Gay Marriage

[angustia]

Kurtz' article regarding the "slippery slide down the slope"...the polygamy and polyamorists....is not far-fetched.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/pr...938&R=78081E1AD

For me, it's not a question of "what we will lose"....but what worms will come out of the can we open. And once they start marching out....there's no stopping them.

Please read the additional posts in the other topic Nambla and the Gay Rights movement. It includes, among other things articles and statements from gay magazines and a pedophile group.

Way back orgies, wife-swapping and one-night stands were almost unheard of until the sexual revolution had made it mainstream and common. Now we also have "f**k buddies".

We know that the indoctrination of our children had already begun in schools, in picture books etc..,...that the teachings of new lifestyles being bisexual, transexual, sado-masochism, etc. is just normal. So why not polygamy and polyamorists?

Child pornography ain't so shocking anymore...and probably on its way to becoming mainstream ...and perhaps next will be bestiality and authentic snuff films and necrophilia. Oh well, everybody got their "rights".

I too, think that there's no stopping gay marriages based on the social climate we now have. They're all gonna come.

[djpark121]

I know right. If gay people can get married, why shouldn't other types of people. Liberals are afraid to acknowledge this fact, so they dismiss it as an unlikely outcome. Well, to conservative eyes, gay marriage was never perceived to be a likely outcome.

[Black Dog]

For me, it's not a question of "what we will lose"....but what worms will come out of the can we open. And once they start marching out....there's no stopping them.

The "slippery slope" argument is absurd. As I pointed out earlier, there have been forms of gay marriage in other countries for many years and no one has called for leagalized polygamy, bestiality, etc.

I also find it interesting that, were polygamy legalized, the people who would benefit would be religious extremists who believe in the Biblically-sanctioned practice of polygamy, people who would also oppose gay marriage.

Huh.

Please read the additional posts in the other topic Nambla and the Gay Rights movement. It includes, among other things articles and statements from gay magazines and a pedophile group.

Last I checked, pedophilia was against the law. Homosexuality is not. There are enough existing statutes and precedent that the "can of worms" would remain shut even if gays are afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. Your continued attempts to paint pedophilia as a gay issue (erronerously, I might add: horribly biased "research" from the FRC notwthstanding), are a mere distraction from the main issue: equal rights.

Way back orgies, wife-swapping and one-night stands were almost unheard of until the sexual revolution had made it mainstream and common. Now we also have "f**k buddies".

Bollocks. These things have existed for a loooong time (orgies? What's up, ancient Rome?) but North America's Judeo-Christian, Puritanical, post-Victorian climate of sexual repression just pushed them under the covers. Not that it matters anyway: what goes on in the bedroom between two (or more) informed, consenting adults is no one's business but their own.

[Bushmustgo]

Angustia,

I am assuming that you are a female. If that is the case, woman were not allowed to vote not too long ago.

Perhaps now you can put 2 & 2 together.

[angustia]

Your continued attempts to paint pedophilia as a gay issue (erronerously, I might add: horribly biased "research" from the FRC notwthstanding), are a mere distraction from the main issue: equal rights.

How can you say horribly biased? It doesn't matter where the articles were posted....what matters is the content and and how the claims were backed up by the writer of the articles. Sources were given in most said articles...all detailed. Just the research finidngs, if you read all the way to the end you'll see all the sources given.

My attempts to prove the co-relation of pedophilia with homosexuality....is a matter of concern. To me, the issue of "equal rights" is the mere distraction from the dark reality that the lefties are trying to sweep under the rug.

How can it be biased information when the pedophile website IPCE itself provided an insight...as shown on those excerpts from their own newsletter!

IPCE confirmed what was alleged by the other articles...when almost half of ILGA's members refused to sign the anti-pedophile declaration!

The Gay magazine gave the news about encroaching into our school system....indoctrinating school kids, which according to the queer teacher ought to be started among the very young. The "re-programming" of our children is not just to accept homosexuality. They are being indoctrinated to accept as normal all kinds of sexuality! The gay magazine and the latest news only confirmed what other articles are alleging. And the confirmation came right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

The Gay Community is divided, obviously. Some are determinedly supportive of pedophile groups....and are laying this groundwork to open the way for pedophile rights...and other rights by ANY sexual orientation.

