Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Rue]

" 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."

O.k. Leafless let me break it to you gently, the Charter of Rights has nothing to do with socialism, never did, never will. It is constitutional law dealing with fundamental principles. The Charter of Rights does not in any way shape or form discuss how the economy should be run. The fact you may disagree with the concept of there being a Charter of Rights doesn't make it "socialist". I think perhaps you have used the word "socialist" so many times as a negative accusation, you have probably forgotten what it really means. Perhaps you should have used the word "permissive". You might also want to focus in on Pierre Trudea not for his alleged socialism but the fact that he was rumoured to be bi-sexual. I mean clearly the man may have had a vested interest in destroying Canada.

"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."

What is going on Leafless? Do you even understand what you said? You have no international legal basis to argue international laws as to human rights only pertain to hetero-sexuals-none, zero, danada. More to the point, did you read what you wrote? You have said it again-you want morality decided by the "majority".

Now when this "majority" as is the case today with the majority of MP's don't want to agree with you, oops you move on to the alleged majority of Canadians you think agree with you and want the law to discriminate against gay marriages. Well then, start your party and get your people elected and change the law.

I could have sworn the Christian Heritage Party tried to do what you are advocating and couldn't muster too much support and in fact the Rhinoceraus Party garned more of the popular vote-which is funny considering everyone knows the Rhinoceraus is a horny creature.

"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!"

Like I said, go out and start your petition and bring it to Parliament. Better still create your party and go for it. No one has to prove you wrong. You are right! So you will have no problems sweeping into office with people who think just like you and changing Canada and legislating morality for the majority you represent.

Do me a favour, if you bring back stoning or burning at the stake, give us some warning so I can move to Iran-er wait, they agree with you - I meant Holland. They tend to be immoral and so I might be safer there.

[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.

Leafless, it's really a simple question, why are you dancing around it and not answering it?

[Renegade]

And I thought this was a debate.

You misunderstand my statement. I don't mean you can't ask me the question. You are free to fire away any questions to me or on the forum. What I reject is the presumption that you can put a question to the people of Canada via a referendum and based upon the answer to that question you can take away the rights of others. It really doesn't matter if the majority or minority suppot your position on the question. You can't by majority concensus, take away the rights of the minority. Since the answer to the question is irrelevant, why pose the question to begin with?

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

I will ignore your comment regarding Quebec and Aboriginals because that discussion is not relevant to this thread.

You have not shown that Gays have taken away your rights. You claim that your righs of "freedom of religion" are being violated. I have shown that your definition of "freedom of religion" is not consistent with internationally accepted standards, and by the accepted definitions your right to freedom of religion has not been violated.

It is ludicrous to think you can make up your own definition of what a right is and then claim that based upon your own definition that it is being violated.

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.

So when you say "ALL" Canadians, you are expecting 100% of all 30 million to agree to it? Do you know how ludicrous a requirement that is? Personally I wouldn't have an issue if at the time it was adopted, it was either an election issue or put to a referendum, but we are well past that window today.

BTW, even if you ran a referendum on the charter today, it is still overwhelmingly supported by the majority of canadians.

After 20 Years Canadians Still Positive Towards Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Three-Quarters (74%) of Canadians Believe Individual Rights and Freedoms Better Protected Under Charter

link

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.

If you take the Canadian population and remove the under 30, ones with strong socialist leanings, Quebecers, immigrants, Gays, atheists, ones with unpatriotic or anti nationalistic views, or ones with "undesirable attributes", exactly how many do you think will be left?

Your support among the population in general would be reflective of the support you get on this forum.

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

For the ones with bigoted and extremist views, that is certainly true, and thankfully so.

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'.

You have got to be kidding me!! Your argument is that the word "eveyone" doesn't include "homosexuals"??

Let me humour you for a minute and pull up the definition of "everyone"

everyone

• pronoun every person.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

eve·ry·one

–pronoun every person; everybody. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

eve·ry·one

Every person; everybody. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

link

So unless you cannot read and understand English, you can plainly see that there is no more inclusive word than the word "everyone". Can you think of a single word which would include all people including homosexuals? Or is it your position that the language should include all groups are not the "STANDARD". How about "whites"? Are they included in "everyone" since they are not the "STANDARD" in the world?

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.

