Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Charles Anthony]

So, in its own right Christianity and most other religions indeed does have the right reserved pertaining to the word marriage albeit not the legal right but the traditional right.

A traditional right? Would that be a type of universal human right or an inherent right or maybe a "God-given right" perhaps?

[Black Dog]

That statement right there whether it was intended or not,mocks anybody who believes in God.Please don't do that.It is insulting.

I'll mock who I want, when I want, thanks. If religious types feel their personal beliefs entitle them to pass judgement on others' lifestyles, then I am free to judge them in return.

[gnam]

gnam

Canada is a country that has a history and traditons. It did not create itself.

You first have to understand Canada is a majority Christian country and the federal government has a moral responsibility to acknowledge this fact, which it does not, and tries to treat everyone as equals to appease its self invented status as being a 'officially multicultural country'. Canadians WERE NOT involved and DENIED the right to be part of this this important decision which should have been presented to Canadians in the form of a referendum.

The Liberal party could very well be considered anti Christian because of this. The Liberal party of Canada also has a powerful Quebec wing component, that at one time Quebec, was highly Roman Catholic but due to in my estimation, to a failure of God to propel Quebec politically, now shuns religion and instead now treats politics in a very religious manner, which also it seems, to be its full time occupation both federally and provincially.

What I don't agree with is the criteria that the Liberals use to identify and justify certain groups status in Canada that require special rights, over all other Canadians and written into the constitution. This includes Gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

For instance Gays have been given unilateral government decided rights concerning their perverted lifestyle as NORMAL and our federal government have decided unilaterally that nothing is wrong with homosexuals using the word 'marriage', to describe their same sex union. This is anti Christian.

It is argued that Christianity does not own the rights to the word 'marriage' but by the same token applied in modern times, every country in the world uses the word marriage to describe the union of 'heterosexual couples' and not 'homosexual couples'. So, in its own right Christianity and most other religions indeed does have the right reserved pertaining to the word marriage albeit not the legal right but the traditional right.

What I am proposing in a nutshell, your word, is to scrap the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or have it rewritten to exclude special status, for catered groups that I describe as 'special interest groups' being gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

Ok,

so it sounds like you are basically arguing for a christian powered reconstitution of the canadian state that would be devoted, in some constitutionally fundamental way, to a christian cultural imperialism/homogeneity? All of this would, presumably, be undertaken with reference to the historical arrival of Christian Europeans and would, effectively, write N. American First Nations and french speaking Europeans out of the picture as far as the formal creation of the Canadian State is concerned. As a further consideration, your scheme would do away with SSM in a legal/political sense because Canadians would recognize themselves as owing the existence of their country to christianity, a religion that, according to you and others, requires the sanctity of the institution of marriage (understood in terms of heterosexual unions) in order to safeguard the moral integrity of society as a whole... Does that about cover it??

[Rue]

That statement right there whether it was intended or not,mocks anybody who believes in God.Please don't do that.It is insulting.

I'll mock who I want, when I want, thanks. If religious types feel their personal beliefs entitle them to pass judgement on others' lifestyles, then I am free to judge them in return.

If there is an award for the funniest response this year then I nominate your pee hoo hah response. I enjoyed a good laugh over that and thank you. Like many posters I enjoy a good debate but sometimes I get too caught up and forget there aint nuthing like a dry sarcastic response to lighten us all up. Better then prune juice.

[Rue]

gnam

Canada is a country that has a history and traditons. It did not create itself.

You first have to understand Canada is a majority Christian country and the federal government has a moral responsibility to acknowledge this fact, which it does not, and tries to treat everyone as equals to appease its self invented status as being a 'officially multicultural country'. Canadians WERE NOT involved and DENIED the right to be part of this this important decision which should have been presented to Canadians in the form of a referendum.

The Liberal party could very well be considered anti Christian because of this. The Liberal party of Canada also has a powerful Quebec wing component, that at one time Quebec, was highly Roman Catholic but due to in my estimation, to a failure of God to propel Quebec politically, now shuns religion and instead now treats politics in a very religious manner, which also it seems, to be its full time occupation both federally and provincially.

