Kapitän Rotbart

@gc1765: Cars and computers do not affect poeple's sexual behavior. However, their polution does cost us, but that should be saved for a whole other discussion. @Mad_Michael: 15%+ of a given age group would be sexually attracted to the same sex or would practice same-sex relations? Where do you get these numbers from? @Rue: This is all about one word to you? Some groups may find the N-bomb less offensive than others, same goes for the word "fags". If your feelings are hurt, my appologies. I never claimed to be a devout Christian. If you're going to accuse me of being a hypocrite, at least spell it correctly. I can agree to not referer to homosexuals as fags if you like, but I do not see this being hatred-driven. I do not hate anyone, no matter what they do (though I may be disgusted by their actions).

@FascistLibertarian: Of course they did, why would this be suprising, you think any society has been able to get rid of non-hetrosexual behaviour? Acceptance might change. But no matter how much you may attempt to stop it or make people think it is bad, it has existed and will exist in every human society. No human society has ever had one 'type' of sexuality which 'works' for everyone. Sexuality is very diverse at all levels and in all types and forms of human society. Really the question should not be how natural it is, but who is hurt by the action. Consenting adults is, for me, the key. People and their sexuality are just wierd in general, regardless of sexual orientation. That's why we draw the line and don't imprison consenting adults to homosexual relations... however consent does not justify an action. I don't see the need in imprisoning adults who consent to homosexual relations... it's bad enough that we lock anyone up into those luxurious Canadian hotels. Consent may be one thing, but government supporting homosexuality by legislating gay marriage is a whole other issue. Theft and piracy have always existed, and in places like Sweden, it's really easy to get away with piracy, in other places, it's a little trickier. Would you say that theft or piracy could be ok for some yet not for others? Is everything relative to you? There must be absolutes, where certain things can be measured according to certain standards. Homosexuality may be nothing new, but neither is theft, blackmailing, or child abduction (though murder is likely older than homosexuality). @Rue: Thanks for the long reply... gives me something to do while my laudry dries. My background my explain my reason for tending towards certain beliefs, and I may refer to certain institutions to underline my point, but on this forum, my user name is not "Catholic Church", therefore I am not the Catholic Church nor do I claim to be, I'm an end-user posting on a forum with an opinion and a free-thinking mind of my own. Freedom of speech grants me that plus more. I my refer to gays as fags, but I haven't refered to any specific individual as a fag, and personally I don't think the word fag is derogatory. I'm not debating the meaning of the word, but it just doesn't seem as strong a word for me. Unless anyone's feelings are hurt, then it's not an issue at all, not is it? Where'd you pull this idea out of? God created all people, granted we are created by God. However, there is still no concrete proof that people are born gay. If it were inherit, even with artificial reproduction, gays still probably average the lowest birth rate, and would become completely extinct extremely fast. The only thing that has been proven is that homosexuality can develop amongst certain individuals given a combination of a certain personality, a series of events or even the quality of relationship an individual shares with parents/close family members. There has been no concrete proof that anyone is born gay. Sure, God created the people who are now gay, but it does not mean God created people destined to homosexuality. Hey, I'm glad you know people who share different opinions. You can say whatever you want, but it doesn't mean I have to listen to you, and if you make this personal and irrelevant to the topic, you just might lose sympathy (aside from risking being reported, no offense intended). Wow, you think? I know Catholics who break every rule of the Vatican, that doesn't mean anything. I also see each of the rules of the Vatican followed by at least one Catholic, which is also just as meaningless in terms of the topic. I never stated the toys were wrong "as is", however a couple does not need these things for a healthy relationship, otherwise the first people who made humanity's survival possible through natural procreation would have had access to this. In terms of approaches concerning therapy, I had no intention of arguing either side, and I haven't looked into the morality of the toys, I'm just saying that if we needed them, they would have been around all along, since prehistory. Also, if you can't tell the difference from facts and opinions, then maybe you should read a whole lot more fora. If I have an opinion, I'll state it without stating that it is an opinion. If I have a fact to share, it will most likely be backed by a quote or even stats. Feel free to argue either one. I'm mostly posting opinions here because too many liberals on your side refuse to recognize the authenticity of any source I post, because they are likely to be at least hosted by a Christian. However, the only people posting results on this topic arguing the immorality of homosexuality are Christians, and the only people areguing against is the GBLT community and their fanatic supporters (mostly supporters). Anything I could possible quote would be biased in either direction, so there's no real point in refering to external resources for the purpose of this post. If only you could spell. Maybe there was incest. Keep in mind that sin was stated to begin as of the consumption of the forbidden fruit, meaning no incest would have happened before this (and although Eve was made of Adam's rib, they were not considered to be related). Also consider that Adam and Eve predate the ten commandments (I don't see incest in the ten commandments, I see adultery, but that's not exactly the same). Incest does not justify homosexuality. Nice double-sided sword you're welding. You brought it up to back your point, not mine. Not at all, I do not find the word fag offensive, and I have not used it to refer to any specific individual. I just gave some food for thought, quoted a cute phrase saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", then you bash me for quoting religious sources. It was just some food for thought, seems like you have no sense of humor.

