Homosexuality is an anomaly

[jefferiah]

This is one Western Heterosexual who openly defends and supports Gays and sees nothing wrong with it and guess what I like Stephen Harper but not in a sexual way!!!

I love you think it makes me a liberal to believe Gays are humans with feelings and the right to live in freedom. How do I break this to you...there are gays who are conservative. They aint all communists or liberals.

p.s. I know your secret and why you call yourself Leafless. (Adam naked and in the buff for all the boys to see)

If you had any balls you would be addressing the topic and not this heterosexual poster.

Obviously you don't.

Only a homosexual would post the type of post you did trying to belittle, embarrass and intimidate in a truly homosexual fashion.

Actually I did respond directly to what you said. Leafless I also note in your response you became obsessed about my testacles which again proves my point. Tsk tsk.

Listen Leafless, you started a post but it is painfully obvious you are engaging in expressing hatred about gays and their lifestyle and not engaging in debate as to a political issue.

Not only do I have the "balls" to call you on it, I also say without hesitation you are a hate mongerer because you can't come to grips with your own unresolved issues of being gay and I think your last comments to me evidence that. If you think my analysis is unfair then think before you write. Think about why you attack gay people with such nasty generalizations.

You aren't the first nor will you be the last anti-gay basher who in his late 60's will finally come to terms with himself. Until then if you can't deal with it, do us all a favour and stay in the closet and keep yourself away from gays because in case you haven't noticed, they have the right to live in peace and freedom and do what ever you think it is you do as an alleged straight man.

p.s. I would have told you my last post was tongue in cheek but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too.

Miss Jay rules.

Play fair Rue. To say that someone being anti-gay means he is actually repressing homosexuality is like saying that someone who is anti-war wants to go to war. It's like saying when a person does not consent to sex that they really want it deep down.

[DarkAngel_]

"‘Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday."

---------------------------------------------

Wise assessment concerning homosexuals.

To bad our politicians are not as intelligent.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2275

i again state that homosexuality is a sexuality as well as state of mind, it seems to be a genetic fluke, but most gay people like it so... oh well. the most troubling thing is that if over a long amount of time we keep this up, it may cause genetic abnormalities like having only 1 sex, though for now i think it is trivial, not all gayness is gang/violence related, i disagree in this case, look into science and it will tell you a slightly different story. thinks people's and System of a Down rocks!!!

[newbie]

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?

Jesus, the leader of the Christian movement said NOTHING on this matter. Rumour has it He was also God which means...........

[gerryhatrick]

"‘Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday."

---------------------------------------------

Wise assessment concerning homosexuals.

To bad our politicians are not as intelligent.

Oh yes, wise.

Dehumanize them by calling them an "anomaly" created by "immorality and viciousness", and then add a caveat that they should be protected.

Don't think that perhaps the first hateful comment will generate the very kinds of acts against homosexuals that they need protecting against. Oh no.

It was comments such as those espoused by Leafless that permitted Svend Robinson to get his Bill C-250 through Parliament to add homosexuality to those areas protected against hate speech.

That makes no sense.

In order to get support for Bill C-250 Robinson sent MPs examples of what he claimed was "homophobic hate literature"

What I'm calling nonsensical is attributing the passage of the bill to that.

[Canadian Blue]

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. The fact is that all people are considered "sinners". However when people wrap themselves around their intolerance that is worse then being gay in Jesus's view in my own opinion. I think most people forget that the two virtues that Jesus said were necessary to get into the Kingdom of Heaven was love god with all your heart, and the second was love thy neighbour. The parable of the Good Samaritan is a perfect example of this. I find that most christian's don't follow this example and believe that all it takes to get into heaven is go to church and try not to have dirty thoughts.

Once again this is my own opinion.