Well, let's look at your example. Theatres include gays in their definition of "ONE" since they clearly admit them with a ticket even though it is not explicit stated so. Given that by YOUR example, "ONE" includes homosexuals, does not "everyONE" include ALL homosexuals? I'll accept your contention that by conventionals definitions, "ONE" doesn't include dogs, however you must accept that by conventional definitions, "ONE" incudes homosexuals. (Or is it your position that theatres exclude homosexuals from their theatres or sells them separate tickets?)

[Leafless]

" 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."

O.k. Leafless let me break it to you gently, the Charter of Rights has nothing to do with socialism, never did, never will. It is constitutional law dealing with fundamental principles. The Charter of Rights does not in any way shape or form discuss how the economy should be run. The fact you may disagree with the concept of there being a Charter of Rights doesn't make it "socialist". I think perhaps you have used the word "socialist" so many times as a negative accusation, you have probably forgotten what it really means. Perhaps you should have used the word "permissive". You might also want to focus in on Pierre Trudea not for his alleged socialism but the fact that he was rumoured to be bi-sexual. I mean clearly the man may have had a vested interest in destroying Canada.

Who said the Charter of Rights has anything to do with socialism?

I said the socialist leaning Liberals were the party who initiated from the start repatriation of the constitution to the inclusion of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms.

But now that you mention it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is VERY socialistic in nature concerning the transfer of wealth and rights to groups DEMOCRATICALLY UNQUALFIED.

It seems your one of those dreamers who thinks society owes every every Canadian the right, to force Canadians to support Canadian nonconformist in a lucrative way, despite ever even trying to achieve that status by themselves, or even willing to adapt themselves to the ways of mainstream society.

But I do agree with you that Mr. Trudeau could have had a hidden agenda favouring homosexuals.

[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.

Leafless, it's really a simple question, why are you dancing around it and not answering it?

Idid answer it: "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 you fail to understand is that Greg is providing a PRIVATE 'service' to those who are interested in participating and has absolutely nothing to do with majorities or minorities nor morals but simply to provide control to avoid abuse.

SOCIETY in a democratic society IS NOT A PRIVATE SERVICE PROVIDER and must attend PRIMARILY to the interest of the MAJORITY.

Currently the interest of the majority has been badly abused.

[LesActive]

Just gonna pop in here quick, hope y'all don't mind.

Freedoms are claimed/demanded/fought for or they aren't had at all. I have great difficulty understanding why there is so much fuss over such an obviously inequitable situation that needed to be remedied. I've not heard one objectively rational criticism of SSM throughout this whole thread. Yes, I have no morals, I whole-heartedly support anyone who loves another consensually and unreservedly, and of a reasonable age, and therefore there's a special place reserved for me in hell. I hear it'll bring out my freckles. It was said earlier, sorry I forget who said it, that morals left with the shift in society to an inclusive model as opposed to an exclusionary one and opened the way to a foundation in ethics. Simply by making it an issue as a 'moral wrong' and attempting to thwart its acceptance based on dogmatic beliefs we enter into the dangerous realm of behaviour judgement. For example, I would never want to claim that parents don't have the right to raise their children as they see fit so long as it's for the good of the child. I don't think it's a good idea to train them from an early age in an exclusionary environment such as an organized (likely fundamentalist) Christian church but I would argue vehemently with anyone who would tell you that you can't.

On a side note, the Charter was brought up a few times and I wonder how many people have read it to the end. To whom does it really apply?

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

I'm no lawyer but that warrants a !Yikes! in my book. You may now resume...

p.s. pardon the smiley, not intentional

[Leafless]

Just gonna pop in here quick, hope y'all don't mind.

Freedoms are claimed/demanded/fought for or they aren't had at all. I have great difficulty understanding why there is so much fuss over such an obviously inequitable situation that needed to be remedied. I've not heard one objectively rational criticism of SSM throughout this whole thread. Yes, I have no morals, I whole-heartedly support anyone who loves another consensually and unreservedly, and of a reasonable age, and therefore there's a special place reserved for me in hell. I hear it'll bring out my freckles. It was said earlier, sorry I forget who said it, that morals left with the shift in society to an inclusive model as opposed to an exclusionary one and opened the way to a foundation in ethics. Simply by making it an issue as a 'moral wrong' and attempting to thwart its acceptance based on dogmatic beliefs we enter into the dangerous realm of behaviour judgement. For example, I would never want to claim that parents don't have the right to raise their children as they see fit so long as it's for the good of the child. I don't think it's a good idea to train them from an early age in an exclusionary environment such as an organized (likely fundamentalist) Christian church but I would argue vehemently with anyone who would tell you that you can't.

