who wrote the following column but I copied and saved it a while ago. Funny, isn't it? I don't really know what's going on with the politics of all this. I think the legislature will pass it, even though only 3 yrs ago they voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. I don't know what's happened in the last 3 - 8 yrs that's been so drastic. It seems that the Supreme Court could easily rely on the Egan case as precedent and uphold the definition or the legislature could hold up their overwhelming support of traditional marriage from 3 short years ago. It's odd.

No one ever said "gays" are all child molesters. That wasn't the point. The point was, if you'd read the link provided, that a prominent Canadian GAY lobby group is actively trying to banish laws banning sex in public and to lower/abolish the age of consent. The info was found on a popular gay website and there's a petition to sign to "keep the criminal code out of YOUR sex life!" This leads one to believe that it's assumed that gay people would be interested in striking down these laws. I have NEVER seen another website with a petition to strike down these laws. If MOST gay people were not interested in sex with or as minors, or sex in public (ie. washrooms/bathhouses - a couple examples from the site) - why on earth would that link be there...? Why would they assume? Regardless, you totally ignored the point I made regarding gay sex vs. gay marriage - ie. we're talking about gay marriage, not the "morality" of gayness. Instead you've chosen to deliberately miss Hugo's point and set up a strawman argument based loosely on what he said.

Oh, and as for the State not interfering with "religious freedom" ... here's an article from 365gay.com: http://www.365gay.com/NewsContent/080203ir...rishPriests.htm "Priests and bishops are being warned by the Irish government that they face charges if they distribute the Vatican's denouncement of gay marriage. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said Friday that priests who quote sections of the document, hand it out, or send it to politicians or other citizens could be prosecuted under Ireland's strict incitement to hatred legislation." Now, who was it (Aidan, I'm looking at you) who was insisting that governmental cheerleading of homosexuality will not at all erode religious freedom? And just so we're clear... should a "religious" person be allowed to beat a gay person to death? Absolutely not. But to say that the behaviour is unhealthy, unnatural, un-Godly, whatever? Or to simply publish a statement from the Vatican?? Come on.