As well if homosexuality is destroying us, then why is it that Ted Haggard turned out to be gay despite fighting against gay rights. I think the people who were most hurt by his relationship was his family, and he would have probably been much better off to just come out of the closet and be in a normal gay relationship. I don't see the reason to take away gay rights in order to save our society. I think the breakdown of the family, drugs, alcoholism, and greed, all hurt our society. Allowing two guys to marry only means they will be able to get into a long lasting relationship, and hopefully become a productive family.

This following quote comes from "Mr. Conservative".

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

- Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981.

[136GreenRoad]

In order to get support for Bill C-250 Robinson sent MPs examples of what he claimed was "homophobic hate literature"

What I'm calling nonsensical is attributing the passage of the bill to that.

To what then do you attribute passage of the Bill? It was so-called "hate literature" that Robinson was attempting to ban and he distributed copies of what he considered as such.

[Liam]

I've been ignoring this thread since I saw it, and just read it through. I couldn't help but respond, because the comments have been so typical. Personal attacks, accusations of hate speech and the like. Usually when someone is wrong the motive is to inform them with better information and links. Why do people resort with attacks when someone says something against gayness?

I am not defending attacks since I find logic so much more persuasive, but perhaps it is because the initial comments about gay people are almost always so wildly off base, so incredibly insulting, so narrow in view, so belittling and so angrily expressed that an angry response is pretty much pre-ordained? Dialogue in the conservative realm is based on outrage, anger and moral superiority. It is rarely positive and never inclusive. You can't expect any reaction other than what you get when an initial discussion begins with "[party X] is immoral" or "anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist-lover".

You reap what you sow.

[Leafless]

I often hear that the Liberal party is about to legalize pedophilia and the like. It is a scare tactic.

Despite the God references in Canada and the United States, the separation of church and state is adhered to. Harper doesn't take his orders from the Catholic Church. If he did, he'd be short lived as prime minister.

He obviously doesn't take his personal orders from the Church either or he would have a few dozen children. The government has to represent all of the people. And God for many people means different things.

Homosexuality is not threat to you. Marriage between gays and lesbians is also no threat to you.

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

--------------------------------------------------

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

But nevertheless U.S. presidents participate in Christian public and acknowledge God as being supreme and is an important factor in maintaining U.S. patriotism and providing the moral in helping keep their country strong and free.

----------------------------------------------------

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

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.

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.

[Rue]

"Play fair Rue. To say that someone being anti-gay means he is actually repressing homosexuality is like saying that someone who is anti-war wants to go to war. It's like saying when a person does not consent to sex that they really want it deep down. "

No it is like saying when someone rapes someone, they are in fact acting out violence because they are weak and feeling powerless inside. You used a non sexual analogy. I am talking psycho-sexual politics. When sex is brought into the equation it is invariably about people's own feelings of either being in control or not being in control.

Sexual lifestyle is always injected into politics because it is a symbol of control or non-control and people who refer to sexuality in divisive and hateful terms have a reason for doing so-something about that sexual lifestyle they externalize is upsetting them. I am no more being unfair then looking a rapist in the face and saying they rape because they are violent because they are weak and cowardly-no more no less.

When it comes to people who use sexual lifestyle as a pretense to discriminate and try intellectualize and justify hatred you bet I will throw it back in their face and say its a personal problem not a religious or political one as much as they would like to hide behind religion or politics to justify what they are doing.

Using this political forum as a pretense and platform to intellectualize hatred for the gays is what I am dealing with directly.

What I have said is no more unfair then Leafless's generalizations that necessarily slur each and every person who is born gay.

It is no more unfair then labelling gays as being abnormal and being singled out for discriminatory treatment.

Think it is unfair? Ask yourself this. Why is it and you have seen blatant examples of it, recently in the U.S., why is it, when a politician usually quoting the Christian Bible condemns gays and homo-sexuality, he is himself living a closeted gay life style? How many times do we see people preaching the virtues of a clean Christian life, and trotting off to prostitutes in their spare time? Unlike non sexual issues, when people discuss sex, they necessarily reflect their own sexual attitudes and that makes them fair game to ask-what is it about the sexual lifestyle they condemn that bothers them so much.

