Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Rue]

Its the same by definition only. Would you apply that definition to a dog and a cat?

When there is no legal need to distinguish between "dog" and "cat" then the law uses a word which applies to both. For example, if the government passes a law forbidding cruelty to animals, should they distinguish between cruelty to dogs vs cruelty to cats? Obviously not.

I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge to you to demonstrate the legal difference between OSM and SSM. I suspect you have no adequate response and so you choose to ignore the challenge.

The state didn't steal it, they used it correctly. The word still applied to the union of a 'man and a women'.

If you are going to let the state define the term for legal purposes, they you are at their whim when they choose to redefine it according to societal norms.

Renegade the deeafening silence is typical of anyone who wants to define morality and claims their personal moral beliefs are "legal" when others agree with them. In this case "legal" all along has been a code word for those who have the same moral values as Leafless. Thus the silence.

[Renegade]

Renegade the deeafening silence is typical of anyone who wants to define morality and claims their personal moral beliefs are "legal" when others agree with them. In this case "legal" all along has been a code word for those who have the same moral values as Leafless. Thus the silence.

Rue, I'm sure you are dead right. When someone wants to define laws only within the context of their own personal morality, they have no response to challenges which transends their own narrow view of the world.

In one area I think Leafless is right, and it is somewhat disquieting: There are more people who are like Leafless in their attitude than we are aware. It takes a long time for attitudes to change, and many like Leafless will cling to their attitudes despite the irrationality of their argument.

[Leafless]

Its the same by definition only. Would you apply that definition to a dog and a cat?

When there is no legal need to distinguish between "dog" and "cat" then the law uses a word which applies to both. For example, if the government passes a law forbidding cruelty to animals, should they distinguish between cruelty to dogs vs cruelty to cats? Obviously not.

I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge to you to demonstrate the legal difference between OSM and SSM. I suspect you have no adequate response and so you choose to ignore the challenge.

The state didn't steal it, they used it correctly. The word still applied to the union of a 'man and a women'.

If you are going to let the state define the term for legal purposes, they you are at their whim when they choose to redefine it according to societal norms.

Renegade the deeafening silence is typical of anyone who wants to define morality and claims their personal moral beliefs are "legal" when others agree with them. In this case "legal" all along has been a code word for those who have the same moral values as Leafless. Thus the silence.

Morals and laws go hand in hand.

Public consensus is what develops laws and not like what we have in Canada a flawed 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' with laws decided by courts and politicians bypassing Canadian society.

Our Canadian civil and religious liberties are currently at stake and threatened by Bill C250.

http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=58

Today, the Canadian Parliament is discussing a bill (C-250) that Canadians claim could be used to outlaw parts of the Bible as hate speech and could criminalize individuals in organizations that teach that same-sex contact is immoral. Same-sex marriage is a serious threat to our civil and religious liberties and could lead to widespread discrimination against people who disagree.

[Renegade]

Morals and laws go hand in hand.

Did you make that up? When do we get to pass the law stoning adulterers?

[Charles Anthony]

When someone wants to define laws only within the context of their own personal morality,

How else should someone define laws?

they have no response to challenges which transends their own narrow view of the world.

That is a false dilemma. It is only a problem because we have a state-monopolized and coerced legal system.

If we had state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues, the same problems would arise. People on the MakebeLeafless teams would have one opinion on how the rules should be and people on the Ruenegade teams would have a different opinion on how the rules should be. There would be no objective way of reaching common ground. Might would mean right. The state would dictate the rules according to some ridiculous bureau-democratic shenanigan protocol. Ultimately, certain teams would ALWAYS get the short end of the stick and other teams would get a free ride.

Thankfully, we do not have state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues. Thus, the Leafs play in one league of their choosing and the Gators play in a different league of their choosing.

In one area I think Leafless is right, and it is somewhat disquieting: There are more people who are like Leafless in their attitude than we are aware. It takes a long time for attitudes to change, and many like Leafless will cling to their attitudes despite the irrationality of their argument.

You have no more right to cling to the righteousness of state coersion as do people who cling to irrational attitudes regarding morality.

If we treated the legal system like any other marketable service as found in Hugoland (reference: exhibit #1 and exhibit #2 and exhibit #3), none of this would be an issue. Those who believed that Homosexuality is an anomaly would be standing in line BEHIND the people waiting for hoola-hoops and beaver-skin hats. The reality of the free market would knock sense into their ridiculous demands. The market will clear the irrational arguments.

People need to have faith in the free market.

[Leafless]

Morals and laws go hand in hand.

Did you make that up? When do we get to pass the law stoning adulterers?

I don't have to make it up, it's a fact.

