Scotchneat

Based on what you've presented here, it would seem that homosexual offer nothing to society and drain a great deal and since they do not want to change, wouldn't it be better to kill them all like the Bible demands?

[if someone Gay wishes to be "married" they must find a religious group which allows such and they must not be allowed to use the power of the State to intrude upon the religious beliefs or others. ] I am not sure that I understand your reasoning. Would civil marriages of gays per se intrude upon the religious beliefs of others? I don't know of anyone who seriously advocates that churches be compelled to perform gay marriages. Not only would such a measure be a gross violation of free religious practice, it would be a form of compelled speech which is offensive to the fundamental notions of human rights. [Neither may they use the same power to silence people of religion or censor their religious tracts by classification of their speech or content as "Hate Speech". ] I believe there is a misunderstanding about Hugh Owens case. It has been reported that he was charged under the hate speech provision of the Human Rights Code for merely referring to Bible passages. However, that reporting is a distortion. The bumper sticker or advertisement thereof was a reference to Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In the middle was an equal sign and on the right was two males holding hands in a circle with slash through it. The intended message of Hugh Owen and the meaning that most people would get from such a bumper sticker is that homosexuals should be put to death. Since homosexuals are often attacked simply for being homosexuals, the sinister nature of Hugh Owens' bumper sticker is obvious.

Hugo, here is some real science, any comment? Dyed in the womb Oct 9th 2003 From The Economist print edition A lesbian's sexual identity seems to be established before her birth MEN and women blink differently when startled. That simple and well-established observation has led Qazi Rahman of the University of East London, in England, and his colleagues to evidence supporting the idea that homosexuality is a characteristic which people are born with, rather than one they acquire as they grow up. The team's research, just published in Behavioral Neuroscience, shows that lesbians blink like heterosexual men. That, in turn, suggests that the part of their brain that controls this reflex has been masculinised in the womb. Anyone who is startled by an unexpected noise tends to blink. If, however, the startling noise is preceded by a quieter sound, this blink is not so vigorous as it would otherwise have been. It is this lack of vigour which differs between the sexes. Men blink less vigorously than women when primed in this way. Given such a clear and simple distinction, testing the responses of homosexuals to noise seemed an obvious experiment to do. So Dr Rahman and his colleagues did it. Their subjects, men and women, gay and straight, were sat down one by one in a dimly lit room. The muscles that cause blinking were wired up with recording electrodes, and the subjects were fitted with headphones through which the sounds (sometimes a single startling noise, and sometimes a combination of soft and loud) were fed. In the latter case, as compared with the former, straight men had blinks that were 40% less vigorous. In the case of straight women the drop was 13%. Lesbians dropped 33% which, statistically, made them more similar to straight men than straight women. Gay men were also intermediate, although in their case the difference was not statistically significant. Even in this apparently trivial matter, it seems, lesbians have male-like brains. So what is going on? By default, people are female. Without the influence of testosterone in the womb, a fetus will develop into a girl. The way testosterone acts to turn a fetus male is still poorly understood. It seems likely, though, that different organs respond independently to the hormone, and may do so at different times. Hormonal surges at critical moments could thus cause particular organs in an otherwise female body to become gmaleh. (A lull in hormone production might have the opposite effect.) If the organ concerned is the brain, the result is more male-like behaviour including, possibly, male-type sexual preferences. Previous research has provided some evidence for this idea. Lesbians, for instance, are more accurate throwers of objects such as darts than straight women. In this they resemble straight men in a way that has nothing to do with sexual preference. And tissues other than the brain's may be affected, too. On average, lesbians have ring fingers that are longer than their index fingers, a feature that is typical of men but not of heterosexual women. In that context, a difference in the blink of an eye is no surprise at all. Qazi Rahman and colleagues' paper is published in Behavioural Neuroscience.