On a side note, the Charter was brought up a few times and I wonder how many people have read it to the end. To whom does it really apply?

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

I'm no lawyer but that warrants a !Yikes! in my book. You may now resume...

p.s. pardon the smiley, not intentional

Are you just finding out Canada is a BANANA REPUBLIC?

It appears charter powers pertaining under its authority supersedes all other laws in Canadian provinces is supreme.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/com/chart/s-32-1.html

Outside of a revolution I have no idea how you can beat down this discriminatory and oppressive piece of undemocratic, dictatorial, piece of socialist legislation.

[Drea]

From Wikipedia:

A Banana Republic is a pejorative term for a country with an extremely corrupt government, often a primitive economy and sometimes its political environment controlled by a major power.

Oh Leafless you hate Canada so. I could almost cry for you.

-- extremely corrupt govt -- Harper is corrupt???

-- primative economy -- gosh we don't have any resources at all?

-- political environment controlled by a major power -- I would think that a rightwinger like you would NOT believe that the USA is in control of Canada, but I guess I'm wrong.

[Leafless]

From Wikipedia:

A Banana Republic is a pejorative term for a country with an extremely corrupt government, often a primitive economy and sometimes its political environment controlled by a major power.

This is an ideal description pertaining to the charter queens, the Liberals.

The only thing that is saving Canada of from being labelled as a country with a primitive economy is our pals, the U.S.

But of course our political environment is strong and (hack, hack, hack) free and not controlled by a major power.

[Drea]

This is an ideal description pertaining to the charter queens, the Liberals.

I know, you'd like to see us living in a fifedom but I prefer democracy where everyone has equal rights.

The only thing that is saving Canada of from being labelled as a country with a primitive economy is our pals, the U.S.

I know, without the US we wouldn't even know how to tie our shoes let alone log, mine etc. :doh!: We'd all be livin' in igloos (even in Vancouver) and eatin' raw bacon. Gosh lets bow down to the US for saving us from backwater hell.

But of course our political environment is strong and (hack, hack, hack) free and not controlled by a major power.

I thought you right wingers didn't believe in conspiracies? Are you buying into the one where the Illuminati rule everything? Ooga Booga!

Or that the Rockefellers own the planet? Gee Leafless you are a bundle of suprises!

Really though -- do you or do you not believe that Canada is run by the USA?

[Drea]

The only thing that is saving Canada of from being labelled as a country with a primitive economy is our pals, the U.S.

Oh, and you and those who think like you (there are others on Freedominion, check it out) have already labelled Canada a Banana Republic.

As in "Are you just finding out Canada is a BANANA REPUBLIC?"

I know you hate this country with all your heart.

You poor guy, you must be so miserable. Have you applied to get into the US yet?

Aquaintance I used to know -- hated his parents for immigrating to Canada instead of the US (he was 9 yo when he got here).

Well he moved to Florida. He's happy as a clam being an American. So they do accept Canadians (OMG, even those who have "dual" citizenships -- his was Czekoslovakian (sp)/Canadian, yet they still accepted him -- amazingly tolerant, those Americans!)

If yer happy and you know, it clap your hands *clap clap*

If yer sad and you know it, move away...

[Leafless]

I know you hate this country with all your heart.

You poor guy, you must be so miserable. Have you applied to get into the US yet?

Aquaintance I used to know -- hated his parents for immigrating to Canada instead of the US (he was 9 yo when he got here).

Well he moved to Florida. He's happy as a clam being an American. So they do accept Canadians (OMG, even those who have "dual" citizenships -- his was Czekoslovakian (sp)/Canadian, yet they still accepted him -- amazingly tolerant, those Americans!)

If yer happy and you know, it clap your hands *clap clap*

If yer sad and you know it, move away...

I really have to question what you really know about this country?

How long have you resided in Canada?

If it was after 1982, then all you are familiar with for the better part is Liberal rule with prime ministers all from 'la belle province', Quebec.

