FastNed

Hi Lost, no knowledge of any such problems involving people other than Roman Catholic. While no doubt there were more, I observed just two cases over the years in Massachusetts involving the RC Church declining to marry couples. In both, the State Court declined jurisdiction - the Catholic Church has an internal Religious Court and appeals process which goes all the way to the Vatican. In each case, the Plaintiff's had not pursued their claim through the existing Church process and both Courts declined to act as the claims were not "ripe", not ready for civil court adjudication. That presumes that any sort of jurisdiction did in fact exist in the face of the Establishment Clause of our Constitution but that question was not reached as the facts did not reach far enough for jurisdiction to be decided. As to the Poll results you heard, Cali is both liberal and Democratic and there are significant clusters of Gay populations. Please keep in mind, though, that polling in America has become a slanted liars game when the purpose is social or political. The figures could be correct or could be junk - there is no way to tell without complete knowledge of the polling methodology and the exact questions asked. As a generalization, the Costal Areas from Berkley above San Fran. down to Mexico are quite liberal while the interior, the "Inland Kingdom" and Northern Cali are conservative. And I must add that so many of us in America are so annoyed by the constant intrusion of these pollsters by phone and eMail that we make a great effort to lie and fudge up their polls. Bother me at supper time, will you! Take that!

You know, folks, a very real question exists about Canada. Do the people of Canada want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Do the anti-American statements and actions of your politicians over these last dozen years or so reflect the true opinion of Canadians? I do not mean to be an alarmist but Canadians are going to have to decide if they mean to fish, cut bait or stand on the dock as the boat pulls out. There will not and can not be any neutrals in the battle against terrorists. That option does not exist, like it or lump it! More than most, perhaps even better than the British, Canadians understand Americans and what motivates us. There is no delusion in Canada, unlike other parts of the world, that our war against the terrorists is generated by our domestic politics. We have a great deal of domestic fermentation on this but it's clear that it's war first, domestic politics second. Do Canadians really believe they can continue as our next door neighbor, continue to enjoy fairly free trade and good relations with us while watching our War like uninvolved spectators at a tennis match? On another thread, KrazyKid posited a scenario (#8) that in response to multiple cross border terrorists attacks, 50,000 American troops invaded to pursue the terrorists. I have some doubts about that response because our professional military are well trained to examine the legality of orders received and I doubt they would accept such orders to invade Canada from any Commander-in-Chief on so little provocation. I don't doubt you might find that many posted at the border ready to selectively back up a few thousand Special Forces types quite busy in downtown Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto killing snakes but a substantial invasion is doubtful. And what would be the initial Canadian reaction and response? If the RCMP attempt to act, they would be told to go make love to their horses, or else and I doubt the ability of your government to convince units of the Princess Pat's to respond - that is if the government could find the funds to rent enough cars to get them to the scene of the action. Canadian military logistics are truly clusterfugged! But let's not get distracted about a momentary response to this exact scenario, my question is directed at the long term Canadian decision: can Canada sit out the War against Terrorism? Can Canada continue as a Nation with its present (lack of) Defense Policy? With the events of the World and the people you have been admitting, Canada is starting to look like a fat rich tourist who has wandered into a bad area of New Orleans completely oblivious to the fact he looks like a fat rich sheep. Sheep get sheered, skinned, barbecued and served at a feast, is that Canada's intention?

SirRiff, the problems of children raised by a Single Parent have been well studied and more than sufficient data researched and analyzed to make plain that this is far from the optimum. Your posts show too much scientific knowledge for you not to know this. The nuclear family is the superior method for child raising, this is quite obvious. I do not accept though, that this is a substantial argument against homosexual unions. While my mind disconnects when faced with a statistical problem, I have an intuitive opinion that this is of no more statistical significance than that portion of the heterosexual population that can not or will not procreate. I suspect the old 80/20 rule again is in effect here and so long as 80 percent of the human population do procreate, genetic evolution will continue. Call my opinion a leap of "faith", if you will.