@Rue: No but God created people like you who use words like "fag" and think they are in the position to lecture people and speak on behalf of God because I mean we all know you are God's right hand. Using your reasoning by the way, God would have had to have created Adam and Steve as he created all humans the last time I read YOUR Bible. If you are goiung to lecture people on Christianity and twist it to try defend your ignorance and bigotry at least try make some sense when you spew off such simplistic and pointless comments. By the way, good Christian prophet and spokesperson for God, the word Fag is derogatory. Would you like it if I made disparaging comments about you? Yah I know you are a good Christian and you don't hate "fags". With good Christians like you preaching love and tolerance, none of us have to worry about humanity. I do not represent any institution when I post on this forum. It is thanks to freedom of speach that I use words such as "fag". I may share my opinions, perception and I am free to agree or disagree with you (this is hopefully not a new concept to you). In my mention of "God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed...", seems like you had to come up with the most distorted interpretation. You completely missed my point and make rediculous accusations, then empty threats. There is no room on this forum for "disparaging comments about you", that translates into personal attacks and you would be reported for such behavior. My point was, humanity started with no sex shops, no contraceptives, etc. and going by the rule "less is more", these things do not "enhance" the world's sexual relations, but rather compromise them. Humanity essentially began with everything it needed for ideal sexual relations. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates God creating a man and a woman (because if the two first and only humans were of the same sex, humanity would not last beyond one generation). If God intented for homosexuality to be appropriate, the two first humans would then have had the capacity to reproduce within the same sex or some other really explicitly obvious sign would have flagged homosexuality as appropriate. I'm not representing any institution when I post on this forum, this is my interpretation, feel free to argue, but please bring forward good reasons for believing otherwise. If we are to argue about Scripture's contents (since you brought it up), God created Adam and Eve from dust, and all others are their decendants (or later created from dust, but Adam and Eve were the first two). @Mad_Michael: What concept? Back to the drawing board... it doesn't make sense to be so exclusive when defining sexual orientations... if someone has homosexual relations, they are gay until they make a firm decision to turn away from this behavior. Going by your exclusive definition of homosexuality, anyone who would have a mere heterosexual (or pedophilo) fantasy could not be GBLT and would automatically be part of the heterosexual majority... if you're going to be so exclusive, gee... I suppose gay people couldn't possibly exist at all!

@FascistLibertarian: Well, thanks for explaining the S/N, fora such as this one celeberate diversity of ideas, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Being libertarian socially, that means you're socially left (assuming), but being fascist in terms of health care... health care can be considered on a social and economic level... assuming solely economic, does that mean you are for privatized health care (economically right) or only state-run medicare (economically left)? I'd assume the latter because libertarians would prefer privatized health care, meaning you'd mostly be left for both social and economic levels (with possible exceptions)... wouldn't it be easier to just call yourself a socialist or leftist, or even simply a typical Canadian? I wouldn't mind you actually quoting your literature. I don't know if I could trust anything published on a Marxist webpage (going by the URL you posted). To find a lot of evidence to back my perspective could be time-consuming, most results when I surf the search engine are fora or Christian or even pro-gay websites. I will, however, state that the absence of concrete counter-proof proves my point. Regarding the societies you mention, certain "tolerances" have been granted, though they may not have been the mainstream. In both cases of monogamy and heterosexuality, alternatives may have been tolerated, but unlikely to have been the mainstream in any place at any time (unless you could bring up some numbers). Anywhere in history where a significant number would have participated in homosexual intercourse or in polygamy/polyandry would be limited to a group of "spoiled" people within a given society. What I mean by spoiled would be those who would be quite well-off, notably rulers and other members of government, people who would never have to work or cook a meal, and could order servants slaves to do whatever they like, and have no accountability. Having "nothing to do", not even having to take care of oneself would lead just about anyone to look for new thrills in their quest for "satisfaction". They didn't have fora like this one (not even the Interweb), no video games, no airplanes for distant world travel, etc. Many of them have turned to polygamy or sodomy and the society under their regime would tolerate this or face death. A somewhat good example is King Henry VIII, who had too much power for his own good, despite the fact that hardly any Englishman at the time would consider more than one spouse over the course of their lifetime. Although King Henry VIII did not have multiple spouses at once, having multiple spouses during one's lifetime was not typical for English society, nor was it well percieved in most European societies at the time, it was tolerated (anyone who objected was likely an activist for the Catholic Church, who would have quickly been given capital punishment). Though Islam tolerates polygamy, no muslim society has been identified where polygamic relationships would be a majority. Those in such relationships would be men who are well-off and able to consider several women that a husband and wife are entitled to different treatment within a marriage. In Morocco, Senegal, Afganistan, Kuwait, etc. polygamic relationships are not a majority, even where it is most tolerated. San Francisco is the world's current gay fag capital, where only roughly 3% of its residents are GBLT. This is still insignificant (though "pro-gay" San Franciscans may be a majority, so few are actually queer themselves). My point here (summarized) is that although societies may tolerate GBLT/polygamy/polyandry in fear of defying authorities, GBLT or polygamic relations were never a majority in any place at any time (and by place I mean a region containing at least 200 000 native residents, not an inter-regional gathering of minorities from various lands celebrating their minority behavior in one place). Tolerance does not justify behavior, nor does it render behavior normal. Normal behavior would be the most typical behavior, the behavior manifested in the majority of cases without intervention from activists/government, being the sexual attraction to the opposite sex. You don't have to take this literally, but just some food for thought, God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to be fruitful and multiply the way it was intended to be (God didn't create Adam and Steve).

