Neal.F.

Anyone who practices anal sex is placing themselves at risk. However, 90% of homosexuals preactice anal sex, while among heterosexuals, the number is much, much lower. Promiscuity whether straight or gay, increases the risks. However, it is a fact that homosexuals are far more promiscuous tham the vast majority of straights. Condoms are a sham. and they should not be available in high school bathrooms. Students should be expecetd to adhere to certain standards of behaviour when on campus, and face discipline should they fail to observe them. Condoms may be an effective method of birth control, but the HIV viris is small enough to pass through the pores in a latex condom. Now we must revisit anal sex vs vaginal sex. Rectums are made from different types of cells than vaginas. One is meant for the reception of a penis while the other is for the excretion of waste, The cells cannot withstnd the friction, and this resulys in bleeding , allowing diseases easy access direstly into the bloodstream. Combine that with fecal matter and you are asking for trouble. I do not believe sex ed should be taught in schools. It's a paren'ts responsibility to teach that to children. I should not have to submit my childfen to some liberal's idea of sex-ed. It always boils down to whose agenda will be taught. I don't need leftist social workers coming to school to inform my kids how to get the pill or an abortion, without having to inform dear old mom & dad. I think promiscuity is being encouraged by the gay crowd that controls things down in Hollweird. Misery loves company.. The homosexuals are seeking allies, and are doing so by pitching the message that promiscuity is fun and that "everybody's doing it" in order to create a culture of sexual libertines who will undoubtedly suffer like they do, so they can point to promiscuous straights and say that homosexuality is no different. The numbers don't lie. I have William gairdner's "War against the Family" in front of me. It says: According to Gebhard & Johnson's "The Kinsey data-corrected" 70% of homsexuals admit to haveing sex just once with over half their partners. Bell & Weinberg report that 28% of homosexuals engaged in sodomy with over 1000 partnes in a lifetime, 43% with over 500. Other studied report 20-106 new partners per year is the average.One Homosexual reported in "Gay report" that he had been with over 4000, cataloguing 2-3 per week, and 10-12 each time he went to the bathhouse. A Bristish survey appearing in "The British Journal of Sexual medicine" reported 2 London Homosexuals who hasd over 500 partners in one hear and twelve who estimated 5000 in their lifetimes. When a heterosexual has 20-30 partners in a lifetime they are considered promiscuous. Oh and BTW, when AIDS hit hard the first time in the '80's many homosexuals started reducing the number of partners they had...f down to a mere 50 from 70 per year.

"You can already see the seeds of this, now turned saplings" Yes Hugo, and I think it's high time we did some serious clear-cutting, before tree-huggers like Svend and his NDP boys spike the trees.

You are reading it absolutely correctly. Just ask all the AIDS patients whether homosexual behaviiour is destructive or not. Ask a doctor who does not kneel at tha altar of political correctness.. He'll tell you about gay bowel disease, schistosomiasis (aka flukes), having to surgically repair torn anuses that have resulted in incontinence, the mental ilness that is born of homosexual baggage.... Ask the family members of homosexuals as they watch them die of AIDS, or suicide, another common cause of homosexual death. The average age of death for a male homosexual is 42 when AIDS is not factored in. When it is, it drops to 39. The average lifespan of the acverage man in North America is 78. Try to tell me a behaviour that cuts a life in half is not destructive, and should be affirmed. Ask women who have been infected by partners who live the double life...... Who have delivered HIV+ infected children unknowingly. Ask the person lured into the lifestyle and gets AIDS the "first time" from someone who put his pleasure before the safety of others...... Yes homosexual behaviour hurts the practitioner, as well as those around them. Very similar to alcoholism and gambling, and drugs... is it not? And yes, whether you like it or not, faith based programs have been far and away the most successful ways to break with any destructive behaviours.

Equal protection under the law is one thing, and homosexuals have always had that... as people. What they do in what is supposedly, the privacy of their bedrooms (which they seem to want to thrust out in the open for all to see) has nothing to do with protection under the law.. If somebody wanted to beat up a homosexual, then the same penalty would apply to someone who wanted to lbeat up anyone else. It's called the assault law. If they want civil unions, I am not in favour of that, but it is something most people could live with....grudingly, but why do they have to have the word marriage? The answer is simple. The radical activist are out to smash the three monotheistic "patriarchal" (as they call them) religions, which have always stood foursquare against homosexual behaviour. They don't, for the most part have any interest in marriage except to destroy it. As as for choosing their country over their church, let me first explain that their Church represents a system of values that they believe were handed down by God Himself. So it is less loyalty to the organization of the church over the organization tehy call their country. It is applying the beliefs they believe came from the creator, for the benefit of mankind, to make the country into a half decent place, rather than the cesspool it has become since that maniac Trudeau came to power. And as for you statement of choosing church over country, one must ultimately be loyal to one's set of beliefs which if they are of any value, will not be compromised to fit the whims of the times....

