What Does The Liberal Minority Mean -- Morally?

[kungfusion]

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHP-Communique/commu...nique_11_27.htm

What Does The Liberal Minority Mean -- Morally?

Economist Mark Mullin, writing for The Globe and Mail, commented that the economy probably won't be much affected by a minority government; but he says we can forget about tax breaks or health care reform for a while.

Typically (for an economist), he’s looking only at the economic effects of the election.

I have a somewhat different viewpoint -- one that puts morality ahead of economics.

In my opinion, it's impossible to separate morality and economics in the long run: we simply cannot have a stable economy without trust; and trust depends upon shared values -- which in turn depend upon shared morals.

No matter what turns we may take for short-term gain, unless a nation has a transcendent standard of right and wrong -- rooted in the absolutes of the One who created the universe -- that society will inevitably descend into the Law of the Jungle: "Might makes right."

Ottawa Sun columnist Greg Weston looked at the election results -- a Liberal minority that will be beholden either to the NDP or to the Marxist separatists of the Bloc Quebecois (or both) -- and wrote: "It's been said that a nation gets the government it deserves. What did we do to deserve this?"

The answer is starkly simple: we have filled the streets with innocent blood -- well over two million babies slaughtered in the womb -- and we are about to introduce the defilement of what God calls an abomination into the image of the relationship between Christ and His bride: marriage. That is, quite simply, blasphemous.

But there is more.

In addition to abortion and same-sex "marriage", for 30 years our government has accepted unmarried couples living together, and called it "equivalent to married"; we adopted no-fault divorce; and our governments act as though children belong to the State, rather than to God.

Now all these abominations are coming together.

In Massachusetts, in the first month after same-sex "marriage' was legalized by order of the courts, a State Senator reports that 40% of adoptions were of course, by homosexual couples. There are lots of children for them to adopt, because the break-up of marriages and increasing numbers of "common-law" households has put many children in situations which the Massachusetts child protection agency calls "abusive". That's also true all over Canada.

It's ironic that the radical homosexual media have often sneeringly referred to heterosexuals as "breeders"; we may be about to prove them right: many heterosexual couples -- especially those who live together without getting married, or whose marriages are not truly committed to God -- will wind up acting as breeding pairs to produce children for those who, by nature, cannot produce their own.

A good friend is pastor of a church north of Toronto; a huge banner at the front of the church reads:

"CHOOSE YOUR FIRE -- REVIVAL OR JUDGEMENT."

That may well prove prophetic for Canada. Let's pray that God will guide the nation to make the right choice -- and let's resolve to share His message with as many people as possible. The time is getting very short for Canadians to follow the exhortation of John the Baptist: "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance."

[August1991]

In Massachusetts, in the first month after same-sex "marriage' was legalized by order of the courts, a State Senator reports that 40% of adoptions were of course, by homosexual couples. There are lots of children for them to adopt, because the break-up of marriages and increasing numbers of "common-law" households has put many children in situations which the Massachusetts child protection agency calls "abusive". That's also true all over Canada.

Provide evidence (a link) to support your claim that 40% of adopting parents in Massachusetts were gay.

You state that "many" children are now available for adoption because of "abusive" families. Provide statistical evidence of this.

You state that this is also true "all over Canada". What evidence (a link) do you have to support that claim?

Did you write the text above? If not, who did?

A good friend is pastor of a church north of Toronto; a huge banner at the front of the church reads:

"CHOOSE YOUR FIRE -- REVIVAL OR JUDGEMENT."

It is the oldest selling technique to imply some terrible calamity if you don't buy the advertised product.

I'm always surprised that any religion would sell itself that way.

[Neal.F.]

Ron Gray, leader of the National CHP wrote that piece. he is a true journalist by trade (not a Dan Rather "See BS" style "journalist)

Knowing Ron he would have researched his facts first.

As for the "Choose your fire" comment. It's the truth whether you like it or not. It is not "selling a religion" Christianity is not a religion, per se, where there is a set of rules and you are judged at teh end of the day as to how well you obeyed them. it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which involves following Jesus and his teachings voluntarily, but one's salvation comes exclusively from one's decision to accept him as saviour and enter into the relationship with him, not upon any "works" "brownie points" or anything we do.

However, rejecting Jesus Christ, no matter what good works you do results in eternal from Him in the hereafter, and earthly consequences due to cause and effect of one's actions.

