Councillor says Gays have 'Achieved Equality' in Toronto

[charter.rights]

It's only widely acceptable in the urban centres. This is yet again another example of the urban voters thinking they can tell the rest of us how we should live. The arrogance of the city dwellers is utterly appalling. Sorry but not all of us want to live near your high rises and endless development and choose to reject your urban utopia.

Why is this such a problem?

Urban people feel the need to try and "educate" us who live outside the major urban centres to their brand of social values. Perhaps the problem isn't that we don't understand what you people have been yelling about for decades but rather we don't identify with it and choose to reject it as foriegn to our own sense of moral values.

HIV was spread from gay men first. HIV positive Patient Zero was a gay man from Quebec who was a flight attendant and spread the disease through anal sex. HIV and AIDS were problems in the gay community before they were problems elsewhere.

You are out of touch.

I live in a small community and the local minister is gay. The former rural community I lived in had a lesbian minister. I also work in another community and their Anglican Priest is also gay. There are many gays and lesbian Christians and I would bet that a secret poll would find many priests, ministers and pastors had (or have) gay tendencies.

You are out of touch with reality and you let your ignorant bias compelling you to lie and make things up. You are not a true Christian, emulating Christ. You are a heretic and a charlatan. Go away Satan and fornicate with your mother.

[Michael Hardner]

It's only widely acceptable in the urban centres. This is yet again another example of the urban voters thinking they can tell the rest of us how we should live. The arrogance of the city dwellers is utterly appalling. Sorry but not all of us want to live near your high rises and endless development and choose to reject your urban utopia.

You didn't provide a cite, but even if it's true - who cares ? We don't have a separate charter of rights for rural Canada.

A better breakdown than urban/rural is young/old - and the youth are a group that support same-sex marriage at a rate 3 times that of older Canadians. There's no reason to think that they will change their mind as they age, either:

EKOS Poll 2002

The expected variation with age was found [in favour of same-sex marriage]:

59% in favor among the 18 to 24 year olds,

55% among 25 to 44,

40% among 45 to 64, and

20% among those 65 and over.

[Born Free]

Born Free appeals to the gods of liberality who's only method of retribution against infidels like me is to invoke words like "diddler" which is an old school term so I assume that Born Free is some old man...also Born Free goes on about religion..some character named Rev Falwell...which means that he might be some soiled old Catholic that confessed a little to much. This vain attempt to piss me off is not going to work - and that "homophobia" bit...boring! Now Toad Brother says that sodomy is a good ol thing to do if you are an ol bugger - and it does not defy the laws of phisics. It might defy the laws of ordinary hygene..If Toad thinks there is no consequential rathful infection about to occur in the shaft of his penis because he has crammed some ones poop up there he has another thing coming... I am not anti-person..gay or not...in fact I hug my gay associates if I feel generous but I don't cuddle to long..... What pisses me off is that....

BORN FREE brought children into the equation..the mention of molestation and sexual interference is not exceptable here...why did you think of this stuff? I was not thinking of it.

Dont be pissed. Be proud of your homophobic feelings.

[ToadBrother]

HIV was spread from gay men first. HIV positive Patient Zero was a gay man from Quebec who was a flight attendant and spread the disease through anal sex. HIV and AIDS were problems in the gay community before they were problems elsewhere.

It's most certain that HIV was rolling around in Africa for decades, if not longer, prior to the first infections in the rest of the world. It's also likely that the virus first made the jump from other primates to humans due to either close proximity to other primates or due to eating bushmeat. In any case, homosexuals did not cause AIDS, nor are homosexuals the primary vector. That might have been true in the early to mid 1980s in the First World, but overwhelmingly it seems, when you actually look at the numbers, homosexuals are only a small part of the equation.

Oh, and last time I checked, anal sex was an activity not limited to gay men.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, and last time I checked, anal sex was an activity not limited to gay men.

And how exactly did you "check" ? Never mind, it's none of my business.

[ToadBrother]

And how exactly did you "check" ? Never mind, it's none of my business.

Just ignore the guy across the street with the binoculars? :-)

I recall that it is estimated that about 10% of heterosexual couples have anal sex.