When we question pedophiles or rapists, we clearly do so because there is a power imbalance and exploitation and violence. In a consenting homo-sexual relationship between adults there is nothing of the sort so why the hatred? Why the need to single it out? Why the need to pass moral judgement on it? How does to consenting adults making love to one another constitute grounds for a discussion about discriminating against gays and calling them morally bad people?

Sorry but when I read such diatribes I must ask, what is it that generates someone to feel the need to single out gays and atempt to rationalize that we should discriminate against them and talk about them in a hateful way? Let's not beat around the bush (oops that might be mistaken as pubic hair but that is not what I meant).

Not fair? Is it fair to try use Christianity as a pretense to justify hating gays and discriminating against them? I condemn anyone who uses any religion to try justify hating gays.

Leafless opens himself up to such comments tonque in cheek or not because all of us are allowed to ask, why the hatred for gays? What really is at the root of such dialogue? Do we have people writing in posts saying hetero-sexuals should be discriminated against? Why only the fixation with gays?

Why the preoccupation about what gay people do unless it frightens Leafless. What else would you have me conclude? Would you have me define his attempts at intellectualizing discrimination and hatred as purely religious or political- sorry I am not the one who brought up sexuality-he did.

When I read such diatribes I can easily take out the word gay and replace it with blacks, Jews, what-ever-and it comes down to one thing-the person doing the condemning is externalizing his own anxiety and fears outwards on these people because he won't deal with certain feelings internally and I will do this with each and every bigot I come head to head with (oops that could be misconstrued as well).

No one, absolutely no one who tries to bastardize Christianity or any religion to justify hating and discriminating against gays is playing fair and they deserve to be called on it for precisely what it is. I am proud that Leafless thinks I am gay. Gays died in the holocaust precisely because they were gay and I honour that.

I am not being self-righteous, just saying it like it is when I see someone spreading hatred.

[jdobbin]

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

--------------------------------------------------

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

But nevertheless U.S. presidents participate in Christian public and acknowledge God as being supreme and is an important factor in maintaining U.S. patriotism and providing the moral in helping keep their country strong and free.

----------------------------------------------------

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

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.

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.

Same sex marriage does not encourage pedophilia.

I don't see any numbers to back your claim that homosexuals are proportionally more likely to abuse children.

Having a President going to church is quite different from having a President legislate prayer in school.

Same sex marriage legislation affirms what is already happening in your neighborhood. Couples living together. Look around. A same sex marriage is probably in your neighborhood. You probably work with gays now. Some are probably your friends and you don't even know about it.

[jefferiah]

This is one Western Heterosexual who openly defends and supports Gays and sees nothing wrong with it and guess what I like Stephen Harper but not in a sexual way!!!

I love you think it makes me a liberal to believe Gays are humans with feelings and the right to live in freedom. How do I break this to you...there are gays who are conservative. They aint all communists or liberals.

p.s. I know your secret and why you call yourself Leafless. (Adam naked and in the buff for all the boys to see)

If you had any balls you would be addressing the topic and not this heterosexual poster.

Obviously you don't.

Only a homosexual would post the type of post you did trying to belittle, embarrass and intimidate in a truly homosexual fashion.

Actually I did respond directly to what you said. Leafless I also note in your response you became obsessed about my testacles which again proves my point. Tsk tsk.

Listen Leafless, you started a post but it is painfully obvious you are engaging in expressing hatred about gays and their lifestyle and not engaging in debate as to a political issue.

Not only do I have the "balls" to call you on it, I also say without hesitation you are a hate mongerer because you can't come to grips with your own unresolved issues of being gay and I think your last comments to me evidence that. If you think my analysis is unfair then think before you write. Think about why you attack gay people with such nasty generalizations.