[August1991]

However, rejecting Jesus Christ, no matter what good works you do results in eternal from Him in the hereafter, and earthly consequences due to cause and effect of one's actions.

That was my point. "Accept this product or suffer eternal damnation."

In sales, those are boiler-room tactics. I would never accept anything under such circumstances and would basically view the salesperson as fraudulent.

[Neal.F.]

I'll paraphrase an Ad by RBC ministries wherein a man is bitten by a poisonous snake and is told he has 15 minutes to live unless he takes a certain pill that is THE ONLY known cure for that kind of snakebite, and that the doctor happens to have it. The man goes to take the pill, when the wife steps in and says "I've heard about Doctors like you... You are so narrow minded and Intolerant! Imagine the arrogance of telling us there's only ONE cure. Come on! let's go get another opinion"

There is no middle ground on the truth.

The teachings of Christ were given out of love and His desire for us to avoid the consequenbces that follow naturally for contravening them...aka laws of nature, if you prefer.

[Cartman]

The radical homosexual media? Now I have heard everything.

August said:

Provide evidence (a link) to support your claim that 40% of adopting parents in Massachusetts were gay.

You state that "many" children are now available for adoption because of "abusive" families. Provide statistical evidence of this.

You state that this is also true "all over Canada". What evidence (a link) do you have to support that claim?

Did you write the text above? If not, who did?

I think you should respond to these questions.

Should the state force people to marry?

[Neal.F.]

The radical homosexual media? Now I have heard everything.

I think you should respond to these questions.

Should the state force people to marry?

What do you call a media tat insisits on putting pictures from Pride day atrocities -er- parades on their front pages? and covers all gay stories more like a cheerleading squad would rather than a journalist?

Explain why there are so many gay-rlated stoiries in the papers that werent there 10 years ago?

Try getting an article or op-ed piece that speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle for the health hazards it entails, published and see what happens.

i could go on, but I won't.

Should the state force people to marry?

No. Nor should they force us to recognoize as equivalent to marriage domestic arrangements that are clearly NOT marriage.

Such arrangements are not restricted to homosexual couples, but to heterosexual couples who just shack up. I don't consider them "married", no matter how many years they have been together.

Nobody is stopping people from whatever contractual agreements they wish to make, be it last wills and testaments title deeds or life insurance beneficiries.

Nor should anybidy be forced to recognize or underwrite such contracts. Ultimately an insurance co. should set its own rates and policies. A bed and breakfast should be free to choose to enter or not to enter a contact with whomever it pleases, for whatever reasons they have.

That is freedom. Nobody stops anybody, but nobody has to accept or applaud it either.

But marriage is a covenant between two people and God, not a private contractual arrangement. the latter is what you call a civil union.

[August1991]

I'll paraphrase an Ad by RBC ministries wherein a man is bitten by a poisonous snake and is told he has 15 minutes to live unless he takes a certain pill that is THE ONLY known cure for that kind of snakebite, and that the doctor happens to have it.

Now you are comparing the acceptance of Jesus Christ and the Scientific Method. WTF?

"Science" has presumably determined that the pill is effective and this gives credence to its effectiveness.

I thought Christianity was a matter of "faith".

Neil, these arguments remind me simply that Christianity has undergone tremendous changes in the past thousand years or so. The modern version of Christianity, and your snake-oil example, is an attempt to cope.

But I must admit something and I'll put it more simply. People desire faith. I would never, ever quibble with this simple desire.

----

After your long rant, I gather Neil that you don't approve of the "lifestyle" of gays and lesbians. Well, I don't approve of the "lifestyle" of people who drive Corvettes. Long ago, I realized that in a civilized society, we cannot legislate morality.

But marriage is a covenant between two people and God, not a private contractual arrangement. the latter is what you call a civil union.

So, the issue ultimately comes down to the use of one word: marriage.

Well, if the word "champagne" can only be used to describe a certain wine from a certain French region, then I guess the word "marriage" could only be used to describe a certain type of contract.

As a matter of fact, the words "husband" and "wife" seem safe from encroachment.

[Neal.F.]

No August. The ad was comparing the fact that there was only one way to cure the snakebite, with the Christian belief that there is only one way to salvation.