What I don't agree with is the criteria that the Liberals use to identify and justify certain groups status in Canada that require special rights, over all other Canadians and written into the constitution. This includes Gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

For instance Gays have been given unilateral government decided rights concerning their perverted lifestyle as NORMAL and our federal government have decided unilaterally that nothing is wrong with homosexuals using the word 'marriage', to describe their same sex union. This is anti Christian.

It is argued that Christianity does not own the rights to the word 'marriage' but by the same token applied in modern times, every country in the world uses the word marriage to describe the union of 'heterosexual couples' and not 'homosexual couples'. So, in its own right Christianity and most other religions indeed does have the right reserved pertaining to the word marriage albeit not the legal right but the traditional right.

What I am proposing in a nutshell, your word, is to scrap the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or have it rewritten to exclude special status, for catered groups that I describe as 'special interest groups' being gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

Leafless I do not have a problem understanding why you want a Christian society based on what your cconcept of Christianity is and how you do not want the state and your version of Christianity seperated. That I understand. What I do not understand is when you call gays vicious or suggest they are mentally ill or intellectually impaired in your debate.

Gays do not need me to defend them against fundamentalist religious types. However it is important they understand and are defended by straights when you or anyone else starts making negative generalizations based on concepts that are just not true. In fairness to you, it is not only Christian fundamentalists that think like you do about Gays, it is fundamentalists from many religions including mine, Islam, Sikhism. Hinduism, etc. and I do not single out just your religious arguements but all religious arguements that agree with yours from ANY religion.

If you want to debate laws and making society Christian that is one thing- but making disparaging negative comments about gays accusing them of being intellectually imaired, pedophiles or mentally ill is what I am calling you on. I apologize for before if you thought I was insulting you. I was being sarcastic as I did not really think you were that uptight about gays until I read more of your stuff. It actually shocks me that you hold some of the views you do in this day and age. I do not mean that as an insult.

As for your version of Christianity, I personally think it has done great harm to aboriginals, jews, women, children, on and on.

I think you should seriously understand that many Christians do not follow your beliefs and this does not make them anti-Christian because they support gay rights.

I wonder Leafless if you really want us to go back to Leviticus and start stoning people. Where does your retroactivity end?

If we do not agree on anything else, understand this-I respect your right to your beliefs for the eaxct same reason I respect gay peoples' rights to be who they are. I also hope if nothing else, you please understand gays are not pedophiles, have not tried to impose anything on you, and I can assure you will not be inviting you to their weddings.

I have telephoned Elton John and told him to stay away from Canada for you. (he is the other Queen of England)

[Leafless]

No, the NDP is mostly supported by the United Church.

Really saying Canada is "Christian" is pointless because quite a few people have different perspectives on what "Christian" means. To some it is a rule book to be followed, to others it is about non-violence, tolerance, and charity.

Seven out of ten Canadians identify themselves as Christian, either Roman Catholic or Protestant. denominations.

That is 70% of the Canadian population making the country 'a majority Christian country'.

http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=v6n2_art_27

[jdobbin]

Seven out of ten Canadians identify themselves as Christian, either Roman Catholic or Protestant. denominations.

That is 70% of the Canadian population making the country 'a majority Christian country'.

http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=v6n2_art_27

How many go to church every week? How many believe in everything the Church says?

Majority Christian doesn't mean they are very religious.

[Black Dog]

That is 70% of the Canadian population making the country 'a majority Christian country'.

And I suppose if 70% of Canadians were radical Muslims, you'd be perfectly comfortable with the state governing according to their religious beliefs, right?

[leonardcohen]

That statement right there whether it was intended or not,mocks anybody who believes in God.Please don't do that.It is insulting.

I'll mock who I want, when I want, thanks. If religious types feel their personal beliefs entitle them to pass judgement on others' lifestyles, then I am free to judge them in return.

There,There now, feel better now?

[newbie]

Seven out of ten Canadians identify themselves as Christian, either Roman Catholic or Protestant. denominations.