[Michael Hardner]

Just ignore the guy across the street with the binoculars? :-)

I recall that it is estimated that about 10% of heterosexual couples have anal sex.

Really - I asked everybody at work in a meeting and it was 0% !

[Oleg Bach]

Sure it was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Origins

So where exactly did you get your bullshit story? Did you just make it up on the spot?

Jumping for glee they were when the gay community cheered and loudly proclaimed.."look look hertrosexuals have contracted aids..It's not JUST a gay disease...see - told you!" Great I thought to myself..hedonist males who have sex with men and if woman are available will have sex with them also. THEN suddenly condomns are being passed about to kids and they are told that sex equals death rather than life - that it is no longer the life generating act but an act that perpetuates illness and death..thanks a lot!

[ToadBrother]

Jumping for glee they were when the gay community cheered and loudly proclaimed.."look look hertrosexuals have contracted aids..It's not JUST a gay disease...see - told you!" Great I thought to myself..hedonist males who have sex with men and if woman are available will have sex with them also. THEN suddenly condomns are being passed about to kids and they are told that sex equals death rather than life - that it is no longer the life generating act but an act that perpetuates illness and death..thanks a lot!

It almost sounds like your jealous. It's hard to read this any other way.

[Oleg Bach]

It almost sounds like your jealous. It's hard to read this any other way.

Almost is not quite an accurate assumption. Yes I had my share of hedonism - and yes I took my pleasure with dozens of women in my time and YES I miss the constant surge of pleasure - but now I am old and I have had more than my share of earthly pleasures. And YES if a woman became pregnant I did not walk away _ I knew ultimately what sex and breeding was about - I am what you call a MAN - as for the young generation who are now denied the pleasures of youth and husbandry _ I feel as sorry for them as I am for those who listen to nothing but rap and hip hop..who will never know the meaning and pleasure of musical melody...as for gays and their pleasure..

_ I have not met a truely loyal or happy gay person yet. At this point it's troublesome that females have like their counterpart males - have forgotten what pleasure - fulfillment - parenthood - and adventure are...Disease and the fear mongering with the use of disease as the primary tool is a sad thing. The condomn issue is really about curbing birth and not about "safe sex" Sex in every aspect was never safe..if you know what I mean _ When a young man would go with out condomns sometimes fatherhood would rear it's beautiful head- and young men were successful after the natural unions between the sexes.

Sex is the bond between men and woman - and anything that weakens the bond is against humanity..gayification stinks of death..

[g_bambino]

I recall that it is estimated that about 10% of heterosexual couples have anal sex.

And that isn't neccessarily limited to only the female half of the couple being the recipient.

[ToadBrother]

Sex is the bond between men and woman - and anything that weakens the bond is against humanity..gayification stinks of death..

Utterly absurd claptrap. Homosexuals don't make up a big enough percentage of the population to even threaten it. What's threatening our population growth is, well, standard of living. It's been the principle rule of Western civilization since the rise of the Middle Class that the more money a household has, the less children they have.

Humans are not goats or salmon. We have sex for pleasure as much, if not far more, than for procreation. If the guy next door wants to do it with a guy, or his bed post, it ain't none of my business, and it ain't any of yours. There's no "against humanity" to it. We live in a free country, which means your opinion is just that, and holds no force.

That you're also ignorant of a great many facts, like the origins of HIV, only devalues that opinion even more. You seem overly proud of the thoughts you formulate, with little concern that they are often pure rubbish, the product of a mind perverted by its own prejudices.

[Oleg Bach]

The unisex blending of humans has been going on for at least 30 years. The seperation and distinction between male and female is becoming incrimentally blurred. I just don't think it's a good thing...Look at media...You would think that half the population was gay the way it's presented. Look at Spike TV for instance - They run a slick add that shows a greased and gleaming female torsal - then it is over layed with the male version - then they insert violence - ending with a satifying female sexual sigh. It's perverse...and if I find it irritating and confusing..then children and young adults will find that this sensualist propoganda to debase and blend sexuality - confusing... Please no smart Alec remarks regarding me personally....but...what ever happened to good old fashioned base sex with out all of these modernist and artifical trimmings?