You aren't the first nor will you be the last anti-gay basher who in his late 60's will finally come to terms with himself. Until then if you can't deal with it, do us all a favour and stay in the closet and keep yourself away from gays because in case you haven't noticed, they have the right to live in peace and freedom and do what ever you think it is you do as an alleged straight man.

p.s. I would have told you my last post was tongue in cheek but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too.

Miss Jay rules.

Play fair Rue. To say that someone being anti-gay means he is actually repressing homosexuality is like saying that someone who is anti-war wants to go to war. It's like saying when a person does not consent to sex that they really want it deep down.

I am playing fair. To try use a political forum as a pretense to intellectualize hatred for the gay lifestyle is

what I am confronting.

It is no more unfair then making generalizations that necessarily slur each and every person who is born gay.

It is no more unfair then labelling gays as being abnormal and being singled out for discriminatory treatment.

Think it is unfair? Ask yourself this. Why is it and you have seen blatant examples of it, recently in the U.S., why is it, when a politician usually quoting the Christian Bible condemns gays and homo-sexuality, he is himself living a closeted gay life style? How many times do we see people preaching the virtues of a clean Christian life, and trotting off to prostitutes in their spare time?

Sorry but when I read such diatribes must ask, what is it that generates someone to feel the need to single out gays and atempt to rationalize that we should discriminate against them and talk about them in a hateful way?

Not fair? Is it fair to try use Christianity as a pretense to justify hating gays and discriminating against them?

No Leafless opens himself up for such comments tonque in cheek or not because all of us are allowed to ask, why the hatred? What is at the root of such dialogue? Do we have people writing in posts saying hetero-sexuals should be discriminated against?

Why the preoccupation about what gay people do unless it frightens Leafless. Sorry when I read such diatribes I can easily take out the word gay and replace it with blacks, Jews, what-ever-and it comes down to one thing-the person doing the condemning is externalizing his own anxiety and fears outwards on these people because he won't deal with it internally.

Hitler found it easier to blame Jews then admit he hated himself and used Jews as an extrenalization agent to make him feel better about himself, and that is precisely what hatred and prejudice is, individuals who

blame others and externalize their negative thoughts on these people, rather then come to grips with them.

No one, absolutely no one who tries to bastardize Christianity or any religion to justify hating and discriminating against gays is playing fair and they deserve to be called on it for precisely what it is.

And I am proud that Leafless thinks I am gay. Gays died in the holocaust precisely because they were gay and of course I will never forget that. It would be hippocritical of me to fight anti-semitism and look the other way when people preach hatred for any other group.

I am not being self-righteous, just saying it like it is when I see someone spreading hatred.

Well Rue, I dont know. If a pastor in a million is discovered to be homosexual I dont think it means that all people who believe homosexuality is sin because the they believe the Bible says it is sin are secretly gay. Do you believe this genuinely? Also, the thing is whether you agree with Leafless calling homosexuality abnormal or not, you were out of line. This is how you dealt with it. Rather than arguing in favor of your own point, you called Leafless a closet homosexual. It seems you were using homosexuality as an insult, although you claim to be on their side. Now you could claim that you were using homosexuality as an insult simply because it would be an insult to Leafless, and not the really believe it is an insult. But I think you ruled out this possibility with this comment: "but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too."

[Renegade]

I think SSM encourages paedophilia.

Huh? How does SSM do that?

Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse, on a proportional basis, than heterosexuals.

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

I didn't see any relevant support in the link you provided to support your claim that "Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse". Care to be specific?

[Rue]

Well Rue, I dont know. If a pastor in a million is discovered to be homosexual I dont think it means that all people who believe homosexuality is sin because the they believe the Bible says it is sin are secretly gay. Do you believe this genuinely? Also, the thing is whether you agree with Leafless calling homosexuality abnormal or not, you were out of line. This is how you dealt with it. Rather than arguing in favor of your own point, you called Leafless a closet homosexual. It seems you were using homosexuality as an insult, although you claim to be on their side. Now you could claim that you were using homosexuality as an insult simply because it would be an insult to Leafless, and not the really believe it is an insult. But I think you ruled out this possibility with this comment: "but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too."