[Black Dog]

How can you say horribly biased? It doesn't matter where the articles were posted....what matters is the content and and how the claims were backed up by the writer of the articles. Sources were given in most said articles...all detailed. Just the research finidngs, if you read all the way to the end you'll see all the sources given.

The FRC are regarded as purveyors of idealogically-motivated junk science. Paul Cameron's credibility has been resoundingly called into question by mainstream psychological and sociological organizations.

Here's some background:

Meet Paul Cameron.

Paul Cameron bio and fact sheet

So yeah: they are biased.

How can it be biased information when the pedophile website IPCE itself provided an insight...as shown on those excerpts from their own newsletter!

IPCE confirmed what was alleged by the other articles...when almost half of ILGA's members refused to sign the anti-pedophile declaration

Does the IPCE represent the majority or even a sizeable precentage of the gay community? How many members are there? How are they funded? Are they a real force in the movement or just a fringe group?

My attempts to prove the co-relation of pedophilia with homosexuality....is a matter of concern. To me, the issue of "equal rights" is the mere distraction from the dark reality that the lefties are trying to sweep under the rug.

And to me this hand-wringing about pedophilia and the sancity of marriage is a distraction from the dark reality of the Talibanesque religiou right seeking to impose their agenda of hate and fear on society.

[djpark121]

The "slippery slope" argument is absurd. As I pointed out earlier, there have been forms of gay marriage in other countries for many years and no one has called for leagalized polygamy, bestiality, etc.

Who knows what can happen in the U.S. After all, it was the first true democratic nation, where all types of people are supposed to get equal rights...

Last I checked, pedophilia was against the law. Homosexuality is not

.

Of course homosexuality isn't against the law. Gay marriage is, which is the issue being discussed at present.

[angustia]

The FRC are regarded as purveyors of idealogically-motivated junk science. Paul Cameron's credibility has been resoundingly called into question by mainstream psychological and sociological organizations.

And what is considered mainstream psychological and sociological organizations' credibility had also been called to question!

If sites like FRC, etc are branded as "purveyors of idealogically-motivated junk science",....then the same can also be said of all your sources!

So it all boils down to providing proofs that these said articles....not the sites that posted them....are based on credible foundations.

So far, almost all articles from the sources I posted that made claims had backed up their claims by naming and listing all sources of data and information gathered. Isn't that what it's like to do crdible researches?

Does the IPCE represent the majority or even a sizeable precentage of the gay community? How many members are there? How are they funded? Are they a real force in the movement or just a fringe group?

The point is they have proven that there is indeed a co-relation between homosexuality and pedophilia!

The point is that they confirmed the UN allegation about ILGA....and UN's allegation about ILGA is thus proven as facts!

The point is there is a valid cause for concern...and the real agenda of the Gay Rights Movement is called into question.

The point is, the real issue is about the possible consequences that will inevitably happen once a precedent happens....and that "Equal Rights" is just being used to distract from the real issue at hand! That's why lefties are throwing the "women's rights"....and the black movement...into the pot! And of course religion is being used to fan the flames of fear that this issue is all about religion and that all religious fanatics are out to impose a talibanesque society!

[Black Dog]

And what is considered mainstream psychological and sociological organizations' credibility had also been called to question!

By whom?

If sites like FRC, etc are branded as "purveyors of idealogically-motivated junk science",....then the same can also be said of all your sources!

So it all boils down to providing proofs that these said articles....not the sites that posted them....are based on credible foundations.

So far, almost all articles from the sources I posted that made claims had backed up their claims by naming and listing all sources of data and information gathered. Isn't that what it's like to do crdible researches?

The FRC uses flawed, scientifically unsound methadologie sin conducting its "research". So the "proofs" are not credible. You can cite all the data in the world, but if the data itself is flawed so are your conclusions. By all apperances, it seems the FRC molds its data to suit its pre-conceived conclusions. Junk science at its worst.

The point is they have proven that there is indeed a co-relation between homosexuality and pedophilia!

A basic principle of science: correlation does not equal causation. these conclusions also fly in the face of most credible data which indicates the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual (whether they molest children of the same sex or not).

And of course religion is being used to fan the flames of fear that this issue is all about religion and that all religious fanatics are out to impose a talibanesque society!

