Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Blu-Truth]

Blu-Truth, please take a moment to explain the negative impact of homosexuality. I have a hard time understanding how a consensual relationship between two adults is at all comparable to raping children, or disrespecting ones spouse by having an open relationship without his or her consent.

You say certain behaviours are "animalistic," however, human beings are animals, so wouldn't all of our behaviours be animalistic? Ultimately, passing on our genetic code and survival are our primary drives. Everything we do is a result of those two things. To suggest that we are somehow outside the animal kingdom is pretty arrogant and humourous.

Please read closely what I said... there was no comparison regarding the raping of children, unless you are taking the New Testament biblical view of sin. I was talking about men fantasizing about children ie. thoughts, lust within the heart. Do you think these thoughts are wrong if they remain as only thoughts?

I believe you when you say you have a hard time understanding these comparisons which is exactly my point... the "being born that way" reasoning is what I'm trying to show as unreasonable, inconsistent, and nonsensical.

Regarding all of our behaviours being animalistic is true from your point of view which I contend is a dangerous one if using the criteria of this "born that way" argument as there is then no behavior that can be classified as non-instinctive and therefore ultimately nothing can be classified as right or wrong, just neutral. We're just another animal acting upon our impulses. My view, on the other hand, is that we have been given among other things, reasoning and emotions such as sympathy, love, hatred, vengence, envy, hope, guilt, etc., all of which seperate us from the rest of the animals and therefore I absolutely, with much arrogance, believe that we are different and also superior to animals.

Interesting that you regard passing on our genetic code as being part of our primal drive, which is a reasonable suggestion. In your opinion, how does homosexuality fit in to this primal drive? How about natural selection and evolution? Progressive mutations or regressive?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@cybercoma:

Blu-Truth, please take a moment to explain the negative impact of homosexuality. I have a hard time understanding how a consensual relationship between two adults is at all comparable to raping children, or disrespecting ones spouse by having an open relationship without his or her consent.

You say certain behaviours are "animalistic," however, human beings are animals, so wouldn't all of our behaviours be animalistic? Ultimately, passing on our genetic code and survival are our primary drives. Everything we do is a result of those two things. To suggest that we are somehow outside the animal kingdom is pretty arrogant and humourous.

This isn't an issue of consent. People can consent to very dangerous things, consent does not justify behavior alone.

Last I checked, "human" is not synonymous to "animal", nor is it defined as an animal. I quote my interactive dictionary:

Human: Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage - WordWeb

That's a secular definition. If and only if you consider the differentiation given by a religious institution, humans being distringuished by having immortal souls could be added, but if you do not see religious institutions as an authority, then ignore this. Either way, I've provided a secular definition which distinguishes humans from animals, so if you are to argue this, bring reasons for believing otherwise because for this specific point I'm not arguing the authority of the Church.

It's not arrogant to claim that we are not animals. This doesn't mean that we are greater as beings than animals, it simply means we have different roles and should conform to different rules (for instance animals are not expected to register for citizenship in their homeland).

@Blu-Truth:

Do you think these thoughts are wrong if they remain as only thoughts?

Wrong? That's subjective to morality.

The religious scope would say that yes it is wrong, because lust is wrong.

The secular scope doesn't define right vs. wrong on lust if it doesn't affect others and if it doesn't interfere with one's daily life. However, if fantasies/lust grow so strong in one's mind, I'm sure even a shrink would advise to fight it.

Regarding all of our behaviours being animalistic is true from your point of view which I contend is a dangerous one if using the criteria of this "born that way" argument as there is then no behavior that can be classified as non-instinctive and therefore ultimately nothing can be classified as right or wrong, just neutral. We're just another animal acting upon our impulses. My view, on the other hand, is that we have been given among other things, reasoning and emotions such as sympathy, love, hatred, vengence, envy, hope, guilt, etc., all of which seperate us from the rest of the animals and therefore I absolutely, with much arrogance, believe that we are different and also superior to animals.

Amen to that arrogance! Though we have instincts, we also can exercise self-control. People may be born with instincts and pre-dispositions, but not with pre-defined behavior.