No I did not use the word or term homo-sexual in a negative way. You are assuming to say someone has repressed their homo-sexual urges means homo-sexuality is wrong and insulting.

What I am simply stating is someone who expresses hatred for gays, indeed is not dealing with their own unresolved feelings as to homo-sexuality.

In fact it was I called a homo-sexual, and I take it as a complement. What I am talking about is that repressing sexual feelings leads to this kind of behaviour. It is not meant as an insult. You can take it that way but I think repressed sexual conflicts within an individual's psyche are at the root of many expressed opinions expressed using religion or politics as the pretext.

As for any Pastor who calls on his flock to discriminate against Gays and use the Bible to preach about gays in a negative way and to pass moral judgement on them- I say without hesitation, that this Pastor and anyone else who uses religion in this way, makes their own sexual lifestyle fair game and if youc an't understand that, maybe you should try read the same Bible these pastors are using to try selectively impose moral judgement against only some and not others.

[jefferiah]

Actually Rue the "insult" was exchanged twice. And you were the first one to use it. Back when you said you knew why he was called Leafless.

[Rue]

Actually Rue the "insult" was exchanged twice. And you were the first one to use it. Back when you said you knew why he was called Leafless.

How is that insulting? I think being gay and showing one's balls to others is wonderful. I am not the one connotating being gay with something bad. Stop imposing your anti-gay concepts on me.

I just love Christians with no sense of humour! Imagine Adam being Leafless. Is it so hard for you to laugh at flapping testacles or is this subject so frightful that all we can do is talk about sex in simplistic terms such as bad and good and dirty and evil.

Sexuality is not frightening and need not be.

[jefferiah]

Actually I dont think we can conclude Rue that Leafless hates gays. I basically what his posts meant are that he believes it is wrong and unnatural. To believe something is wrong is not hatred. One can like, love, enjoy people who they think are doing wrong. My parents loved me when I did wrong. I may have missed something in his posts. But I dont think he ever said gays should be denied jobs, or food, or should be victims of a Holocaust as you afore mentioned. Maybe he does harbour hatred. But I don't think we can conclude that from anything he has said. Also, I believe that simply believing homosexuality is a sin is not bigotry or hatred. Whether you agree with it or not it is a moral standard according to this mans faith. Having this moral standard does not mean one should go out and mete out punishments for those who do not comply. Zen Buddhists do not punish meat-eaters. Hindus don't punish hamburger eaters. Do you understand? Believing something is sinful is not always hatred.

[136GreenRoad]

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.

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.

Since homosexuality and SSM are both legal gays clearly have a right to take work and live where they want. If you choose to move because you find out you have an SSM couple next door you can hardly blame them.

[jefferiah]

Perhaps the reason that calling homosexuality a sin is treated as bigotry (even when it does not necessarily mean one is hating them but that one does not condone it) could be because of the fact that homosexuals have endured much hatred from people. So the distinction between those who believe it is wrong and are understanding, and those who use wrong-doing as an excuse to laugh and joke about it and have a gay-bashing holocaust is reluctantly made. Even though I sympathize with this reasoning it does not make it right. The fact that someone has historically been a victim of something does not make them right on every issue and does not mean that those who disagree with them are promoting hatred against them.

[jefferiah]

Actually Rue the "insult" was exchanged twice. And you were the first one to use it. Back when you said you knew why he was called Leafless.

How is that insulting? I think being gay and showing one's balls to others is wonderful. I am not the one connotating being gay with something bad. Stop imposing your anti-gay concepts on me.

I just love Christians with no sense of humour! Imagine Adam being Leafless. Is it so hard for you to laugh at flapping testacles or is this subject so frightful that all we can do is talk about sex in simplistic terms such as bad and good and dirty and evil.