Greetings FastNed, Vagueness and overbreadth are not my main concerns about hate speech laws. My main issues with such laws is that the prosecution offers a forum for the hate-monger to spread more hate and although the laws having a chilling effect on decent citizens, such laws encourage the hate-monger to spread even more outrageous lies in effort to attract prosecution. In regard to the Hugh Owens case from Saskatoon, I hope that you are not helping spread the idea that Justice Barclay found the Bible to be hate literature or than he concurred with the finding of the Human Rights Commission.

Fastned [As a flat statement, "Hate Speech" Legislation is a Prosecutors dream! There is little certainty in exactly what is covered and prohibited so any exercise of a 'controversial' or 'emotionally charged' position could lead to prosecution - if a Prosecutor wished to pursue you or has their own agenda. ] Try to stick the topic at hand, we are discussing a specific law ie ss. 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. Those provisions are a prosecutor's nightmare, because there is strong pressure to prosecute the Paul Fromms, Ernst Zundels, and Jim Keegstras of this world, but little hope of making any conviction. That is why Ernst Zundel was charged under s. 181 (False news) because prosecutors felt that it would be too difficult to charge him under ss. 318 and 319. They did not want to charge Zundel because they knew that he would have an excellent legal defence, however, they were under intense pressure from Jewish and anti-racist groups. Now prosecutors in Saskatchewan have the difficult task of prosecuting David Ahenakew. I doubt that they want to do it, but if they didn't there would be some outcry about a double standard. Hugo, I suggest that you watch his trial to see how the law actually works. Keegstra was charged under 319 (2), so you can bet that any defences to that part of the law have been pursue by Doug Christie (an extremely able defence lawyer and very questionable person) . Probably with the changes in the court and circumstances, the law would not withstand a s. 2( challenge regardless of the nature of the charge. The situation that s. 319 (1) envisions is a rabble rouser whipping up a mob into a race riot. So unless you are planning to go to Hasting St. in Vancouver and start a harangue about the "perverted queers", you aren't going to be charged. If you were charged you could have your pick of the best defence lawyers in Canada, Doug Christie, Eddie Greenspan etc. for free. However, after the circus like atmosphere that resulted from the Keegstra trial is very unlikely that anyone will be charged under ss. 318 and 319 especially for inciting hatred against homosexuals ( David Ahenakew aside). However, I do not support ss. 318 and 319. I am merely stating that if we have such a law that homosexuals should be protected under it as matter of equality. The arguments that Fastned makes against hate speech laws are against such laws per se. The inclusion of homosexuals as a protected group is just a matter of equality. If we should not have protection for homosexuals then no groups should be protected.

"I am highly suspicious of this law because it uses "sexual orientation" in a way that could also be used to "protect" pedophiles or child pornographers, for instance, from hate speech. " Pedophilia and child pornography are crimes, so I don't see how such acts could be included in sexual orientation is this context. You might as well add rapists. "The hate speech law still also does not extend to the handicapped or the elderly - are they less worthy of protection from hatred?" Hate motivated crimes against the elderly and handicapped are fortunately uncommon and hate speech directed at the elderly and handicapped is also uncommon. In any case, the issue we are addressing is whether sexual orientation should be included and the fact that other identiable groups should be included doesn't change fact that sexual orientation should be included. Below I intentionally altered your post "but "ex-jew" organisations and counsellors will almost certainly come under fire. I cannot see what other purpose s. 319 has, since the rights of jews are already protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. s. 319 is totally redundant, unless its purpose is to muzzle those who speak out against judaism, and that worries me. The itallics are added by me. There are Christian missions such as "Jews for Jesus" focused on converting Jews to Christianity. Such groups "speak out against " Judaism" in the same way that "ex-gay" organizations "speak out against" homosexuality. No one in any of these groups has been charged with hate crimes. "Nevertheless, the book he wrote is "hate speech" in Canada. " The only book that Zundel wrote is some crap about UFOs and Nazis. He published a phamphlet called "Did Six Million Really Die?" which is inflammatory tract aimed at demonstrating that the Jews are perpetauting the lie of the Holocaust for financial gain. As for the definition of "hatred" under s. 319, I would refer you to the Supreme Court judgment R. v. Keegstra (1990) where Justice Dickson wrote. gThe word "hatred" further reduces the scope of the prohibition. This word, in the context of s. 319(2), must be construed as encompassing only the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium.h