Interesting that you regard passing on our genetic code as being part of our primal drive, which is a reasonable suggestion. In your opinion, how does homosexuality fit in to this primal drive? How about natural selection and evolution? Progressive mutations or regressive?

Though I don't believe in Evil-ution myself, gays would not be part of the "surviving fittest" in Charles Darwin's theory.

[normanchateau]

"‘Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness..."

Did you know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them?

Source:

http://regenluna.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/king-james-is-gay/

Perhaps commissioning bibles "is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness."

[Mad_Michael]

This idea that - people are born with strong desires therefore we should accept, condone, and celebrate these desires - is such weak logic but yet has caught on as a rallying cry for the gay movement.

This is a strawman.

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything.

For example, many corporations seek to reduce their corporate tax burden. Does that mean they seek for you to accept, condone and celebrate corporate their profits and tax loopholes?

No, homosexuals seek only that you refrain from interfering with their private behaviour. They seek that you refrain from applying legal double-standards to your dealings with them. They seek to limit your legal power to harrass them. Just like the private corporations seeking to limit your legal power to tax them. These are perfectly rational behaviours.

Most homosexuals couldn't care less about what you condone or celebrate.

Indeed, perhaps they might hate you as much as you hate them. So be it.

By this line of thinking every impulse we have should be celebrated (as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else). Men fantasizing over enfant children, should we celebrate these desires? Are these men born with these desires? (and they would tell you these are very strong desires) How about Bi-sexuality, are people born this way as well?

I don't know. Were you born that way?

What's amusing to me is that liberal minded people regard themselves as progressive and yet purport ideas that sound more like regresive animalistic behavior based upon merely our instinctive nature.

Liberal minded people don't judge the private behaviours of others - provided no harm is caused.

I don't have to tell you the word we use for those who do make it their business to attempt to legally control the behavior of others in the name of their own moral theology.

Animals act upon their instincts, humans are supposed to rise above that which at times means to fight against one's instincts. Sometimes we have to say no to the girl at the bar and go home to our wife.

If homosexuals aren't 'born that way', that means that they, ipso facto, are rising above their animal instincts. Indeed, according to your argument, it is the hetersexuals that are obsessed with (and wallowing in their) animalistic 'instincts' here.

If you want to make hatemongering arguments, you need to learn how to make rational and consistent ones!

[ScottSA]

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything.

This is simply not true. The rest of your post is the usual heart-tugging series of mantras attempting to elicite the proper emotion, but its all presumably offered in support of the above. We, the public, are asked daily to accept bum buggery as a "lifestyle." Making marriage between homosexuals a recognized institution is about as 'accepting' as it gets, not to mention condoning. The fact of the institution is both a demand for acceptance and a demand that it be condoned, by no less an entity than the state itself. The constitution demands that homosexuals (along with pedophiles, beastialists and necrophiliacs) be "accepted and their behaviors condoned. Your own simpering announcement that they only want equality is itself a demand for acceptance.

If we're not being asked to celebrate it, then what are all those freak parades, gay rodeos and other disgusting displays of aberrence all about?

You see, your argument technique is nothing new...feminists are the ones who actually started THAT ball rolling. The object in this technique is to leap forward with outrageous demands, and when called on it, retreat to "we only want equality." In the case of feminists, what started out as a noble liberal (I use that word in its original sense) endeavor for equality, all too soon degenerated into ridiculous demands that had nothing to do with equality, but the 'equality' mantra retained its utility as a pressure point nonetheless. This or that group would advance...say...a demand for a hiring preferences or a faculty of women's studies, and when called on it, retreat to the position that they "only want equality." In the ensuing caterwauling, no one ever thinks to point out that neither hiring preferences nor faculties of women's studies have anything to do with equality.