That is 70% of the Canadian population making the country 'a majority Christian country'.

http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=v6n2_art_27

The Catholics are slowly dying out. The Bishops are too busy almagamating parishes and finding straight Priests.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

What I am proposing in a nutshell, your word, is to scrap the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or have it rewritten to exclude special status, for catered groups that I describe as 'special interest groups' being gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

It also sounds like you would like to include 'non-Christians' though you don't say it but imply it.

A load of rubbish, but I can appreciate the fact that you are a devout 'sovial conservative'.

All I am saying is the Charter discriminates by giving Gays, Quebec and Aboriginals elevated status decided unilaterally by government rather than society. This is not a case where government protects those without rights. It is a case where government intervenes into an area that is not their concern.

Why would I be against non-Christians?

Is there a section in the Charter that I overlooked and provides them also with elevated rights?

[Leafless]

Ok,

so it sounds like you are basically arguing for a christian powered reconstitution of the canadian state that would be devoted, in some constitutionally fundamental way, to a christian cultural imperialism/homogeneity? All of this would, presumably, be undertaken with reference to the historical arrival of Christian Europeans and would, effectively, write N. American First Nations and french speaking Europeans out of the picture as far as the formal creation of the Canadian State is concerned. As a further consideration, your scheme would do away with SSM in a legal/political sense because Canadians would recognize themselves as owing the existence of their country to christianity, a religion that, according to you and others, requires the sanctity of the institution of marriage (understood in terms of heterosexual unions) in order to safeguard the moral integrity of society as a whole... Does that about cover it??

No it does not.

All I want recognized is for the feds to do what they say they want to do and treat everyone EQUAL.

At present the Charter discriminates by giving certain groups elevated rights and should be rewritten.

All Canadians should have the same rights.

No Canadians should be treated as special interest groups with special status decided solely by government. Society pertaining to social interaction within the confines of the law is created by Canadians, NOT GOVERNMENT.

[Leafless]

Leafless I do not have a problem understanding why you want a Christian society based on what your cconcept of Christianity is and how you do not want the state and your version of Christianity seperated. That I understand. What I do not understand is when you call gays vicious or suggest they are mentally ill or intellectually impaired in your debate.

If you want to debate laws and making society Christian that is one thing- but making disparaging negative comments about gays accusing them of being intellectually imaired, pedophiles or mentally ill is what I am calling you on. I apologize for before if you thought I was insulting you. I was being sarcastic as I did not really think you were that uptight about gays until I read more of your stuff. It actually shocks me that you hold some of the views you do in this day and age. I do not mean that as an insult.

This thread started out as, "homosexuality is an anomaly", which I agreed with.

This means pertaining to homosexuals, that they lack the usual or ethical STANDARDS pertaining to Canadian society.

In turn Canadian society is 70% Christian making it a majority Christian society.

Personally I am not even a moderate Christian, but I am a principled individual and think homosexuality is wrong and morally destructive. I think Christianity, morals and the ten commandments for instance help form the basis concerning a positive outlook, to respect the laws of the country and shape the mind to help become mentally principled to be able to recognize when society goes astray.

You for instance defend homosexuals in an unprincipled way pertaining to a code of conduct that does not protect the natural interest of society.

[gnam]

All I want recognized is for the feds to do what they say they want to do and treat everyone EQUAL.

At present the Charter discriminates by giving certain groups elevated rights and should be rewritten.

All Canadians should have the same rights.

No Canadians should be treated as special interest groups with special status decided solely by government. Society pertaining to social interaction within the confines of the law is created by Canadians, NOT GOVERNMENT.

But they (gov't or society or whomever you are talking about) more or less do or try to treat everyone as equal with respect to the stated aims and values of the government... I think.

The fact that certain groups in society are treated differently than some others has to do, if I am not mistaken, with the fact that in order ensure a basic level of equality some groups require that special requirements be met in order to ensure that society is able to grant that equality. All concerns that this kind of equality promotes a rather commonplace and disgusting brand of equality (read as mediocrity) aside, this kind of thinking serves certain purposes. For example, retards and handicapped (sorry to anyone that belongs to one of these groups... I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was encouraging special rights for certain groups with regard to their right to be called whatever they want) people require that certain priveleges and aids be extended by society in order to ensure that they can excercise basic rights like taking a shit in a public washroom or filling out tax forms, etc.

