Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Electric Monk]

Leafless, your rights do not extend beyond you, others have their own rights. To be equal, homosexuals need to have the same rights that you do. If your rights supersede theirs, you are no longer equals. That would be wrong. How does allowing Bob and Steve down the street to marry each other affect your rights?

Here's an example, imagine conservative supporters were the majority of the posters at this forum, (edit: and this is the ONLY forum in the world), and Greg set up a referendum on whether or not all others should be allowed to post in the general forums, or if they should be restricted to a special area set up just for them called the "leftorium". However, conservatives can post in all areas including the "leftorium".

The vote is held, and the majority conservative supporters vote to restrict all others to the "leftorium", no posts in the general forums. Now on the face of it everyone can post, but only one group can post to the general forums. Is this equality? Should the majority prevail in this case?

[Leafless]

Leafless, your rights do not extend beyond you, others have their own rights. To be equal, homosexuals need to have the same rights that you do. If your rights supersede theirs, you are no longer equals. That would be wrong. How does allowing Bob and Steve down the street to marry each other affect your rights?

Here's an example, imagine conservative supporters were the majority of the posters at this forum, (edit: and this is the ONLY forum in the world), and Greg set up a referendum on whether or not all others should be allowed to post in the general forums, or if they should be restricted to a special area set up just for them called the "leftorium". However, conservatives can post in all areas including the "leftorium".

The vote is held, and the majority conservative supporters vote to restrict all others to the "leftorium", no posts in the general forums. Now on the face of it everyone can post, but only one group can post to the general forums. Is this equality? Should the majority prevail in this case?

Your example of Conservative supporters bias or discrimination against Liberal supporters does not compare with the homosexual issue. Of course, pertaining to your example outright discrmination is evident based on the LACK of RULES and the blame rest on Greg's shoulders.

But then again the issue is pertaining to your example the question that begs to be answered how the issue is to resolved.

The flawed point in your example that you have convientely left out a very important criteria. That necessary criteria is Greg's failure to initially set up rules to ensure this situation cannot happen initially.

The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar.

IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage.

[Electric Monk]

I like your solution to the discrimination in my analogy, Greg should set up rules so that the majority cannot oppress the minority. So you agree that simple majority rule can result in discrimination against minorities?

As to your assertions about the homosexual issue being different, I'm still trying to understand what you mean. What is legal moral documentation? Why should a majority vote concerning moral issues be treated differently than one concerning legal issues?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

that perverted homosexuality

What about 'non-perverted homosexuality'?

IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue,

If it isn't a legal issue, then you should have no problem with it being made legal.

it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government.

I sure as hell don't want 'morals' to become the basis of law, least of all 'religious morals', especially since they can change with the wind (or population). Think of it Leafless, the majority deciding that the morals that they hold become law. What if the majority becomes Muslim (or Jewish) and they decide to outlaw Christianity?

[guyser]

The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar.

IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage.

So who is the arbitor of "morals?".

You..?...Me...?..the Church..?...

I certainly do not want someone as uptight as you deciding the morals of this country, and I would bet you dont want my morals setting your standard. Thats the thing, morals are a personal issue and should be left that way. Governments are not in the business of deciding morals and thats a good thing.

The govt has not "bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove " anything. That is not the job of govt to try and fight homosexuality because there is no documentation to prove one way or another.

Frankly you need to either grow up or open your eyes to the real world. Your diatribes on this issue are full of ignorance and disinformation. I cannot help but think you are either 12 years old or some religious zealot from the Phelps camp in Kansas . Please, enough of this "homosexuality is wrong..I know it" crap. You do not know squat. Or perhaps you are a closet gay man who knows what the gay lifestyle is all about, in which case you should admit so that you are arguing from a position of strength. I seriously doubt the latter.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man. Animals are known to be gay , well at least some of them, the Romans were well known to be gay.

Just what do you think went on in society where the woman were not? Here is a hint....what happens in prisons?

[gc1765]

The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar.

IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage.

What if the MAJORITY of society decided that the MORAL thing to do was to kick out of the country anyone who thinks homosexuality is perverted, immoral, or are opposed to SSM? What if society thinks that is "good". How would you feel about that? Would you start packing your bags?

[jefferiah]

The equal rights question is a matter of how you look at it. Everyone has always had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. So when people say when you don't allow gay people to marry you are denying them a right everyone else has. Not true. Straight people would not be able to marry someone of the same sex either.