Homosexual activists picked up the same technique. They find themselves in a slightly different situation of course, in that society, except for extremely rare and temporary historical periods, has rejected, throughout history, the aberrent practise of homosexuality, just as it has rejected necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and cannabalism. And while women had the rather obvious distinction of genetics, homosexual activists find themselves trying to advance a behaviour rather than a thing-in-itself. But the argument technique remains the same, as you just demonstrated: Make a clearly false claim, then retreat to the "we only want to be like you" position. It's very transparent.

[Drea]

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything.

This is simply not true. The rest of your post is the usual heart-tugging series of mantras attempting to elicite the proper emotion, but its all presumably offered in support of the above. We, the public, are asked daily to accept bum buggery as a "lifestyle." Making marriage between homosexuals a recognized institution is about as 'accepting' as it gets, not to mention condoning. The fact of the institution is both a demand for acceptance and a demand that it be condoned, by no less an entity than the state itself. The constitution demands that homosexuals (along with pedophiles, beastialists and necrophiliacs) be "accepted and their behaviors condoned. Your own simpering announcement that they only want equality is itself a demand for acceptance.

Just cannnnnnot wrap that ol right wing brain around "2 consenting adult human beings" DOES NOT include animals or children.

If we're not being asked to celebrate it, then what are all those freak parades, gay rodeos and other disgusting displays of aberrence all about?

Do you attend these events? Me neither.

You see, your argument technique is nothing new...feminists are the ones who actually started THAT ball rolling. The object in this technique is to leap forward with outrageous demands, and when called on it, retreat to "we only want equality." In the case of feminists, what started out as a noble liberal (I use that word in its original sense) endeavor for equality, all too soon degenerated into ridiculous demands that had nothing to do with equality, but the 'equality' mantra retained its utility as a pressure point nonetheless. This or that group would advance...say...a demand for a hiring preferences or a faculty of women's studies, and when called on it, retreat to the position that they "only want equality." In the ensuing caterwauling, no one ever thinks to point out that neither hiring preferences nor faculties of women's studies have anything to do with equality.

"DAMN those uppity women! Wanting to vote, wanting a "voice" -- they should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen! They have ruined the world -- now there is no one to fetch my beer"

Homosexual activists picked up the same technique. They find themselves in a slightly different situation of course, in that society, except for extremely rare and temporary historical periods, has rejected, throughout history, the aberrent practise of homosexuality, just as it has rejected necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and cannabalism. And while women had the rather obvious distinction of genetics, homosexual activists find themselves trying to advance a behaviour rather than a thing-in-itself. But the argument technique remains the same, as you just demonstrated: Make a clearly false claim, then retreat to the "we only want to be like you" position. It's very transparent.

Just cannnnnnot wrap that ol right wing brain around "2 consenting adult human beings" DOES NOT include animals or children (or dead people).

Grasping at straws -- they f**ck one another, they MUST f**k children, animals and dead people too! OMG. LOL

Just out of curiosity -- have you ever heard of Ellen Degeneris (sp)? She is a dyke. She rocks as one of the funniest comediens of our time. She must scare the living shit out of the likes of you LOL

"just keep swimming, swimming, swimming..." -- from Finding Nemo.

[ScottSA]

Well, since you hinge your flippantly sophomoric argument around "two consenting adults," then you ought not have a problem with legalizing incest, pre-contractual necrophilia, and pre-contractual cannabalism, right?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@normanchateau:

Did you know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them?

Source:

http://regenluna.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/king-james-is-gay/

Perhaps commissioning bibles "is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness."

There are days where I am happy to not be Anglican or Episcopal, and there are other days that I like to brag about it. I do not read the King James version of the Bible, it never appealed to me and it's missing the Deutorocanonicals (can't trust a Bible missing the Books originally written in Greek).

The Church of England was essentially inspired by promiscuity, for instance King Henry VIII, who segregated his Church from Rome just because he wanted to divorce (he had all intentions of giving it back to Rome, but died before he got around to it). The Church of England is also responsible for ordaining a gay fag bishop, meaning many other churches are questioning the authenticity of the Church of England. The Church of England was also the first church to tolerate birth control. This is a bunch of food for thought, if you're still interested, feel free to look up on it.