Sexuality is not frightening and need not be.

You are backtracking on your use of it as an insult Rue. I cant prove it to the other posters here can I. BUt you know it.

[jefferiah]

And also because you later referred to Leafless having a gay hissy fit. YOu can say that you meant it only as an insult in leaflesses world, while you think it is not. I am not imposing anything anti-gay on you at all. Your use of Christian sense of humor is tacky. I think mostly because your use of wit is weak, and no matter what your opinions are on this matter, you are no comedian. But you tout yourself as one it seems since those who dont laugh at you are Christians with no sense of humor.

[Leafless]

I think SSM encourages paedophilia.

Huh? How does SSM do that?

Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse, on a proportional basis, than heterosexuals.

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

I didn't see any relevant support in the link you provided to support your claim that "Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse". Care to be specific?

"Huh? How does SSM do that?"

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespee...elycameron.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/ho0075.html

"I didn't see any relevant support in the link you provided to support your claim that "Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse". Care to be specific?"

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

[Renegade]

"Huh? How does SSM do that?"

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespee...elycameron.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/ho0075.html

Leafless, None of the links you provided even mention SSM or provide any backup to your claim.

At least the third link, was relevant to the issue. Thank-you.

[Leafless]

"Huh? How does SSM do that?"

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespee...elycameron.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/ho0075.html

Leafless, None of the links you provided even mention SSM or provide any backup to your claim.

At least the third link, was relevant to the issue. Thank-you.

The point of the issue relates to the initial quote: "Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday."

In other words what right does the government of Canada have to entrench constitutionally the interest of basically 'special interest groups' to overide the rights of all other Canadians. All Canadians including these 'special interest groups' ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS', so it is not a matter of any group being denied rights.

The end result will be that these groups whether they are relating to Quebec, Aboriginals or gay interest groups, could be seen as renegades (lacking principles or no principles) by all other Canadians with undeserved special status that could actually worsen relations between Canadians and these 'special interest groups'.

This should indicate that if the feds agree that for instance Quebec requires special assistance, help them in their own province. Don't try to force all other Canadian provinces to succumb to the demands of Quebec and give them special privileges that affect English Canadians and other provinces.

The same condition applies for gays with the first requirement being that all Canadians should be given the opportunity to decide if this gay rights including SSM is a legitimate cause. Gays already have the same rights as any other Canadian, prior to SSM which IMO is not a legitimate issue initially.

The same thing should apply to Aboriginals having the same rights as everyone else, outside of the land issue which is separate.

These rights pertaining to 'special interest groups' have been for the most part, nothing more than a Liberal invention designed to win votes and to establish what amounts to a 'transfer of power' from English Canada to Quebec.

Those of you who do not belief for whatever reason in referendums on major decisions affecting ALL Canadians, should think twice.

[gc1765]

Leafless, None of the links you provided even mention SSM or provide any backup to your claim.

At least the third link, was relevant to the issue. Thank-you.

The point of the issue relates to the initial quote: "Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday."

Does this mean you acknowledge that SSM does NOT encourage paedophilia as you tried to claim earlier?

I think SSM encourages paedophilia

[kimmy]

In other words what right does the government of Canada have to entrench constitutionally the interest of basically 'special interest groups' to overide the rights of all other Canadians.

Can you give me an example of the rights of a "special interest group" overriding the rights of all other Canadians?

All Canadians including these 'special interest groups' ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS', so it is not a matter of any group being denied rights.

then I gather you agree that gays should be able to get married?

The same condition applies for gays with the first requirement being that all Canadians should be given the opportunity to decide if this gay rights including SSM is a legitimate cause.

Since when are rights decided by referendums? Could we have a referendum on the question of whether Catholics should just fuck off?

Gays already have the same rights as any other Canadian,

Then you support same sex marriage?

prior to SSM

oh. You mean *except* for same sex marriage. But why?

which IMO is not a legitimate issue initially.

Oh. Because you say so.

-k