Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Renegade]

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.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Even if there was a national referendum at the time the Charter was adopted, that would not be proof the Canadians today support the charter as a whole generation has come and gone.

I suspect the kind of proof you are looking for is not feasable to get. It is not practically possible to survey every single Canadian in the world and determine if they support the charter. My statement is based upon evidence of surveys. Surveys which you choose not to believe. It is true that evidence cannot be considered proof, however I think I made a reasonable statement based upon the evidence.

Now, how about you PROVE that laws should be dictated by religion?

[Renegade]

Why don't you read that link again.

It read as biased the second time as the first, nevertheless it is nothing but opinion of the author.

The author while paying lipservice to a separation of morality and the law ("the government cannot and should not try to impose morality in people's private lives") then goes on to opinion that examples of morality in law are robbing and stealing. He is completely misinformed. Theft is prohibited in law because it is infringes on a person's right to own property. Not because it is immoral.

Some of his examples are laughable. He goes on to say that killing is prohibited in law, because it is immoral. He convieniently ignores the fact that in Texas (the article is titled "Bernard: Why Texans should not support homosexual marriage"), execution is the law and is condoned. How is it the morality of murder doesn't apply?? Hmm, the author is strangely silent.

Even this author acknowledges there are many instances where society does not let morality influence laws ("Our pluralistic society has decided not to regulate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of a home, because their action does not seem to affect anyone else directly. Therefore, we no longer have laws against fornication, adultery or homosexual behavior (even though these actions can drastically affect a family).")

So this whole article you post for support of your "fact" is nothing but an opinioin of one author, and an opinion that is very poorly supported by evidence.

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

I have no doubt that many countries in the world are influenced by religion. Those are theocracys. We don't live in one.

As far as the ten commandments. I know of now state which bases their laws upon the 10 commandments, and I see that even in our law, at least some of the commandments are ignored when convienient to do so.

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.

ROTFLMAO. Leafless, you crack me up. Now you quote from the Charter which you hate so much as proof that "God" dictates the laws?

Personally I think it was a mistake to include the mention of God in the preamble. Earlier drafts of the Charter did not. Regardless, most legal experts think that the preamble carries no legal weight.

The only values mentioned by the Charter's preamble are recognition for the supremacy of God and the rule of law, but these have been controversial and of little legal consequence.

link

[Leafless]

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.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Even if there was a national referendum at the time the Charter was adopted, that would not be proof the Canadians today support the charter as a whole generation has come and gone.

I suspect the kind of proof you are looking for is not feasable to get. It is not practically possible to survey every single Canadian in the world and determine if they support the charter. My statement is based upon evidence of surveys. Surveys which you choose not to believe. It is true that evidence cannot be considered proof, however I think I made a reasonable statement based upon the evidence.

Now, how about you PROOVE that laws should be dictated by religion?

If Canadians had approved the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' initially by referendum, they certainly would have a say by way of vote again, pertaining to further referendums any time a major change is implemented.

This is the DEMOCRATIC way of doing things.

Now, pertaining to me proving that laws should be dictated by religion?

This is the difference between a 'dictatorial or a dictatorship type government and freer democratic type government ' with the dictatorial one who outright dictates laws and with the democratic one laws evolve by principles developed by that countries allowable freedoms decided by the population itself through customs, traditions and national self interest.

Laws are not dictated by religion, many laws simply evolve and are utilized from a particular country's religious teachings and values.

[Leafless]

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

I have no doubt that many countries in the world are influenced by religion. Those are theocracys. We don't live in one.

[/quote

Since the charter has never been legally challenged pertaining to its preamble "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the supremecy of God and the rule of law" to refute some or all of the contents within the charter itself, based on the supremecy of God.

[Rue]

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

The key word you used was "influence". In case you haven't noticed we have modified the 10 commandments since they were brought down from Sinai.

"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.

"

So of course you assume God is not bi-sexual or gay. Can you show me where in the Bible or in your learned teachings it says God is NOT gay or bi-sexual?