By the way, I looked at your link, and it is quite questionable. The original source is this one: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html. It quotes letters and people, and though the letters may be subjective, there's no concrete proof (plus they could have made it up because they don't provide the actual letters) and the quotes from people may just be rumors. I don't really care, King James didn't commission my Bible, but be a little more objective when reading stuff you find on the Interweb.

Your comment is another misunderstanding on this thread of anomaly. I was refering strictly to behavior, as I made quite clear. Commissioning the Bible is an accomplishment, it's something one can put on their résumé. No one in a functional society would put their sexual orientation on their résumé, however in a nonsensical society with quotas coming from a system that favors gay fags, maybe homosexual Canucks do put it on their résumé (it still wouldn't be categorized as an accomplishment, however).

@Drea:

Just cannnnnnot wrap that ol right wing brain around "2 consenting adult human beings" DOES NOT include animals or children (or dead people).

Grasping at straws -- they f**ck one another, they MUST f**k children, animals and dead people too! OMG. LOL

That wasn't the point. Consent does not justify a behavior. ScottSA gave some examples in his last post of behavior which may be consented to yet still shun by society.

The point is that gay fags are playing the victim and liberals are feeling sorry for them. Some Muslim groups are "showing" sympathy towards homosexuality in order to eventually promote sympathy towards polygamy. Imagine if polygamy is tolerated in Canada... Muslims could become a majority in the turn of one generation. If that happens, Canada would probably have a much larger proportion of Muslims turning to fundamentalism and becoming what we call terrorists. This is just a proportions theory, considering there have already been Muslim Canadians charged for terrorism, and with a larger number of Muslims in Canada, we'll probably have the same proportion of terrorists within that community, meaning the Maple Leaf State will become much less safe.

By the way, polygamy is also normally practiced amongst consenting adults.

[normanchateau]

@normanchateau:

By the way, I looked at your link, and it is quite questionable. The original source is this one: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html. It quotes letters and people, and though the letters may be subjective, there's no concrete proof (plus they could have made it up because they don't provide the actual letters) and the quotes from people may just be rumors. I don't really care, King James didn't commission my Bible, but be a little more objective when reading stuff you find on the Interweb.

You might want to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Letters-H...e/dp/0877456690

[Rue]

You are not being honest in your posts.

And a gay man is born that way. So how is it different?

There is still no real proof that people are born gay.

No proof that genuis' are born ......hows that for tit for tat?

I wish it were that simple. Our government is using my tax dollar to cater to homosexuals by offering the mgay marriage, etc.

Again, no they are not. How are they catering to them? Providing Gay only lines at the marriage office? Discounts on the licence? Discounts for the halls?..Churches..?

Let me spell it out . They dont, but you want to think they do, because you have an opinion , as you wrote earlier, and no one can change your opinion. Fine.You will need plenty of Q tips when you pull out of the sand.

. I'm not here to judge anyone, I have no interest in knowing who is gay, but I do not feel the need for a system which tries to make everyone treated equally, because it's bound to fail. I much prefer a system which explicitly admits that some are favored in the existing system over others than the hypocrisy of trying to hide this.

Frankly, no one beleives you. You are here to judge. But you want others to execute that wish. You want no marriage for gays. But you want the govt to enforce it. By your own writings there is no other conclusion .

Nobody is equal. By the way, I don't see this as "above" or "beneath". Unequal goes beyond "greater" or "lesser". For instance, men are unequal to men. It doesn't mean that one sex is greater or lesser than the other, but they are simply not equal. Women can become pregnant, which is a condition men can never face. We are taught to cater to men and women differently, for intance "ladies first" is courtesy. I would open a door for a woman, young or old, but I'd be less inclined to holding a door open for a young guy. Neither one is greater nor lesser than the other, but society caters to men and women differently. I don't think it's society's responsibility to cater to homosexuals.

You have all this smarmy crap about not equal cater this and that. You want to dance, but I dont. We are all born equal , some are stronger some are smarter, but we are all equal.