Reality Check! The sole reason North Korea is not road kill at this point is that our nominal ally, South Korea, would suffer several million casualties in the first 48 hours of any conflict. I say "nominal" because a younger generation of South Koreans has been raised and educated with marxist and postmodern garbage and a sub-theme of their annoying racial superiority delusion is that America, while "occupying" them, somehow has an obligation to defend them. As all good marxists and transnationals know, America's true reason for being there is to corner the World market in Kimchi! It's all about the Kimchi, stupid! From a "RealPolitik" point of view, a very intelligent option would be to pull our forces out of South Korea and sit back and watch poetic justice at work. Krazy Kim would be invading as our last ship left the pier. The Chinese would love to see America depart and the pillage and rape of South Korea would simply be a "cultural" adjustment. The problem with this solution is that President Bush is a man of moral convictions and, unlike Clinton, he will not kick the can down the road by paying Dane-geld as he is well aware that a dozen years or so down the road, a New Korea would be the Far Eastern version of Iran. Quite candidly, if the Chinese do not force a solution upon North Korea I prefer the "RealPolitik" option. With an occupied and "unified" Korea, Krazy Kim and his gang will finally have something to loose (South Korean wealth) and a modus vivendi can be achieved. Such action would be completely consistent with Trans-National philosophy and America would not be interfering with the rights of the indigenous people of Korea. Are you disturbed by the real world result of the application of the Trans-National philosophy?

You know, Felonius, I've looked at your postings and I think you're a troll. I'm not going to spend any time responding to your presence here.

Pellekan, you questioned: The answer is simple for a person of faith who believes that "We are made in His image". Our intelligence comes from Him and had He not wished that we advance in our knowledge of His creation, we would not be able to do so.

Lost, to date (to the best of my knowledge) no Court in the USA has attempted to order any religious denomination to perform a Gay Marriage. That is a step too far, too big a reach for any Judge to attempt, at least at this moment. What has people concerned is that a great deal is happening right outside the Church Doors, so to speak. The Institutional Church has a long memory of the history of religious intolerance and persecution; many of the founders of America (as well as Canada) fled to these shores because of the progression of intolerance experienced in England and Europe. The Church of England was relentless in various historical periods in its persecution of those who did not follow their "Dogma" . Not that the Catholic Church has a better record in areas under their domination. Every religion in the Old Country and Middle East and the governments which supported them persecuted those whose beliefs ran contrary to the "Official Religion". The prohibitions in the US Constitution against the establishment of a religion was to prevent adoption of an "Official" Religion and the mandate of religious freedom was to allow every faith the freedom to worship as they choose. It is this background that people of faith have in the forefront of their memory; attacks upon religious freedom are nothing new in an historical sense and many see history repeating itself. I don't believe there is much bad that can be said against the Boy Scouts and their experience these last dozen years is illustrative of the progression of this problem. It is a precept of that organization that all Boy Scouts must profess a belief in God and this has brought many attacks from those who deny the existence of such a being. Ditto on homosexuality, in the position of Scoutmaster where supervision and control of young scouts is concerned. In both situations, various claims and court cases have been filed on the basis that "Human/Civil Rights" were being denied by exclusion from the Scouts. While the Scouts have been successful so far, vast sums of money have been expended defending their religious stance to the detriment of their other activities. They are being litigated into the Poor House and many see this as the handwriting on the Wall for Churches if Gay "Marriage" is permitted. With the understanding that I claim no expert knowledge of Religious Law and am certainly no theologian, the difference in the Catholic Church concerning marriage with those of other Faiths is that those of other faiths are not, per se, sinners. What was is it that is attributed to Christ: "My Father's House has many rooms!"? Belief in God and membership in a different Church is not against the tenets or dogma of the Catholic Church so if one complies with the requirements, the Sacrament of Marriage will be perform with one participant who is not a Catholic. The Catholic Church, like other Biblical Religions holds homosexuality as a banned activity, a sin as it were, and excepting only the "Last Rites" all sacraments are forbidden to unrepentant sinners. Please note this is my understanding of Church Law and it is subject to correction by those with greater knowledge of the subject.