Governments have a responsibility to create laws based on morals and do just that. Here is something from Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...rnard_edit.html

In Canada SSM is made legal by a dictatorial, government devised, FLAWED, DISCRIMINATORY charter, that overrides and does not represent views of society.

In other words the charter gives government ultimate control concerning the workings of society in a supposedly democratic society.

In turn this threatens existing civil and religious liberties pertaining to 'governmental constitutional rule', which is totally UNHEARD of in any other modern, freer, democratic country.

[Rue]

Yegads I am being credited with a new movement the Ruenegades! Soon I will have everyone hanging Judy Garland and Marlyn Monroe Warhol prints in their living rooms. Beware. And all this time I thought I was conspiring with my Hollywood and banker friends to turn the world into slaves for the Zionist juggernaut.

[Charles Anthony]

Soon I will have everyone hanging Judy Garland and Marlyn Monroe Warhol prints in their living rooms.

Aaah!!! The TRUE conspiracy finally comes out!!

Pardon the thread-drift but are Judy Garland and Andy Warhol anomalies?

[Liam]

Not being Canadian, you'll need to forgive me for not fully understanding your Charter, but here goes... wouldn't the Notwithstanding Clause allow the government to suspend the rights found in the Charter? if so, Leafless has his way out: simply incite a homosexual to attempt to burn the Reichstag... errr, Parliament, and the Conservatives can step in and start sending the gays (or whoever is the disgusting minority du jour) off to the camps.

[guyser]

Not being Canadian, you'll need to forgive me for not fully understanding your Charter, but here goes... wouldn't the Notwithstanding Clause allow the government to suspend the rights found in the Charter? if so, Leafless has his way out: simply incite a homosexual to attempt to burn the Reichstag... errr, Parliament, and the Conservatives can step in and start sending the gays (or whoever is the disgusting minority du jour) off to the camps.

What you dont think the Conservatives have already thought about this?

[Renegade]

I don't have to make it up, it's a fact.

Governments have a responsibility to create laws based on morals and do just that. Here is something from Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...rnard_edit.html

Let's see now,, you claim something is a fact and to prove it you post a link which has "opinion" in its url. Hmmmm... It makes me think you don't know the difference between a fact and opinion.

A fact is backed by evidence. You haven't shown any. I should believe it is a fact because you say so?

[Renegade]

How else should someone define laws?

Laws would be defined based upon protections of rights, not by morals. IOW, if I don't trangress anyones rigths by not going to church on Sundays, then I should be free to do so regardless on if it is moral or not.

That is a false dilemma. It is only a problem because we have a state-monopolized and coerced legal system.

If we had state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues, the same problems would arise. People on the MakebeLeafless teams would have one opinion on how the rules should be and people on the Ruenegade teams would have a different opinion on how the rules should be. There would be no objective way of reaching common ground. Might would mean right. The state would dictate the rules according to some ridiculous bureau-democratic shenanigan protocol. Ultimately, certain teams would ALWAYS get the short end of the stick and other teams would get a free ride.

Thankfully, we do not have state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues. Thus, the Leafs play in one league of their choosing and the Gators play in a different league of their choosing.

The only objective way of deciding whether a set of rules is "permissible" or "unpermissable" is based upon transgression of rights. We DO have a commonly agreed set of principles. They are called rights. Rules which trangress rights must be thrown out regardless of what the government feels. The inclusion of SSM into the umbrella of marriage was based upon a determination that the government rules violated rights.

Unlike your example above, we do have an agreed set of basic rules. Even if Leafless choose not to validate the Canadian Charter of Rigths, he has already acknowledged the UN Charter of Rights. He just chooses to interpret it in a completely illogical way (such as "the word "everyone" doesn't include homosexuals").

You have no more right to cling to the righteousness of state coersion as do people who cling to irrational attitudes regarding morality.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I don't cling to the righteousness of state coersion at all. It is my view that the state should compeltely stay out of decideing who gets married and people should decide themselves. Since the state chose to butt in, they are bound by a set of commonly agreed rights which say that they cannot discrimminate.

If we treated the legal system like any other marketable service as found in Hugoland (reference: exhibit #1 and exhibit #2 and exhibit #3), none of this would be an issue. Those who believed that Homosexuality is an anomaly would be standing in line BEHIND the people waiting for hoola-hoops and beaver-skin hats. The reality of the free market would knock sense into their ridiculous demands. The market will clear the irrational arguments.

People need to have faith in the free market.

I have complete faith in the free market. What I don't have is patience to wait for Hugoland to arrive. We could all be long dead by then.

