Homosexuality is an anomaly

[sharkman]

From my understanding, he is not calling YOU a dog turd, or slamming you, but that he doesn't want other people slamming him or treating him like dog turd. What's wrong with not wanting to be treated like dog crap?

Nowhere did I claim he called me a dog turd. Nor did he state he didn't want to be treated like a dog turd. You appear to be misreading what he said. Again, I did nothing to deserve such harsh comments.

Are you just trolling? You make a statement about Liam in particular, and then when called on it you move the goalposts. Whatever G, look just forget it because I wouldn't want to upset your world view. Have a happy day.

[guyser]

Uh, liam slammed me just a couple pages back, something about the gay agenda is not to be treated like a dog turd on the street(?), and wanting me to spare him the gay agenda crap. I did nothing to deserve such treatment.

I think it would be good to go read what Liam posted.

He said his "gay agenda " was merely getting through the day looking after his kids, doing chores around the house etc. He was not militant nor disrespectful.

[sharkman]

I find the gays to be quite respectful in their posts on this thread, especially people like Liam

Just to be clear, it was you who framed his remarks as being respectful and when I showed you a disrespectful one you insist it's still respectful unless you call someone a dog turd. You seem unaware of more than one way to be disrespectful.

And I had begun my remarks that drew such ire with the phrase, "with respect".

[sharkman]

With respect, the bone of contention I have with the gay agenda is it's insistance (and can be read quite plainly in your post) that it be given special status, as if one is better than another simply because of sexual orientation. This is no better than the homophobes who think the same.

There has always been hatred at others, be they gay, Jewish, Arabic, Black, White or whatever. Big deal. It doesn't make you better than anyone.

Special status?? Where in my post did I say that being gay earns me special status?

Being gay doesn't make me better than anyone. But it doesn't make me worse than anyone, either. Particularly when you consider that gay people fund their governments in equal amounts as their straight brethren, yet most of them get nothing but inequality in return.

Thankfully, I live in Massachusetts which has full equality, but 95% of gay Americans live in states where they pay as much in taxes as straight people but get nothing in return. Is that fair? That is THE gay agrenda. I couldn't give two sh*ts if you like me, love me, hate me or want to see me hoisted on a pike in the town square. But my agenda, THE gay agenda, is not to be forced to treated like a dog turd on the street. Why should I pay taxes into a system which continues to marginalize me as a person and give me fewer rights than someone who did nothing to earn better status? I've paid into systems that hates me long enough.

You have the luxury of being oblivious to it. Society caters to you, whether you know it or not. For me, if I lived anywhere else than where I do, I'd have to incur thousands of dollars in legal fees for will drafting, health care proxies, and the like. And regardless of where I live and regardless fo the rights I have here in Massachusetts, I still wouldn't get the same protection at the federal level than Britney Spears gets when she decides to have a 30 hour marriage with her latest co-dependent at the Betty Ford Clinic.

So spare me that "gay agenda" cr^p. It seems to me that straights are the ones with the real agenda and it's to keep anyone unlike them at a disadvantage.

Geez can't anyone read anymore? This is the post I was taking issue with, not the one guyser refers to. To head off more misunderstanding the remarks that are rude are as follows: I couldn't give two sh*ts if you like me, love me, hate me or want to see me hoisted on a pike in the town square. But my agenda, THE gay agenda, is not to be forced to treated like a dog turd on the street.

Also this one: So spare me that "gay agenda" cr^p.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big boy and I'm not bothered by this. I'm bothered by those who insist Liam is being respectful when he's obviously not.

[gc1765]

Geez can't anyone read anymore? This is the post I was taking issue with, not the one guyser refers to. To head off more misunderstanding the remarks that are rude are as follows: I couldn't give two sh*ts if you like me, love me, hate me or want to see me hoisted on a pike in the town square. But my agenda, THE gay agenda, is not to be forced to treated like a dog turd on the street.

Also this one: So spare me that "gay agenda" cr^p.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big boy and I'm not bothered by this. I'm bothered by those who insist Liam is being respectful when he's obviously not.

Wow, big deal, he used a few "bad" words. He didn't insult anyone on this board (which is what I meant by respectful). That is a lot more than I can say for Leafless....

[guyser]

Geez can't anyone read anymore? This is the post I was taking issue with, not the one guyser refers to. To head off more misunderstanding the remarks that are rude are as follows: I couldn't give two sh*ts if you like me, love me, hate me or want to see me hoisted on a pike in the town square. But my agenda, THE gay agenda, is not to be forced to treated like a dog turd on the street.

