bk59

As many have already pointed out... drop the pedophilia thing. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. And certainly nothing to do with a fictional character in a book being gay. If you want to discuss pedophilia then start up a topic dedicated to that.

Given that you have yet to answer my question about what makes homosexuality an absolute wrong, I really have no desire to go out of my way to answer your question. Needless to say, there are examples from various religions and some non-religious examples as well. And yet that hasn't stopped some people from using the New Testament as justification for force and violence. This isn't an insult to the New Testament or to Christianity. It's aimed at those people who will use their religion as an excuse for intolerance and violence. You seem to be the former (intolerant), claiming that homosexuality is an absolute wrong, but being unable to say why (other than offering up the Bible).

The number of horrible things done throughout history because people wanted "good to prevail [and] society to be free from evil and sin" is astounding. Which is why society needs something more than just your opinion about morality before condemning homosexuality as immoral and evil.

I never claimed to have a hansard report that said any of that. Neither did anyone else. And why do you want to see this anyway? Umm... I have posted questions for you to answer. You claimed to have "200 pages of facts" and I asked you to cite them. We are still waiting. Since you consider our current government corrupt you have been asked how your system of government would be different. So far all you have done is whine about how we are all slaves. If you don't have a solution to your perceived problem, or even a few suggestions, then stop complaining. What facts would you like? I've already posted about your Lord Nelson Hotel case. Actually, you have yet to answer my question about why it is you think that case is so important... But what claims have I made that you think require "factual information"? Exactly. Whether this "hansard report" exists or not is irrelevant. Canada is not full of slaves. Paying taxes does not make one a slave. More importantly, even if it did, certain people on this forum have not been able to propose a system that would allow the government to fulfill its role without any money.

Ah, more of the reasoned debate that the internet is so famous for.

You again repeat the same claims over and over. Ignoring the evidence that shows you are incorrect and never providing any rationale other than "I think it is immoral".

You can't even respond to simple questions on an internet forum.

Nice catch. I wonder if kengs333 will ever answer my question about why homosexuality is an absolute wrong. I'm guessing that I should not be holding my breath.

no queenslave... did you just reply to your own post? You may want to slow down with the reply button. What reply are you talking about? I asked you to show how the Queen received any of my tax money. Now you are talking about benefit for the use of her name. Whatever that means. Why would we create something that we already have? How many political parties are crying out to write a new constitution? Perhaps this lack of public support for your ideas should tell you something. Canadians seem to be OK with the constitution we have. The same document that gave the government it's power before the Statute of Westminster - the Canadian constitution. Wait, the government has paid posters now? You mean, I could get paid for doing this? Sweet. Where do I sign up? Are you talking about the case called "Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)" also named "The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Appellant and The Attorney General of Canada, Respondent and Lord Nelson Hotel Company Limited, Intervenant" from the SCC in 1950? Cited as [1951] S.C.R. 31, [1950] 4 D.L.R. 369? Because if so, you may have read more into this than is actually there. All it really says is that the federal government's powers are defined in s. 91 of the Constitution, the provincial governments' powers in s. 92 of the Constitution, and they cannot delegate any of their authority to the other. Feds are limited to s. 91. Provinces to s. 92. Even if they want to trade, they can't. It says nothing about how to change the Constitution. So why exactly are you focusing on this case? OK... you think the current system is corrupt. You would replace it with a democratic system. But most people think this is a democratic system. How would your system differ from what we currently have?

Well, I can't afford to build a highway by myself, but I do need to travel. I kind of like having health care, but I'm not sure that I could afford to build a hospital. Maybe things like infrastructure and health care aren't really handouts, but just things that responsible governments invest in? And since that takes money... I guess I am willing to pay some form of taxes. Please show me how any of my tax money is going to support the Queen. I am fully in support of the government seizing your assets if you live off of my tax money and contribute nothing yourself. The Queen doesn't need slaves to do that. Canadian citizens who do pay their taxes will gladly punish those who refuse to carry their load for no other reason than some paranoid delusion about the Queen controlling everyone. The debt is owed to those who do pay taxes. By all means, please share them. This should be good reading...

Your quote was a nice summary of how a law gets passed. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the reality of how a law is interpreted AFTER it is passed. That is done by the courts. For every law. In every common law country in the world. I did include the quote. The Constitution lays out federal and provincial responsibilities. It's all there in one document. What else are you looking for that the state constitutions have that we (allegedly) do not? Your definition of oppressed must be quite unique. There are legitimately oppressed people in this world. Canadians are not among their number. And then those electors are free to vote for whoever they want. They can ignore the wishes of the people. Haven't we been over this? That is not particularly democratic. How does Canada & Quebec represent two separate and incompatible interests? Quebec was a founding province of Canada. Your personal feelings aside, there is no incompatibility there. The sad part is, if Canadians agreed with you, you would see parties elected that support your position. But because Canadians do not agree with you, you label Canada as undemocratic.

