Blu-Truth

This is a strawman. No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything. For example, many corporations seek to reduce their corporate tax burden. Does that mean they seek for you to accept, condone and celebrate corporate their profits and tax loopholes? No, homosexuals seek only that you refrain from interfering with their private behaviour. They seek that you refrain from applying legal double-standards to your dealings with them. They seek to limit your legal power to harrass them. Just like the private corporations seeking to limit your legal power to tax them. These are perfectly rational behaviours. Most homosexuals couldn't care less about what you condone or celebrate. Indeed, perhaps they might hate you as much as you hate them. So be it. No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything? Are you kidding me? TV, Movies, News, Commercials, Music, Public Policy, what children are shown and taught in school... Right, good one! I think homosexuals greatly care what we as a society condone and celebrate which is why there are so many legal challenges to those that oppose their views. And here we see once again the "if you don't agree, condone, and celebrate homosexuality then you hate us" tactic. I don't know. Were you born that way? Fortunately I was not born with such desires nor was I subjected to the sort of abusive childhood which seems to lead to such confusions, I also am aware that "but by the grace of God, there go I" and I am sympathetic to those caught up in this as they too feel they have not chosen these desires, but ultimately we have to fight against these desires as we are soley responsible for our lives. We all have demons to fight, some are more fierce than others, but the answer can't be that we just give in and change what we think is right and wrong to appease our guilt. Liberal minded people don't judge the private behaviours of others - provided no harm is caused. I don't have to tell you the word we use for those who do make it their business to attempt to legally control the behavior of others in the name of their own moral theology. No, but I bet it's one that can also be used for those making it their business to change society to accept their own views. If homosexuals aren't 'born that way', that means that they, ipso facto, are rising above their animal instincts. Indeed, according to your argument, it is the hetersexuals that are obsessed with (and wallowing in their) animalistic 'instincts' here. If you want to make hatemongering arguments, you need to learn how to make rational and consistent ones! Once again someone has written a point-by-point response without addressing the main point which about the liberal arguement of gays being born with these desires (may even have 'gay' genes!), therefore homosexuality is just a normal/natural life-style which should be embraced by society, which is exactly what I was disputing. Instead we start discussing whether or not some or all instincts are good, bad, neutral. This is a discussion worth having but trying to justify a behaviour based solely upon a natural desire or instinct is not a legitimate arguement. I don't believe the homosexual lifestyle is healthy to the individual or the society we live in, I also believe it is just another step in our fall to a society without any boundaries to limit our sexual behavior. I'm not going to appologize for disagreeing with you and it has nothing to do with hatemongering. As of late, debating the issues is becoming more and more difficult due to the left crying intollerance, hatred, and any other name they can come up with in attemps to stifle debate and avoid having to face the challanges presented to them with sound responses.

Hopefully Hillarious Clinton gets in with Bill as the first lady... then Open-Season on the Dems starts. It's much easier to oppose everything when you don't have to come up with any realistic alternatives. You have the freedom to vote for or against something and then latter change your mind depending upon how hings turn out. Ah opposition is great, If Clinton was smart, she'd stay in opposition... much easier.

Get over it already! Usually if something causes such an over-reaction, then it's hitting a nerve, then I would say maybe the real problem lies elsewhere. I know for sure and first-hand that there are major problems with drinking within the native community, a sign at Tim Horton's doesn't have any effect on that one way or the other. Besides the real issue is preventing anyone that is drunk from getting a coffee is just wrong.

The best one is the Aussie bar banning heterosexuals and lebians... how do they prove you are or aren't gay. Maybe we should get sexual orientation ID's although I still don't know how we prove this, I mean do mere thoughts count or is experience required?

I believe Mr. Dinning is in no way using this as a political smear but obviously he is hurting greatly out of the loss of his son. He has viewed this policy as a valuation put on the lives of fallen soldiers (his son) instead of what it really is, which is a death benefit for the surviving dependants. We could never put a price on the value of a life nor should we, but we must make sure those who were dependant upon these soldiers are at least helped financially. It's very excusable for Mr. Dining to make this point even though I don't think it's correct, but others who should know better, should be ashamed for using this for political points despite knowing full well the facts and purpose behind this compensation. If we want to have a discussion about the policy and who is regarded as dependants ect. then fine, but refrain from the disgusting accusations that the government or military values some lives over others.

Please read closely what I said... there was no comparison regarding the raping of children, unless you are taking the New Testament biblical view of sin. I was talking about men fantasizing about children ie. thoughts, lust within the heart. Do you think these thoughts are wrong if they remain as only thoughts? I believe you when you say you have a hard time understanding these comparisons which is exactly my point... the "being born that way" reasoning is what I'm trying to show as unreasonable, inconsistent, and nonsensical. Regarding all of our behaviours being animalistic is true from your point of view which I contend is a dangerous one if using the criteria of this "born that way" argument as there is then no behavior that can be classified as non-instinctive and therefore ultimately nothing can be classified as right or wrong, just neutral. We're just another animal acting upon our impulses. My view, on the other hand, is that we have been given among other things, reasoning and emotions such as sympathy, love, hatred, vengence, envy, hope, guilt, etc., all of which seperate us from the rest of the animals and therefore I absolutely, with much arrogance, believe that we are different and also superior to animals. Interesting that you regard passing on our genetic code as being part of our primal drive, which is a reasonable suggestion. In your opinion, how does homosexuality fit in to this primal drive? How about natural selection and evolution? Progressive mutations or regressive?

This idea that - people are born with strong desires therefore we should accept, condone, and celebrate these desires - is such weak logic but yet has caught on as a rallying cry for the gay movement. By this line of thinking every impulse we have should be celebrated (as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else). Men fantasizing over enfant children, should we celebrate these desires? Are these men born with these desires? (and they would tell you these are very strong desires) How about Bi-sexuality, are people born this way as well? What's amusing to me is that liberal minded people regard themselves as progressive and yet purport ideas that sound more like regresive animalistic behavior based upon merely our instinctive nature. Animals act upon their instincts, humans are supposed to rise above that which at times means to fight against one's instincts. Sometimes we have to say no to the girl at the bar and go home to our wife.