Hugo, Do you continue to insist that [["Under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all."]? because if you do, there is something seriously wrong with you. [The law that you have cited is vague and fails to define "hatred." ] I haven't read all the case law related to this section, but the mental element seems very high. So you have to make the statement knowing that it would a "lead to a breach of the peace" simply being negligent wouldn't be enough. As a practical matter, you'll also see that the charge under 319 (2) has be to laid by the attorney general, so you'll have to be extremely unpopular to be charged under s. 319 (2). As for the charge under 319 (1), your statement would have to cause someone to comit a crime, meaning the crime would not have occured but for your statement and you have to know that a crime would be the outcome of your statement. [Now, this just illustrates your libellous debating tactics, because this is the precise opposite of what I said.] Have you ever heard of "hyperbole"? You have continued to suggest that you would or could be charged under s. 319 if sexual orientation was included, so obviously you think that s. 319 will be frequently invoked against those speaking against homosexuals. The best case you could make would be that if you wanted to publish highly inflammatory material about homosexuals (e.g. a homosexual conspiracy to destroy Christianity) that you might not publish it because of s. 319.

[under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all."] I can't believe that anyone would write something like the above. Ernst Zundel is and was one of the main purveyors of Nazi and anti-semitic hate literature in the world. He has clearly stated that Holocaust is a hoax promoted by the Jews to extort money. He wasn't charged under the hate speech provisions because they thought it would be too difficult to convict him. (And yet according to the great legal scholar Hugo large numbers of "Christians" will be carted off to prison for speaking out against homosexuality). I don't support hate speech or false news laws, but I fully understand why Zundel was a target. Obviously Hugo doesn't. :angry:

Sorry, Ernst Zundel is now facing deportation to Germany after having been deported from the US. He is being deported as a threat to Canadian security due to his links to extreme right wing and Neo-Nazi groups. In the meantime, he is in prison, albeit not for the reasons given by Hugo who seems to think that Ernst Zundel is an innocent Holocaust scholar.

Hugo, Not only are you ignorant of genetics and science in general, but you also know nothing about law. Bill C-250, simply seeks to add sexual orientation to s.318 (4) of the Criminal Code. This is the actual law: ["318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely (a) killing members of the group; or ( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.] 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of (2) (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of (3) (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (4) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; ( if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such convictions, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct. (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section. (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. ] ["Under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all." ] Sorry, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about. First, Zundel denies the Holocaust. Second, he was charged under the "False New" section of the criminal code and went to prison for 15 months. He was later convicted again and the law was struck by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional (R. v. Zundel). He was deported but he's free. You seem to share the same ideas, so maybe you should get in touch with him. As you can see under 319 (4) , the law offers a wide defense which would cover the posts that you have made here. I know you would dearly love to be prosecuted, but unfortunately the homosexual liberal conspiracy that you believe doesn't exist. The law is essential symbolic as s.319 (6) shows.

You should try to get out more often and have look at people and you might start to understand what I mean. Yes, there are very pale population groups and extremely dark populations and many in between, but the idea you can place all the populations and people into negroid , caucasian and asian races is a social construct without an objective scientific basis. I grant you that Tiger Woods won't be mistaken for a Scot or Eskimo, but he puts a big hole in the three races dogma. The CDC is, as the name would suggest, a place to study disease, therefore, healthy homosexuals are not its concern. Yes, homosexuals are a high risk group, but it is due to the unsafe practices of a certain segment. IV drug users are also a high risk group, but that doesn't mean putting a needle in your arm will give you HIV. I suggest you go back over your posts, because homosexuality has a strange effect on you for some reason. This thread is getting very tired. We all agree that homosexuality has a genetic and environmental component and at this stage we can't know which is more important. So what? For whatever reason, a person's sexual identity is set in early childhood. However, you believe that with enough treatment Scott Thompson will be having a great time at Hooters, but I rather doubt it. Fair enough assessment?