Actually, it doesn't. Greek society may have thought both to be normal. That doesn't mean they are linked. We think that driving on the right side of the road is normal and also that going to the movies is a normal activity. Does that mean that there is a connection between these two activities? (No.) This quote from the study I linked to earlier may also be of interest: Clearly the links between pedophilia and sexual orientation are not as clear as some on this forum would like to believe.

I applaud you on once again dodging the hard questions. I wonder how long you can keep this up. I guess I'll just ask again: why is homosexuality immoral? Why is homosexuality wrong? How is homosexuality harming our society? I look forward to seeing how you avoid these questions in your next post. I know what you mean by change. You just happen to be wrong. It is "just plain stupid" to think that homosexuality is simply about changing an attitude or a worldview. There is much more to it than that. Is your attraction to the opposite sex an attitude? Is it something that you see yourself being able to change on a whim? Yes, there are people who experiment with homosexuality and decide it's not for them. But for the vast majority of people, both homosexual and heterosexual, sexual orientation is not easily changeable or changeable at all. To call it an attitude is uninformed at best.

Finally? Not really. I've had that view for quite a while now. And yes, some who claim to be Christians are in that camp whether you want to believe that or not.

Talk about the Crusades, the Inquisition, even abortion doctor killings if you like. But let's not claim that Iraq was invaded in the name of God. There is little evidence to show this. And while some people do claim that God is on their side in the war in Iraq, I think it is difficult to show that the entire war is a religious crusade. Certainly not on the order of the Crusades or with the clear purpose given by abortion doctor murderers. That being said, feel free to show evidence showing otherwise. But so far I am unaware of Bush going on TV explicitly saying that God is leading America in the Iraq war.

I don't think that the people who killed in God's name understood the New Testament either. And yet history is full of these people. They come from many different religions.

Perhaps. But you have so far shown no other reason other than your faith as to why homosexuality is immoral. So it would appear by your postings on this forum, so far, that you do use your faith to bolster your arguments. This may not be true in your off-line life, but given your postings in this thread, how could anyone on this forum reach a different conclusion? And why is it an absolute wrong? Why is it immoral? For the record, saying "it is obvious" is not proof of anything. Can you change your skin colour from white to brown? From black to white? Can you change whether or not you are good enough to play hockey in the NHL? Or football in the CFL? Perhaps I am not the one being disingenuous. And yes, some people who espouse your views do talk about using force. Camps that "cure people of their gayness" come to mind.

That was persuasive. It really was. I guess I believe you now. Wait... no, I don't. I don't suppose you have something to back your statement up with? Because it seems pretty well accepted that the New Testament was canonized over time by various church authorities. See here. I agree with that last statement. Which is why I can't stand it when people use Christ to justify everything from capital punishment to criminalizing homosexuality. You cannot force people to change. Of course you didn't answer my question either. Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin?

Such as?

I just don't see this panel as that big of a deal. I mean, let's be honest... if the Liberals had any brains they could spin this the way they want. "Harper had to go to a known Liberal in order to really examine the options available with respect to Afghanistan." And up until the panel reports it's findings the Liberals can certainly say "We think we should withdraw in 2009. We will examine the findings of the panel when they are released, but until then, based on what we have seen, we believe that Canadian troops should come home in 2009." It is a perfectly legitimate stance and valid right up until the panel reports back. Chances are, if Harper keeps trying like he has been lately, there will be an election before that happens. And Afghanistan will still be an election issue if the election comes before the panel reports back. That being said, it is (hopefully) a good sign that Harper appointed Manley. The optimist in me wants to think that maybe we can put some partisanship behind us. The "realist" in me thinks this is just a cynical move to try to gain points without really wanting to hear what the panel has to say. Especially in light of the last week or so where it seems like Harper is daring the opposition parties and doing everything he can to force an election.