[Renegade]

If Canadians had approved the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' initially by referendum, they certainly would have a say by way of vote again, pertaining to further referendums any time a major change is implemented.

What major change are you referring to? There has been no change since it was implemented. I'm well aware of your complaints about the Charter. Thankfully, most people don't feel this way and there is no support to remove the charter. I don't even ask for proof. Show me some surveys taken with a representative population across Canada which shows Canadians don't want the Charter.

Laws are not dictated by religion, many laws simply evolve and are utilized from a particular country's religious teachings and values.

I accept this. But as a society we have evolved to be tolerant of a variety of religious beliefs, so even laws which have a religious origin must be re-examined to see if they accomodate all belief systems, not just Christian ones. There was a time where Galileo was branded a heritic for statiing that the earth revolved around the sun. If you look back to the Inquisition you will see the folly of having a Church dictate laws.

Thankfully, execpt for a few like you, we have progressed in our thinking and no longer expect to impose our religious beliefs on others.

If you think the bible should dicate what is permissable and not, and the punishment, here are some actions for which the bible deems to be acts so henious that they deserve capital punishment:

Regarding Old Testament law and pre-Christian Jewish practices, capital punishment was advocated for certain acts that were forbidden in the Torah. Those misdeeds, however, included much more than just murder (Exo 21:12). They also included, but were not limited to, touching Mount Sinai (Exo 19:12), cursing a parent (Exo 21:17), hitting a parent (Exo 21:15), kidnapping someone and selling him into slavery (Exo 21:16), having not properly restained one's bull that gores someone to death after one had been previously warned to keep the bull penned up (Exo 21:29), practicing witchcraft (Exo 22:18), sodomy with an animal (Exo 22:19), sacrificing to another god (Exo 22:20), working on the sabbath day (Exo 31:14,15; 35:2), adultery (Lev 20:10), incest (Lev 20:11,12), homosexuality (Lev 20:13), marrying both a woman and her mother (Lev 20:14), contempt for a judge or for a priest (Deu 17:12).

link

[Renegade]

Since the charter has never been legally challenged pertaining to its preamble "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the supremecy of God and the rule of law" to refute some or all of the contents within the charter itself, based on the supremecy of God.

Personally I can't wait until it is challenged, though I have no idea what issue could possibly cause the preamble to have legal context to the interpretation.

Let me ask you, if you think that the preamble has legal weight, why didn't the SCC justices use the "supremacy of God" to override any notion of discrimmination against homosexuals by only allowing OSM, since clearly God hates homosexuals, as he said so in the bible.

[Leafless]

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

The key word you used was "influence". In case you haven't noticed we have modified the 10 commandments since they were brought down from Sinai.

"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.

"

So of course you assume God is not bi-sexual or gay. Can you show me where in the Bible or in your learned teachings it says God is NOT gay or bi-sexual?

God is neither heterosexual, bi-sexual or gay.

God is a spirit which the majority of Canadians BELIEVE in, pertaining to Christianity.

[Riverwind]

God is a spirit which the majority of Canadians BELIEVE in, pertaining to Christianity.

The 'God' mentioned in the constitution is deliberately ambiguous. It does not refer to any specific God and would never be interpreted as the 'Christian' God by the courts.

[Melanie_]

God is neither heterosexual, bi-sexual or gay.

God is a spirit which the majority of Canadians BELIEVE in, pertaining to Christianity.

I'm going to suspend my disbelief for just a moment, and pretend that there is a supreme being who created humanity. Isn't the primary view that God created man in his image?* Is sexuality not included? Sexuality is a defining characteristic of each of us - would God not embrace each variation that is found in his creations?

*Note: I'm also suspending my compulsion to point out patriarchical stereotypes. Or maybe not.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

Isn't the primary view that God created man in his image?

Ding ding ding! You guessed it, the bible was written by men. Very swarthy arabic men. At least the majority of it.

*Note: I'm also suspending my compulsion to point out patriarchical stereotypes. Or maybe not.

Sadly, there aren't too many matriarchal mammalian societies, but hyenas are kind of neat.