@n00b (FascistLibertarian): How could heterosexuality or monogamy be anomalies if they are the norm? The norm being what humans by nature are driven towards and the only way for natural procreation... to suggest that this is abnormal, we could stretch this nonsense and state that your conception was abnormal. Even many liberals would not argue against the statement that homosexuality is "an alternative lifestyle". Granted "alternative" means alternative to the norm, this means gay faggotry is an anomaly. What's with the S/N, may I ask? Are you both fascist AND libertarian or is this a cry for attention or even a weapon of mass distraction? I'm kind of curious. @cybercoma: There is a difference between treating a human being in a certain way and celebrating/encouraging/approving a carnal desire. If I serve ice cream on a sunny day, I'm not going to refuse to sell ice cream to gay fags or even send them to the back of the line because whether someone practices gay faggotry or not has nothing to do with selling them ice cream, but if I'm running a bed and breakfast, I should not be expected to provide shelter for the celebration of such carnal desires if I disagree with it. Businesses should have the right to turn people down on a moral basis provided the moral objection is relevant to the service provided, if they're willing to bite the loss of clientèle. It is already widely accepted that hotels charge heavy fines to guests who smoke in the rooms even where no law requires this, yet if they turn down a gay couple, they likely get sued. For the same reason, gays should not be turned down for job applications outside religious institutions and private clubs (who should be allowed to select candidates based on their own moral code) because of their alternative lifestyle, however gay fags should also not be granted preferencial status using government implemented quotas. I do not judge others, however I should not be expected to support behavior that I disagree with. And by the way, it's not the bottom line of this topic at all... the topic was started with a quote from a Ukranian politician if I recall correctly, and the bottom line should come down to what the gov't should do concerning supposive "gay rights" (which more accurately translate into special privileges for the gay fags). This has nothing to do for one's respect for another human being.

@Melanie_: My point was, AIDS or no AIDS, homosexuals average a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. I'll agree with ScottSA's comment Feces are considered toxic. We normally discourage people from coming in contact with toxic matter, unless it relates to sexuality, which is absurd. If the gov't were responsible, there would be a health label on condoms saying "not suitable for sodomy". Sexperts are no longer advocating the condom alone but rather combining birth control to prevent pro-creation, but if the condom busts during sodomy, there's nothing to protect from fecal contact, but even if the wrap is successful, it still doesn't guarantee full protection from from fecal contact. Speaking of objectivity, I've read Cameron-bashing sites. I'm not going to back his findings, which is why I said for the site I mentioned earlier, consider what is given on that page and feel free to ignore anything found by Cameron. However, if you read the Cameron-bashing sites, some of the comments are absurd. Cameron was accused of terrible sampling, even concerning the heterosexuals sampled in his research: http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html He sampled some fairly dangerous heterosexuals, some real risk-takers, who are also known for having a shorter life span. I'm not defending Cameron in any way, but the way the information is presentated trying to convince us that his findings are hoax is not much better than Cameron's research itself. Yeah, and if research is conducted by George Bush, the Mexican or Chinese government, the GBLT activists, the Jews, the Atheists (Atheism is also a religion), etc. there will be subjectivity. You won't get research done otherwise, because people who are truly indifferent won't bother researching it... fancy that!