[Renegade]

I didn't leave anything out as that is the primary FULL definition of conscience.

Where did you get this "FULL" definiiton? Is it one you made up or does it come from an objective source?

Here's the one from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

conscience

• noun a person’s moral sense of right and wrong, chiefly as it affects their own behaviour.

— ORIGIN Latin conscientia ‘knowledge within oneself’, from scire ‘to know’.

Pay particular attention to the word "own" and the latin origin ‘knowledge within oneself’. You will see that the standard definition refers to moral distinctions which are made within onself and not as it applies to others.

What you are saying though is totally false, as laws are written and based on good and bad behavior.

Behavior RULES!

Ask any murderer who is serving 25 years and ignored his own morals, but still figures he did nothing wrong because in his mind the guy had it coming to him. Good behavior...pays.

You are uninformed on this issue. Criminal law is based upon the protection of property and human rights. It only prohibits behaviour that transgresses those rights, not because they are "immoral".

Here's but one example: Adultery is considered "immoral" by most of society. Christians have a specific commandment prohibiting it. Yet there is no law against adultery. Why is that, based upon your "immoral behaviour is wrong" argument?

But not so in the case of SSM as government supports bad behavior and are to gutless to procure the proper documentation to prove otherwise.

I really am perplexed about your rant here. What "proper documentation" are you expecting?

[Remiel]

Uh... I thought there was a law against adultery, except that no one pays any attention to it?

Assuming I'm right, better you hear it from me than from Leafless.

[Renegade]

If freedom of conscience and religion is a protected constitutional right, then the federal government must defend my constitutional right, that homosexuality is not only immoral being against my religion, but also against my conscience as being perverted and wrong.

But it does not defend my rights it only defends the perceived rights of homosexuals. This is based on 'discrimination' which in my view is false since it is not internationally supported and clashes against other constitutional rights.

Your right to "freedom of religion" is completely protected. You have a right to your religious beliefs, and you are free to believe homosexuality is wrong.

You are completely wrong in your belief that "freedom of religion" means the government has some obligation to promote YOUR religious standards on others. You fundamentally misunderstand "freedom of religion". Here is the definition from Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the 58 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948"

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

Show us how any of your "freedom of religion" rights (as defined above) have been trangressed and I'll believe you that this is a conflict of rights.

In reality the federal government is discriminating against the citizens of Canada, since homosexuals all along have all the rights of any other Canadian, but by their own hand refused these rights because these rights did not comply to their immoral perversion and wanted and demanded recognition up and above every other non-homosexual Canadian.

Pure nonsense. This is simply a rant against the government and the gay community without any actual facts to back them up.

This is why IMO you cannot separate church and state because of that constitutional fundamental freedom (a) freedom of conscience and religion. This is why this type of constitutional clashes cannot be settled in court since courts are not equipped to handle issue's that pertain to 'conscience and religion'.

This is possibly the most enligntening thing you've said in that it gives us a view to your mentality. The separation of church and state is a fundamental construct of most western society. It is universally accepted in western secular societies. The fact that you reject it, would indicate that you reject western secular society, and would feel more comfortable in a Christian theocracy. Unfortunately for you, I know of no country in the world (except maybe the Vatican) which operates as Christian theocracy. If you consider converting to Islam, possibly Iran could accomodate your viewpoint.

[Charles Anthony]

Pure nonsense. This is simply a rant against the government and the gay community without any actual facts to back them up.

Congratulations! You finally figured it out.

[Renegade]

Uh... I thought there was a law against adultery, except that no one pays any attention to it?

Assuming I'm right, better you hear it from me than from Leafless.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that while adultry may be grounds for divorce, it is not illegal.

[Renegade]

Pure nonsense. This is simply a rant against the government and the gay community without any actual facts to back them up.

Congratulations! You finally figured it out.

I think I figured out, I'm wasting my time on this thread. Putting together and posting a multitude of facts, cites and logic, seems to serve no useful purpose to those who are blind to it.

[Renegade]

Leafless,

Let me summarize your viewpoint:

1. You don't believe in separation of church and state or that western society can be secular.

2. You think that homosexuality should be illegal.

3. You think that religious views and morality of one group should be imposed upon another.

4. You believe people should be coerced by laws into following your definiton of morality.

If you can't see how extreme your position is and how contrary it is to our society's principles, I'm afraid no amount of facts and evidence in the world is going to convince you otherwise.