Every law is interpreted by the courts. Not just the Charter. Every court case is about interpreting how the law applies to a certain situation. Welcome to our legal system. Incidentally, this is the same in the USA as in Canada. And the same in the UK and many other places around the world. First, "still"? When did you ask me to show you that the Canadian constitution allows Parliament to pass laws that do not violate the constitution? Second, you make it seem like this is a big deal. No offense, but this is pretty obvious stuff. But you wanted a cite, and unlike you I can provide one. Let me introduce you to a little thing called the Canadian constitution (Section 91 - Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada): Well, the elections act for one will deal with the quoted text that I copied in my last post. As for the rest, you need to understand something about Canadian law (and the common law system in general). Some of the safeguards are in the Constitution. Some are in statutes. And some are found in case law - that is decisions of the courts that are just as binding. So it would be almost impossible to survey all of the appropriate areas of law. If you have a particular concern, then I suggest you voice it as a particular issue. But asking for "all the safeguards... in Canadian law" is not realistic. Canadian law safeguards everything from the maximum amount of time allowable between elections, to giving people the right to sue the police if the police conduct a negligent investigation. If you want exact equivalents to the US system you won't find them. Because we have a different system. We do not have a Congress or a President. But this does not mean our system is less valid. No, that is not correct. The electoral college votes AFTER the popular vote on election day. They do not pre-select anyone. Citizens can exercise their right to vote, but at the end of the day, the electoral college can ignore those votes. So how is that a democratic system? Actually, you have failed to grasp the basic concept of the electoral college. It does not pre-select anything. Besides, both Trudeau and Chretien made it through the party selection process. Then they both made it through (several) elections where they were voted into office by the citizens of Canada. Your characterization of any Prime Minister coming out of Quebec as unstable and dangerous is simple bigotry. First you say: And now you say that the votes are equal? Make up your mind. Which is it? No, I am not confusing two systems. You see two systems when in fact there is only one. The citizens vote. Their votes decide who goes to the electoral college. The electoral college votes to decide who becomes President. Citizens can vote for Person A. But the college can vote for Person B. That is not democracy. At least not democracy in the way that most people understand it. Perhaps you use a different definition. Canada has many protections against the abuse of power. Public officials are not tyrants. See the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis if you want. You say you have no hate for Canada, but it sure seems like you do. You think the government is totalitarian, you clearly want Quebec out of the country, you seem to despise the Canadian constitution.

Repeating your false claim does not make it true. You have yet to show any shred of evidence to support your claims regarding pedophiles and homosexuals. That sounds a lot like an excuse. Did your dog eat your evidence? Tell you what, why don't you start with one or two concrete examples. If there are so many examples out there, then one or two shouldn't take long to walk through. And if it takes ages to get through a number of examples, so be it. We apparently both have the time, otherwise why else would we be posting on here? Sigh. There ARE people who are trapped and manipulated into a heterosexual lifestyle. These are people who quite simply are gay. But people like you guilt them into thinking that there is something wrong with them. People like you claim that homosexuality is deviant and destructive and all that does is hurt these trapped people. Your example above stated that one of the harmful effects of homosexuality was how people were trapped in that lifestyle. My example shows that people trapped in a heterosexual lifestyle suffer the same harms. Therefore, you cannot call one lifestyle sexually deviant and the other one normal based simply on this type of harm. Try to show how homosexuality is deviant without using examples that equally apply to other types of behaviour. More excuses. You think it is self-evident that homosexuality is immoral? If this is so, then you won't have any problem explaining it to us. (FYI, it is obviously NOT self-evident since many people have no problems with homosexuality.) You have yet to show any harms that homosexuality causes. So yes, you DO have to show how homosexuality is deviant. Because so far all of your answers have been so vague and full of excuses that it seems like you are the one who has been brainwashed to believe that homosexuality is evil.

An organized church defined what was included in the Bible and what was not included in the Bible. An organized church defined the New Testament. You claim that churches that accept homosexuality are influenced by society and are wrong. But you seem to think that society could not possibly have influenced the church at the time when it decided what to include in the Bible (and also what to leave out). Love God. Love your neighbour. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. These are the teachings of Christ. Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin?

Yes, churches have advocated a number of things over the years. Including ideas about what kinds of sexuality are moral and immoral. You can't say that a church that supports homosexuality is wrong because of human failure and then ignore the fact that the exact same argument applies to churches that condemn homosexuality. To ignore that fact is hypocrisy.

And yet you keep bringing up pedophilia every time you talk about how bad homosexuality is. If you think they are two separate things then stop linking the two in your posts. Of course you claim that one is not the other, but then continue to make incorrect statements like "many pedophiles are homosexuals" or make unsubstantiated claims like "the majority of sexual assault committed by female teachers is on female students". As far as your statement that "many pedophiles are homosexuals" is concerned, there is ample proof on here that shows you are wrong on that. What harms have homosexuality caused to our society? What economic sanctions exist when people like you declare that they think homosexuality is sexual deviance? And not to be too picky, but history is full of so-called "legitimate" attempts to "protect society" that have been extremely oppressive. Again, show the harm. There are many who are trapped and manipulated into the heterosexual lifestyle. Does this mean that heterosexuality is a form of sexual deviance that is harmful to society? OK, so let's have it. Define sexual deviance for us and how homosexuality meets your criteria. Show us how homosexuality is immoral. Show us why homosexuality is wrong. Better yet, show us how any of that would justify anything from demanding that fictional characters in books never be homosexual to re-criminalizing homosexuality.