Also this one: So spare me that "gay agenda" cr^p.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big boy and I'm not bothered by this. I'm bothered by those who insist Liam is being respectful when he's obviously not.

Sorry Sharkman , but I still dont think any of that was labeled at you , but instead at the idea that he wants to be treated fairly, as in equal, like you me or anyone else should be.

I think that the words" I couldn't give two.....love me hate me.....in the town square" express that.

His "gay agenda" is merely to be treated equal. No more no less. He wants nothing more than what any person on this planet wants, equality under law and govt.

[sharkman]

Wow, big deal, he used a few "bad" words. He didn't insult anyone on this board (which is what I meant by respectful). That is a lot more than I can say for Leafless....

And you have 2 standards, which makes you a hypocrite. Oooooh, so it's only disrespectful if you insult somebody.

dis·re·spect·ful [dis-ri-spekt-fuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

characterized by, having, or showing disrespect; lacking courtesy or esteem: a disrespectful remark about teachers.

And guyser, what meaning he was trying to get across is not what is in dispute, nor what he was labelling me. gc1765 made a statement that Liam has been respectful and I am taking issue with that only. Those comments are disrespectful.

[Canadian Blue]

I think the only militant people on here have been leafless and ScottSA with reference to homosexuality. All Liam was trying to get across was he wanted to be treated no different than anyone else.

[BubberMiley]

I suppose the question is, how many gays have posted on this thread with militant gay agenda remarks.

Roughly the same as have posted with militant anti-gay agenda remarks. It's sort of a back-and-forth thing, as far as I can tell. Not that I've bothered to read it all. Leafless' prose is still too remedial to find much meaning and sharkman just seeks victimhood wherever he can find it.

[sharkman]

Nope, Bubber I am not seeking victimhood, otherwise I would have responded 4 pages ago when the remarks in question were made.

[Canadian Blue]

Where are these gay militant remarks?

[ScottSA]

I see no reason why male female unions or gay unions with no kids should get any special tax break at all. They should be treated just the same as single people.

Why should someone in a union with no kids be taxed less than me and my roommate?

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

Idiot. Report me. You're an idiot.

[gc1765]

And you have 2 standards, which makes you a hypocrite. Oooooh, so it's only disrespectful if you insult somebody.

dis·re·spect·ful [dis-ri-spekt-fuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

characterized by, having, or showing disrespect; lacking courtesy or esteem: a disrespectful remark about teachers.

And guyser, what meaning he was trying to get across is not what is in dispute, nor what he was labelling me. gc1765 made a statement that Liam has been respectful and I am taking issue with that only. Those comments are disrespectful.

Yes, I'm sure you have a much better understanding of what I mean when I said that Liam was respectful. I've already clarified what I meant in my previous post, so it seems now you are just trolling.

Let's not debate semantics here, would you be happier if I changed my previous comment to "Liam has not insulted anyone here"? Would that satisfy you? I only wish I could say the same about people like Leafless...

[gc1765]

I think the only militant people on here have been leafless and ScottSA with reference to homosexuality. All Liam was trying to get across was he wanted to be treated no different than anyone else.

Exactly.

[sharkman]

I think the only militant people on here have been leafless and ScottSA with reference to homosexuality. All Liam was trying to get across was he wanted to be treated no different than anyone else.

Exactly.

Look, you used the term respectful. Then after I call you on it you move the goal posts and insist what you really meant was using insults. Saying that other posters were worse is not the point. Your statement was wrong, and you need to learn when to admit you were incorrect.

All I have ever said was Liam was disrespectful when he he said such things as, "I don't give 2 shits what you think...". If you can't find that disrespectful, then I leave you to your perspective.

[gc1765]

Look, you used the term respectful. Then after I call you on it you move the goal posts and insist what you really meant was using insults. Saying that other posters were worse is not the point. Your statement was wrong, and you need to learn when to admit you were incorrect.

All I have ever said was Liam was disrespectful when he he said such things as, "I don't give 2 shits what you think...". If you can't find that disrespectful, then I leave you to your perspective.

Troll

I've clarified my statement twice now. Go back and read my previous post and quit trolling. As I said before, I'm not interested in debating semantics. Read my previous post, and try to bring something new to the argument. Otherwise, consider yourself ignored.

[Leafless]

Canada IS a secular state. Get over it. Your religious beliefs (or anyone elses) do not belong in parliament.