The "Palestinian Question" is one of the greatest scams in history. For fifty some years, these people have been pawns; pawns to despotic Arab Leaders, the Bureaucrats of the UN (who have made them perpetual refugees), self-appointed leaders (who have made billions exploiting them) and self-serving international politicians seeking National advantage from their plight. The single greatest mistake of the Bush Presidency has been to let his moral and religious convictions convince him to involve America in this issue. Note that the Road Map was printed in Saudi Arabia! The Palestinian people have been convinced that Terrorism will bring them victory and until they are dissuaded from this folly, there can be no peace.

There is a good deal of common sense in what you say, Lost, and I suspect that is the approach we are going to have to take but we are going to have to take baby steps first. I believe there will be less opposition if the rights of those who have a different opinion are clearly protected. In fact, without such protection, no progress is going to take place without great civil unrest. We could debate forever "What's in a Name" but the historical truth is that such things are important. "Marriage" has some six thousand years of religious history in its meaning and those in our society who are religious are adamantly opposed to use of that term for a Gay union/partnership or whatever. First, all of the Judeo-Christian faiths hold as essential tenets of their belief structure that homosexual marriage is forbidden; there are no exceptions for the vast majority of religious people. Second, because of the historical record of the use of Courts and Civil or Human Rights Commissions to use a claim of violation of "Rights" to push matters to the extreme, they justly suspect that if Gay "Marriage" is authorized, eventually some Judge or Commission is going to issue an order to them to violate their religious beliefs by performing a Gay "Marriage". Third, they believe that "Hate Speech" Laws will also be abused to attack Freedom of Religion. We have already seen this happen in a number of areas. Whatever happened to the old rhyme "Sticks and stones....."? These religions hold that homosexual conduct is immoral and the State has no right to order a change in our moral views. Neither can it use "Hate Speech" Legislation to silence or mute our expression of the tenets of our faiths. Publication of an anti-abortion statement is not held to be "Hate Speech" nor should it be so why should anyone be allowed to say that quotes from our Bible or statements from religious persons constitute "Hate"? I really question the entire rational of "Hate Speech" Laws and believe they are either pointless or redundant. I believe an excellent lesson of how this matter should be treated can be found in the abortion controversy. It is a legal activity but is held to be an immoral act by many religious people. Yet Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have prevailed. No one suggests or obtains Court Orders to mandate that a Religious Hospital must perform them; neither is any religious figure silenced or charged with "Hate Speech" when they preach against such practices. This must be our approach in this homosexual controversy. Our Faith requires that we condemn the sin but not the sinner - that religious right of expression may not be taken away from us. The concept of "Marriage" is essentially religious, leave this for use by religions. If a particular faith wishes to perform such ceremonies, that is their right as it is the right of others to refuse them. Civil Union/Partnership are currently used or suggested as an alternative designation for such status and each jurisdiction can determine what "Term" it wishes to use to formalize such relationships. If the civil outcome of such relationships has the same legal effect as a "Marriage" (which we should remember is the stated desire of homosexuals) why should we needlessly start a war among ourselves over religious beliefs?

Hi Nuclear - You have put your finger on one of the inevitable outcomes of this particular controversy. If moral laws of the Judeo-Christian heritage cease to be the guideline for "marriage", then polygamy, group marriage, contract or term marriage and an alphabet soup of living arrangements must become legal in time. The arguments advanced to justify homosexual "marriage" as a matter of "rights" work equally as well for such other arrangements. Is this the society we wish?