[Leafless]

Leafless,

Let me summarize your viewpoint:

1. You don't believe in separation of church and state or that western society can be secular.

2. You think that homosexuality should be illegal.

3. You think that religious views and morality of one group should be imposed upon another.

4. You believe people should be coerced by laws into following your definiton of morality.

If you can't see how extreme your position is and how contrary it is to our society's principles, I'm afraid no amount of facts and evidence in the world is going to convince you otherwise.

This proves how twisted you really are as you have posted NO factual information to support anything you have said outside of resorting to the charter, a flawed piece of legislation invented by socialist for the primary benefit of Quebec that should be scrapped for the salvation of Canada as a country.

Your consensus on 'what should be right' makes no sense without some kind of standard, something that is foreign to you, since you naturally do not believe in the 'will of the majority', or for that matter 'international recognition' concerning any point you argued that you view as discriminatory or wrong.

If you think my position concerning morality is extreme and isolated, then you should have no problem supporting an initiative demanding a 'national referendum' concerning the issue. Prove me wrong!

[Renegade]

This proves how twisted you really are as you have posted NO factual information to support anything you have said outside of resorting to the charter, a flawed piece of legislation invented by socialist for the primary benefit of Quebec that should be scrapped for the salvation of Canada as a country.

Actually I didn't quote from the charter even once, did I?

Your consensus on 'what should be right' makes no sense without some kind of standard, something that is foreign to you, since you naturally do not believe in the 'will of the majority', or for that matter 'international recognition' concerning any point you argued that you view as discriminatory or wrong.

You are correct that I don't believe that the "will of the majority" can be used to override the rights of minorities. If there is a flaw in the charter it lies in the ability for governments to invoke the "notwithstanding" clause to override rights.

If you think my position concerning morality is extreme and isolated, then you should have no problem supporting an initiative demanding a 'national referendum' concerning the issue. Prove me wrong!

What I reject is even your presumption that you have the right to ask the question. Yes I think your postion is extreme. Do I think some of the Canadian population does not approve of SSM? Certainly. But in no way do I think that faction however large or small they might be, have any right to dictate the rights of others.

Leafless, you get precious little support even from other posters in this forum. Why on earth would you think you can get support for your position from the population at large? Outside of the few people who think a theocracy is the rigtht form of government, I see virtually no broad support for your POV.

[Leafless]

If you think my position concerning morality is extreme and isolated, then you should have no problem supporting an initiative demanding a 'national referendum' concerning the issue. Prove me wrong!

What I reject is even your presumption that you have the right to ask the question. Yes I think your postion is extreme. Do I think some of the Canadian population does not approve of SSM? Certainly. But in no way do I think that faction however large or small they might be, have any right to dictate the rights of others.

Leafless, you get precious little support even from other posters in this forum. Why on earth would you think you can get support for your position from the population at large? Outside of the few people who think a theocracy is the rigtht form of government, I see virtually no broad support for your POV.

"What I reject is even your presumption that you have the right to ask the question".

And I thought this was a debate.

"Do I think some of the Canadian population does not approve of SSM? Certainly. But in no way do I think that faction however large or small they might be, have any right to dictate the rights of others".

I think precisely the same way about the Charter relating to special privileges for Quebec, Gays, Aboriginals.

So far the Charter has not made me bilingual or convinced me to personally recognize special rights for Quebec, Gays or Aboriginals. I will ONLY recognize these factors, when, if ever, the 'Charter is ratified by ALL Canadians and by not a handful of politicians.

"Leafless, you get precious little support even from other posters in this forum"

Yes, I noticed this to and have noticed by type of replies to various issues, that the majority of posters on this board are either: many are under thirty with unrealistic opinions , or have strong socialist leanings, or are Quebecers, or are immigrants or are Gays or are atheist, or have strong unpatriotic or anti nationalistic views and feelings as well as other undesirable attributes that make this country the MESS it is to-day.

Yes, it certainly seems we have a severe shortage of majority run of the mill Christian, English speaking democratic type Canadians.

BTW- relating to: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance".

Please show me 'official documentation' proving to me that 'EVERYONE INCLUDES HOMOSEXUALS' and don't tell me it doesn't include heterosexuals as that is the normal 'STANDARD'.

Your argument is like a movie theatre ticket where it says on the ticket 'admit one' and you interpret that as justifiable in allowing your 'DOG' ( since there is no reference to define what 'one' means) in which you bought a ticket for, to access the theatre also.