[ToadBrother]

The unisex blending of humans has been going on for at least 30 years. The seperation and distinction between male and female is becoming incrimentally blurred.

Maybe you just need better eyes. I have little problem telling the difference.

I just don't think it's a good thing...Look at media...You would think that half the population was gay the way it's presented. Look at Spike TV for instance - They run a slick add that shows a greased and gleaming female torsal - then it is over layed with the male version - then they insert violence - ending with a satifying female sexual sigh. It's perverse...and if I find it irritating and confusing..then children and young adults will find that this sensualist propoganda to debase and blend sexuality - confusing...

Maybe children shouldn't be watching Spike. For that matter, maybe you shouldn't either.

Please no smart Alec remarks regarding me personally....but...what ever happened to good old fashioned base sex with out all of these modernist and artifical trimmings?

Because we live in a free society, and not one where your particular paternalistic impulses reign supreme.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe you just need better eyes. I have little problem telling the difference.

Maybe children shouldn't be watching Spike. For that matter, maybe you shouldn't either.

Because we live in a free society, and not one where your particular paternalistic impulses reign supreme.

Nothing wrong with being protective or being a patron or being paternal. For instance just before the garbage strike I had an invasion of mice..the building is abouty 140 years old and pests can be expected on occassion. Anyway..we trapped and poisioned them.. But I did notice that after the strike there was a babyboom in mouse land..now I found a mouse skurry across the kitchen floor...This mouse was different - He or she lacked the skill and wisdom of it's forebarers...who's career ended prematurely due to my intervension. This young mouse lacked the training...lacked the skill of avoidance that should have been taught to it by it's parents that I had genocided. It was amusing - this mouse was a dullard and stubbled about hitting things..He was NOT like his parent or as you say the "paternalistic" guardian _ I looked at the little fool and said to myself ...I will be done with you in short order you dummie! Sure enough what took me a week as far as the wiser and more shrewd mice - This little pest was dead and trapped within twenty minutes. My implulse to reign superme if I was a parent mouse would have saved the young ones life.

[ToadBrother]

Nothing wrong with being protective or being a patron or being paternal. For instance just before the garbage strike I had an invasion of mice..the building is abouty 140 years old and pests can be expected on occassion. Anyway..we trapped and poisioned them.. But I did notice that after the strike there was a babyboom in mouse land..now I found a mouse skurry across the kitchen floor...This mouse was different - He or she lacked the skill and wisdom of it's forebarers...who's career ended prematurely due to my intervension. This young mouse lacked the training...lacked the skill of avoidance that should have been taught to it by it's parents that I had genocided. It was amusing - this mouse was a dullard and stubbled about hitting things..He was NOT like his parent or as you say the "paternalistic" guardian _ I looked at the little fool and said to myself ...I will be done with you in short order you dummie! Sure enough what took me a week as far as the wiser and more shrewd mice - This little pest was dead and trapped within twenty minutes. My implulse to reign superme if I was a parent mouse would have saved the young ones life.

This has got to be one of the most pointless responses to a post of mine I have ever seen.

[Oleg Bach]

That's because you have no imagination or depth to your thinking - You mentioned that my approach was paternalistic..that being a parent was bad - that people who protect the weak are not neccesary. There is nothing wrong with social patronage (protection) If that protection is sincere. I guess you might be overly conditioned and actually also believe that the idea of discrimination is also negative - to decide between what is good and what is bad for you...If a person has the ability to decided that somethings are bad for others - then let that person assume the postion and attitude of paternalistic.

[Oleg Bach]

That's because you have no imagination or depth to your thinking - You mentioned that my approach was paternalistic..that being a parent was bad - that people who protect the weak are not neccesary. There is nothing wrong with social patronage (protection) If that protection is sincere. I guess you might be overly conditioned and actually also believe that the idea of discrimination is also negative - to decide between what is good and what is bad for you...If a person has the ability to decided that somethings are bad for others - then let that person assume the postion and attitude of paternalistic.