I am NOT saying that homosexuality is qualitatively like a mental or physical diability, however all three states of existence mark out those who live these existences as different in some way from the majority of canadians, in some more or less banal way.

With regard to SSM, the government as the elected body that is supposed to be representative of canadians, all Canadians not just the majority of canadians (this is the part that is supposed to be about the equality of all canadians as you desire), is extending the same legal rights to homosexuals... the rights that are currently extended to the largest canadian special interest group--white hetero judeo-christians.

It occurs to me that one way to solve your little "definition of marriage" problem would be to take legal marriage off the books entirely. Everyone would then have an equal right to nothing in the strictly legal sense. Then your various churches that claim access to divinely inspired definitions of marriage could just marry whomever they see fit since it is not the mandate of the religious to treat all canadians equally... would this satisfy you??

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear gnam,

The fact that certain groups in society are treated differently than some others has to do, if I am not mistaken, with the fact that in order ensure a basic level of equality some groups require that special requirements be met in order to ensure that society is able to grant that equality. All concerns that this kind of equality promotes a rather commonplace and disgusting brand of equality (read as mediocrity) aside, this kind of thinking serves certain purposes. For example, retards and handicapped (sorry to anyone that belongs to one of these groups... I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was encouraging special rights for certain groups with regard to their right to be called whatever they want) people require that certain priveleges and aids be extended by society in order to ensure that they can excercise basic rights like taking a shit in a public washroom or filling out tax forms, etc.

Exactly right, (and I do believe that the term 'mentally retarded' is making a comeback re: being a legitimate term) it is the definition and boundaries of 'normal' that are being expanded to be more inclusive.

I am NOT saying that homosexuality is qualitatively like a mental or physical diability, however all three states of existence mark out those who live these existences as different in some way from the majority of canadians, in some more or less banal way.

I think you spelled 'anal' wrong...(j/k)

The problem is that Leafless, and many others like him, see homosexuality as not just different, but wrong. There should indeed be some demarkation between 'different from the majority' and 'wrong' when extending our societal parameters of inclusion, but I differ from Leafless as to the category in which homosexuality belongs.

[Black Dog]

All I am saying is the Charter discriminates by giving Gays, Quebec and Aboriginals elevated status decided unilaterally by government rather than society. This is not a case where government protects those without rights. It is a case where government intervenes into an area that is not their concern.

What Charter rights do those three groups have that the rest of us don't?

[Leafless]

All I am saying is the Charter discriminates by giving Gays, Quebec and Aboriginals elevated status decided unilaterally by government rather than society. This is not a case where government protects those without rights. It is a case where government intervenes into an area that is not their concern.

What Charter rights do those three groups have that the rest of us don't?

It should be noted Gays, Quebec and Aboriginals are NOT denied any Canadian rights initially. They have chosen to lobby for additional rights.

The feds have unilaterally decided and entrenched in our constitution additional rights while choosing to ignore the rights of many other justifiable groups with protection written into the constitution:

Relating to Gays-Allowing the perverted, immoral and unnatural and potentially harmful aspects of homosexuality to be equal before and under the law without discrimination without allowing the input of Canadians concerning this important matter.

Relating to Quebec- Implementation of French as a federal official language. Financially supporting promoting the intrusion of a dead, useless language to discriminate and interfere with the working language of Canada, English. Even worse advancing the use of this dead, useless language to form a condition of federal employment in the federal public service without the input of citizens of Canada concerning this important matter.

Relating to Aboriginals- Government involvement in this area could exceed how Canadians should try to control Aboriginals who basically only want to be left alone to hunt and fish according to their traditional beliefs and desires. Why is government placing itself in the position that it is basically governments responsibility to create cities in the wilderness when Aboriginals are free to move to cities and be part of modern society without this huge financial burden?