Your link leads back to a very biased website, with an ultra Christian agenda. Anything this website posts has to be viewed as subjective, rather than objective. There aren't links to the studies cited, and the two studies listed are 9 and 10 years old. I don't think you've proven your point at all. Through the narrow gate..... The page itself is secular. The website may be run by Christians, but the specific link I mentioned only presents research. Other than Christians, few people have any interest in posting stats about the GBLT. Feel free to question it, but you'll have to find counter-proof to consider believing otherwise. Also feel free to ignore Cameron's stats on that page, there are only two quotes of his research, and his research is most questionable (so claims the pro GBLT activists, which could also be questioned). No one has proven that gays have equal lifespan to heterosexuals nor has anyone proven that the difference in life span is at all smaller than what is stated on the page I mentioned. In fact, the statistics given by pro gay fag activists are much more questionable, because so many still believe that 10+% of the population is part of the GBLT. Whose research are you going to trust?

The "Truth" eh? That is only the alleged word of God and thus holds no rational validity over me, or our government. You just proved my point. Check out http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnS...hosx_lifspn.htm and read the whole page out loud (it's not that long, could probably print to a page or two). Here's an interesting quote from it: It's all medical research, none of this truth is pulled out of the Bible book in this case, but rather found through research, confirming the beliefs of the Believers. Now if you won't believe medical research, then you've double-proved my point.

Damn good point. Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears. I don't believe the ears are deaf. Just perhaps refusing to listen. Rather like a child who puts their hands over their ears and says "la-la-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you". Sounds like the pro-gay fag activists' response to the Truth.

You did make the comparison. Gay fags have a mental condition just like the hadicapped have a physical condition. However, there is still no concrete proof that people are born gay. People are not always born physically challenged, though.

Hey guyser, were you censored? Shucks! My point was that the private sector isn't forced to hire bilingual workers, but they do anyway because they see its profitability. Sorry man, I don't have time to look through job offers on job bank or workopolis etc. to see which places in Ottawa require bilingualism. There's also the fact that it would be a tedious task to prove a point.

@Drea: We take care of the handicaped because there's nothing they can do to no longer be handicaped. Gay fags can choose to no longer be gay. @Mad_Michael: But those are not minorities based on behavior. Genii, blacks and millionaires seem to be doing just fine without special attention from the gov't. I'd say we do hardly anything to help the blind in society, and if it's really an issue, it could be changed. There's no controversy going on about the extent to which we help blind people. Religion should be saved for a whole other topic... I'm for the seperation of church and state and the desecularization of marriage. The church doesn't need the gov't telling it what to do and vice versa. However, anything pertaining to the church should be desecularized. Many people are identified by a given religion and unless they do anything to change that, they are still identified as a member of that religion. Using religion nowadays is not an effective way of measuring minorities. Do you have any links/references? You wouldn't do it if you didn't enjoy responding to my posts. What temper? I'm simply posting my opinions and stating what I'd do had I been gov't/king. What temper tantrum? Man, this is a fun sport indeed! No, because you switched subject and a possessive, making no sense. I stated that everything outside the circle A stands in circle B, which makes more sense than what you stated. You appear to be silly.

I'm aware. Those represented by less than 50% of the population may be a minority, but if they're less than 5% of the population, then they're an insignificant minority. And I do not see the point in our gov't making special catering for the genii... but they don't need special catering because they excel in the current system. I'd like to say that religion is based on behavior, however many people are registered of a given religion without practicing it, so when it comes to stats, it's not so much the case anymore, but rather a name to divide people. I wish. The idea of equal rights is utopic, but if gay fags are granted the "equal rights" pro-gay fag activists request, then they would be granted superior rights. Direct costs are easy to explain. The legislation, for instance... updating marriage and divorce forms, the time spent debating certain legalities in Parliament... Indirect costs are tougher to measure. If an employer is forced to hire a certain proportion of gay fags, costing the employer much time finding a member of less than 2% of the general population should also be a considered cost. 3 000 years of recorded civilization (since the beginning of literature) have predated Christianity. Marriage was still originally a practice pertaining to some sort of belief, to some sort of religion providing the need for a formal recognition of a union between two people. Gov't only recognize marriage for tax and immigration purposes. I'd like to see the gov't abolishing marriage altogether and leaving it up to the religious institutions to recognize or not recognize marriage. I beg to differ. You enjoy responding to my posts. Do you read uncyclopedia.org? You can choose to believe what you like, doesn't mean others will agree with you. Because superfluous redundancies are fun. Fortunately I'm not the only Canuck against giving superior rights to the gay fags. I don't . Adpotion is an interesting issue. Caeteris paribus, children are preferably raised by their biological parents. However, given other variables, sometimes adoption is preferable (and sometimes the only option). I'd prefer to see adopted children to go to the most ideal families. It's not a matter of control, it's a matter of the future of adopted children in Canada. The absence of disapproval is approval. Nothing wrong with giving your silent approval, provided you don't object to it.