I do not see gays as beneath me. I consider the possibility that there could even be gays who are better people than me. However, I still expect them to conform to the society we live in instead of expecting others to treat them differently.

Yes you do by posting that they should not have equal rights. Gays conform to society, just not to your micro-society where you sit in judgement of gays all day.

Gays do conform to society. How do they not? What standards are they not living up too? They live up to them in every possible way.

There's no need in treating gays as second class citizens. There's no need in being less respectful to gays as to others. However, certain things should not be changed, for instance marriage being between man and woman, whether one s gay or straight, the conditions should still apply.

Oh my, contradiction city there Francis . First no need to treat gays as second class, then the next sentence is summised by stating we should not change anything, which means explicitly that the status quo, in which gays are denied rights you are, are kept in place.

Here it is again, really really try and lose that religious smarm of yours and read to comprehend. If anyone of any race, colour, creed, or sexual preference is denied any rights that other CDN's enjoy, they are DE FACTO relegated to second class.

People who know? Sex-perts learn under heavy bias and most fail to think for themselves.

Ahh....but you went to a church, maybe stayed in a Holiday Inn and can correct the Professors, Doctors and Scientists who have invested their time, reputation and many years of study. What a smug assertion you make.

Tell us about your studies will you ?

No slagging, I was giving my opinion, because I do not advocate opinions other than my own (who does?).

Sorry, but I will call you on this one and do something I have not said on any forum. You are lying , and you know it.

Here is what you posted

I also don't uderstand why Rue was arguing that men who violate boys are non-homosexual pedophiles unless they have sexual relations with men... it's almost like defending the pedophile, making the pedophile seem slightly more normal

"Rue" was not arguing any of that. He was giving an informed opinion that emanated from learned people on the subject.Rue never said he came to those conclusions, but had studied the findings as part of his job.But you tried to turn it against Rue.

I have nothing against fags (the people), I just object to faggotry (the perversion). The gay fag people can live in the same world, same country, same city as me, but I don't need my gov't to be encouraging their behavior.

Naw.......nothing against them , provided of course they are denied the same rights , not seen nor heard , not sashaying down any boulevard that you are on.

"But oh my lord, I hope they pay the same taxes as me so we can afford to keep the inequality of persons in tact."

Try honesty next time. They did teach you that on Sundays dont they?

I thank you very much for clarifying what I said. I have given up and appreciate you and some others still have the energy to attempt to deal with these kinds of comments. I think its lowered itself down to some very primal base prejudices that I doubt you or I can really dialogue with at this point.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@normanchateau:

You might want to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Letters-H...e/dp/0877456690

You think a book has higher credibility than the Internet?

There's only one difference between what is published online and books: the degree of profanity. The only things which are difficult to publish online are child porn and hate messages (unless they're written in the form of lyrics). Many publishers are hesitant to publish a lot of the profanity found online, but I'm sure you can find a sketchy publisher in one of the 192 countries on the globe who will publish anything.

What neither Internet nor book publishers filter is lies. Anyone can write a book full of lies (and many people do) and they get published in developed English speaking countries like USA, CA, UK, AU... etc. Just because someone published it in print does not make it more credible than the Interweb.

The Interweb link I mentioned gave quotes, probably finding the most suggestive parts in favor of their point (that King James would be a gay fag). However, if you have read the book yourself, feel free to quote.

I personally don't care if King James were gay, though I doubt the sources I've read so far promoting this idea. He most certainly isn't my king.

Whether he was a gay fag or not doesn't justify homosexuality, nor does it make homosexuality any more nor less of an anomaly.

[Mad_Michael]

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything.

This is simply not true. The rest of your post is the usual heart-tugging series of mantras attempting to elicite the proper emotion, but its all presumably offered in support of the above.

Bullcrap!

The rest of the post that you refer to only adds a second argument that gays are legally forced to support heterosexuality with their taxes - which negates the argument that Captain fellow suggested that heterosexuals should never have to support homosexuality with their taxes. This is a double-standard.

We, the public, are asked daily to accept bum buggery as a "lifestyle."