Why is government placing Aboriginals in the same position as Quebec and Gays by giving them the opportunity to be politically active and in the position to extract huge amounts of tax payers dollars without the input of the tax paying citizens of Canada?

The fact is that any group that is the beneficiary of additional constitutional rights, written into our constitution should be subject to approval from the citizens of Canada by referendum, otherwise it could be viewed or suggest fraudulent federal tactics.

[gc1765]

All I want recognized is for the feds to do what they say they want to do and treat everyone EQUAL.

The feds have unilaterally decided and entrenched in our constitution additional rights while choosing to ignore the rights of many other justifiable groups with protection written into the constitution:

Relating to Gays-Allowing the perverted, immoral and unnatural and potentially harmful aspects of homosexuality to be equal before and under the law without discrimination without allowing the input of Canadians concerning this important matter.

So, are you for or against treating everyone equally?

[AndrewL]

"‘Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday."

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

Wise assessment concerning homosexuals.

To bad our politicians are not as intelligent.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2275

Really? Define immoral and define for me how homosexuality fits your definition of immoral. Here is the trick, do not mention god once.....

Andrew

[Black Dog]

Relating to Gays-Allowing the perverted, immoral and unnatural and potentially harmful aspects of homosexuality to be equal before and under the law without discrimination without allowing the input of Canadians concerning this important matter.

So you concede that gays don't have any additional rights under the Charter than the rest of us. The rest is irrelevant.

Strike one.

Relating to Quebec- Implementation of French as a federal official language. Financially supporting promoting the intrusion of a dead, useless language to discriminate and interfere with the working language of Canada, English.

First: if French was a dead, uselss language, why do so many Quebecers speak it and use it?

Second: the Charter simply states "English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada." So no special rights there. Simply equal.

Even worse advancing the use of this dead, useless language to form a condition of federal employment in the federal public service without the input of citizens of Canada concerning this important matter

incorrect. french is not a prerequisite for employment in the public service.

Steeeeee-rike Two!

Relating to Aboriginals- Government involvement in this area could exceed how Canadians should try to control Aboriginals who basically only want to be left alone to hunt and fish according to their traditional beliefs and desires. Why is government placing itself in the position that it is basically governments responsibility to create cities in the wilderness when Aboriginals are free to move to cities and be part of modern society without this huge financial burden?

There's nothing in the Charter about Aboriginals, save for the provision that "guarantee(s) in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal people of Canada." In other words: no special rights under the Charter.

That's the ball game.

[Leafless]

All I want recognized is for the feds to do what they say they want to do and treat everyone EQUAL.

The feds have unilaterally decided and entrenched in our constitution additional rights while choosing to ignore the rights of many other justifiable groups with protection written into the constitution:

Relating to Gays-Allowing the perverted, immoral and unnatural and potentially harmful aspects of homosexuality to be equal before and under the law without discrimination without allowing the input of Canadians concerning this important matter.

So, are you for or against treating everyone equally?

This is an unattainable pipe dream in an democratic society.

If you want a classless society, go for it and move to some other part of the world with State control.

[Black Dog]

This is an unattainable pipe dream in an democratic society.

If you want a classless society, go for it and move to some other part of the world with State control.

Answer the man's question.

Again: are you for or against treating everyone equally (that is, equality under and before the law)?

[Leafless]

First: if French was a dead, uselss language, why do so many Quebecers speak it and use it?

Because the suckers in the ROC are paying for it.

[Leafless]

This is an unattainable pipe dream in an democratic society.

If you want a classless society, go for it and move to some other part of the world with State control.

Answer the man's question.

Again: are you for or against treating everyone equally (that is, equality under and before the law)?

Everyone? Pertaining to an unqualified definition of 'everyone'.

Absolutely NOT!

[Leafless]

"‘Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday."

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

Wise assessment concerning homosexuals.

To bad our politicians are not as intelligent.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2275

Really? Define immoral and define for me how homosexuality fits your definition of immoral. Here is the trick, do not mention god once.....

Andrew

Define a moral Christian society but do not mention God?