I've no idea what Canadians expect of their Military but then again, I suspect Canadians don't either. But the World today is too damn dangerous not to have a clear view of one objective or another. It would take many years for the Canadian Military to recover to have a posture significant on the International scene but at the moment, it lacks any coherent focus on what role is expected. That should not continue. Canada can not continue to wander around with pockets full of cash, dumb and unaware of the World around it. It makes a wonderful target simply waiting for a mugger to target it. Perhaps the unspoken hang-up is that if National Defense is assigned as its priority, Canada must cooperate and coordinate with America or it will be unable to accomplish that purpose. This may simply be too much for the Liberal Politicians to accept so they allow matters to drift rather than to face hard reality.

Scotch, I believe we have discussed this one to an end point and anything more is redundant. Two small points, attempting to find a CDC Study a few months after its release is difficult if not impossible, or at least that is my experience. I have attempted to retrieve such a few months after I have read them and have found it impossible to navigate through a zillion references. It may be that I'm not too good at it or perhaps their site and reference system is just too complex. One other point, you mention: I am not nit picking but this would only provide data on "married" homosexuals and would have no statistical validity for non-married ones. All statistics concerning homosexuals are based upon incomplete studies as we have no idea of the true population. Some are out and some undisclosed. The best estimates are a population subset of between three to ten percent - that's nine to thirty million and with that variation in numbers, all statistics are suspect. AIDS figures are fairly well set in cement, either you got it or you don't and I believe life expectancy figures for male homosexuals are a derivative of these numbers. I doubt their validity or applicability to women, that is to lesbians and I have no idea of how anyone could claim validity for any data base where they are concerned.

There is something very wrong, very sick with politicians who believe it appropriate to spend a billion dollars on requiring its citizens to register their guns but next to nothing on National Defense. Take the Maple Leaf off the back of your jackets and hang a sign "Mug me, I'm a victim!" Who would ever have thought Canada would come to this?

Well, the first thing disclosed is that these various Electric Companies and Public Regulatory Agencies don't know what time it is. Despite all of the computer programs which log on and synchronize computers to the National Clock, few, if any, had the right time. When electrical events are measured and triggered in nanoseconds, failure to synchronize time measurement displays the "local" thinking which is a major part of this systemic failure. Forensic pathologists will have full employment for months discovering the number of local problems which combined to create this cascading collapse. Their initial challenge in determining what was cause and what was effect will be to determine the real sequence of events. 'Fast' Company says we shut down because 'Slow' Company overloaded us - but when the time records are coordinated to exact time, 'FastCo' shut off first and shut down 'SlowCo'. CYA Politicians and Electric Co. Execs' will have a field day pointing fingers in every which direction attempting to claim the problem belongs to someone else. The actual root problem is one which has been recognized but unresolved for quite some time. Power generation is local, under the control of local politicians and regulatory bodies, and our electrical grid is International and thus forced to dance around a multitude of self-serving local issues. There exist no mandatory interstate or international standards which trump local control and regulation. We have a power system which is half slave and half free. A one word description of the problem is NIMBY! - people want power when they flick the switch but put that dirty power plant somewhere else. If we have to have "just a few" transmission towers to bring in the juice, we'll accept that but not some dirty power plant. I was surprised to discover that contrary to my expectations, New York State is a net exporter of power and is not sitting there sucking up 'my' power. They actually generate more than they use which was a real surprise. We all have our prejudices and mine was all wrong. Our International Power Grid evolved because electric demand follows the sunset; as the sun sets, people turn on the lights, the A/C and their stoves to cook when they come home. As the sun moves West, demand increases for a while then subsists and it was less expensive to send excess power West than to build plants in each and every time zone to meet than momentary peak. From simple beginnings come the complexity of todays Grid. People demand more power than they generate locally and the transmission grid is todays solution. The final trigger to this cascading failure was Ontario. What is not known is if Ontario was a major part of the problem or simply stuck in the middle of one. Why is that an unresolved question? By accident or by intent, we ended up with a loop in our International Grid and Ontario was in the middle of that loop. Think of the American Mid-West as holding onto Ontario at the Western end with the left hand and the Eastern end with the right hand. When the left hand got burned, it released its hold and in a nanosecond, the power reversed direction attempting to meet Mid-Western demand via the other end of the loop and hammered the right hand in the East which let go and then everything shut down. The Eastern right hand suddenly was hit with double the maximum power and properly let go! We would have had melting power lines and transmission plants blowing up if it had not. The power in Ontario, reversing direction and suddenly going West to East triggered the shutdown. We had a head on collision in the fast lane with both vehicles going 90 MPH. The major question remains was Ontario just someone in the middle or is there a systemic failure here. Without prejudging anything, we do know that such power reversals do occur and that in the ordinary course of business, such things are considered and systems created to prevent them so a legitimate question exists. Did Ontario drop the ball or was this event so massive, so catastrophic that it could not have been prevented? That question needs to be addressed.