I do like Canada and know other provinces in Canada have NOT displayed the kind of aggressive behavior that comes out of Quebec in the way of dismantling Canadian society and transforming into a Quebecois style socialist country.

If you know Canadian history you will know all about the 'Quiet Revolution and the FLQ' and how they achieved through violence what Quebec has to-day along with that twisted piece of legislation 'the charter' with its main purpose appeasing Quebec.

No, I am staying in Canada, as it will simply be a matter of time before Quebec digs itself into a hole or separates or is kicked out of confederation or the country splits.

Canada cannot afford supporting solitudes perpetually without dire consequences to other parts of the economy, like health care, pensions and infrastructure.

[Drea]

I really have to question what you really know about this country?

How long have you resided in Canada?

If it was after 1982, then all you are familiar with for the better part is Liberal rule with prime ministers all from 'la belle province', Quebec.

My entire life. I was born in BC.

I do like Canada and know other provinces in Canada have NOT displayed the kind of aggressive behavior that comes out of Quebec in the way of dismantling Canadian society and transforming into a Quebecois style socialist country.

If you know Canadian history you will know all about the 'Quiet Revolution and the FLQ' and how they achieved through violence what Quebec has to-day along with that twisted piece of legislation 'the charter' with its main purpose appeasing Quebec.

No, I am staying in Canada, as it will simply be a matter of time before Quebec digs itself into a hole or separates or is kicked out of confederation or the country splits.

Canada cannot afford supporting solitudes perpetually without dire consequences to other parts of the economy, like health care, pensions and infrastructure.

No sense getting all bent out of shape over something that cannot be changed (Quebec). Out here in BC there is little or no direct effect on individuals no matter what Quebec does.

However, I would certainly not want to see Quebec separate. I still have a family tree to "dig up" and part of it is there in Quebec. Apparently my great grandmother was Metis -- I'm thinkin' of going to get a status card!

I love this country warts and all. From Montreal "queens" to goofy Newfies to redneck Albertans, we are all part of this wonderful country.

[Leafless]

I really have to question what you really know about this country?

How long have you resided in Canada?

If it was after 1982, then all you are familiar with for the better part is Liberal rule with prime ministers all from 'la belle province', Quebec.

My entire life. I was born in BC.

I do like Canada and know other provinces in Canada have NOT displayed the kind of aggressive behavior that comes out of Quebec in the way of dismantling Canadian society and transforming into a Quebecois style socialist country.

If you know Canadian history you will know all about the 'Quiet Revolution and the FLQ' and how they achieved through violence what Quebec has to-day along with that twisted piece of legislation 'the charter' with its main purpose appeasing Quebec.

No, I am staying in Canada, as it will simply be a matter of time before Quebec digs itself into a hole or separates or is kicked out of confederation or the country splits.

Canada cannot afford supporting solitudes perpetually without dire consequences to other parts of the economy, like health care, pensions and infrastructure.

No sense getting all bent out of shape over something that cannot be changed (Quebec). Out here in BC there is little or no direct effect on individuals no matter what Quebec does.

However, I would certainly not want to see Quebec separate. I still have a family tree to "dig up" and part of it is there in Quebec. Apparently my great grandmother was Metis -- I'm thinkin' of going to get a status card!

I love this country warts and all. From Montreal "queens" to goofy Newfies to redneck Albertans, we are all part of this wonderful country.

And how many years is your life in B.C., another Canadian 'have not province' given away to foreigners of another land, appearing to be extremely attractive to Asians.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm...6104ea04&type=2

And who initially allowed massive foreign Asian immigration to virtually destroy the 'British English White image' in B.C. and turn it into a foreign joke? The least they could have done is maintain our traditional heritage and keep it 'English speaking and White'.

"No sense getting all bent out of shape over something that cannot be changed (Quebec). "

This is a matter of opinion and yours I don't agree with as I don't share Quebec's importance on cultures and feel it is all part of a Liberal plot to bring more foreign cultures into this country, to satisfy Quebec's cultural ego, to equalize and help obliterate Canadian White, English heritage, with then having the French being the superior culture along with its notion of importance attached to it 'as the first founding nation' of Canada.

[Rue]

" This is an ideal description pertaining to the charter queens, the Liberals."

That is funny Leafless Charter Queens. You are funny.