Okay to make it more clear. "Hounour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and prosperous" - meaning take their wisdom and use it as a short cut towards success. Inheritance that is paternal wisdom is true wealth ...but even now being a paternalistic parent is view with a jaundiced politically correct liberal eye.

[ToadBrother]

That's because you have no imagination or depth to your thinking - You mentioned that my approach was paternalistic..that being a parent was bad - that people who protect the weak are not neccesary. There is nothing wrong with social patronage (protection) If that protection is sincere. I guess you might be overly conditioned and actually also believe that the idea of discrimination is also negative - to decide between what is good and what is bad for you...If a person has the ability to decided that somethings are bad for others - then let that person assume the postion and attitude of paternalistic.

No, my philosophy is that what two adults do in the comfort of their own homes ain't none of your damned business, or mine either. If you don't want to have sex with men, then don't. But to insist that your views somehow should represent the views of everyone, or that your notions of normalcy somehow represent normalcy as accepted by anyone else is nothing but bigotry, prejudice and narrow-mindedness.

I don't know why you homophobes spend so much time worrying about homosexuals. You have a strange fixation on it that normal heterosexuals just don't seem to have.

[Oleg Bach]

No, my philosophy is that what two adults do in the comfort of their own homes ain't none of your damned business, or mine either. If you don't want to have sex with men, then don't. But to insist that your views somehow should represent the views of everyone, or that your notions of normalcy somehow represent normalcy as accepted by anyone else is nothing but bigotry, prejudice and narrow-mindedness.

I don't know why you homophobes spend so much time worrying about homosexuals. You have a strange fixation on it that normal heterosexuals just don't seem to have.

Well said so far. Homophobe literally means fear of homosexuals and homosexual practices. I am not a phobe of any sort. What you might describe as a "fixation" is probably a simple street understanding of the phenomena. I fully understand all the dynamics of same sex hedonism - supposed love and abuse of sexuality. It is not important to me what people do privately. I just hate the idea of wasted genetics and people who are to a degree feminine being discouraged from having children or mates from the opposite sex...In some cases it is a waste of intelligence.. Also I do not like those that are not naturally predisposed to homosexuality taking it on as a choosen life style where they benefit from commanding weaker human beings.

There was a time when men who had a predisposition in degrees to an appreciation of the male form...are now being socially programmed to fully embrace gayification...Personally I adore all beauty - male and female - but I do not have an uncontrolable urge to possess the beauty or objectify it...we will not know for decades what the effects of this propogation of gayness will have on human beings. Time will tell... As for spite..yes I do resent any person who interferes with the natural sexual developement of young human beings..who insists that a young male with no sexual experence is coached towards gayness just because he seems not as rough or is feminine...Let people develope on their own..I suppose that is my point. This enforcement and coersion and in effect - sexual disempowerment of our young is distressing.

[g_bambino]

I do resent any person who interferes with the natural sexual developement of young human beings..who insists that a young male with no sexual experence is coached towards gayness just because he seems not as rough or is feminine...Let people develope on their own..I suppose that is my point. This enforcement and coersion and in effect - sexual disempowerment of our young is distressing.

So, if I'm getting this correctly (and it is difficult to filter out any sense from your posts, sometimes), your beef it not with homosexuality, per say, but with people displaying any homosexuality being herded off to the pen with the other gays and have any remaining heterosexuality castrated?

I could possibly concur with you on this, but I'm suspicious, given that you've not yet spoken out against the opposite: shoving people into the heterosexual corral, where all sign of homosexuality is to be erased. In fact, you've argued that homosexuality of any kind is an affront to "true" sexuality, which is limited to only procreative intercourse.

I personally believe two narrow sexual pigeon holes to choose from is hardly better than one, and often people, young and old, are coerced by messages and peer pressure into conforming to one or the other, despite what they may naturally feel. However, in that sense, I believe I'm being fair all-around, whereas you seem to be thinking hypocritically.

[Oleg Bach]

So, if I'm getting this correctly (and it is difficult to filter out any sense from your posts, sometimes), your beef it not with homosexuality, per say, but with people displaying any homosexuality being herded off to the pen with the other gays and have any remaining heterosexuality castrated?