If anyone is "fanning the flames of fear", its those who would argue that simply extending marriage rights to a small minority of the population will lead to everything from legalized pedophilia to turning schools into gay recruitment camps! Why not throw in a rain of toads while you're at it...

[Bushmustgo]

What a sad correlation to try to link pedophiliacs with homosexuals only.

Didn't this guy in California who just killed his children father children with some of his own daughters.

That's pedophilia and incest...and he was heterosexual.

According to Angustia's logic, let's ban all heterosexual marriages because a heterosexual committed pedophilia and incest!

[Black Dog]

According to Angustia's logic, let's ban all heterosexual marriages because a heterosexual committed pedophilia and incest!

Woot!

[angustia]

According to Angustia's logic, let's ban all heterosexual marriages because a heterosexual committed pedophilia and incest!

Nope.

I say, "let's not hastily open the can until we know what we are really getting into."

My argument does not stand on those stats and research findings alone. They are heavily supported

by the UN allegations...newsletter from a pedophile group...and related article about the encroachment into our school system, which was published by a Gay newspaper itself.

There is more to this than just a simple granting of gay marriage rights. It's about the strings attached.

Once we've bestowed a "right"...and stitch it into our society's fabric....it will be impossible to change things around. Hence, we better make sure before we dole out these so-called "rights".

[Bushmustgo]

Being gay is not a crime, just like being a woman or being black was not a crime when they were debating whether to let them vote and have equal rights!

America's about making progress, freedoms and choices.

Not allowing gays to marry/ civil union reflects none of these; therefore, very un-American!

Besides, Bush is just trying to rally up his radical religious extremists (kind of like Bin Laden and Co.) for support since it is an election year.

[Black Dog]

Once we've bestowed a "right"...and stitch it into our society's fabric....it will be impossible to change things around. Hence, we better make sure before we dole out these so-called "rights".

Thing is, rights as we know them are not ours to bestow on whoever we deem fit. They are universal and unalienable. One could, I suppose, argue whther the right to marry is a basic human right. However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Given that one segment of the population is entitled to certain benefits by virtue of being married, it stands to reason (and the Constitution) that said benefits be available to all. (Ideally, married couples shouldn't receive any special benefits, but taht's a differnt battle.)

[angustia]

Thing is, rights as we know them are not ours to bestow on whoever we deem fit. They are universal and unalienable.

I agree with you. It's just in our present social climate....every given privileges are deemed as "rights" and twisted about to mean and are eventually demanded and fought for as "rights".

[Alliance Fanatic]

Say why stop at gay marriage, lets make sure that all of the values that our ancestors built, and died for is corrupted. Dont stop at gay marriage, let adults have sex with 10 year olds, who has the right to tell a person they cant have sex with a child, or possess child pornography, its none of your business. Why not allow incest, after all its none of your business if a guy wants to have sexual intercourse with his kids. Why dont we legalize prostitution, its none of your business what other people do for a living, and how about bestiality, if a guy wants to have sex with a dog, why not, after all its none of your business.

This is all sarcastic

Laws were made to show the morality of a nation, if a nation believed that cocaine was bad for a society, we outlawed it, as well as some sexual practices. So once we say lets go ahead and allow same sex marriage, the we become a society were everything goes, and we represent more of a sewer than anything else.

[Black Dog]

Laws were made to show the morality of a nation, if a nation believed that cocaine was bad for a society, we outlawed it, as well as some sexual practices. So once we say lets go ahead and allow same sex marriage, the we become a society were everything goes, and we represent more of a sewer than anything else

It's pretty clear, Fanatic, that your problem isn't with gay marriage so much as it is with gay people. You obviously are uncomfortable (to put in mildly) with the idea of conseual relationships between individuals of the same gender. Well, in case you haven't noticed, Fanatic, consesuel gay sex is legal. Sodomy laws were struck down a long time ago (no doubt accompanied by much the same teeth-gnashing and wailing about how such an action would bring about the downfall of soceity). Well, society is still here and all the stuff you mention (incest, bestiality and all the othe red herrings you constantly trot out) is not relevant to the issue of same sex marriage. It's simple fear-mongering, unsupported by facts.

[Hawk]

Just some food for though:

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/billc250.html

That is a page lists some dangers of Bill C-250 along with several cases where Homosexuals have abused this 'hate crime' mentality. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination you know.