No, you are not. You are free to ignore it, pay no attention to it or otherwise dislike it.

Just like homosexuals are free to ignore the massive amount of hetersexual propaganda that is thrown at them on a daily basis.

Some people ask why homosexuals have a parade to celebrate? That is one day a year. The other 354 days of the calendar are devoted to public heterosexuality.

By your own argument, why do heterosexuals daily ask homosexuals to accept their pussy-licking? For the most part, homosexuals just don't care about your need to lick pussy. But you demand that homosexuals celebrate and support it with their taxes. Homosexuals only ask to have the same equal right as citizens and taxpayers.

Making marriage between homosexuals a recognized institution is about as 'accepting' as it gets, not to mention condoning.

No it doesn't.

I don't like or accept people who worship the Morman or Jehovah's Witness religion (or Hindus for that matter). I think they are obnoxious lifestyles. Yet they can be legally married. I don't accept or condone that behaviour. It just is. Their marriage doesn't mean that I accept, respect or condone them. Their marriages belong to them - not me. As much as I dislike them, their marriages don't affect me at all. Indeed, unless they announce their religion or go out on some public parade, I wouldn't even know they were Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (or Hindus for that matter).

All three of these examples are lifestyles that constrain or control female behaviour. I consider that obnoxious and a degredation of human rights. And they can legally marry. And I don't support, condone or celebrate anything of the sort. I reserve my right to consider this obnoxious and a blight upon society. But I also respect their right as human beings to choose their own lifestyle so long as it doesn't interfere with mine. No one asks me if I like seeing Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses or Hindus getting married. No one asks me to celebrate this.

Same goes for 'gay marriage'. No one asks you to celebrate or condone it. No one asks you to even take part or be happy about it. Indeed, you have every right to dislike it - but you have no right (save that of fascist authority) to deny that right.

The fact of the institution is both a demand for acceptance and a demand that it be condoned, by no less an entity than the state itself.

The state does not demand or force me to condone marriages of Mormans. The state only makes them legal. It is my right to dislike these things.

The constitution demands that homosexuals (along with pedophiles, beastialists and necrophiliacs) be "accepted and their behaviors condoned. Your own simpering announcement that they only want equality is itself a demand for acceptance.

What are you talking about? What constitution do you cite here?

And a demand for legal equality does not require or command acceptance. Indeed, blacks in the USA have had 'legal equality' for a long time - they still are not "accepted" by a very large portion of the US population.

In other words, legal equality and "public acceptance" have nothing to do with each other.

If we're not being asked to celebrate it, then what are all those freak parades, gay rodeos and other disgusting displays of aberrence all about?

Maybe they just like to have a party and have some fun?

Speaking of which, what's with all those stripper bars all about (the ones with the sticky floors and the rumpled old men lining up outside - and run by the Biker Gangs)? What about Janet Jackson showing her boobies at the Super Bowl? What's that all about? Or the fact that my daily newspaper prints a picture of a half-naked woman each day? Or all those advertisements that portray heterosexual eroticism as a way to sell cars/appliances/furniture/soap/clothes/perfume/widgets? Or all those naked-girlie magazines that dominate the newstands at my corner store? Or Hooter's restaurant with all those shameless girls in tight t-shirts showing off their chests... etc., etc., etc.

No, I can't imagine where these homosexuals get the idea that it is okay to have a bit of fun. The nerve of them to let their depravity be commercialised for private profit. I can't imagine heterosexuals doint that!

You see, your argument technique is nothing new...feminists are the ones who actually started THAT ball rolling. The object in this technique is to leap forward with outrageous demands, and when called on it, retreat to "we only want equality."

And what have feminists asked for that does not constitute "equality"?

You raised the point, now back it up with a substantive argument.

A pro-woman hiring preference when the historical record shows a strong anti-women hiring policy is indeed a policy designed for "equality". And women's studies programs have everything to do with equality since it is these programs that have done the research to document the anti-women hidden rules and biases that conspire to keep women back. This is all about equality - a noble liberal value.