They don't have to, they're not renting gov't space and it's private sector. Also, not all shops require all their staff to be bilingual... it could come from one of two factors... whether the store thinks that, caeteris paribus, revenue will increase if all employees are bilingual, and there's also a social factor. It's possible that a manager may prefer to hire bilingual people, then there's no linguistic rivalry within the workplace and no "they're speaking that foreign language in the lunch room again" or the manager may simply think less of monolinguals... the latter would be discrimination, but I'm still convinced that nation-wide, discrimination based on skin color and other factors override discrimination based on language (in other words looking beyond the NRC).

@jbg: ?? @Pat Coghlan: Indeed. The private sector's favorite language is cash. Many shopping centers in Ottawa insist that all retail workers be bilingual, because it means they'll get more sales in say Rideau Mall or Place d'Orléans. It does make sense that products be labeled in both languages... however I'd be in favor of slightly modifying that law. Products imported do not have to be labeled in both languages provided they are imported bellow a certain limit. I'd be willing to double that limit... I'm sure those consuming foreign goods imported in low quantities aren't complaining about the need for bilingual labels, and I'm sure even if we double the limit, it won't include imported commodities we so often consume like drinks and toothpaste.

Because when measuring statistics, 5% vs. 95% is the most widely used level of significance. A 1% or a 10% level of significance could also be used, but say you were to claim that an object bounces off the ground, and it bounces in fewer than 5% of the trials, then your statement is false. If the object bounces at least 5% of the time, we do not yet have enough evidence to not believe the statement. If women are a majority, why are they given minority-like favoritism in countries like Canada? Genii are not genii based on behavior, but rather based on capacities. That's like asking if people over twenty five decimeters tall, or over ninety-eight inches tall should be allowed to marry. These characteristics are not based on behavior. Religion is not "exactly" based on behavior. Fundamentalism maybe, but belonging to a religion in itself is not based on behavior. If I were annoyed, I wouldn't post. I will gladly explain and clarify my points until you manage to comprehend them, however it would help if you were to try a little harder to understand that unlike homosexuality, people are not genii, Christians, tall, Chinese, etc. based on behavior, therefore though they may be rarities, they are not anomalies. I wish it were that simple, but by granting special legal rights to the gay fags, that means the government shows approval of homosexuality... a gov't I pay taxes to. In other words, if I pay taxes, some of that money is going towards the acceptance of gay faggotry, meaning my money is spent is ways that I disagree. As a liberal, you probably see no problem in a large portion of the money you pay into the gov't go towards things you like less. Yes and no. Smoking marijuana is also a carnal desire, but I don't feel as strongly about it (I personally think it's more important for tobacco to be banned than marijuana). Legalizing marijuana would mean the government would show approval of it, despite the fact that I don't agree with it, but I don't feel as strong about some other issues related to behavior. I may also show concern regarding laws having nothing to do with carnal desires, for instance zoning. Alas I am not in a strong power position in the Canadian gov't that I cannot enforce my views at the cost of Canadian taxpayers, so I can only complain about those who do. Marriage was defined by the unity of a man and a woman. If the gov't is to manage and regulate marriage, it makes sense that they manage and regulate marriage according to what it is: the unity of a man and a woman. If the gov't is to go beyond that, that means the gov't is giving extended catering to anomalies. Oh I wish. Actually, I don't. I say that everyone, regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation should have the same right to marriage, that is the marriage between man and woman. No rights denied there. The only other debated law concerning gay fags is adoption. I say regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation, I'd prefer adoptive children go to normal families having the capacities (financial and health) of offering the best home for adoptive children. In other words, I'd screen out active homosexuals, active pedophiles, smokers, swingers, recreational drug users, over-weight people, etc. because it would compromise the family they could offer to adoptive children. I wouldn't do the screening based on what people are, but rather how they behave. Doesn't that make sense? I wouldn't even ask if adoptive parents are gay, I'd ask if they practice homosexual relations. Two different things. If your fellow citizens choose to act selfishly, they do not deserve the priviliges of those who act responsibly. Makes sense, doesn't it? By not complaining, you are giving your silent approval. This isn't a big deal, because Falon Dong probably doesn't have political intentions, therefore you're giving your silent approval to something which isn't serious matter. However, when it's with political intentions or social desensitization, it may be an issue of serious matter. If you don't react, you are giving your silent approval, which may or may not be good, depending on your own opinions.

