Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Renegade]

The rights outlined in the Magna Carta caused generation after generation of all classes of people to fight to secure their own rights by reference to the Magna Carta. It took many revolts, wars (civil, religious and otherwise), and the progress of time to confirm the beginning of our 'Rights' history.

I disagree with your view of what rights are, but even if we accept your premise, that rights are fought for and won through struggle, I can't see how you can then claim rights which you had no part in struggling for or winning. The battles you speak of occured many hundreds of years ago and was not fought by you. The only claim you have to those "rights" won is a possibly tenous one of having inherited DNA from those who actually fought the battle.

The potential consequences relating to opposition to the Charter could involve bloodshed or could simply be thrown out into the waste paper basket, where it belongs.

Either of the actions you suggest are clearly illegal. It would seem to undermine your position to advocate illegal actions while at the same time accusing the government of being totalatarian for performing illegal actions.

Provinces and the federal government have been protecting Canadians with 'human rights legislation' long before the implementation of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'.

You didn't answer my question. What other kinds of rights are there (if any)? If the provinces and federal government were protecting "human rights", why did they do so whithout the struggle by the people you claim is necessary when rights are won?

The Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' provides fairy like undemocratic rights at the expense of of the majority English speaking population of Canada, being both fiscally extremely expensive and physiological damaging to English speaking Canadians who object being treated like fools by our federal government.

If English speaking Canadians resent "being treated like fools by our federal government", there is a fairly simple remedy: They can elect a govenment which respects their wishes. They control the majority of the voting population. If the Charter was rammed down their throat, why have they not exercised their democratic power and elected a government which has recinded or amended the Charter? The fact that it doesn't seem to be an election issue indicates that English Canadians don't feel the resentment you seem to believe.

Yes, the government acted illegally by abusing our inherited British system.

Ok, so what specific law was broken? I don't mean an interpretation of abuse by you,I mean quote the Act or Statute.

Pertaining to the Charter Mr. Trudeau and a handful of politicians unilaterally implemented the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' ignoring the UNREPRESENTED collective will of Canadian citizens.

Even if this is true, it is not illegal. Once in power a government can LEGALLY do what it wishes (as long as it doesn't violate existing laws). There is no LEGAL requirement that once in power it must follow the will of Canadian citizens. It may for example adopt legislation which it feels is in the best interest of the country, despite what the population thinks. The population's only recourse is to replacethe government in the next election.

Also the federal government broke its own Charter rules by implementing 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service, when the Charter states otherwise concerning use of the 'official languages'.

The Charter simply states that there are two official languages in Canada, English and French and that 'EITHER' of these two languages may be used by any citizen in communicating with the federal government or 'WORKING' for it, or any of its institutions.

OK then, you are free to use the Charter to mount a challenge to the government's policy of bilingualism in the public service. Have you done so?

[marcinmoka]

The government unilaterally, without the input of society, has a right to implement and force a diverse lifestyle on majority Christians?

What province/state/nation do you live in? From what I re-call, I never remember hearing a federal decree proclaiming that *we must practice homosexuality* or else face sanction.

What they (or anyone else) do in the bedroom is their choice, as long as no one gets hurt and it's legitimately consenting.

I've never, ever understood homophobia. Why get your panties in a whirl over something that doesn't affect you. Mind you, I do re-call that the most vocal homophobe in high school ended up.....gay. Perhaps he was so homophobic because he was struggling to resist temptation.

[ScottSA]

I've never, ever understood homophobia. Why get your panties in a whirl over something that doesn't affect you. Mind you, I do re-call that the most vocal homophobe in high school ended up.....gay. Perhaps he was so homophobic because he was struggling to resist temptation.

With respect, I've never understood willfull blindness. Nor the practice of labelling one's philosophical opponents with ad hominem instead of arguments. Nor the streetcorner psychology that attempts to turn anti-fag beliefs into some kind of denial of latent homosexuality. What silliness.