Actually, the Vatican statement stated that the MPs would be doing their country a grave disservice by not standing up for the time tested instutution of marriage. They are asking the MPs not to choose their church OR their country, but asking them to choose BOTH. Conversely, to do the opposite and support gay marriage, they are betraying (Yes, betraying) both.

Riddle me this, Littlefinger. Do you think that the Pope has the right to remind these MPs of where the church to which many of them claim to bleong stands? or do people of fath have to keep their mouths shut? How do you like the way Groups like EGALE lobby politicians to attempt to sway their votes? How does EGALE Speak for the values of the Canadian people to whom you say MPs are accountable, while the Roman Catholic church does not? Is participation in civic life open only to those left wing secular groups with whom you agree?

Clear cut. It is the sole discretion of any private organization to define the terms of its own membership. If one doesn't like it, they can start your own group, instead of trying to force their way into a group that doesn't want them. And as for Jesus & Mary Magdalene, you are absolutely correct. We must respect them as individuals , but not condone their behaviour. they may resent it when you speak up, but you are making them face the facts rather than placing them at greater risk to do harm to themselves and others by saying "eveything's cool! I'm OK, You're OK!"

Now onto the points about homosexuality. I will preface my comments by saying that I am speaking from first hand knowledge of the vice to which I am about to compare homosexual behaviour. I think all hands can agree that abusive drinking, ie: misuse of alcohol, is destructive, harmful behaviour. Yet many people who suffer from this, ie: alcoholics. Many alcoholics will tell you, in similar fashion to homosexuals that they "can't help it" that they are "wired differently" "Born that way" etc. I can tell you that all of this might be true. In my own case, I can tell you that from the very first time I drank, I drank to excess. Whether this was nature or nurture, I cannot say for certain. What I do know is that it was destructive behaviour. Harmful to myself, hurtful to others who knew me to watch me behave in that manner, and potentially destructive to other people . Homosexuality qualifies on all counts as well. Destructive behaviour must not be rewarded or "affirmed" . You are not "building self-esteem" or being "tolerant" or doing the person who practices destructive behaviours any favours. They need to find a way to deal decisively, and permanently with their "thorn in the side" In the case of a problem drinker, they must abandon the old behaviours and attitudes, and replace them with new ones. Homosexuals can and must do the same. The most successful treatment programs for these behaviours (whether drinking, gambling, drugs overeating or sexual behaviour) are God based 12 step style programs. I known I will have some people disputing that statement, but AA is time tested, as is Gamblers Anonymous, and even Cocaine Anonymous, and Narcotics anonymous have had successful track records in their much briefer histories. Faith based organizations have sprung up to deal with obsessive sexual behaviours (sex addiction) and specifically homosexuality (such as Courage RC & Exodus International) . Both organizations have helped many people emerge successfully from the homosexual lifestyle. Do temptations still exist? I would imagine so, since my mouth still waters when I see some Coronaq and a bowl of limes on a table , however, I must resist ACTING ON the temptation , knowing full well the pricetag attached... Trust me, you don't do this alone. You do it with the help of your higher power, which for me is the God of the Bible. I have gone into this, because it had to be said that we , as a society can't go about rewarding wrong, wrong behaviour. we define the term "wrong" to mean any behaviour that does harm to oneself and others. I gave you my story because I wanted to make it clear that I am not pointing out the log in my brother's eye, without firts having sought to remove the one in my eye, and to make it clear that I have a first hand understanding of the nature of the beast and am not prepared to make excuses for it, nor allow others to make the same puked-up excuses.

Couple of things.... Freemasons accept non-christians... It is atheists and agnostics they do not accept. To become a mason, you must believe in God, the Supreme being. In fact , many Christians say you cannot be a Christian and a Mason at the same time, since Christ is not part of the Godhead that one must believe in. Zoroastrians do accept converts, under certain conditions only: ie: if a Zor. man marries a non-zor woman, she can become zoroastrian, as will their children be. In fact the non-zor woman would not have to convert in order for the child to be a zor. I know such a family. However, in the case of a Zor woman who marries a non-zor man, their children will not be Zor. as the religion, as oposed to Judaism, goes through the line of the father