Check it out before posting a rebuttal please (or if you want I will copy and paste important parts of it for you =p)

[Black Dog]

The real C-250

This answers most of the claims of the previous poster.

[Hawk]

1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators?

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined. But the Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as connoting an emotion of intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 397. Is vilification and detestation of homosexual acts considered “hate”? Where does this leave the bible in relation to hate legislation in light of texts like Romans 1:24-27? Will the bible be banned in Canada as hate literature?

2b) Hatred is a highly speculative judgment. What is understood as hatred to some people is considered criticism to others. Many of our opponents have labeled opposition to Bill C-250 or rational criticism of homosexuality “hatred”. (See Appendix 2)

3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm. Without the requirement to prove a defendant’s intent to cause harm, anyone who might genuinely care for a person with homosexual inclinations can be convicted for their criticisms of the lifestyle or even their recommendations of therapy.

4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense. Subsection 319(2) provides an exemption from conviction by referring to a religious text. But what if a citizen appeals to Anthropology, Science, Anatomy, Natural Law or mere personal conviction without reference to a religious text? There is no provision for a defense on these bases.

5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual activity has been long acknowledged to be very unhealthy. Yet, this legislation will stifle legitimate debate and discovery in the medical community. Not only will it lead to possible criminal convictions against doctors, but their professional associations might threaten them with sanctions and dismissal if they do not abide by the law (See Appendix 3).

6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation. Although there is an exemption from conviction under Section 2 which deals with “promotion of hatred” (no defense can be used unless a religious text is cited), there is no such defense at all under Section 1 which deals with “incitement of hatred”. Technically, therefore, there is no real protection for those who appeal to a religious text. The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.

7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!

8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest (See Appendix 4).

Read this time please, I read yours.

Also these might be interesting to those of you who think this legislature is not dangerous in any way =p

Scott Brockie, a conscientious born-again Christian and owner of a Toronto print shop, refused a request from gay rights activist Ray Brilliger to print material for the Canadian Lesbians and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie found himself hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Board who ordered Mr. Brockie to pay $5,000 in damages to Ray Brilliger. While Heather McNaughton, the adjudicator assigned to this case, acknowledged the sincerity of Mr. Brockie's religious convictions in her ruling dated February 24th, 2000, she nevertheless stated: "In fact nothing in my order will prevent Brockie from continuing to hold and practice his religious beliefs. Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and to practice them in his Christian community." Mr. Brockie has recently been denied court costs amounting to $40,000. He is now liable for these and other costs.

On June 15th, 2001, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry fined Hugh Owens, an evangelical Protestant, and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix $1,500 for violating the equality rights of three gay men. Mr. Owen's crime? He expressed his opinion on gay and lesbians sex through an advertisement in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. This advertisement consisted of a pictograph of two men holding hands superimposed with a circle and slash- the symbol of something forbidden-and a list of Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality. While Mr. Owens is currently appealing this ruling, if he loses and still refuses to comply with the Board of Inquiry, he will potentially find himself charged with contempt of court. If convicted, he will likely find himself consigned to jail as the first prisoner of conscience in the war between sexual and religious pluralism.

In May 2002, in an Oshawa area high school, Mr. Marc Hall invited his boyfriend to his Catholic High School prom. In keeping with the traditional principles of Catholic moral theology, the Catholic school board prohibited Hall from bringing the boyfriend to the graduation dance. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion came to naught as the civil courts ruled that the Catholic school had discriminated against the rights of Marc Hall. His defense attorney has since been promoted to the Ontario Superior Court.

In May 2002, Chris Kempling, a 13-year teacher and counselor in the public school system in BC, was declared guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the BC College of Teachers by the College (BCCT). Kempling was reprimanded and suspended for writing letters to the editor, objecting to the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the public school system as well as for writing unpublished research essays, and private letters to his supervisors and elected officials. The College declared that "everything that you have written in its entirety is derogatory and discriminatory," even though some information was merely quoting previously published research data. Kempling, who holds two masters degrees and an almost complete doctorate in psychology, objected to the use of Xtra West, a BC homosexual activist newspaper, which has obscene and vulgar classified ads, as a recommended classroom resource. (LifeSiteNews.com, Jun 7.02)