[Drea]

[

And who initially allowed massive foreign Asian immigration to virtually destroy the 'British English White image' in B.C. and turn it into a foreign joke? The least they could have done is maintain our traditional heritage and keep it 'English speaking and White'.

"No sense getting all bent out of shape over something that cannot be changed (Quebec). "

This is a matter of opinion and yours I don't agree with as I don't share Quebec's importance on cultures and feel it is all part of a Liberal plot to bring more foreign cultures into this country, to satisfy Quebec's cultural ego, to equalize and help obliterate Canadian White, English heritage, with then having the French being the superior culture along with its notion of importance attached to it 'as the first founding nation' of Canada.

You mad at Quebec? You made at the Chinese in Vancouver? Who you mad at?

Chinese are the hardest working people you will ever meet. I would gladly have more of them. Maybe one day I will learn to speak Mandarin!

BC is still mainly white outside of Chinatown and Surrey.

Yer gettin' yer knickers in a knot about nuthin'

BC isn't a "havenot" province. We haven't been since we booted the NDP!

Sorry to say, but yes those Frenchies beat those Englishmen to this land we now call Canada. So yup, besides those who crossed the Bering Straight, they were the first. That being said, IMO all people, no matter colour, race, religion, country of origin, how long you been a citizen, gender preference or colour of hair, are equal and should be treated as such.

[gc1765]

And who initially allowed massive foreign Asian immigration to virtually destroy the 'British English White image' in B.C. and turn it into a foreign joke? The least they could have done is maintain our traditional heritage and keep it 'English speaking and White'.

Leafless,

I can understand you wanting people to speak English...but what do you have against non-whites?

[Leafless]

You mad at Quebec? You made at the Chinese in Vancouver? Who you mad at?

Chinese are the hardest working people you will ever meet. I would gladly have more of them. Maybe one day I will learn to speak Mandarin!

Sorry to say, but yes those Frenchies beat those Englishmen to this land we now call Canada. So yup, besides those who crossed the Bering Straight, they were the first. That being said, IMO all people, no matter colour, race, religion, country of origin, how long you been a citizen, gender preference or colour of hair, are equal and should be treated as such.

I am not mad at anyone in particular but have a tremendous dislike for apparent traitors to Canada, especially those who operate under the guise of a national political party bent on destroying the White, English speaking, Christian factor in favour of cultures hostile to both, the majority English component and the majority Christian component.

Any other country in the world with this situation and you would have a revolution or at the least would never have progressed to the point it has in Canada.

I think you fail to realize the seriousness of the situation especially if you are of an ethnic nationality.

Actually it was John Cabot an Italian navigator commissioned by England's King Henry Vll who discovered Canada.

It was shortly after returning to England, France got wind of the news and sent their own explorers to 'copy cat' Cabot's route to the new land being Canada.

But as most of us are aware France never was successful inducing French immigration to Canada and as a result were defeated on the 'Plains of Abraham' by the English.

[Leafless]

And who initially allowed massive foreign Asian immigration to virtually destroy the 'British English White image' in B.C. and turn it into a foreign joke? The least they could have done is maintain our traditional heritage and keep it 'English speaking and White'.

Leafless,

I can understand you wanting people to speak English...but what do you have against non-whites?

I have absolutely nothing against ethnic nationalities.

But I simply believe ethnic nationalities were implemented by the Liberals (traditionally strong Quebec support) to desensitize majority White English speaking Canadians to become intertwined and part of an unwanted cultural mosaic, while allowing Quebec to be independent and retain its cultural distinctiveness.

Quebec wishes to retain its perceived cultural distinctiveness while throwing the rest of the country into cultural chaos but at the same time having its political ideologies and lifestyle supported by Canadian taxpayers.

[Renegade]

Leafless, I see you have not responded to what I posted in #303. Does that mean you have conceded the points, or simply that you have no response?

[gc1765]

I have absolutely nothing against ethnic nationalities.

If you have nothing against "non-whites", why don't you want them in Canada? That is what you said in your previous post. Unless of course you want to take back what you said earlier:

And who initially allowed massive foreign Asian immigration to virtually destroy the 'British English White image' in B.C. and turn it into a foreign joke? The least they could have done is maintain our traditional heritage and keep it 'English speaking and White'.

P.S. Do you want to answer my other questions in posts #281 and #214. If you don't want to, or can't, that's ok too.