Oh, Felonious Flea, please tell us what occurred in 1986 in Liberia that leads you to this opinion? And could you share your wisdom on how America is responsible for the dictatorships of Burma, Syria and Zimbabwe?

No Republican holds any State wide office in Cali - none! This is evidence of the pathetic condition of the Cali Republican Party. Hard right, conservative, extreme right, all of these are used to describe the fossils controlling the party mechanism in Cali. And because they are the extreme, they do not draw the independent or cross-over voter. They would rather be "pure" than elected. They have been financing the Party there for years and believe because of this, they own it. Arnold is delaying his campaign push, evidently upon the advice of his experts - but it is consistent with his methodology. The great danger is that people will have made a decision before he gets his act in gear. Overestimation of the intelligence of the electorate is quite as dangerous as underestimation. Unless, of course, he expects his campaign to bring in the multitudes of non-voters. Half the electorate doesn't vote and if he can motivate even ten percent of them to the polls, he wins and sets new grounds for politics in America.

Scotch, I do not know of any religion or ideology which advocates practices to spread AIDS - quite the contrary. I do not know of any religion or ideology which claims special privilege to exempt it's members or followers from Public Health & Safety Laws intended to protect the general populace from the spread of venereal disease, including fatal ones. That is, unless you define homosexuality as an ideology.

Let's talk about Alabama. There is no universal rule concerning naming of Judges in America; States may either appoint or elect depending upon State constitutional choice. Fed's are all appointed, most for life but a few specialized areas (Bankruptcy, for example) are for a term of years (14 in Bankruptcy) Alabama is one of the States where Judges are elected, not appointed. Judge Moore, the center of this controversy was an obscure County Judge who had a small plaque with the Ten Commandments on display in his Court. Note that this plaque was smaller than one which has been on unchallenged display in the U.S. Supreme Court for many years. Alabama is in what is sometimes called America's Bible Belt - unquestionably a highly religious area where a clear majority of people are religious and believe in the Ten Commandments. I've seen figures of as high as 80% but have no idea of a correct figure but there is no question that more than a simply majority of its people refer to themselves as "God Fearing Christians". You do need this background to understand what is going on here. I'm not sure how it started in this little County Court in a rural area but the usual suspects picked a fight with the Judge over his small plaque. Turns out the Judge is also a pretty sharp "Good Old Boy" politician because the battle drew media from all over the State and he parlayed the publicity into a winning run for the Chief Judgeship of the State Supreme Court. No one seems to know if he is a man with a mission or just an opportunistic politician. His current legal battle (which is not over, by the way) has drawn religious support Nation-Wide and with his suspension from the Bench (on a complaint filed by those fighting the "Ten Commandments") is now viewed as his launch platform for either the next U.S. Senate race or the Governorship of Alabama. It ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings and she is just getting warmed up where he is concerned! Thought I'd provide this background so you could see how complex this issue is and how it is rapidly becoming central to very many political contests.