Of course Canada's federal government practices separation of church and state which I agree with fully.

But it also allows freedom of religion, with of course the majority religion Christianity, leaving all of Canada's other religions far behind.

Therefore Canada is Not a secular state like you would like everyone to believe.

The only point I was making is the hypocrisy of the federal government in trying to have everyone believe that Canada is a secular country by catering to the tiny percentage of homosexual perverts to prove their point.

It really makes you wonder how much longer the majority of Canadian citizens will continue to allow the federal government to poop in their faces.

[guyser]

The only point I was making is the hypocrisy of the federal government in trying to have everyone believe that Canada is a secular country by catering to the tiny percentage of homosexual perverts to prove their point.

Nah.....they are not catering to the tiny percentage of homo perverts. Why would they? To small a group to be concerned with.

But the govt is indeed extending rights to all citizens of every walk of life , and yes including homosexuals.

It really makes you wonder how much longer the majority of Canadian citizens will continue to allow the federal government to poop in their faces.

Dont really know frankly. Never been into that sort of stuff. Got some insight for us?

[Leafless]

Nah.....they are not catering to the tiny percentage of homo perverts. Why would they? To small a group to be concerned with.

But the govt is indeed extending rights to all citizens of every walk of life , and yes including homosexuals.

And you have to ask yourself why?

Canada is the only country in the world to implement a major amendment to Canada's constitution (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human rights legislation) and deny proper representation to Canadians to be part of decision making process concerning this very controversial document.

I consider this a slap in the face to be denied this basic right.

Now back to the point.

The only group to benefit the most from the Charter is Quebec. In fact if you study the document it is clear the the Charter was built around Quebec to force Quebec ideologies including language into Canada. Other groups gained from the Charter but no group comes close to what the charter has undemocratically done for Quebec.

IMO the main reason the charter was IMPOSED on Canadians was because of the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord and the inability of Quebec to advance its prosperity due to its self imposed language restrictions discouraging investment in that province.

ont really know frankly. Never been into that sort of stuff. Got some insight for us?

You seem to be having comprehension problems lately.

Maybe you should take some time off and go and chew on a candy bar or something.

[Figleaf]

Idiot. Report me. You're an idiot.

Okay. Reported.

Also, I'll point out to you that your inability to formulate any articulation of what your beef is with my post demonstrates your shocking lack of the capabilities that would serve you in civilized discussion.

My personal suggestion to you is to quit posting here, where you are so obviously and badly out of your depth.

[sharkman]

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

This comment shows a real lack of depth on many levels, which is why I ignored it previously. Such a lack of critical thinking and knee jerking does not help solve the issue.

[Charles Anthony]

IMO the main reason the charter was IMPOSED on Canadians was because of the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord and the inability of

???

Maybe it is just me but I get the feeling of slipping through a sci-fi time warp on this one....

One of us is clearly losing it.

[Figleaf]

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

This comment shows a real lack of depth on many levels, which is why I ignored it previously. Such a lack of critical thinking and knee jerking does not help solve the issue.

You're, what? the third rightwinger to pile in with a whinge (but little content) about that comment. I find that hilarious. Geoffrey's the only one who made a principled point and I suspect he's the only one of the three of you who doesn't directly benefit from tax breaks for breeding.

Just to let you know, I posted that to be deliberately provocative of one of the responses I got. My interlocutor Martin Chriton (see posts 516 & 517) acknowledged that a tax policy that serves a socio-economic objective is a legitimate concept. I'm now awaiting his reply on whether he accepts the principle or distinguishes this particular case.

[Figleaf]

One of us is clearly losing it.

Oh! Deftly done.

[sharkman]

You're, what? the third rightwinger to pile in with a whinge (but little content) about that comment. I find that hilarious. Geoffrey's the only one who made a principled point and I suspect he's the only one of the three of you who doesn't directly benefit from tax breaks for breeding.

Just to let you know, I posted that to be deliberately provocative of one of the responses I got. My interlocutor Martin Chriton (see posts 516 & 517) acknowledged that a tax policy that serves a socio-economic objective is a legitimate concept. I'm now awaiting his reply on whether he accepts the principle or distinguishes this particular case.

Yeah, I know who the comment was aimed at since you quoted him. You seemed to have missed my point, however, that you slam scott for no content but have plenty of your own empty headed comments.

As a matter of fact you suspect wrong on the breeding assumption as well. Not all of us righties are breeders, maybe it takes one to know one. How old are you anyway, you seem to find hilarity in odd things.