The fact that many of the Charter decisions are unpopular is a good sign. I guess many Canadian long for the days when change was a long time and the wishy washy approach was the Canadian way ie gay marriage if necessary but not necessarily gay marriage. You've come a long way baby.

This is getting seriously tedious. Just to show how narrowed minded Hugo and Ronda are and in case anyone with an open mind is reading this thread, I will explain how race is a social construct again. People have different physical characteristics and people in certain populations groups can be identified by DNA markers. However, "race" is not quantifiable, it is a social construct. A good analogy is being tall. Can you quantify what is to be tall? No. Tall is subjective. A person with the height of 175 cm will be short in some populations and tall in others. The same with "black", there is no quantitive definition of "black". Once again take Tiger Woods, is he black or asian or Indian? Depending on your experiences and background, your answer will be different. Another interesting case is a tribe in South Africa that claimed to be Jewish. There was a lot of doubt about this claim, until a genetist identified that they shared markers particular to a certain group of Jews. So if a scientist identifies someone's population from DNA and says the person is white, it's just a convenient but culturally based shorthand. What the scientist really means is that based on certian markers, the person can be grouped with a population from Europe. The populations of the world cannot be divided into races in any meaningful way. There is only one race: the human race. It's a fact, not a "lofty idea". I checked the Center for Disease Control website and there is no study about the life expectancy of homosexuals conducted by the Center for Disease Control. I don't know how such study could be conducted, in fact unless we legalize gay marriage we'll never know the life expectancy of homosexuals.

Actually, for sanitary reasons, it may be difficult to serve dog at a restaurant. I mean there is no inspection process for dog, so it might be difficult. I haven't eaten dog but I have had horse.

It is possible that some deranged homosexual groups advocate those policy. However, such groups don't represent the views of homosexuals in general. I would not presume that the views of the People's Temple, Unification Church, Branch Davidians etc. represent the views of Christians in general. Homosexuals are not just dancers, artists, and interior decorators. There are homosexual lawyers, doctors, judges, cabinet ministers, ministers, soldiers, accountants etc. The only thing that open homosexuals have in common is the idea that homosexuality is normal and loving someone of the same sex is okay and homosexuality should not be the basis for discrimination. Otherwise you have people of every political stripe and mentality. Naturally, there are a few crazies.

That's not off-track. I believe that homosexuality is not harmful and could very well be helpful. Bigots are definitely harmful (especially if they get inspired by religion or ideology), so we should try to control their behaviour as best possible.

Sir Riff, You're wasting your time. Hugo won't discuss the equality aspect until we all admit that homosexuals are a product of the environment and can be cured. I would like to know where the statistics about gay life expectancy come from though. I won't continue with the genetic/race discussion other than to point out that Hugo and Ronda are completely clueless about genetics other than quotes gleened from publications put out by religious groups. There is no meaningful objective criteria for the white/black/asian race model. End of story.

[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. ] There is only one race: the human race. The concept of "race" ie that concept that people can be classified on the basis of appearance is a social construct. Whether a person is perceived as "black" or "white" is the eye of the beholder ie subjective. Is Tiger Woods black? I guess he has dark skin and curly hair so he can pass for black, if he went to South East Asia he might be thought to be Thai, Malayasian etc. All I have said is that if you are a very dark "white" person or very light "black" person, staying in or out of the sun could change people's perception of whether you are black or white. I guess in that sense there is the possibility of "environmentally induced race". In any case, if you are so confident that there is a "black", "white" , and an "asian" race. Please give a definition of what "black", "white" and "asian" are. The connection between race and homosexuality is that Hugo and Ronda are trying to make the world fit their view of it . "Black people are X" "Gays are Y" then you go to find data to back up your perception (prejudice). When data comes up that doesn't fit your view, you try to make light of it ("environmentally induced race" what a moron!) rather comprehend it.