Christianity IS a matter of faith, but one where making the wrong choice has serious consequences. That has been true since the beginning. Those who, not out of ignorance, reject Jesus even if they are philanthropists will be eternally separated from Him.

Nobody is suggesting that we round up homosexuals and charge them, but neither should the state put society's stamp of approval on it. It is a lifestyle choice, but a wrong one, just as heterosexual cohabition is. Look what acceptance of THAT did to the family!

You don't Like people who drive corvettes (well neither do I!) but I TOLERATE them. Tolerance is not approving and applauding, but living and let live. We are being asked to consider first cohabitation as equal to being married, and now we are being asked to bless homosexual relationships. And moreover to refuse to do so results in being labelled an intolerant bigotted homophobe. Ditto for complaining about lewd and lascivious parades of half naked louts (and loutesses) engaging in sick and disgsuting gestures and acts in our streets.

The gay lobby likes to refer to Trudeau (the man who eviscerated the morals of this country) and his famous utterance that the state should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. Most of us would agree with that. however, the same people who continually invoke this saying are the very ones who fling their bedroom door wide open for all to see!!!!!

I will say , however, that if the definition of MARRIAGE is left as it is in the traditional sense of one man and one woman for life, there would not be an issue to discuss here.

[August1991]

*Sigh*

No August. The ad was comparing the fact that there was only one way to cure the snakebite, with the Christian belief that there is only one way to salvation.

How was it determined that there is only one way to cure the snakebite?

How was it determined that there is only one way to salvation?

Neil, many Christians dealt with the difference between these two questions about 400 years ago. Have you?

[Neal.F.]

*Sigh*

No August. The ad was comparing the fact that there was only one way to cure the snakebite, with the Christian belief that there is only one way to salvation.

How was it determined that there is only one way to cure the snakebite?

How was it determined that there is only one way to salvation?

Neil, many Christians dealt with the difference between these two questions about 400 years ago. Have you?

The Ad in question was a spoof, and a funny one at that...

Now what Christians decided 400 yars ago that salvation did not require Christ?

Don't tell me it'sthe Roman Catholics... the teaching of the RCC as found in the Catechism, is that people who out of genuine ignorance have never heard of Jesus Christ can be saved, at God's discretion, anyone who has heard of Him and REJECTS him, cannot.

All other Christian Churches, until recently, anyway, taught something similar, except some fundamentalist churches who teach that anyone who hasn't heard of Him is damned.

The so-called Christian (Liberal) churches who teach that all roads lead to God, and we're all getting there by different paths is alot of hokum. They are right in the sense that all roads do lead to God, only some will meet him as Judge, others as saviour...something they omit.

[Cartman]

a State Senator reports that 40% of adoptions were of course, by homosexual couples. There are lots of children for them to adopt, because the break-up of marriages and increasing numbers of "common-law" households has put many children in situations which the Massachusetts child protection agency calls "abusive". That's also true all over Canada.

I will not be as kind as August on this one. According to our last Census, only .5% of Canadians are homosexuals living together in committed relationships. Even assuming they ALL seek out children, how can such a small number of people account for 40% of adoptions (which the above quote states are plentiful because of immoral heterosexuals)?

I have no problem with a person advocating an opinion or speculating about an idea, but I do seriously question the convictions of a senator who feels the need to manufacture evidence in order to persuade. If s/he truly has faith in the righteousness of his/her beliefs (the Truth), then why the need to grossly exaggerate the situation? At minimum, lying in this fashion is unethical and immoral, at worst it is generating fear and hatred. Neither seem very consistent with Christian ideals.

Perhaps it is immoral to have no-fault divorce, sustain common-law partnerships, engage in homosexual behaviour, perform abortions or allow children to be adopted by homosexuals. If this is so, I would assume that it should be relatively easy to document empirically or qualitatively and the senator's efforts should be directed towards this objective. But a glaring willingness to deceive will not win over many. Indeed, it is likely to have the opposite effect.

[Neal.F.]

Cartman, I think this is getting way offbase. For one thing we are talking about a state senator in Taxachusetts, not a Canadian Senator so canadian stats are not germane to this.

ince Taxachusetts brought in gay marriage, it is possible that gay couples are adopting more children in the time frame alluded to.

I did not make the original post, but I can ask Ron Gray to provide the name of the Senator, and where he made the statement.