If the push to accept the normalization of homosexuality didn't affect the general population, I'm sure the general population wouldn't care, what do you think? It does, of course, which is why at least half the general population has had enough, although I must admit the loud obnoxious namecalling by homosexual lobbyists has succeeded in driving much of it underground. "Tolerating" something means not fagbashing and not incarcerating homosexuals. It does not mean "acceptance". It does not mean parades flaunting obviously disturbed individual's "lifestyles", extending the institution of marriage, and most important, it does not include installing "anti-homophobia" classes in schools. I find homosexuality wrong on a number of levels, and I actually have to send my kids to private schools to avoid their immersion in this sick worship of "acceptance" with no regard for its social implications that is proudly practised in public schools under the banner of "openmindedess".

[Leafless]

The only claim you have to those "rights" won is a possibly tenous one of having inherited DNA from those who actually fought the battle.

Our form of government is both a Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy with the Queen still being Head of State. Our laws are based on the British inherited system.

Either of the actions you suggest are clearly illegal. It would seem to undermine your position to advocate illegal actions while at the same time accusing the government of being totalitarian for performing illegal actions.

Does one performing an illegal action action against someone or something, not promote in return a possible illegal retributory action?

I am simply being critical of the federal government, relating to implementing and forcing an undemocratic and racist Charter against the possible will of Canadian citizens, without offering legal representation to Canadians, concerning an implied constitutional right to oppose such a move by Mp representation.

You didn't answer my question. What other kinds of rights are there (if any)? If the provinces and federal government were protecting "human rights", why did they do so without the struggle by the people you claim is necessary when rights are won?

Our original 'Bill of Rights' protected Canadians human rights protection unlike the Charter that is BUILT INTO OUR CONSTUTUTION has the power to undemocratically manipulate society by parliament ,courts and judges, against the will of Canadians.

BIG DIFFERENCE, which could encourage a backlash at some point. The Charter is relatively new, we will simply wait and see what the tolerance level is of Canadians at large.

If English speaking Canadians resent "being treated like fools by our federal government", there is a fairly simple remedy: They can elect a government which respects their wishes. They control the majority of the voting population. If the Charter was rammed down their throat, why have they not exercised their democratic power and elected a government which has recinded or amended the Charter? The fact that it doesn't seem to be an election issue indicates that English Canadians don't feel the resentment you seem to believe.

No politician knew at the time the Charter was implemented exactly how far or to what extent society will be manipulated by government.

We know to-day how far rights can be pursued to override the rights and the political interest of the majority.

The only problem is that there is no federal political party in Canada willing to commit political suicide by denouncing the Charter and doing something concrete about, with the predicable result as being blamed for the break up of Canada.

[Leafless]

Ok, so what specific law was broken? I don't mean an interpretation of abuse by you,I mean quote the Act or Statute.

"Within the House of Commons Members of Parliament (or MPs) sit to debate federal legislation. Members are elected in individual ridings based on population to represent and make decisions on behalf of the people of that riding."

http://www.thecanadapage.org/Government.htm

Even if this is true, it is not illegal. Once in power a government can LEGALLY do what it wishes (as long as it doesn't violate existing laws). There is no LEGAL requirement that once in power it must follow the will of Canadian citizens.

Well the we need a new form of government, since as you know Canadians are being torn and divided by Quebec nationalist ideologies, traditionally pursued by the Liberals vs Canadian national ideologies, traditionally pursued by the Conservatives.

The Liberals most always pursued social policies in order to win votes and that policy is now being pusued by the Conservatives to win votes.

But nevertheless the original problem remains Quebec nationalist ideologies vs Canadian national policies.

We need a new political system or a new country minus Quebec.

OK then, you are free to use the Charter to mount a challenge to the government's policy of bilingualism in the public service. Have you done so?

No.

And I would not get very far with the federal acceptance of the FALSE NOTION: " That Canada is a bilingual nation " with linguistic duality, and since the Quebec Act of 1774, both founding nations are equal partners"

What BS.