Do I have to spell it out for you? Sure the legislation will say that religious denominations will not be required to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but as sure as God made little green apples, The day after the gay marriage bill becomes law, a homosexual couple will walk into an evangelical or Catholic Church and DEMAND to be married. When it is explained to them that the denomination in question does not recognize such unions as marriage, they will pick up their cellphones anc call their lawyers, who will file a discrimination suit, which, i assure you , has already been prepared. The Liberal courts will then say "You're right. Any denomination who will not "marry" homosexual couples is guilty of discrimination, and is required to perform the ceremony". Make no mistake about. their in society...forever. By going aftyer gay marriage, they are trying to destroy one of the church's most important sacraments, by making it utterly worthless. And Bill C-250 , though it says it will not intrude on churches, trust me, once it becomes law, the gay lobby will file suit to have the Bible and other religious texts that speak negatively against homosexuality as hate literature. And I think the courts will agree. Remember two things: We no longer have a democracy in this country. We are now ruled by politically appointed judges. The other thing to remember is that 10 years ago, anyone talking about gay marriage would have been considered way out in the firnges of left field...on the warning track, in foul territory... wasn't it only 5 years ago that Parliament reaffirmed the definition of marriage as being between a union of one man, and one woman, not currently married to another, and not more closely related than first cousins? Bearing in mind the above, book banning may seem inconceivable today, but 5 years from now, we may very well be asked to turn in our Bibles, Qu'rans, Torahs etc. And no doubt the government will create an expensive bureaucracy to carry it out.

As for religious institutions retaining the right not to perform same sex "marriages" , I am sure that will be in the bill, however, I can guarantee you that the gay lobby is preparing RIGHT NOW, to take some evangelical or Catholic church to court on grounds of discrimination, over this, and mark my words, with the courts stacked in their favour as they are, their chances of winning are very good. I think this wil be issue that gets people going a,d may even tople thois Liberal regime. It could well be the trump card that Jean Chretien is playing in a last ditch bid to stop Martin frombeing PM....at lease being ELECTED PM. The CA should really start making hay on this issue, and make it THE defining issue of the next election, and set his own terms of battle, rather than let Martin fight on his own turf. THe gay lobby has this whole thing well thought out. the goal in all of this is not to actually have marriage, but to destroy one of the most fundamental pillars of Canadian society and the Church which they see as an oppressor to their sexual liberty and they want to destroy this swoern enemy of their lifestyle so it never threatens them again. In fact, conspracy theorist that I sometimes am, I would not be surprised if most of the allegatoions of wrongdoing being made against priests are actuall being made by the gay lobby with the destruction of the church in mind. When the accusation of molestation is made, it is enough to ruin a man whether he is guilty or innocent.

Have not western LIBERAL traditions created the mess we're in? In days gone by liberal was an honourable word, butv in the current vernacular, it is a worse failure than Islamo-fascism, since it has totally gutted the moral fabric of western civilization.

Command economies do not work, and sweatshops are not the answer either. I am not in favour of globalism, and Afrioca is one of the reasons for that. The last thing these people need are big corporations establishing sweatshops and exploitive labour practices to get things rolling. the result will be all the money concentrated in very few (politically favoured) hands. What is needed is government that will respect the people, and get out of the way as much as possible in order to create an environment where private entrepreneurs can open up and thrive. Let people open up small businesses, and have unregulated farms. The countries will soon be feeding themselves and producing the basic amenities of life. They will start small, but what they build for themselves will be far better than what they currently have. Most importantly they will aquire belief in themselves as acapable of taking control of their destinies for the sake of themselves and their families. Eventually, markets for foreign goods will develop, and the foreign goods will be paid for by newly created earned wealth, as opposed to handouts from the taxpayers of other countries. Now as i stated yesterday, one of the main problems are foreign powers meddling in the internal affairs of these countries, fighting civil wars through mercenaries to gain control of the diamonds and other such resources. This is the root of many of the political problems there. They pit tribe against tribe in order to get control of governments to get the diamonds. This must be stopped above all. How? I haven't figured that one out yet. According to national Geographic there is a huge reservoir of fres water underneath the Shara, which if brought to the surface , could turn that part of Africa into one of the most fertile areas in the world. The cost is of course enormous (Estimated at over 50 Billion) but when you think that some countries spend that much, or more on arms in a year, you can see that this project would be feasable. However, It would be fought tooth an nail by large food corporations who do not want the commensurate fall in food prices that would ensue.