@Mad_Michael: Well, you are mad indeed. Firstly, I was pointing out that the gay proportion is insignificant (less than 5%). I wasn't looking at it as 50+% vs. 50-%, but rather 95+% vs. 5-%. Men probably collectively pay more into Canadian taxation than the women do. If you want to be proportional in terms of tax dolla's, men should be favored. Gays probably pay more taxes than straights per capita, but because there are so few of them, it doesn't add up to much. Anyway, there's no point bringing up most other minorities because they are not minorities based on behavior. There is the exception of religious minorities... and by minorities I'm refering to less than 5-10% of the population, and being very inclusive (regardless of how often or little they practice, provided they're registered under the given religion). Lets say muslim fundamentalists want the law system to cater to them at the expense of all taxpayers, yet they are less than 5% of Canada's population aswell. Should female circumcision be legalized in Canada, even though most would agree that it's unethical, just to cater to a few fundamentalist Muslims? For marriage to be legal, it has to have a civil registration, whether the event is held in a courthouse or a church. My point was whether man and woman marry in a church, mosk, courthouse, their home, etc. makes no difference in terms of whom the gov't is catering to, however when they marry gay people, they are approving such behavior that so many taxpayers disagree with. I won't interfere with those falling into carnal desires, however I do not agree with my gov't approving of this using my tax dolla'. Not at all. If Falon Gong is a concern to you, you can complain about it. I have participated in complaining to the gov't about same-sex marriage, I'm simply sharing my point of view on this thread, being the purpose of a forum. Your freedom of speech allows you to make hatemongering on Falon Gong, it's up to those with an opposing point of view to argue otherwise.

@Mad_Michael: Equal rights for gays imply greater rights for gays. If the gov't adapts everything serving heterosexuals, 98-99% of the population, in order to serve gay fags aswell, consisting of 1-2% of the population, that means much more than 1-2% of tax money will be spent on this adaptation and its maintenance. Gays should have to conform to the same society heterosexuals do. It may sound pretty to hope that gays be treated equally, but equality is not possible because a larger proportion of gov't funds than the proportion of gays in the locale/country's population would be wasted on catering to them. It doesn't matter if the Hindus get married or not in Canada, it's a non-issue, because you're not expected to recognize their religious institution's documentation and rituals. They get married in their religious institution, and register as married man and woman with the gov't to be treated as a married couple for tax and immigration purposes. The only reason the gov't recognizes marriage is a scheme to get more money from tax payers. Since when is marriage a right?! No one has the right to marriage. It's a privilege granted through gov't legislation, which should be abolished altogether. I never approved of heterosexual perversion either. I'd disapprove of any sexually provokative parade. This is irrelevant. If someone is of Chinese background, they cannot change this. No changing of religion, plastic surgery, behavior, being raised by caucasoids, etc. could change this. Being Chinese does not affect one's behavior either. If they want to celebrate their culture on the streets, povided they do not break any local laws and are not provokative, there's really no issue here. However, if you find a Chinese parade unacceptable, you could always complain and maybe it would be controlled, the town hall could at least make sure the parade would not cross streets where concerned residents live, and if the town hall sees it an issue, it could even be banned altogether. This really isn't an issue, but you can do more than simply dislike something. @Drea: You cannot prove that there is no God. There have been sufficient proof to believe that there is a God, however you are free to believe otherwise. Christians worship God and not the authors God used to compose the Books of the Bible. You're not dead yet. You cannot guarantee this.

@jbg: That's not the issue. The Francophones in Canada produce not only a higher rate, but also more culture without leaning on gov't intervention (direct and indirect, including our communist Can-Con law) than the majority Anglophone community. The issue is that Francophones, typically federalist (because seperatists have no real interest in the structure of the federal gov't) want their federal gov't to live up to its official languages. @Leafless: Not impossible, though not realistic considering the current reality. Instead of writing Utopic propaganda, what could this SJCoOL do? I don't see the need for utopic propaganda, including proclaiming oneself as officially multicultural, however I do not get your point about the SJCoOL and their propaganda.