These days, give the liberal Atmosphere in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts the percentage of gays is much higher than in other parts of the country. Provincetown has always been a gay Mecca. Taxachusetts is competeing with San Francisco as the most gay friendly part of the country.

[Black Dog]

I will say , however, that if the definition of MARRIAGE is left as it is in the traditional sense of one man and one woman for life, there would not be an issue to discuss here.

Defined by who? According to you, marriage is a religious matter. Fine. But no one is telling churche sto alter their definition of marriage. The issue is the legal definition of marriage, as used by the state to define civil contracts between individuals. August's chamapgne analogy is very accurate.

We are being asked to consider first cohabitation as equal to being married, and now we are being asked to bless homosexual relationships.

No, you're not. Once gay marriages are recognized by the state, churches will still retain the right to refuse to acknowledge or participate in gay unions

And moreover to refuse to do so results in being labelled an intolerant bigotted homophobe.

If it looks like a duck...

Ditto for complaining about lewd and lascivious parades of half naked louts (and loutesses) engaging in sick and disgsuting gestures and acts in our streets

Freedom of expression is a double edged sword. They retain the right to hld such events and you retain the right to express your distaste for such events, and to not watch them.

[Neal.F.]

I will say , however, that if the definition of MARRIAGE is left as it is in the traditional sense of one man and one woman for life, there would not be an issue to discuss here.

Defined by who? According to you, marriage is a religious matter. Fine. But no one is telling churche sto alter their definition of marriage. The issue is the legal definition of marriage, as used by the state to define civil contracts between individuals. August's chamapgne analogy is very accurate.

We are being asked to consider first cohabitation as equal to being married, and now we are being asked to bless homosexual relationships.

No, you're not. Once gay marriages are recognized by the state, churches will still retain the right to refuse to acknowledge or participate in gay unions

And moreover to refuse to do so results in being labelled an intolerant bigotted homophobe.

If it looks like a duck...

Ditto for complaining about lewd and lascivious parades of half naked louts (and loutesses) engaging in sick and disgsuting gestures and acts in our streets

Freedom of expression is a double edged sword. They retain the right to hld such events and you retain the right to express your distaste for such events, and to not watch them.

No one is telling the churches to perform gay marriage.... Not yet... but mark my words, the moment it is legal across canada, Some gay couple or couples will launch a massive discrimination lawsuit.

The two latest additions to this puked-up excuse for a supreme court and the fact that the new justice minister supports gay marriage do not give me any confidence that they wouldn't find a way to strike down the part of the constitution that protects churches from this. And failing that, look for civil suits to attack the recalcitrant churches financially.

as for gay pride parades, you don't think that some standards of decency should be enforced?

also one must remember that these are not spontaneous events but political ones... Ones that involve coercion too.

Remember what happened to Brad Woodside (among others) former mayor of Fredricton NB, when he refused to "proclaim a gay pride day?" they want the state's stamp of approval, not just a parade permit. When a public official does make such a proclamation he ceases to represent his community, but rather sides with one element against another.

And If I register my opposition to gay pride parades, my letter will likely not be published, and any public statements i make will be countered with cries of "Racist ! Sexist! anti-gay!", and I might even be charged with a hate crime.

Your "duck" allusion confirms what I have said.

One would think that gays would rally around the Libertarian party if freedom to live their lives as they chose in peace was the real issue. Instead the activists rally around statist parties like the Libs , NDP and Democrats, so they can have their agenda FORCED on everyone.

Getting the state out of the marriage business as libertarians suggest is not goiod enough. They must have it their way, carved in stone.

[Hugo]

Neal,

You're not spotting the problems in your own arguments.

Firstly, you've argued for a minarchist state to uphold a universal "good" law. You've also made it plain that you believe this law should not allow same-sex marriage, drug abuse, prostitution etc. These are all consensual acts, so what you are basically arguing is that the state should have the right to override individual free will in favour of some desired, better outcome.

There are two fatal flaws in this argument. Firstly, there is no logical optimum extent for this law. If you agree that the state must legislate for the good of its own citizens, even against their will, then you are creating a good case for state outlaw of extreme sports, pornography, explicit lyrics, driving cars at high speed, driving cars at all, buying non-organically-grown food, watching mindless television, swearing, tattooing, piercings, impractical haircuts, skimpy clothing, and so forth. Before long, your minarchist state would have ballooned to ridiculous proportions and become a giant nanny-state dedicated to interference in every aspect of the lives of citizens - which is exactly what you are decrying now.