[Renegade]

Not being Canadian, you'll need to forgive me for not fully understanding your Charter, but here goes... wouldn't the Notwithstanding Clause allow the government to suspend the rights found in the Charter? if so, Leafless has his way out: simply incite a homosexual to attempt to burn the Reichstag... errr, Parliament, and the Conservatives can step in and start sending the gays (or whoever is the disgusting minority du jour) off to the camps.

Yup, the government could invoke the Nothwithstanding clause, except that the people generally support the Charter and would abhor the use of the clause (even those who may disagree with SSM).

The other little problem with the Notwistanding clause, is it is not indefinite. It must be periodically renewed evey couple of years.

[Charles Anthony]

You have me mistaken for someone else. I don't cling to the righteousness of state coersion at all. It is my view that the state should compeltely stay out of decideing who gets married and people should decide themselves. Since the state chose to butt in, they are bound by a set of commonly agreed rights which say that they cannot discrimminate.

Rather than trying to promote equality before the law for everybody (inevitably a neverending venture -- next: what washrooms will transitional-transexuals be allowed to use?) I would suggest that it makes more sense to ask that the state butts itself out.

In other words, demand that the state has nothing to do with matters of marriage or sex-rights.

I have complete faith in the free market. What I don't have is patience to wait for Hugoland to arrive. We could all be long dead by then.

You have the ability to take us baby steps towards promoting more freedom rather than more bureaucracy.

[Riverwind]

I have complete faith in the free market. What I don't have is patience to wait for Hugoland to arrive. We could all be long dead by then.

I have zero faith in the market - especially when it comes to issues of justice. A free market in justice would be run by criminal mobs and the super wealthy - the vast majority of people would be screwed. And don't bother responding with comments about how the gov't operates like a mob - there is huge difference between a democratically elected gov't and a criminal gang because democracy gives the average person control over who has the levers of power. An anarchy/mobocracy would encourage vigilantism, violence and lynchings because that would be the only option available to average people when they are screwed by a free-market system controlled by criminals and the wealthy.

[Charles Anthony]

there is huge difference between a democratically elected gov't and a criminal gang because democracy gives the average person control over who has the levers of power.

-- but not the poor.

An anarchy/mobocracy would encourage vigilantism, violence and lynchings because that would be the only option available to average people when they are screwed by a free-market system controlled by criminals and the wealthy.

That is is exactly the justice and security and law and order that serves the poor alive today.

We already have free-market two-tiered justice. We choose not to see it.

[Riverwind]

An anarchy/mobocracy would encourage vigilantism, violence and lynchings because that would be the only option available to average people when they are screwed by a free-market system controlled by criminals and the wealthy.

That is is exactly the justice and security and law and order that serves the poor alive today.

The poor have a right to vote for politicians that are willing to stand up for their interests - the system is not perfect but it is infinitely better than the feudal like system that you advocate.

[Charles Anthony]

The poor have a right to vote for politicians that are willing to stand up for their interests

The right to vote? That is all they get: an illusion. Throw them a bone with very little meat on it.

Do the poor also have the right to influence the price of oil with their right to purchase oil?

- the system is not perfect

The system is unfair.

but it is infinitely better than the feudal like system that you advocate.

The poor do not enjoy one ounce of the infinite betterment provided by our coercratic justice system.

[Renegade]

Rather than trying to promote equality before the law for everybody (inevitably a neverending venture -- next: what washrooms will transitional-transexuals be allowed to use?) I would suggest that it makes more sense to ask that the state butts itself out.

In other words, demand that the state has nothing to do with matters of marriage or sex-rights.

Yes, I agree. As I've said as long as they are involved, they can be forced to not discrimminate. It is quite possible that if this is an ongoing issue, at some point the state's position will become so uncomfortable, it will force them to butt out.

You have the ability to take us baby steps towards promoting more freedom rather than more bureaucracy.

I do promote more freedom rather than less. However I'm practical enough to realize what can be changed immediately and what cannot.

[Renegade]

I have complete faith in the free market. What I don't have is patience to wait for Hugoland to arrive. We could all be long dead by then.

I have zero faith in the market - especially when it comes to issues of justice. A free market in justice would be run by criminal mobs and the super wealthy - the vast majority of people would be screwed. And don't bother responding with comments about how the gov't operates like a mob - there is huge difference between a democratically elected gov't and a criminal gang because democracy gives the average person control over who has the levers of power. An anarchy/mobocracy would encourage vigilantism, violence and lynchings because that would be the only option available to average people when they are screwed by a free-market system controlled by criminals and the wealthy.

RW, I was being somewhat facetious in my response to CA. I'm not an anarchist, nor do I believe there is any chance we will ever devolve to anarchy. I also do believe that government does have a role, especially in the administration of justice. But government itself should not have unchecked power to define laws and enforce them.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

but it is infinitely better than the feudal like system that you advocate.