@normanchateau: You think a book has higher credibility than the Internet? There's only one difference between what is published online and books: the degree of profanity. The only things which are difficult to publish online are child porn and hate messages (unless they're written in the form of lyrics). Many publishers are hesitant to publish a lot of the profanity found online, but I'm sure you can find a sketchy publisher in one of the 192 countries on the globe who will publish anything. What neither Internet nor book publishers filter is lies. Anyone can write a book full of lies (and many people do) and they get published in developed English speaking countries like USA, CA, UK, AU... etc. Just because someone published it in print does not make it more credible than the Interweb. The Interweb link I mentioned gave quotes, probably finding the most suggestive parts in favor of their point (that King James would be a gay fag). However, if you have read the book yourself, feel free to quote. I personally don't care if King James were gay, though I doubt the sources I've read so far promoting this idea. He most certainly isn't my king. Whether he was a gay fag or not doesn't justify homosexuality, nor does it make homosexuality any more nor less of an anomaly.

@normanchateau: There are days where I am happy to not be Anglican or Episcopal, and there are other days that I like to brag about it. I do not read the King James version of the Bible, it never appealed to me and it's missing the Deutorocanonicals (can't trust a Bible missing the Books originally written in Greek). The Church of England was essentially inspired by promiscuity, for instance King Henry VIII, who segregated his Church from Rome just because he wanted to divorce (he had all intentions of giving it back to Rome, but died before he got around to it). The Church of England is also responsible for ordaining a gay fag bishop, meaning many other churches are questioning the authenticity of the Church of England. The Church of England was also the first church to tolerate birth control. This is a bunch of food for thought, if you're still interested, feel free to look up on it. By the way, I looked at your link, and it is quite questionable. The original source is this one: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html. It quotes letters and people, and though the letters may be subjective, there's no concrete proof (plus they could have made it up because they don't provide the actual letters) and the quotes from people may just be rumors. I don't really care, King James didn't commission my Bible, but be a little more objective when reading stuff you find on the Interweb. Your comment is another misunderstanding on this thread of anomaly. I was refering strictly to behavior, as I made quite clear. Commissioning the Bible is an accomplishment, it's something one can put on their résumé. No one in a functional society would put their sexual orientation on their résumé, however in a nonsensical society with quotas coming from a system that favors gay fags, maybe homosexual Canucks do put it on their résumé (it still wouldn't be categorized as an accomplishment, however). @Drea: That wasn't the point. Consent does not justify a behavior. ScottSA gave some examples in his last post of behavior which may be consented to yet still shun by society. The point is that gay fags are playing the victim and liberals are feeling sorry for them. Some Muslim groups are "showing" sympathy towards homosexuality in order to eventually promote sympathy towards polygamy. Imagine if polygamy is tolerated in Canada... Muslims could become a majority in the turn of one generation. If that happens, Canada would probably have a much larger proportion of Muslims turning to fundamentalism and becoming what we call terrorists. This is just a proportions theory, considering there have already been Muslim Canadians charged for terrorism, and with a larger number of Muslims in Canada, we'll probably have the same proportion of terrorists within that community, meaning the Maple Leaf State will become much less safe. By the way, polygamy is also normally practiced amongst consenting adults.

@Leafless: Leafless, I will have to point out a false assumption in your post based on the given information. I'm not sure of the numbers myself, but I'll assume your numbers to be true for the purpose of this response. 11% of Francophones write in French most of the time. Alternative possibilities accounting for the remaining 89% of Francophones fall into the following categories: write in French always, more often than not, half of the time, sometimes, rarely, never. We also do not know how often bilingual Anglophones write in French (I'm sure many in Montréal and some in Gatineau use it quite often). You assume that the remaining 89% of Francophones write in French rarely, gnoring other possibilities. By the way, I didn't check your source, if there's anything in your source that I should be aware of that you haven't mentioned, please bring it up.

@cybercoma: This isn't an issue of consent. People can consent to very dangerous things, consent does not justify behavior alone. Last I checked, "human" is not synonymous to "animal", nor is it defined as an animal. I quote my interactive dictionary: That's a secular definition. If and only if you consider the differentiation given by a religious institution, humans being distringuished by having immortal souls could be added, but if you do not see religious institutions as an authority, then ignore this. Either way, I've provided a secular definition which distinguishes humans from animals, so if you are to argue this, bring reasons for believing otherwise because for this specific point I'm not arguing the authority of the Church. It's not arrogant to claim that we are not animals. This doesn't mean that we are greater as beings than animals, it simply means we have different roles and should conform to different rules (for instance animals are not expected to register for citizenship in their homeland). @Blu-Truth: Wrong? That's subjective to morality. The religious scope would say that yes it is wrong, because lust is wrong. The secular scope doesn't define right vs. wrong on lust if it doesn't affect others and if it doesn't interfere with one's daily life. However, if fantasies/lust grow so strong in one's mind, I'm sure even a shrink would advise to fight it. Amen to that arrogance! Though we have instincts, we also can exercise self-control. People may be born with instincts and pre-dispositions, but not with pre-defined behavior. Though I don't believe in Evil-ution myself, gays would not be part of the "surviving fittest" in Charles Darwin's theory.