Secondly, what's good for people is purely subjective. Your minarchist state will suit you well as long as you are in power, but what happens when somebody is elected who holds a radically different opinion of what constitutes "good"? What if Blackdog is elected (for instance), reverses all your policies and enacts ones you find abhorrent, all in the name of the greater good?

Using state power to try and ensure good, or eliminate sin, is fundamentally anti-Christian. Jesus Christ was a libertarian, pacifistic anarchist. He said, "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth, and if you sin again I'll kick your ass." A good act committed under duress, under coercion, has absolutely no moral value. This is why God gave humans free will: so that they can be truly good by choosing what is good, rather than being forced to do what is good.

Government also inevitably and invariably involves the use of force against the unwilling. Jesus was so opposed to this principle that he would not use force even to save himself and his friends from an unspeakably horrible death. Given that, I find it hard to believe he would approve of your using force to stop somebody getting high, holding a Gay Pride parade or paying for sex.

[Cartman]

The only way that such a disproportionate number of homosexuals could be adopting at such a high rate is if adoption laws had suddenly changed resulting in a temporary increase (in the rate of homosexuals adopting). For example, if an homosexual ban were lifted and that day or so out of the 10 adoptions completed, 4 were by homosexual couples. But, the statistic provided leaves a very different impression. Even if this state has say 5 times the number of homosexuals than does Canada, it would be impossible to sustain such a high rate of adoptions for long

IMO, if the media can be labeled “liberal”, then it seems to me that this is the result of a neo-liberal (free market) economy where profit (greed) is so important. Personally, I find it repulsive that soap operas have been so popular when they are filled with fleeting, whimsical expressions of sexuality (lust), and jealousy (envy) . I find it offensive that there are popular “reality” shows which depict people frivolously marrying for money (greed). Jerry Springer makes a good living by exploiting vulnerable people in American society while COPS and others make illegal and sickening behaviour seem common and to be expected (sloth). The fact that people are avidly consuming these cultural products is disturbing and I highly doubt that they have absolutely no effect upon society. But, this is the result of free market economics, not Jack Layton and/or PET (statists). That is why these things exist across the globe and not just in Canada or the US.

[Black Dog]

No one is telling the churches to perform gay marriage.... Not yet... but mark my words, the moment it is legal across canada, Some gay couple or couples will launch a massive discrimination lawsuit.

And they would lose. The same Charter that allows for the creation of gay civil marriages also affords legal protection to religious institutions. The draft bill on same sex marriage which died when PM PM dropped the writ specified that redefinition of marriage as "lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" does not affect the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The two latest additions to this puked-up excuse for a supreme court and the fact that the new justice minister supports gay marriage do not give me any confidence that they wouldn't find a way to strike down the part of the constitution that protects churches from this. And failing that, look for civil suits to attack the recalcitrant churches financially

Pointless speculation and fear-mongering. You've no evidence of this beyond your own peronal predjudices.

as for gay pride parades, you don't think that some standards of decency should be enforced?

I would expect that existing statuates would be enforced.

also one must remember that these are not spontaneous events but political ones... Ones that involve coercion too.

Remember what happened to Brad Woodside (among others) former mayor of Fredricton NB, when he refused to "proclaim a gay pride day?" they want the state's stamp of approval, not just a parade permit. When a public official does make such a proclamation he ceases to represent his community, but rather sides with one element against another

The basis for the Human Rights complaints against Woodside and others of hid ilk are based in the discriminatory nature of their decisions. Woodside did not reject any other applications for proclimations in his 12 years as mayor.

And If I register my opposition to gay pride parades, my letter will likely not be published, and any public statements i make will be countered with cries of "Racist ! Sexist! anti-gay!", and I might even be charged with a hate crime.

More hysterical nonsense. Every year during pride Week, both our local papers are filled with letters deploring the events. And you would not be charged with a hate crime unless you were seen to be inciting violence.

[Neal.F.]

Nobody is talking about kicking someone's ass. I just see conservatives getting their asses kicked by Liberal extremists.

As for abortion, it is murder plain and simple. Even a state with minimal government would want to protect its citizens very lives.