[You are having to make leaps to a variety of wild exceptions to somehow prove the unprovable: that being a woman or black is the same as being gay. ] Read my posts, I never equate being gay with being a woman or being "black". I simply suggested that there could be a genetic basis for being gay and I'm pretty certain that it is inherent, but any case it is bigotry to discriminate on the basis of it. [Everybody knows that there is far more separating negroids from caucasians than a tanning bed, except you, apparently.] Do you have to keep making it obvious that you don't know the first thing about genetics? Yes, there are genetic markers that indicate that person is part of a certain population, however, no genetists use the terms "negroid" or "caucasian" in any scientific sense. There are some "white" people whose genetic markers make them part of populations from Africa, put them on a tanning bed and they can pass for "black" just as many "blacks" pass for "white". The indicators for "race" ie skin, hair and eye color, shape of nose and eyes, soft or hard ear wax, height, body type, etc. are highly superficial and vary greatly within populations. The genetic markers used by genetists to determine whether you are related to some else don't have much do with the typical notions of race. [Oh, very much so. I get really tired of quoting these facts when apparently nobody's listening, but a gay man's life expectancy in the 21st Century is the same as that of a peasant in the 13th. ] There are more gays practicing unsafe sex than straights. However, it is not inherent to being gay. Just as blacks have higher rates of sexually transmitted disease than whites. There is no cause and effect. KrustyKidd: [ I don't believe in a gay gene or anything. I look at it as sexual preference. ] I think that "gay gene" is misleading. Think of it as hardware. Sexual orientation is an important function like language, so we need to learn it quickly to survive. Enviroment is the "software" that interacts with the hardware and genes are the blue print for the hardware.

[Environment will never make a white person black] Dead wrong. Never heard of a sun tan? Basically, that's all that's separating some "white" people from being "black" people. "Blackness" ? Could you define that? [More accurate comparisons would be made with alcoholics or kleptomaniacs] Being attracted to people of the same sex is not comparable to alcoholism or kleptomania. Alcoholism is extremely destructive both mentally and physically. There are no happy and well-adjusted alcoholics (I mean true alcoholics and not heavy drinkers) . Kleptomania is also an inherently anti-social behaviour. Gay is not destructive and anti-social. If someone gets a thrill from seeing and touching someone of the same sex, how does it harm anyone? Will his or her life span be shortened? Actually this thread is basically pointless, because even if homosexuality is not primarily genetically based, it is most probably not the result of free will and even if it is not inherent, it is still deserving of protection against discrimination under law. I only stay on this thread because it is interesting to see the twist and turns a person will take in results driven logic ie you don't have open mind because you've already decided that gay is bad and now you are scrambling to find "proof".

I guess you agree with everything else then. The idea of "black" is a social construct. What people think of as "black" doesn't constitute any kind of proper of genetic group, because it puts people from west Africa, pygmies from central Africa, bushmen from South Africa, etc all in one group simply on the basis of dark skin. I guess you missed the study that many people in America who think they are "white" are actually "black" meaning genetically they are closer to certain groups from Africa than Europeans.