OK, let me get back to the three points I wish to discuss: I have pretty well covered (1), let's go on to (2) "This practice/lifestyle if exercised in an unsafe manner has fatal results." There is no question but that the primary vector for AIDS is unprotected sexual activity by male homosexuals and male bisexuals. Peer reviewed research has shown that while it can be spread via heterosexual sexual activity, multiple exposure (great than 20) is normally required or anal sex is involved. (These were CDC sponsored studies so the evidence is there should someone question these statements.) This connection of AIDS and homosexuality is the true cause for abhorrence of homosexual practices. And a large segment of this group brags about "barebacking!". How can you expect anyone to accommodate those who insist it is their "Right" to spread disease and kill others as part of their "sexual freedom"? Let's go to my last point: (3) If there is to be accommodation of these practices/lifestyle by the majority of the population, the burden can not be greater than they can reasonably be expected to shoulder. First, the Gay community must get its act together and address the practice of unprotected sex. As for the "bareback" idiots, well, I have never been crazy enough to play Russian Roulette but if I did and bragged about it, I would expect that someone should do something about it. If necessary, mandatory commitment for mental treatment. The message the Gay community should be receiving is that we are quite tired of the public financial burden of treatments for avoidable AIDS. Perhaps if the funds spent for research on AIDS over these last twenty-five years had been spent on Cancer research, there would be a cure and my wife would still be living. Yes, that's a bitter personal thought but I'm part of the population and I have it. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, the Gay community has opposed and fought the applicability of all public health measures to contain and control infectious venereal diseases. By insisting upon a right of privacy which is not excused with any other venereal infection, they have avoided mandatory reporting, contact tracing and treatment. This must end if they are to accepted as full participants in our society. Another law which must be changed concerns the blood test required in most jurisdictions before a marriage license can be issued. Do you know what that blood test is for? It is a test for Syphilis and when it was mandated, Syphilis was a fatal disease. To receive a license for a marriage, union or partnership, that test must be changed to one for AIDS! Claims for special privilege to avoid public health laws must end. Last but most certainly not least, no matter if you believe it makes no sense, the Gay community can not demand that the majority of the population with religious beliefs must surrender them to a claim of Gay Rights. Those who are religious believe that marriage is a religious term, a religious ceremony which is sacred to them. Those of the Judeo-Christian faiths (with minor exceptions) have dogma which states that homosexual marriage is an impossibility, a sin and a violation of their religious belief. Agree or disagree, they have this right and they have scripture up to six thousand years old which states this. No solution to this social problem is possible unless and until it is clear that no religion will be forced to perform a gay marriage against their dogma and tradition. In addition, no holy scripture or quotation therefrom can be defined as "Hate Speech" as such a definition would be contrary to our traditions of Free Speech as well as Freedom of Religion. There may be exceptional circumstances such as that prohibiting yelling "fire" in a theater which could be found to limit these freedoms, but it would have to be a special case to do so. Our democratic society and civilization has the strength to accommodate this minority among us as we have done with others so often in our past, this is the source of our strength and vitality. We must just decide to do so.

SirRiff has no justification because none exists for his contentions. From the very beginning, President Bush has made it plain that the Sheriff has left the building. We are not in the Nation building business - not if the only connection to America is that someone wishes us to be the policeman! In the matter of Liberia, there is a tenuous connection which is forcing President Bush to assent to American involvement. Candidly, much of Africa has descended into barbarism no other description could fit the situation. I believe all of the assets and troops of the first World could be swallowed into the Continent with little or no resolution of its conflicts. Long term, it may be a longer battle than that against terrorism. Forget about calls from Old Europe and the UN for our involvement and disregard our bleeding heart elite and their copious tears for the poor Liberians, none of these motivated our involvement. There exists a vague feeling among Americans that as we were involved in the creation of Liberia, it remains some sort of a B@stard step-child for whom we bear some family responsibility. Perhaps the fact that Taylor and his gang are "Americos" and are descendants of the founders also adds weight to this feeling. To this must be added the racial politics of America today. Bluntly, the usual suspects among radical Black politicians were claiming the reason President Bush did not want to get involved was because it involved the rescue of "Blacks". This may not make much sense to Canadians and it may not be logical but in American Racial Politics, it is a fairly high card to play with a potential to become a major issue in the 2004 election. The form and substance of our involvement is consistent with prior statements from President Bush; those that created the problem must participate in its solution. Many of the members of ECOWAS have participated in the trouble making in the area and, in fact, two of them sponsor and support the two "Rebel" forces, LURD and MODEL. We are providing logistics and backup while they are forced to clean up their own mess. How else can they be forced to stop doing this?