[marcinmoka]

With respect, I've never understood willfull blindness. Nor the practice of labelling one's philosophical opponents with ad hominem instead of arguments. Nor the streetcorner psychology that attempts to turn anti-fag beliefs into some kind of denial of latent homosexuality. What silliness.

The funny thing is that I never implied anything, not even tongue and cheek. I was just recalling a character.

If the push to accept the normalization of homosexuality didn't affect the general population, I'm sure the general population wouldn't care, what do you think?

So what I garner from this post is that you believe we will all turn gay if we ever witness a gary parade, or go a "anti-homophobia" seminar?

This is were you and I differ. Greatly. I believe that it is indeed a natural genetic anomaly. It constantly shows up in 8-10% of the population and it's practice is documented all throughout history. It has even been recorded in dolphins, penguins, birds, sheep and chimps.

Whereas you seem to think it is ones choice, correct?

And most of all, how do actions of some individuals, in the privacy of their own home, affect me? I'm not disturbed by it because I just simply don't care. So they have a parade. Well, don't go. If you see it passing, turn the other way.

As for the issue of gay marriage, I saw a sign stating :

Against Gay Marriage? Then don't have one!!

I thought that was poignant!

[Canadian Blue]

If the push to accept the normalization of homosexuality didn't affect the general population, I'm sure the general population wouldn't care, what do you think? It does, of course, which is why at least half the general population has had enough, although I must admit the loud obnoxious namecalling by homosexual lobbyists has succeeded in driving much of it underground.

So anti-gay groups have been formed underground due to the fear people may become homosexual because we allow homosexualities to have one parade.

"Within the House of Commons Members of Parliament (or MPs) sit to debate federal legislation. Members are elected in individual ridings based on population to represent and make decisions on behalf of the people of that riding."

Apparently nearly +50% of Canadian's supported gay marriage. So in the end most Canadian's supported it.

I am simply being critical of the federal government, relating to implementing and forcing an undemocratic and racist Charter against the possible will of Canadian citizens, without offering legal representation to Canadians, concerning an implied constitutional right to oppose such a move by Mp representation.

There is nothing more undemocratic than having rights and freedoms which all people in a society share.

Our original 'Bill of Rights' protected Canadians human rights protection unlike the Charter that is BUILT INTO OUR CONSTUTUTION has the power to undemocratically manipulate society by parliament ,courts and judges, against the will of Canadians.

If thats the case, Canadian's should be more than supportive of voting in a party which shares your view.

We know to-day how far rights can be pursued to override the rights and the political interest of the majority.

Once again the majority supported gay marriage and their isn't much opposition left.

The only problem is that there is no federal political party in Canada willing to commit political suicide by denouncing the Charter and doing something concrete about, with the predicable result as being blamed for the break up of Canada.

Because Canada is a democracy and people are content with our current system of government.

"Tolerating" something means not fagbashing and not incarcerating homosexuals. It does not mean "acceptance". It does not mean parades flaunting obviously disturbed individual's "lifestyles", extending the institution of marriage, and most important, it does not include installing "anti-homophobia" classes in schools. I find homosexuality wrong on a number of levels, and I actually have to send my kids to private schools to avoid their immersion in this sick worship of "acceptance" with no regard for its social implications that is proudly practised in public schools under the banner of "openmindedess".

Homosexuality has been around forever ScottSA. What exactly did public school do to force your kids to be accepting of gays?

With respect, I've never understood willfull blindness. Nor the practice of labelling one's philosophical opponents with ad hominem instead of arguments. Nor the streetcorner psychology that attempts to turn anti-fag beliefs into some kind of denial of latent homosexuality. What silliness.

Don't you call pretty well anybody that disagrees with you an idiot or traitor. I find that people who aren't comfortable with their manliness often resort to scapegoating someone else. I'm not threatened by gays, I don't attend gay pride parades and I haven't been forced to.