[Melanie_]

Dear Melanie,

Isn't the primary view that God created man in his image?

Ding ding ding! You guessed it, the bible was written by men. Very swarthy arabic men. At least the majority of it.

Ah, but what did they do with each other?

Sadly, there aren't too many matriarchal mammalian societies

Yet patriarchy hasn't worked out so well - another argument against intelligent design.

[stignasty]

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

That is funny Leafless Charter Queens. You are funny.

I agree, just not "ha ha" funny.... you know... "funny" funny.

[Catchme]

I think SSM encourages paedophilia. Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse, on a proportional basis, than heterosexuals.

http://www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm

Your thoughts are wrong. Your preserve marriage link is in accurate at best, hate mongering at worst.

Stats show the largest % of pedophiles were "white" males, and the largest proportion of children that were/are sexually abused is girls.

http://www.cpiu.us/statistics.php

So who molests kids?

Only one characteristic is clear: Child molesters are predominantly men.

"It's virtually impossible to profile a child molester, because so many types of people are getting so many different needs met by getting sexually involved with a child," says Ryan. True pedophiles have sexual feelings toward children only. "But there are many people who molest children who are sexually interested in peers, too."

Most sexual offenders were sexually abused as children; 40% to 80% of pedophiles were raped as a child, Burton says. "The large majority of them learn to do what they do. Others we don't understand as well." Pedophiles often target and abuse children who are the same age the predator was when he was first sexually abused.

Pedophiles are mainly men sexually abusing girls

Of course separation of church and state, pertaining to the functional operation of government in the U.S. is adhered to.

Oh so you're back tracking now?

SSM could be a threat to younger people by providing a twisted alternative, SSM or simply the homosexual lifestyle, to a group that that does not have the ability to create or sustain a functional country on their own,

What does being able to sustain a country have to do with anything?

a lifestyle that is viewed as corrupt and against the very concepts of human nature, pertaining to the views of most civilized countries.

What are the civilized countries that say SSM is corrupt and against the concepts of human nature?

I personally find total incompatibility, concerning most interest between a homosexual and a heterosexual and they probably feel the same.

I do not find total incompatibility at all, but I am sure the LGBT would have have difficulties finding a compatible point with you.

If forced to react with a homosexual, say in a place of employment and a situation developed solely on personal incompatible homosexual/heterosexual views, yes, I would feel threatened concerning the security of my job.

Why?

SSM could be threat also if for instance I objected to having an SSM couple living beside me whereas I could be forced to move, as I personally strongly disapprove of this type of lifestyle.

You have the problem with it, you should move.

[Politico]

Thank God that that people with views like Leafless are the minority in this country . . .

Leafless . . you are the past, Civilizations don't move forward by refusing to adapt to thier present.

SSM is here and it isnt going any where, get used to having it around.

P

[Melanie_]

I personally find total incompatibility, concerning most interest between a homosexual and a heterosexual and they probably feel the same.

If forced to react with a homosexual, say in a place of employment and a situation developed solely on personal incompatible homosexual/heterosexual views, yes, I would feel threatened concerning the security of my job.

Sexuality shouldn't be an issue in a workplace; what business is it of anyone's coworkers what their sexual orientation is? Your view of homosexuality is irrelevent in this environment. If you made an issue of it (and I suspect you might), you should be concerned about your job security.

[Leafless]

I personally find total incompatibility, concerning most interest between a homosexual and a heterosexual and they probably feel the same.

If forced to react with a homosexual, say in a place of employment and a situation developed solely on personal incompatible homosexual/heterosexual views, yes, I would feel threatened concerning the security of my job.

Sexuality shouldn't be an issue in a workplace; what business is it of anyone's coworkers what their sexual orientation is? Your view of homosexuality is irrelevant in this environment. If you made an issue of it (and I suspect you might), you should be concerned about your job security.

Homosexuality is a very important issue in society.

I view the homosexuality as an enemy to the heterosexual family and to organized society in general.