I could possibly concur with you on this, but I'm suspicious, given that you've not yet spoken out against the opposite: shoving people into the heterosexual corral, where all sign of homosexuality is to be erased. In fact, you've argued that homosexuality of any kind is an affront to "true" sexuality, which is limited to only procreative intercourse.

I personally believe two narrow sexual pigeon holes to choose from is hardly better than one, and often people, young and old, are coerced by messages and peer pressure into conforming to one or the other, despite what they may naturally feel. However, in that sense, I believe I'm being fair all-around, whereas you seem to be thinking hypocritically.

That's a very bright post - and very affirming. The actual point is about genetics and breeding - you have to remember that every human being is the "son of man" - son of god" - put in secular language..every person is decended from every person that ever lived! I just don't like to see good evolution wasted and some familiar lineages being disgarded to the ash pile. Most people if they can should breed for the sake of the human resourse factor. If a male is remotely driven to breed with the opposite sex and create or recreate itself then all the more power to that person..not less power. As for my hypocracy..I just might be pro life in a big way..afer all we are in a heavenly state and there are those that do not realize that we are eternal and reborn - or incarnated..constantly..Living inside the miracle of human existance is astounding!

It make no sense to stiffle intelligence though sexuality... let intelligent life flourish on this planet. Those who push non-sexuality and non breeding are usually those that do not understand that man kind as a collective and as individual are reoccuring creatures.

[bloodyminded]

It make no sense to stiffle intelligence though sexuality... let intelligent life flourish on this planet. Those who push non-sexuality and non breeding are usually those that do not understand that man kind as a collective and as individual are reoccuring creatures.

Well, everyone past breeding age is therefore useless? Or merely reprehensible?

[Oleg Bach]

Well, everyone past breeding age is therefore useless? Or merely reprehensible?

No man is past breeding age - woman usually fall off the map in these regards first _ I just hate those Viagra commercials where the pee headed man is all smiles after taking his little pill and proding about the internal parts of a female that is really in nature his grandmother - If it's not self lubricating and capable of bearing children - stay out of that sad pit and don't disturb the uterus that has turned to stone - You don't need Viagra - YOU need a young mistress - not some creepy old woman that lusts after her youth that is long gone.

Having ranted that out - If you are of good and smart genetics - BREED - imagine all the millions of problem solvers that did not arrive on the scene because their landings on this earth were aborted - No wonder we do not have any good leadership - they were genocided..so the stupid who thought long term could rule the roost. Getting back to the point...no man is reprehensible..gay or straight.. BUT because of the phenomena of public schooling and sexes of the same age mating - it's a problem - It is a new deal historically to mate with woman of your same age - By the time you are 60 the woman is actually 80 - and you will need a pill to get it up for the old hag.

[Michael Hardner]

No man is past breeding age - woman usually fall off the map in these regards first _ I just hate those Viagra commercials where the pee headed man is all smiles after taking his little pill and proding about the internal parts of a female that is really in nature his grandmother - If it's not self lubricating and capable of bearing children - stay out of that sad pit and don't disturb the uterus that has turned to stone - You don't need Viagra - YOU need a young mistress - not some creepy old woman that lusts after her youth that is long gone.

Oleg Hefner !

Having ranted that out - If you are of good and smart genetics - BREED - imagine all the millions of problem solvers that did not arrive on the scene because their landings on this earth were aborted - No wonder we do not have any good leadership - they were genocided..so the stupid who thought long term could rule the roost. Getting back to the point...no man is reprehensible..gay or straight.. BUT because of the phenomena of public schooling and sexes of the same age mating - it's a problem - It is a new deal historically to mate with woman of your same age - By the time you are 60 the woman is actually 80 - and you will need a pill to get it up for the old hag.

In other words, if you are smart - GET HORNY NOW ! It doesn't matter that your Star Trek references will be as alluring to the female gender as your tube sock stench...

As for the other part of your advice - the high-mindedness of older gents mating with younger nubile women - this is one argument you have articulated far better than any other of yours, and I suspect you have convinced many middle-aged men here that this is a good idea. Thank you.