[sharkman]

I've never, ever understood homophobia. Why get your panties in a whirl over something that doesn't affect you. Mind you, I do re-call that the most vocal homophobe in high school ended up.....gay. Perhaps he was so homophobic because he was struggling to resist temptation.

You've never understood homophobia? It's pretty simpleminded really.

I must chime in as well and say that throwing around the homophobe label at anyone who has reservations about gay issues is also pretty simple minded. Can't we get past namecalling?

[Liam]

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.

FWIW, I've been on vacation with my kids the past week so I have not caught up on this thread.

Anyhow, my comments about not giving two sh^ts were not directed at you solely, they were directed at people in general. I don't care if the general public loves me or loathes me, but I expect my government to treat me the same as it does every other citizen. That means giving me equal access to state-issued licenses and giving me the same tax benefits others get. Giving tax breaks only to married people then telling a certain part of the population that they'll never qualify because their government won't let them marry is favortism, pure and simple. It's just not fair. It's sad that some people either can't see it or refuse to see it.

[Liam]

yet they can both contribute children to the world (albeit not natural childbirth on the gays part) .

Gays and lesbians also have biological children. I have a good friend who has two children, born to her by artificial insemination, from the same father. She is as good a mother as any heterosexual woman I know, and both her children are smart, strong, and well adjusted. Being a lesbian doesn't change the fact that she is a woman, with a maternal instinct. Another friend of mine has a daughter born before she was ready to admit to herself and to her family that she was a lesbian - her daughter is 22 now, and is an amazingly gifted, self assured young woman. I have several other friends and aquaintances who are also gay or lesbian, and so do each of you - you just might not know it.

I am a single gay dad with sole custody of my two own biological children, both under the age of nine. Their mother, my ex-wife, died of cancer last year in her 30's. I'm not revealing that to garner sympathy -- not at all -- but merely to put a human face on the gay marriage debate. If I was straight and remarried a woman, few people would object to my new family's receipt of certain tax benefits as a family. Few people would consider our new family to be artificial. But being a gay man who might marry another gay man suddenly makes me not worthy or suddenly makes mine some kind of discounted family?

People who oppose gay marriage are, essentially, telling my kids that they will never be part of a two-parent household again, that if I should have health problems, they ought to be shipped off to strange relatives in some distant state, that their household will never have parity with the other kids in the neighborhood.

Make no mistake about it, I take attacks on gay marriage personally. Attacks on gay marriage are attacks on the stability of my kids' home environment. They are pointed, direct attacks on my kids and their future.

Opposition to equal treatment under the law has a heck of a lot more to do with opposition to gay people, in general, than it does with fostering stable families within which children can grow and be nurtured. Anyone who claims to be against gay marriage but in favor of supporting families is either willfully uninformed that there are thousands of potentially disenfranchised kids out there or an utter and willful hypocrite.

[sharkman]

I hope you had a nice vacation Liam, good to see you're back.

[guyser]

I hope you had a nice vacation Liam, good to see you're back.

Same here Liam !

[Foggy Porridge]

I don't understand why people get so pished about gay people - what harm are they actually doing?

They seem to be fairly decent, docile, hardworking folk who provide vital public functions. I pay tribute to them here:

Taking the brunt of mindless, alpha male violence, making the streets a safer for girlie-men like me.

They have no abortions - you'd think that would be enough to get the fundamentalist Bushite thumbs up... I for one, am pro anti-woman;)

Gay bashing provides a vital act of subterfuge which allows our elected leader's parties to go with a much needed 'swing' - there needs to be some taboos for them to break for God's sake! and when you and your buds have been sodomising the abstract body of a concept such as the 'Bill of Rights and Constitution' all year round, it's always nice to get physical.

The average maramite miner tends to be fairly conspicuous - leering, lisping, leather clad midgets in wipe-clean mitres - providing easy identification when village pariah is needed, an object of persecution which can be sullied and trampled to ease the reality of your own shortcomings. Hell, irrational outrage is so much easier to indulge in when you have the backing of the church, the state and the village idiot contingencies...