[bk59]

Why is this thread still alive? Please let it die the death it deserves! I was involved with this "debate" earlier on, but it's just not worth it folks. As some have noted, when counterpoints are made or questions asked, the response is to either restate the original claim or to bring up a tangent not related to anything else seen before in the thread. Rarely are counterpoints addressed or questions answered.

What it comes down to is some people have their opinions and no amount of common sense or logical discussion will change these opinions. Please stop bumping this thread just so that the craziness can be seen by more people.

There is no massive Liberal conspiracy to promote homosexuality over heterosexuality and create a one-sided constitution that somehow imports people from other countries to overrun the alleged English, white, Christian, British majority which will somehow give Quebec and its French-speaking inhabitants control of Canada where they all sit around laughing evilly and drinking wine.

But you will never, ever, convince some people of that fact. Ever. It's best just to leave the trolls alone.

[Leafless]

P.S. Do you want to answer my other questions in posts #281 and #214. If you don't want to, or can't, that's ok too.

I simply do not have time to reply to all posts, but relating to post 281 your reply in question form was: "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?"

You are being 'extreme' and nonsensical in suggesting such an outcome.

No majority can force anyone in a legal sense 'to be kicked out of the country' since no government sponsored referendum would allow or even consider such a question.

Relating to post #214 your reply in question form was: "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."

You are being funny as we are talking 'rights' specified in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.

Article #30 in the 'Declaration of Human Rights states': "Article 30,

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This could be implied to homosexuals who in 1948 when this declaration was written up, were not seen in any significant light associated with 'the good of society' and are not included in 'everyone' pertaining to article #2.

Therefore it could be said, homosexuals in fact relating to SSM were advocating the destruction of the 'right of heterosexual marriage' pertaining to the RULES of most religions that exclude homosexuals for reasons of morals associated with that religion.

So it seems homosexuals do not have a right according to the 'declaration' to engage in 'marriage'.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[guyser]

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here you go , Article #2 just for you.

Please show me where Gays are excluded.

This should be fun.

Key words for assisting you.....".Everyone....without distiction of any kind...or other status."

And remember , it says "such as race ...." meaning it is not exclusive to just those.

Waiting anxiously. Lets hope you dont ignore this one.

[gc1765]

I simply do not have time to reply to all posts, but relating to post 281 your reply in question form was: "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?"

You are being 'extreme' and nonsensical in suggesting such an outcome.

No majority can force anyone in a legal sense 'to be kicked out of the country' since no government sponsored referendum would allow or even consider such a question.

It was a hypothetical question. I'm not saying this would ever happen, I'm saying what IF. Anyways, why should we have a referendum to take away the right for gays to marry but not have a referendum to take away the right of you to live in this country? I could just as easily argue that it would be "good for society" as it would be to prevent homosexual couples from marrying.

Relating to post #214 your reply in question form was: "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."

You are being funny as we are talking 'rights' specified in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.

Article #30 in the 'Declaration of Human Rights states': "Article 30,

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This could be implied to homosexuals who in 1948 when this declaration was written up, were not seen in any significant light associated with 'the good of society' and are not included in 'everyone' pertaining to article #2.

And as my example demonstrated, people with the nickname "Leafless" are not specifically included either. You could just as easily say people with the nickname "Leafless" are not included in "everyone" but of course everyone means everyone, and a homosexual is still a person. In fact, the definition of homosexuality means that homosexuals are people, and thus are included in "everyone". Again, I could just as easily argue that you are "not associated with the good of society" as it would be for you to argue that homosexuals are not associated with the "good of society". But, you are still a person, just as a homosexual is a person, and thus you both have the right to marry anyone you want.

Therefore it could be said, homosexuals in fact relating to SSM were advocating the destruction of the 'right of heterosexual marriage' pertaining to the RULES of most religions that exclude homosexuals for reasons of morals associated with that religion.

So it seems homosexuals do not have a right according to the 'declaration' to engage in 'marriage'.

You have not shown how homosexuals getting married are destroying the right of heterosexual marriage. I can assure you that heterosexuals still have the right to marry, despite SSM. Nothing related to SSM is preventing heterosexuals from getting married.

Anyways, as much as I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, I think I am going to take bk59's advice and let this thread die. Thus, this will be my last post on the topic.