@Mad_Michael: I know gays exist because there wouldn't be so many pro-gay advocates had no one been gay. Numbers also reveal to us that between one and two percent of the world's population is gay. I'll agree that the gays may complain that they pay into a gov't which spends most of their tax dollors on heterosexuals. However, that's something they'll have to bite unless they all do like the Jews did and end up living in their own country with their own gov't, which likely wouldn't have a sizeable following generation. That's not the issue. I don't have to care about who is gay to be concerned about pro-gay activists' propaganda's impact on society. @guyser: What's your point? Look, Mad_Michael argued that genii are anomalies, I argued that no, it's more acurately a rarity, being a genius can be measured quantitatively (how smart one is) and is not behavior-related in itself, whereas homosexuality is measured qualitatively (one cannot measure "how gay" one is) and is in fact behavior related. I argue that there is no proof that people are born gay, having no relation to the above argument, then you bring back the genius example. I'll respond tp your "tit for tat": it doesn't matter if people are born genius or not, the brain is a muscle, and if one is smart enough, they're considered genius and there's nothing a genius can do without lowering one's intelligence in order to no longer be a genius, and lowering one's IQ can be acheived with drugs and some other things, but nothing solely based on behavior (and when a genuis ends up no longer being a genius, it's even harder to regain the previous level of intelligence). All in all, it's not an issue whether people are born genius or not... it doesn't affect their behavior. Some being smarter and stronger than others prooves inequality. Inequality is not a bad thing in itself. Did I ever say that RIGHTS should be denied to certain people? Since when do people have the right to gay marriage?

There is still no real proof that people are born gay. Homosexuality can be measured as qualitative but not quantitative. You can't measure "how gay" someone is, however you can measure "how smart" or "how good" someone/something is. I wish it were that simple. Our government is using my tax dollar to cater to homosexuals by offering the mgay marriage, etc. Silly assumption. I know for a fact that everyone is a person, provided everyone includes every person and only people. No two people are equal. Haven't you read Animal Farm? 'Twas a good book... it was a nice parody on Stalinism, where "everyone is equal, yet some are more equal than others". Even in a communist system trying to treat everyone as equal, there are some who will benefit more from the system. We live in a world which favors some over others, and that in itself is fine. I'm not here to judge anyone, I have no interest in knowing who is gay, but I do not feel the need for a system which tries to make everyone treated equally, because it's bound to fail. I much prefer a system which explicitly admits that some are favored in the existing system over others than the hypocrisy of trying to hide this. The gov't shoves its ideals down everyones' throat, at taxpayers' expense. Under whose bias do you think children are instructed at school and in daycares? Nobody is equal. By the way, I don't see this as "above" or "beneath". Unequal goes beyond "greater" or "lesser". For instance, men are unequal to men. It doesn't mean that one sex is greater or lesser than the other, but they are simply not equal. Women can become pregnant, which is a condition men can never face. We are taught to cater to men and women differently, for intance "ladies first" is courtesy. I would open a door for a woman, young or old, but I'd be less inclined to holding a door open for a young guy. Neither one is greater nor lesser than the other, but society caters to men and women differently. I don't think it's society's responsibility to cater to homosexuals. I do not see gays as beneath me. I consider the possibility that there could even be gays who are better people than me. However, I still expect them to conform to the society we live in instead of expecting others to treat them differently. There's no need in treating gays as second class citizens. There's no need in being less respectful to gays as to others. However, certain things should not be changed, for instance marriage being between man and woman, whether one s gay or straight, the conditions should still apply. People who know? Sex-perts learn under heavy bias and most fail to think for themselves. Sunday school? No, I considered all information given to me, under multiple biases, but I formed my own perception. If I couldn't think for myself, I wouldn't post on fora. No slagging, I was giving my opinion, because I do not advocate opinions other than my own (who does?). Narrow minded? Coming from the guy who assumes that people are persons. A lot of irrelevance has been debated on this thread due to misinterpretations. When asked, I'll gladly share my views. I have nothing against fags (the people), I just object to faggotry (the perversion). The gay fag people can live in the same world, same country, same city as me, but I don't need my gov't to be encouraging their behavior.