Long may they prosper!

[noahbody]

I'd expect most gay people seek acceptance over anything. That's what they had with civil unions. With gay marriage, they chose rights over acceptance.

If you want to be accepted, it's best to try to accept others as well.

[Leafless]

Make no mistake about it, I take attacks on gay marriage personally. Attacks on gay marriage are attacks on the stability of my kids' home environment. They are pointed, direct attacks on my kids and their future.

Marriage, kids pertaining to SSM just don't ring any bells relating to a majority heterosexual population.

Your children are the result of a heterosexual marriage. To suggest heterosexuals who frown on your new potential SSM marriage and who could possibly create instability pertaining to the lives of your children and could jeopardize your children's future is bull.

If anyone is jeopardizing your children and possibly their future is you, by your hand, by involving yourself in a still controversial homosexual marriage.

Don't blame the heterosexual society in general who had nothing to do with SSM legislation.

[guyser]

That's what they had with civil unions. With gay marriage, they chose rights over acceptance.

If you want to be accepted, it's best to try to accept others as well.

Equal rights you meant to say...right?

If the govt changed what was formerly called a marriage , meaning all marriages, inbot a civil union, then ok. But people wanted marriages and for the gays to have civil unions. Nope sorry aint doing that.

Marriage , two people getting hitched. Done. Thanks and lets move on.

[guyser]

If anyone is jeopardizing your children and possibly their future is you, by your hand, by involving yourself in a still controversial homosexual marriage.

And I suppose that is true , as long as there are troglodytes roaming this country. Lets hope they get out of the cave and see the light.

Don't blame the heterosexual society in general who had nothing to do with SSM legislation.

NOthing to do with the legislation, because too many of them were fighting against it.

But then again, we have it in this country,and dont you find it wonderful ? No problems, hell hasnt frozen over, society is not in freefall, troglodytes still have their draughty caves from which to post.

Yes I agree, it is wonderful. And it never changed my life one iota. Beautiful !

[Foggy Porridge]

Homosexuality is basically a form of population control; they(the GAYS) could be seen as potential guardians for all these unwanted children springin up all over the place - if they want to play daddies with a bunch of thieving juvenile delinquents with ritalin noggins, lazy eyes and superfluous digits surely we can leave em to it. That would please God, perhaps.

People talk about values and morals. horseshitz. Please. Stop watching TV, learn something about goverment, realise that we ain't, generally speaking, all that different from one another - MSMedia sends the genitalia in this world crazy, we're sexual marionettes for pete's sake! making the boys girlie and girlies frightful. Who's to say what's natural and what's not? I personally feel unqualified to speak for Mother Nature or God or Bill O or whoever runs this insane sideshow...

Christ, a cursory look at government will show you that it is heterosexuality that is the anomaly - bisexuality is the prevalent practice I believe, heterosexuality plays better with the electorate, gayness is evil in the public sphere - if our elected officials and representatives are anything to go by, well, most people are filthy bestial perverts living in shame and fear. The recognised signs of a healthy and flourishing democracy.

cheers.

[ScottSA]

Make no mistake about it, I take attacks on gay marriage personally. Attacks on gay marriage are attacks on the stability of my kids' home environment. They are pointed, direct attacks on my kids and their future.

It's unfortunate that you feel it necessary to drag your kids into a debate about sexual preference, but since you have, let me say that gay marriages are a direct attack on my children's moral upbringing, so make no mistake that I take personally homosexuals loudly striving for social acceptance as well. There we have it then. You want to make it personal? It's personal to me as well and impacts directly on my children's upbringing. I tolerate homosexuality and that's all I have to do. I certainly don't have to "accept" it, and I don't have to bend over because someone doesn't like what I have to say about aberrent behaviour. In my opinion the only attacks on children's future are mounted by those who undertake to celebrate and normalise immoral and aberrent behaviour while subjecting their kids to it.