The poor do not enjoy one ounce of the infinite betterment provided by our coercratic justice system.

The 'poor' sure do. It is presently illegal to enslave them, eat them, rape them, kill them for sport...they are not required to pay for their own private police service to prevent these things, though they are poor.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Liam,

Not being Canadian, you'll need to forgive me for not fully understanding your Charter, but here goes... wouldn't the Notwithstanding Clause allow the government to suspend the rights found in the Charter?

Yes, the gov't could enact the 'notwithstanding clause', if they saw fit (or should I say, 'benefit'). However, it would be a bold move for a minority gov't.

if so, Leafless has his way out: simply incite a homosexual to attempt to burn the Reichstag... errr, Parliament, and the Conservatives can step in and start sending the gays (or whoever is the disgusting minority du jour) off to the camps.

Indeed, here is the possibility of evil associated with radical state power. (As I understand it, Van Der Lubbe was beheaded, though I have also read he was hanged) Homosexuals, left-handed midgets, and Uigher Yak salesmen could bear the brunt of the intolerance those in power chose to eliminate as the 'escarpment sacrifice'...

A sign at the camp could read..."Please remove shoes and hair before entering showers. Aslo, now is the time to repent'."

[Leafless]

I don't have to make it up, it's a fact.

Governments have a responsibility to create laws based on morals and do just that. Here is something from Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...rnard_edit.html

Let's see now,, you claim something is a fact and to prove it you post a link which has "opinion" in its url. Hmmmm... It makes me think you don't know the difference between a fact and opinion.

A fact is backed by evidence. You haven't shown any. I should believe it is a fact because you say so?

Why don't you read that link again.

Are you in denial that the' Ten Commandments' have a direct influence in laws around the world?

The preamble to the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', reads: " Canada is founded upon the PRINCIPLES that recognize the SUPRAMACY of God and the RULE of LAW" and not the rule of HOMOSEXUALS.

[Leafless]

That is a false dilemma. It is only a problem because we have a state-monopolized and coerced legal system.

If we had state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues, the same problems would arise. People on the MakebeLeafless teams would have one opinion on how the rules should be and people on the Ruenegade teams would have a different opinion on how the rules should be. There would be no objective way of reaching common ground. Might would mean right. The state would dictate the rules according to some ridiculous bureau-democratic shenanigan protocol. Ultimately, certain teams would ALWAYS get the short end of the stick and other teams would get a free ride.

Thankfully, we do not have state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues. Thus, the Leafs play in one league of their choosing and the Gators play in a different league of their choosing.

The only objective way of deciding whether a set of rules is "permissible" or "unpermissable" is based upon transgression of rights. We DO have a commonly agreed set of principles. They are called rights. Rules which trangress rights must be thrown out regardless of what the government feels. The inclusion of SSM into the umbrella of marriage was based upon a determination that the government rules violated rights.

Unlike your example above, we do have an agreed set of basic rules. Even if Leafless choose not to validate the Canadian Charter of Rigths, he has already acknowledged the UN Charter of Rights. He just chooses to interpret it in a completely illogical way (such as "the word "everyone" doesn't include homosexuals").

I choose not to validate the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' because I was not initially included to have the opportunity to vote on it, whether to decline or accept it.

The U.N. 'Charter of Rights' never did include homosexuals as included in 'everyone' as at that time homosexuality was something no one even talked about.

But we all are aware homosexual lobbyist are continually trying to get the wording changed pertaining to the U.N. Charter of Rights to accommodate their perversion, but have FAILED to do so due to lack of international recognition and support.

[Leafless]

Not being Canadian, you'll need to forgive me for not fully understanding your Charter, but here goes... wouldn't the Notwithstanding Clause allow the government to suspend the rights found in the Charter? if so, Leafless has his way out: simply incite a homosexual to attempt to burn the Reichstag... errr, Parliament, and the Conservatives can step in and start sending the gays (or whoever is the disgusting minority du jour) off to the camps.

Yup, the government could invoke the Nothwithstanding clause, except that the people generally support the Charter and would abhor the use of the clause (even those who may disagree with SSM).

The other little problem with the Notwistanding clause, is it is not indefinite. It must be periodically renewed evey couple of years.

You have NO PROOF Canadians support the charter as there was never even a national referendum whether Canadians even want it or accept it. And no one wants to hear about telephone polls pertaining to important constitutional matters.

Pertaining to the Notwithstanding clause, you are correct in saying it is "not indefinite". But I doubt if that really matters, has Quebec has been renewing the NWC on a regular every five year basis with NO problem.