[Electric Monk]

I like your solution to the discrimination in my analogy, Greg should set up rules so that the majority cannot oppress the minority. So you agree that simple majority rule can result in discrimination against minorities?

Still waiting for an answer.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Your argument is like a movie theatre ticket where it says on the ticket 'admit one' and you interpret that as justifiable in allowing your 'DOG' ( since there is no reference to define what 'one' means) in which you bought a ticket for, to access the theatre also.

Indeed it does, and it works for public transit...you can bring your dog on the bus if you buy an extra ticket. The problem is that your view of 'admit one' means 'admit one white Christian heterosexual' and that homosexuals are not 'one' that you are willing to admit.

That is the crux of the SSM debate...the state is issuing tickest saying 'admit one' [to get married] and you are saying "Whoa, the 'admit one' shouldn't include homosexuals!"

[gc1765]

Still waiting for an answer.

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions:

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

Show me specifically where it says that people who post at mapleleaf web under the nickname "Leafless" are allowed to marry? Show me where is says that people who pick their noses are allowed to marry? Show me where it says that anyone who has ever worn a blue shirt is allowed to marry? etc..... Should we deny rights to these people? Afterall, picking your nose is not specifically mentioned as a human right.

The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar.

IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage.

What if the MAJORITY of society decided that the MORAL thing to do was to kick out of the country anyone who thinks homosexuality is perverted, immoral, or are opposed to SSM? What if society thinks that is "good". How would you feel about that? Would you start packing your bags?

I guess if Leafless can not defend against an argument, he simply decides to ignore that argument.

[Leafless]

I like your solution to the discrimination in my analogy, Greg should set up rules so that the majority cannot oppress the minority. So you agree that simple majority rule can result in discrimination against minorities?

Still waiting for an answer.

The rules concerning morals have been established by the majority of society and morals contributed to the success of this country, not by law, but simple common sense.

Sorry to say it looks you don't have any.

All you have to do is look at the city of Toronto and how it is experiencing serious social degradation especially relating to crime due to a lack of respect to authorities due to a lax or no morals, ethics or principles.

There is no way you can legalize morals, ethics or principles as they must be induced and welcomed NOT rejected by society at large or society will fail, it is inevitable.

Christianity is part of Canada's social fabric.

Just keep 'kicking Christianity and moral ass'.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

Your argument is like a movie theatre ticket where it says on the ticket 'admit one' and you interpret that as justifiable in allowing your 'DOG' ( since there is no reference to define what 'one' means) in which you bought a ticket for, to access the theatre also.

Indeed it does, and it works for public transit...you can bring your dog on the bus if you buy an extra ticket. The problem is that your view of 'admit one' means 'admit one white Christian heterosexual' and that homosexuals are not 'one' that you are willing to admit.

That is the crux of the SSM debate...the state is issuing tickest saying 'admit one' [to get married] and you are saying "Whoa, the 'admit one' shouldn't include homosexuals!"

Ha-Ha, the only dogs possibly being permitted on public transit are 'seeing eye dogs' and in our city I never seen any type of dog on public transit, although I am not familiar with that legislation.

All I am saying is I have never heard of any international agreement relating to homosexuals being part of the 'International Declaration of Human Rights' relating to being accepted pertaining to the word 'everyone'.

I have asked for proof relating to this and have yet not seen any.

[Charles Anthony]

All I am saying is I have never heard of any international agreement relating to homosexuals being part of the 'International Declaration of Human Rights' relating to being accepted pertaining to the word 'everyone'.

I have asked for proof relating to this and have yet not seen any.

Why should they be excluded?

Are you suggesting that they are not humans?

[August1991]

Deleted.

[Rue]

All I am saying is I have never heard of any international agreement relating to homosexuals being part of the 'International Declaration of Human Rights' relating to being accepted pertaining to the word 'everyone'.

I have asked for proof relating to this and have yet not seen any.

Because your question is defective. It assumes gays are not humans. Since they are, they do not have to be specifically mentioned just as hetero-sexuals are not either.

Now before you answer that, think Leafless. Your assumption that everything in law can only mean hetero-sexual humans, doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. That is not how law works or is drafted. I am sorry I say that with due respect but you assuming that if something doesn't specifically say what you want it to say, it can't be. That is not how the law works. If you want the law to ONLY apply to sraights, it has to specifically state that it only applies to them,otherwise the ambiguity can't be construed in your favour.