Thank you, SirRiff, for some hard facts. If I have processed the information you provided correctly, we are at a point where we lack conclusive evidence and while there are indicators that genetics is a factor, there is nothing yet discovered which would allow anyone to assert this is anything but an open question. Is that a fair and accurate recap? I hope I am still here as more and more of our DNA is decoded simply because there are many questions such as this which interest me and with greater knowledge, who knows how high we can reach. As we learn more, we usually do a better job of living together and that gives me hope, as well. My focus on this matter may be askew but is rather pragmatic. (1) Somewhere from three to ten percent of our population engage in a practice/lifestyle different from that of the majority. Defining this activity as deviant is part of the problem, not part of the solution. (2) This practice/lifestyle if exercised in an unsafe manner has fatal results. (3) If there is to be accommodation of these practices/lifestyle by the majority of the population, the burden can not be greater than they can reasonably be expected to shoulder. Assuming for our discussion that percentages have validity, nine to thirty million of us engage in sexual activities different from the majority. Most religions define this activity as immoral but so what; I submit that at least thirty million of us not only covet our neighbor's wife, we engage in sexual activity with her as often as we can. Our population as a whole, engages in immoral activities all the time and I do not remember any scripture which states that the Ten Commandments are listed in order of importance. For the most part, questions and violations of moral laws should be judged as matters of faith and the proper venue for this is our churches and places of worship. But I did say for the most part, didn't I. This raises the question of what I call our Compact of Civilization and Democracy. To allow ourselves to live in something other than an armed enclosure and with something higher than the law of the jungle, we have among us agreed to a number of public laws applicable to everyone. Because we have chosen to live in a democracy, our laws are not static but constantly evolve to changing circumstances. As our knowledge has grown, we have redefined what is acceptable among us, what can be allowed without destruction of our compact. A very essential part of this compact is that the majority will accommodate minorities, those who are different; indeed, we have discovered that much of the validity of our civilization comes from our differences and that we are stronger for them. Public Laws against private adult homosexual activities no longer have a place in our civilized society. Few if any public laws remain or are enforced concerning (private) fornication by unmarried people or concerning adultery, none should remain concerning homosexual activity. But note this applies to private activities by adults. I've got to go now but I'll return to this later today.

Scotch, I really think you are missing the point of all this. Bluntly, the vast majority of us could really care less what gay people do unless and until it infringes upon our lives. But keep this in mind - for years now in American as in Canada, we have seen claims of "Civil Rights" and "Charter Rights" twisted and abused and pushed far beyond anything we consider reasonable. We witness a Sask. Human Rights Commission finding that mere publication of biblical quotes constitutes an infringement upon "Gay" Rights. We witness pending legislation that defines our religious texts as "Hate Speech". We witness that in Ireland, with much the same "Hate Speech" Laws, the threat that mere publication of a statement from the Pope in a Church Newsletter will be prosecuted as "Hate Speech" and we see the handwriting on the wall. We of all people remember the meaning of "Mene, mene, teckel, upharsin" - it does not have to be in letters of fire! Three percent or ten percent of our population, and their political allies, are not going to destroy our religions - over our dead bodies, that's how serious an issue this has become. This is not a "plays well with others" issue, this is an attack upon our core values which will not stand and we will not suffer it. This will lead to civil disobedience, civil strife and , bluntly, outright violence. Let us not go there!