Rev. Stephen Boissoin is facing a human rights complaint brought by homosexual activist and University of Calgary professor Dr. Darren Lund. Rev. Boissoin, an outstanding citizen who for nine years ran an outreach to troubled youth that had 100-150 teens who would frequent it weekly, raised the ire of homosexual activists with a letter to the editor of a local paper which served as a wakeup call to parents regarding homosexual activism in schools. Lund accused Rev. Boissoin of hatemongering in comments to the press and when a local teen was beaten by hooligans supposedly because of his homosexual inclinations, Rev. Boissoin's letter was blamed. Boissoin's damaged reputation caused the loss of funding to his youth outreach which was forced to close due to lack of funds. Now Boissoin is faced with retaining a lawyer to defend himself against the human rights complaint (LifeSiteNews.com, Nov.22.02)

Persecution is not ok even if the people persecuted are 'just religious', dont support it.

[Black Dog]

1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators?

No, pedophilia is a criminal offense due to it being harmful to children.

]. Section 319(3) of the CCC states that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this legislation if he establishes that the statements communicated were true. So, although doing so might be considered "beneath" the average Canadian, a defence could be made for anyone who publicly exclaims that all paedophiles should be castrated or killed.

As a further defence, s.318(3) provides that no one can be charged under this legislation without the consent of the Attorney-General of Canada. This is likely to prevent a spiteful lawsuit which defames an individual and ruins his or her career/public life. A latent function of this subsection is that by requiring any charges under this legislation to go through the Att.-Gen., only cases with reasonable merit can be expected to proceed.

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined

Link

The section in question deals with "hate propaganda" which is clearly defined as statements that advocate or promote genocide, which is, in turn defined under s. 318(2) as:

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction"

3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm

See above.

4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense.

Again: the code states no person shall be convicted of an offence under this legislation if he establishes that the statements communicated were true.

5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle.

See above.

6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation...

The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.

First, charges can only be laid with the consent of the Attorney General, not Crown prosecuters, as the above implies. Second: the defense outlined in section 2 are applicable to section 1.

7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!

This is laughable. "Breach of peace" is defined as: disorderly conduct or disturbing the public peace. "Hurt feelings" do constitute a legal breach of peace.

8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest

Utter claptrap, not even worth addressing.

As for your "examples": using human rights cases like Owens to discredit a Criminal Code provision betrays a considerable misunderstanding of how our legal system works. Here’s why:

First, to violate the Human Rights Act one must merely “expose” an identifiable group to hatred or ridicule. Under the Criminal Code, the accused must promote hatred. According to the Supreme Court in Keegstra, this means direct and active stimulation, not mere encouragement or advancement.

Second, a violation of the Human Rights Act does not require any mental element. Instead, the focus is only on the effects of the acts in question. Under the Criminal Code the promotion of hatred must be wilful, which means both intentional and purposeful. This wilfulness, like every other element of the offence, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, under the Human Rights Code “good faith” is irrelevant. The Criminal Code provides a truth defence and 3 distinct “good faith” defences, including a full defence for expressing religious beliefs or beliefs based on a religious text.

In summary, s. 319 is designed to make it extraordinarily difficult to obtain a conviction; and let me be clear: this is exactly as it should be. It reserves the power of the criminal law for only the most extreme cases of promoting hatred while explicitly exempting religious expression from its reach.

[Hawk]

No, pedophilia is a criminal offense due to it being harmful to children.

Then we could open up a debate on how harmful homosexuality is to the man, or if you really wanted controversy argue about the effects on the mental health of both the individuals and any children they may be affecting.

Section 319(3) of the CCC states that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this legislation if he establishes that the statements communicated were true. So, although doing so might be considered "beneath" the average Canadian, a defence could be made for anyone who publicly exclaims that all paedophiles should be castrated or killed.

Then tell me why those people who speak out against homosexuality due to the harmful side effects of it are charged and/or called bigots and discriminatory?

As a further defence, s.318(3) provides that no one can be charged under this legislation without the consent of the Attorney-General of Canada. This is likely to prevent a spiteful lawsuit which defames an individual and ruins his or her career/public life. A latent function of this subsection is that by requiring any charges under this legislation to go through the Att.-Gen., only cases with reasonable merit can be expected to proceed.