Actually, Mod, it was good for some people: The poops in power! :angry:

The Libertarian Party was the first one out there with the idea of recall , back in the '80's. Reform grabbed it and ran with it later (Along wioth a good many members of the Libertarian Party!) It is needed badly in this country. Trudeau could have been nipped in the bud back in '69 after introducing the Omnibus bill, or the war measures act, or the NEP. There would have been no trouble getting the signatures, and canada would be a far better place today. the mistake of Bob Rae (Who I believe came to power much to his own surprise as part of a protest vote to get rid of the arrogant Liberal Peterson) could have been corrected.

Africa needs Distributism. That is the economic system devised by GK Chesterton which focussed on private enterprise, in the sense of people being encouraged to go out and be entrepreneurs. It is places high value on the family as the basic social unit, and emphasizes the 'family business". Chesterton said that " the problem with capitalism , is that it produces so few capitalists" It also emphasizes FAMILY VALUES (including abstinence and monogamy, and of course belief in God). That is what it is going to take to rebuild a country torn apart by dictatorships, disease, disaster and grinding poverty brought on by the above, not to mention WAR, which has been driven by western interests who support armies which will throw Africa's resources their way (ie: Diamonds). If the new economies start small, without the threat of war, people can build up to a point where they can feed themselves quickly, and have an acceptable standard of living within a generation, and may even become a beacon of hope for the west, which is increasingly becoming jaded with Capitalism and socialism. Click here for a synopsis on Distributism.

Would that such safeguards had been established in this country which has been turned from a once proud and free land that could have challenged the US on the freedom and prosperity scale, but which, thanks to the Trudeau legacy, whose torch is carried now by Crouton and the Martin fraud, Canada has become a snivelling, whining little nanny state where elites and unelected judges write law on a whim, overriding centuries of tried and true guiding principles, leaving the people no say in the matter, nor recourse to remove them outside of an election... which will do no damn good anyway, since the media is concentrated in the hands on one rich baron, who happens to be a dyed in the wool Liberal. Canada needs to have its own "Boston Tea Party"..

I am biassed toward the right, and have no shame in admitting it. IN Canada, however, I dispute your claimn that there is an equal and opposite effect from the right. The Candian media is overwhelmingly liberal. Most of the few "conservatives" left out there have lost the right to call themselves conservatives. (Most) . Many formerly staunch conservatives have watered down their views in exchange for a paycheque signed by the Aspers. When you get the likes Barbara Yaffe coming out in favour of gay marriage, and gushing over Paul Martin's iminent rise to power, then I don't see how you can claim that the right has much of a voice in the Canadian media, which, for the most part is FIRMLY in the hands of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Actually, it's Mr. Hoy..... and I do agree with you that too much weight is ascribed to the pundits, the vast majority of whom are liberals> (It's a vast LEFT wing conspiracy!) If people stopped reading their drivel, and thought for themselves, listening to what comes out of polits mouths, instead of falling for spin, there'd never be a Liberal government again.

As do all religions. Not just monotheistic ones.

Religions themselves do not carry out atrocities ....Individuals acting on their own, in the NAME of a religion do.

Mod, you are speaking of the way things were before Vatican II. Now the RCC URGES its adherents to read their Bibles, daily. This should be done in light of the catechism. The mass being said in latin (it was only the Eucharist. The liturgy of the word was always in the local language) was not a problem for most people. One thing baout which there can be no differing interpretation, is the view that the Eucharist becomes the actual flsh and blood of Christ.

Get outside of San Fran, Oakland and L.A, and you have alot of real conservatives. Trouble is the Dumbocruds have the numbers in the aforemnetioned population centres and ruin it for everyone. Gray Davis , in addition to his complete incompetence also affixes his signature to any pro-homosexual and abortion bill that crosses his desk. To add to his troubles, Davis who calls himself a catholic, has been asked by his Bishop to refrain from receiving communion until he brings his views in line with Church doctrine.

But alas, he can never be President, having been born in Austria.

I agree with Craig and FastNed. Crouton and the Liberals made Canada a stench in the American's nostrils with their ACTIVE opposition, rivalled only by Old Europe. the presumed saviour Martin will not change that either. I mean, how can he, with POS like CArolyn Parrish & co still smirking from the government benches? Martin is also very pro-UN and pro-old Europe as well. More of the same old same old. Ne driver for the getaway car (A Citroen, or Renault, possibly a BMW) . Only electing a Canadian Alliance government will change things and get us on the path to our old relationship with the only true friend Canada had/has (I'm no longer sure) in the world. A PC government might also be acceptable, given the support shown by some MPs. (Barring the highly unlikely even of a Howard Dean win for the presidency, in which case, the US ceases to be a superpower, and relinquishes what's left of its sovereignty to King Kofi and Mauurice Strong and the UN)