As for prostitution, what may be consensual between the hooker and the John may well have devastation consequences to a family, should Mr. John contract a disease and bring it home to an unsuspecting wife.

Pornography is damaging to families as well. I'd like to see it wiped out, and failing that, at least kept in brown paper wrappers, instead on in our kids faces.

Drugs. Sorry, seen to much in my life to justify it as a consensual victimless crime.

While I agree with you that a good act committed under duress is worth nothing, but let's get beyond the idea of victimless crimes and at least ensure that , say, Mr. John will be held responsible for his actions when he brings home the disease to Mrs. John. But by then, it may well be too late to matter.

That is why I am no longer a member of the Libertarian party, for whom I ran in '88 & '93.

[Cartman]

Neal, the flaws in your arguments are being confronted by both the left and the right for the very same reasons. You advocate highly interventionist policies (morality) yet proclaim that individual rights are paramount. This seems rather inconsistent.

[Hugo]

Nobody is talking about kicking someone's ass.

When you threaten to use the state as an instrument of your will, that's exactly what you are talking about. Governments fine, imprison, and execute.

I just see conservatives getting their asses kicked by Liberal extremists.

I wouldn't call any of these guys "extremists." I consider very few people radical enough to be labelled extremist, the vast majority are just compromising somewhere on the same scale rather than on the polarised end of it.

As for abortion, it is murder plain and simple.

I didn't mention abortion. I will, however, say that legislation without universal acceptance is not going to be a solution.

As for prostitution, what may be consensual between the hooker and the John may well have devastation consequences to a family, should Mr. John contract a disease and bring it home to an unsuspecting wife.

That's a fallacy of converse accident. What you have described is a separate offence - Mr. John's violation of his marriage contract resulting in bodily harm to his wife - and therefore is not an argument against prostitution.

Pornography is damaging to families as well.

Prove it. That's not a priori fact.

I'd like to see it wiped out, and failing that, at least kept in brown paper wrappers, instead on in our kids faces.

Once again, this is a failure of public goods and public space, not law or society. For instance, there's a McDonalds near my home that's near a sex shop. I take my kids to the McDonalds sometimes because there's a playground there and they can have a happy meal and play around while my wife and I have a coffee and a chat. If there were no public property, I could complain to the owners of McDonalds and of the street, and any neighbouring businesses, that I wouldn't be doing any business with them because I didn't want my kids to see the sex toys in the window of the sex shop. If enough people complained, the stores could sue the sex shop for causing them a loss of business, or could persuade the street owner to evict the sex shop by threatening to move elsewhere themselves.

So there's a way around that problem without resorting to the violent activities of a state. And the solution will truly reflect what people want, rather than what some politician or judge has decided is best.

Drugs. Sorry, seen to much in my life to justify it as a consensual victimless crime.

I wrote about this at some length here. Rather than repeat myself, I'll ask you to read what I wrote and argue from there.

That is why I am no longer a member of the Libertarian party, for whom I ran in '88 & '93.

The Libertarian Party will not get anywhere, ever. The main problem they face is that so many libertarians are opposed to electoral politics altogether, so they will never support the party or vote for them (or at all).

[Black Dog]

I think quibbling about drugs, prostitution, abortion etc. is beside the point. As was pointed out above, what's good for people is subjective. Furthermore if the Supreme Court was banning abortion or supporting the "traditional" definition of marriage, you'd not hear a peep about "judicial activism".

[Neal.F.]

Black Dog wrote: Furthermore if the Supreme Court was banning abortion or supporting the "traditional" definition of marriage, you'd not hear a peep about "judicial activism".

---------------

Actually you would be hearing more than just a peep... you'd hear screaming from the liberal side.

[Neal.F.]

Nobody is talking about kicking someone's ass.

When you threaten to use the state as an instrument of your will, that's exactly what you are talking about. Governments fine, imprison, and execute.

I just see conservatives getting their asses kicked by Liberal extremists.

I wouldn't call any of these guys "extremists." I consider very few people radical enough to be labelled extremist, the vast majority are just compromising somewhere on the same scale rather than on the polarised end of it.

As for abortion, it is murder plain and simple.

I didn't mention abortion. I will, however, say that legislation without universal acceptance is not going to be a solution.