[Figleaf]

It's unfortunate that you feel it necessary to drag your kids into a debate about sexual preference, but since you have, let me say that gay marriages are a direct attack on my children's moral upbringing,...

Put another way, this suggests you feel a moral obligation to refuse equal protection of the law to homosexuals. Can you expand upon the source and scope of this 'morality'?

so make no mistake that I take personally homosexuals loudly striving for social acceptance as well.

My this is an intriguing post you've made... Tell me, does your 'morality' specify a decibel level at which homosexuals seeking acceptance would not be objectionable to you?

It's personal to me as well and impacts directly on my children's upbringing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you mean that because SSM is accepted by society's laws, it makes it difficult for you to both revile homosexuality and teach your kids respect for the law? So, I guess you feel similar in this regard to how communist or libertarian parents feel. (This may be an interesting line of discussion of a more general kind ... perhaps I'll start a thread.)

I tolerate homosexuality and that's all I have to do. I certainly don't have to "accept" it,

Tolerate -- accept; what's in a word?

[Liam]

...let me say that gay marriages are a direct attack on my children's moral upbringing, so make no mistake that I take personally homosexuals loudly striving for social acceptance as well. There we have it then. You want to make it personal? It's personal to me as well and impacts directly on my children's upbringing...

Having government treat me as an equal in no way impacts your ability to raise your children in an intolerant atmosphere if that's your wish. But by drawing laws according to your beliefs, you would directly condemn my children to being orphans should I die young. That's some moral code.

[ScottSA]

Tolerate -- accept; what's in a word?

I have no time nor desire to parse through line item quibbles about each minor point of each sentence just to indulge in swealian wordplay, and I'm sure you have better things to do than write tomes that no one including me has time to read. I'll answer this one question, and then perhaps we can agree to avoid each other henceforth?

'Tolerate' means to not throw stones at, kill, maim or incarcerate. I tolerate homosexuals.

'Accept' means to welcome, to acknowledge as normal and everyday. I do not accept homosexuals.

You ask what's in a word? That's the crux of this slippery slope. Homosexuals have been "tolerated" from the day homosexuality became legal. But it is a word that makes great propaganda, because it is used now to mean something different, while allowing the user to retreat to the original meaning in midstride whenever he is called on it.

Every advance homosexuals attempt to make into hegemonic society is accompanied by much ballyhoo about "tolerance", when in fact every issue since the decriminalization of homosexuality is really about "acceptance", which is an entirely different thing. Most Canadians are willing to tolerate homosexuals and homosexuality in our midst. I suspect that most Canadians are not at all willing to accept homosexuality as "just another lifestyle", like yuppies or the military community. That's why homosexual activists take great care to fudge (no pun intended) the two meanings. Obviously, from your question, the ploy works well.

[ScottSA]

...let me say that gay marriages are a direct attack on my children's moral upbringing, so make no mistake that I take personally homosexuals loudly striving for social acceptance as well. There we have it then. You want to make it personal? It's personal to me as well and impacts directly on my children's upbringing...

Having government treat me as an equal in no way impacts your ability to raise your children in an intolerant atmosphere if that's your wish. But by drawing laws according to your beliefs, you would directly condemn my children to being orphans should I die young. That's some moral code.

You are at perfect liberty, outside the institution of marriage, to arrange guardianship of your children with whomever you wish. That has nothing to do with marriage.

[guyser]

Society will only improve on the gains that gays have achieved. Todays kids are smarter than some parents and will school the ignorant parents accordingly.

Only a matter of time before all the homophobes will know better than spew such hate and inanities.

Rather funny to see, it will be fun.

[Figleaf]

... perhaps we can agree to avoid each other henceforth?

Sorry, no promises.

I actually wish you had chosen another of my questions, rather that the least significant of them all. Don't bother with the one where I mention a new thread, but perhaps you could respond to this one instead:

Put another way, this suggests you feel a moral obligation to refuse equal protection of the law to homosexuals. Can you expand upon the source and scope of this 'morality'?