If there is one thing I have noticed, it is that the homosexual group is not afraid of publicity they want it. Therefore I can easily see them dragging someone to the Attorney-General for a frivolous or spiteful lawsuit that would end in their cause being more well-known and the person they attacked being utterly destroyed by the left-leaning public.

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined

Link

The section in question deals with "hate propaganda" which is clearly defined as statements that advocate or promote genocide, which is, in turn defined under s. 318(2) as:

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction"

So for example rapists, poligamists, or pediphiles are also 'identifiable groups'? Not to mention it fails to limit the extent to which you could reason 'inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction'... Who gets to do the calculations? It does say physical destruction but it isn't tied to the aggressor directly moreso it ties that charge to the conditions being the death of their way of life. Hence any way of life that doesn't promote or support the homosexual way could in turn be thought of as the beginning of the end of the homosexual way both physically and mentally.

Again: the code states no person shall be convicted of an offence under this legislation if he establishes that the statements communicated were true.

So the old 'the truth hurts' defence will work 100% of the time? Your telling me I could go out and declare homosexuals bastions of disease, contamination, and the grunge of society and they couldn't prosecute me for it? I can't wait to see your responce

First, charges can only be laid with the consent of the Attorney General, not Crown prosecuters, as the above implies. Second: the defense outlined in section 2 are applicable to section 1.

So what happens if the Attorney General happens to be a sympathetic homosexual or simply sympathetic to the homosexual cause?

This is laughable. "Breach of peace" is defined as: disorderly conduct or disturbing the public peace. "Hurt feelings" do constitute a legal breach of peace.

So you agree this is a problem?

Utter claptrap, not even worth addressing.

As for your "examples": using human rights cases like Owens to discredit a Criminal Code provision betrays a considerable misunderstanding of how our legal system works. Here’s why:

I believe the true issue here is that our legal system DOESNT work =p I can expand on this if you want.

Everything on paper should work out fine, however if you learn anything from history and trial and error it is that plans never work out as planned... there are ALWAYS loopholes, problems, and special instances where things that shouldn't happen do happen. The reason I dont support this legislation is that it allows the possiblity of some very serious problems to happen

[Black Dog]

Then tell me why those people who speak out against homosexuality due to the harmful side effects of it are charged and/or called bigots and discriminatory?

Can you cite any examples of people who've been charged with criminal offenses for making such statements?

If there is one thing I have noticed, it is that the homosexual group is not afraid of publicity they want it. Therefore I can easily see them dragging someone to the Attorney-General for a frivolous or spiteful lawsuit that would end in their cause being more well-known and the person they attacked being utterly destroyed by the left-leaning public.

Are you talking abvout civil lawsuits, human rights complaints or criminal charges under section 319 of the Code? The Attorney General's role is limited to matters of criminal prosecution.

Some working knowledge of Canada's legal system might be a good thing to have before you start making claims about how C-250 will affect it.

So for example rapists, poligamists, or pediphiles are also 'identifiable groups'?

Are any of thses groups mentioned in the hate propaganda legislation? No.

Hence any way of life that doesn't promote or support the homosexual way could in turn be thought of as the beginning of the end of the homosexual way both physically and mentally.

Such as

So the old 'the truth hurts' defence will work 100% of the time? Your telling me I could go out and declare homosexuals bastions of disease, contamination, and the grunge of society and they couldn't prosecute me for it? I can't wait to see your responce

IANAL, but such a statement would not pass the truth defense, but nor would it fall under the definition of hat epropaganda. It's a ignorant, bigoted statement, for sure, but one that is not prosecuteable.

So you agree this is a problem?

No it's not a problem because there is a legal definition of "breach of peace" that is used to determine such matters. Someone trying to lay criminal charges based on "hurt feelings" would not have a leg to stand on.

[maplesyrup]

Bush Heads Toward Defeat on Gay Marriage Measure

Oops.

[Cartman]

Last I read on StatsCan data, only .5% of Canadians are committed to living in a same-sex relationship. We can only assume that a fraction of these people are interested in formal marriage. So really...why does this cause so much anger particularly at a time when heterosexuals seem to be running away from traditional marriage? I would assume that the data is similar in the US.

Check it out.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/22/canad...a/census_021022