As for prostitution, what may be consensual between the hooker and the John may well have devastation consequences to a family, should Mr. John contract a disease and bring it home to an unsuspecting wife.

That's a fallacy of converse accident. What you have described is a separate offence - Mr. John's violation of his marriage contract resulting in bodily harm to his wife - and therefore is not an argument against prostitution.

Pornography is damaging to families as well.

Prove it. That's not a priori fact.

I'd like to see it wiped out, and failing that, at least kept in brown paper wrappers, instead on in our kids faces.

Once again, this is a failure of public goods and public space, not law or society. For instance, there's a McDonalds near my home that's near a sex shop. I take my kids to the McDonalds sometimes because there's a playground there and they can have a happy meal and play around while my wife and I have a coffee and a chat. If there were no public property, I could complain to the owners of McDonalds and of the street, and any neighbouring businesses, that I wouldn't be doing any business with them because I didn't want my kids to see the sex toys in the window of the sex shop. If enough people complained, the stores could sue the sex shop for causing them a loss of business, or could persuade the street owner to evict the sex shop by threatening to move elsewhere themselves.

So there's a way around that problem without resorting to the violent activities of a state. And the solution will truly reflect what people want, rather than what some politician or judge has decided is best.

Drugs. Sorry, seen to much in my life to justify it as a consensual victimless crime.

I wrote about this at some length here. Rather than repeat myself, I'll ask you to read what I wrote and argue from there.

That is why I am no longer a member of the Libertarian party, for whom I ran in '88 & '93.

The Libertarian Party will not get anywhere, ever. The main problem they face is that so many libertarians are opposed to electoral politics altogether, so they will never support the party or vote for them (or at all).

Hugo, are you advocating anarchy?

I think Governments do have the right to fineand imprison, though I have strong reservations on the death penalty, based primarily on the premise that life & death is too much power to invest in government, except where deploying the armed forces is concerned.

However, I disagree with the idea that anti-abortion legislation won't work without universal acceptance. imprisoning abortionsits for murder for a good long time is a good place to start. nevertheless, abortion legislation needs to be backed up with supportive action by the government and people for the mothers and the children in question, and the fathers who helped conceive the child should be required to share the responsibility until a) the child is born and given up for adoption or the age of minority of the child should the mother decide to keep it, as opposed to giving the child up.

I call anyone who believes it is fine to murder the unborn an extremist.

Mr John has only breached the COVENANT (not contract) with his wife, AND placed her in grave danger without her knowledge or consent. He has also hurt any children there may be in the family by his actions. He has taken money that should have been used to feed, clothe and otherwise care for his family and spent it on something that can ultimately destroy his family.

Pornography destroys families and hurts thoise involved in the industry by dehumanizing people and turning them into objects to satisfy their sexual desire. It often gets to the point where a man can't be with his own wife without the aid of porn, whether on the spot or conjuring up the fantasy in his brain. It is a betrayal of the family bond too, in the sense that a man (in most cases it's the men) is committing adukltery in his heart against the children's mother.

What do you think about zoning laws? That municipality should e lobbied to rezone the area so as torequire the sex shop to open up in an industrial area . Zoning l;aws are the only thing that would protect you from somebody opening up a brothel, or rave or head shop on your street.

The Libertarian Party: My experience with them confirms what you say. You couldn't get them to agree on very much. Look what happened on the life issues in the USA. Ron paul ( OB-GYN) ran twice for President on a pro-life platform, in that the right to life began at conception and was the foundation on which all other rights stood. The party steadily increased its votes with him as nominee, In the '90s and now, pro-choice people (Rothbardians) such as Andre Marrou and harry Browne ran and the party has been losing votes ever since.

I will read what you say about drugs and get back to you later.

[Black Dog]

Actually you would be hearing more than just a peep... you'd hear screaming from the liberal side.

That's my point: your outrage is not becaus eyou give a rat's ass about democracy or individual freedom. You're simply having a hissy-fit because you can't have your way.

But let's look at your conclusion a little further. The decisions made by courts in interpreting the laws of the land (be it the Charter here or the Constitution down south) are consistent with the values those doumentswere founded upon: that is the requirement of the state to protect minorities from the majority. Those values themselves have evolved over the course of the centuries going back to the Enlightenment and are an important part of western (classical)) liberal democracies. To reverse these decisions would a step backwards in terms of human development.