Lost, remembering that this is a family site, I am attempting to be delicate but rectal sex kills. Evolution or God designed our bodies so that the anus is an exit, not an entrance. That is hard cold fact, not fiction, not a judgment and most especially, not a condemnation. Yes, both males and females can have an anal climax as distinct from the more usual one but I do find it difficult to have much sympathy for those today who engage in unprotected, suicidal sexual practices. We have known for almost a full generation now that the primary infection vector for AIDS is unprotected anal sex. Male homosexuals continue to engage in this unsafe practice to the point that I now consider it evolution in action. Anyone this stupid and suicidal does not have my sympathy. Could, would gay marriage, unions or partnerships change this - I doubt it. Promiscuous is promiscuous and human nature is human nature; anyone who believes that marriage is going to change a man is allowing their optimism to exceed their intelligence. I don't think this is true where women are concerned but I'm from Mars, what do I know. Scotch, all love is beautiful, to be nourished and cherished but there is six thousand years of religious tradition in most religions which do not allow homosexual marriages. That is also cold hard fact. Yes, there are some religions where dogma allows such marriages and no one is saying that they do not have the right to perform such ceremonies. What we are saying is that if the dogma of our faith does not allow such, we will not allow or accept the State or some Human Rights Commission telling us our faith must change and we must perform such services. I spoke with a Priest recently and he confirmed my thought that performance of such a service would de-consecrate a Catholic Church and he added something I had not considered. He stated that if he performed such a service under a Court Order, he would no longer consider himself an "Ordained Priest" of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in live and let live, condemn the sin and not the sinner and I retain little of the religion in which I was raised. To say I am only "lapsed" is to be generous but even so, it is my choice as to the importance of religion in my life and that choice is as important to me as the choice of a sexual partner is to someone else! Do what you will but stay out of my church and my religion.

If I somehow indicated that the U.S. was leaving this matter to others, that was not my intent and it is not factual. I suspect an account of our efforts would be characterized as "hyperactive", to say the least. We have played the "Japan" card - to Asia, that brings back nightmares of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere of WW II. To Russia, visions of the "Northern Resource Area" as the natural resources of Far Eastern/Siberian Russia so invitingly close to Japan, are sometimes called. We have played the "Free Trade" Card - to China, now addicted to American Dollars and Western Trade. Termination of trade with America would cause just a few problems in China, very explosive ones. In South Korea, the message is beginning to be understood - when the current President played his "Schroder Tune" to gain election, he removed all restraints on America. We can and would pull American Forces out of South Korea in a minute excepting only the tactical advantage of having boots on the ground to hold a bridgehead should we wish a land invasion of North Korea. The younger generation of South Korea have been living in a fantasy world where Americans have some obligation to defend them - against their wishes! Their new President has been given a reality check. One, just one anti-american occurrence which catches the attention of the American Public and we will depart under such circumstances as to make it plain that we could care less if North Korea invades. Candidly, from a real-politik perspective, that could be our best option! We can live with a unified "Korea" as we live with Vietnam - so long as his nuclear weapons and seed stock were picked up by the Chinese. All of South Korea vs. a nuke in America? No Contest! I regret that there is tepid support for this option in Washington. Trust, please! In God we trust, plus those few who put their lives on the line and stood shoulder to shoulder with us as we fought. No others need apply.

Scotchneat, I suspect your heart is in the right place but you really do have a bit to learn. First, Hugo's posts are among the highest quality on this Forum. If you were not so involved in this discussion you would note that. Next, if Native Canadians have such a lower life expectancy, I doubt the cause is self-destructive sexual practices. If you believe marital status if going to change a man, either hetero or homo, then your optimism exceeds your intelligence. Last, if you do wish to find a solution to this issue, cease using the term "marriage". There are six thousand years of religious tradition inherent in the concept of marriage and no-one, government or gay is going to interfere or change our religions. Enable Civil Unions or Civil Partnerships and work to have them passed in each jurisdiction but the term "marriage" belongs to religion, leave our religions alone!