Here is an abbreviated history of gay marriage and the Charter. First, Section 15 guarantees equality. There are enumerated grounds such as sex, race, national or ethic origin etc. , however, Charter jurisprudence recognizes analogous grounds ie minority groups that have been discriminated against but are not listed. For example, in Andrew v. Law Society of B.C. , non-citizens were found to be protected. In the Egan case, homosexuals were found to constitute an analogous group meaning they could be protected under Section 15. In the Halpern, the court apply the logic of Egan to marriage. Basically, marriage protects and grants rights and benefits to people living together and having sex. The legal definition does not mention raising children or bearing children. Therefore, since gays can live together and have sex, they should be treated as the same as heterosexuals and be allowed to marry (in brief). However, that's not the end of the story, because there is the s.1 (Oakes test) , so if the gov't can give a justifiable reason to stop gays from marrying then gay marriage won't be recognized. However, the only objective is to enforce moral principles which are not accepted by everyone, so gay marriage stands. [Does that mean polygamy, eating dogs [Koreans do that], witchcraft, and virgin sacrifices should all be Charter protected ? ] Laws against polygamy may violate freedom of religion under s.2, however, polygamy could create numerous social problem so it is a justified restriction of the freedom. Eating dogs is already legal, if done humanely. Witchcraft could be protected under s.2 depending on what you mean by witchcraft. Virgin sacrifices are not protected: murder is not protected by the Charter (I'll be hearing from Neal F on this one)

First, being "black" is not a genetic matter, but a cultural matter. As I'm sure Sir Riff can better explain to you, there is no "black gene". Race is purely a social construct. Once again, you fail Genetics 101. But any case, the matter of the "gay gene" is not the real issue. Even the matter of choice is not the issue. The question is one of equality. Let's take religion, the Charter has religion as one of the enumerated grounds for protection of Section 15. Now, religion is primarily a choice, no one has to go on being Catholic, Anglican, Mormon etc. and even if you do, you don't have to follow the teaching. According Hugo, it should not be protected because it isn't inherent. Homosexuals deserve equal rights, because their love is no different from the love of heterosexuals. The fact they have no control over their sexual orientation only makes the discrimination worse. Hugo, quoting experts does not make an argument. Linus Pauling is a two time Nobel Laureate, but on the subject of vitamin C he's a flake. I've also seen essays citing numerous sources contracting evolution that were a complete crock.

Well put Sir Riff. My basic point has been that once you accept that gay relationships are legitimate, then you ultimately have to accept gay marriage. However, these days most people accept gay relationships, but I admit that gay marriage does not have wide acceptance. However, what bothers me that the opponents of gay marriage are throwing up canards and wild slippery slope arguments. ie (1) The survival of the species argument First, it's odd that in the middle of a population explosion, people are talking the extinction of the human race. What's the logic of this argument? Everyone will become gay? Even accepting that bizarre and highly improbable premise, since gay people can procreate it seems that the species could survive in any case. (2) Marriage will lose its meaning/ family values will be destroyed Marriage is just a legal construct and people are free to make what they want of it. If you think that marriage is a "union blessed by God", that's your prerogative and no one will stop you and the same is applicable for family values. I guess the premise of this argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage will create some moral fatigue ie gays can marry, so I guess anything goes... I guess I'll go cheat on my spouse, neglect and abuse my children etc. (3) Other forms of marriage currently not acceptable will become acceptable This argument has some validity, only in that we will have to consider taboos in light of reason. Most taboos are logically justifiable ie the age requirement. The consanguinity restriction may need to be looked at again. Currently people cannot marry their first cousin. I believe the reason is that such a union could result in offspring with genetic disorders. However, we currently have a more advanced understanding of genetics, so cousins or anyone else susceptible to having offspring with genetic disorders can receive genetic counselling, so the traditional reason may no longer be applicable. The same is true of polygamy. However, the rational examination does not mean we have to accept such forms of marriage. So the opponents should stick to arguing that (1) gay relationships are not acceptable (2) even if we should tolerate them, we shouldn't encourage them with official sanction.

Who defines marriage? In the end it is defined by law. Laws can be changed. The notion of marriage as a sacred institution has led to all kinds of nonsense. It used to be that a spouse could be compelled to testify against his or her spouse. As a result, murders could not be convicted. The better question is are gays capable of living in a married state. The answer is yes. Accept that answer and you'll be a better person. Stop raising the canards like raising children etc. People have all kinds of crazy ideas about homosexuals. Even now you'll hear "he can't be gay, because he has a wife". Gay people are capable of having sex with the opposite sex, they just don't want to do it.