Tolerating homosexuals is creating an amoral climate opposite to my heterosexual views especially concerning the family and separates sex and procreation.

Considering the foundations of human society being economic, moral and enviromental.

Working with a homosexual could threaten my tolerance to the point where I could have to leave my place of employment creating in turn, possible economic hardship for my family, thus placing an unecessary burden and strain on society.

The least organized society can do for its citizens, is to primarily allow moral sustainabilty for society not to allow an attack on its moral foundations, pertaining to the basic building blocks of society, heterosexuals and their families.

[Drea]

Homosexuality is a very important issue in society.

I view the homosexuality as an enemy to the heterosexual family and to organized society in general.

Tolerating homosexuals is creating an amoral climate opposite to my heterosexual views especially concerning the family and separates sex and procreation.

...separates sex and procreation... hmmm. So that means every little "squirt" ought to be at least TRYING to have a baby. You had better check your wife's temperature each time or you will be wasting your "squirts" and GOD KNOWS wasting squirts is the worst sin of all. If all men wasted their squirts there would be no families!!!

Considering the foundations of human society being economic, moral and enviromental.

Working with a homosexual could threaten my tolerance to the point where I could have to leave my place of employment creating in turn, possible economic hardship for my family, thus placing an unecessary burden and strain on society.

Your loss. Tough luck if you cannot "tolerate" working next to a homosexual person. Not too many years ago (you must be really old leafless) a white guy (you are white guy right?) would not tolerate working with a black person.

The least organized society can do for its citizens, is to primarily allow moral sustainabilty for society not to allow an attack on its moral foundations, pertaining to the basic building blocks of society, heterosexuals and their families.

Society has moved on. Sorry 'bout that

[Figleaf]

Homosexuality is not part of my Western ideologies.

Liberalism is the cause of North America's immorality.

No, no, no. The recognition phrases this week are:

-'Long is the road that leads from home. '

and the reply is--

-'The cows reap what the farmer sows.'

... implementing gay marriage in Canada, all part of their master plan on 'how too destroy heterosexual society'.

How is SSM supposed to actually accomplish that?

Is SSM supposed to be stamped and approved by Christianity and mainstream Canadian society or is SSM actually an assault on heterosexuals and Christianity in an effort to promote a Godless pagan society, all part of the liberals master plan?

Just answer the question: how do you contend that SSM will "destroy heterosexual society"? What measures will be utilized? What mechanism will produce that result? What reality is there to your nonsense?

[blackascoal]

How does one find an occurrance that is evident MILLIONS and MILLIONS of times in virtually every corner of the earth to be an "anamoly"?

[White Doors]

How does one find an occurrance that is evident MILLIONS and MILLIONS of times in virtually every corner of the earth to be an "anamoly"?

I think that something that happens about 2% of the time can be considered an anomoly can it not?

[Catchme]

How does one find an occurrance that is evident MILLIONS and MILLIONS of times in virtually every corner of the earth to be an "anamoly"?

It can't. Its not. http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Wonder who is going to tell the Canadian geese, who actually exhibit a high % of homo sexual behaviour that their society will collapse under the on slot of such behaviour?

[White Doors]

How does one find an occurrance that is evident MILLIONS and MILLIONS of times in virtually every corner of the earth to be an "anamoly"?

It can't. Its not. http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Wonder who is going to tell the Canadian geese, who actually exhibit a high % of homo sexual behaviour that their society will collapse under the on slot of such behaviour?

Well I certainly never said or inferred that. same sex relationships are not the norm however.

[Catchme]

How does one find an occurrance that is evident MILLIONS and MILLIONS of times in virtually every corner of the earth to be an "anamoly"?

It can't. Its not. http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Wonder who is going to tell the Canadian geese, who actually exhibit a high % of homo sexual behaviour that their society will collapse under the on slot of such behaviour?

Well I certainly never said or inferred that. same sex relationships are not the norm however.

What is the norm regarding sexual relationships anyway?

[White Doors]

The Penis in inserted into the vagina as nature intended would be the norm, would it not?