Homosexual activists picked up the same technique. They find themselves in a slightly different situation of course, in that society, except for extremely rare and temporary historical periods, has rejected, throughout history, the aberrent practise of homosexuality, just as it has rejected necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and cannabalism.

Really?

Btw, your heterosexual compatriots make incest a pretty damn common phenomena. Our police blotters and court dockets are full of references to it. Father-daughter, uncle-niece and step-father-daughter are by far the overwhelmingly most dominant categories of incest found in the police records upon the topic.

And since you want to make historical arguments, I will add that divorce, adultery, masturbation, fellatio, kissing in public and even holding hands in public (amongst many other common practices, including laws about what kind, style and colour of clothes you may be permitted to wear), have all been long rejected throughout history as aberrent practices, not suitable for upstanding citizens. Indeed, right up until the last two centuries, it has always been the law that all persons must bow and give deference to your social betters - those with aristocratic titles - to do otherwise, was to be beaten and jailed.

Suffice it to say that the historical record is filled with all kinds of silly laws and biases that we now reject quite rationally.

Unless of course you prefer to bow and scrape before your leaders... begging your humble pardon?

And while women had the rather obvious distinction of genetics, homosexual activists find themselves trying to advance a behaviour rather than a thing-in-itself. But the argument technique remains the same, as you just demonstrated: Make a clearly false claim, then retreat to the "we only want to be like you" position. It's very transparent.

Bemused giggles.

Let's see if I follow you here (just for fun).

1) If homosexuals claim that they are an "identity", then you reject the identity as being impossible.

2) If homosexuals claim that they are engage in a "behaviour", then you reject that claim because it ignores their "identity" (a thing-in-itself).

3) See point #1.

Yes, it is rather transparent isn't it?

[Mad_Michael]

Right now, even as I type this post, there is a parade going by on the street below my condo-apartment - the police closed the road and are providing an escort for the parade. There are a half-dozen marching bands, clowns and baton-twirlers - and maybe 1000 people marching along with them. They are making quite a bit noise and appear to be enjoying themselves.

Their banners read "Falun Dala" (and lots of other Chinese-looking words that I don't understand). They are all dressed rather festively in bright colours (lots of pale blue and bright red), and chanting and singing.

Does this mean that I'm forced to accept, condon and celebrate this Falon Gong religion? Or their abberent behaviour?

Is this Falon Gong religion being shoved in my face? Who allows these people allowed to get married?

[Drea]

Well, since you hinge your flippantly sophomoric argument around "two consenting adults," then you ought not have a problem with legalizing incest, pre-contractual necrophilia, and pre-contractual cannabalism, right?

I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it then. Who am I to say that two people cannot draw up a contact...

Your *god* (the men that wrote your bible, as there really is no god) already condones incest and polygamy...

and if you want to get it on with your dead wife -- go ahead. I will be cremated so no one gets my remains! As far as "pre-contractual cannabalsim" -- what does that have to do with marriage???

Or do I sign a pre-contractual agreement with that side of beef I am going to purchase? Pffffft.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Mad_Michael:

By your own argument, why do heterosexuals daily ask homosexuals to accept their pussy-licking? For the most part, homosexuals just don't care about your need to lick pussy. But you demand that homosexuals celebrate and support it with their taxes. Homosexuals only ask to have the same equal right as citizens and taxpayers.

Equal rights for gays imply greater rights for gays. If the gov't adapts everything serving heterosexuals, 98-99% of the population, in order to serve gay fags aswell, consisting of 1-2% of the population, that means much more than 1-2% of tax money will be spent on this adaptation and its maintenance. Gays should have to conform to the same society heterosexuals do. It may sound pretty to hope that gays be treated equally, but equality is not possible because a larger proportion of gov't funds than the proportion of gays in the locale/country's population would be wasted on catering to them.

No one asks me if I like seeing Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses or Hindus getting married. No one asks me to celebrate this.

It doesn't matter if the Hindus get married or not in Canada, it's a non-issue, because you're not expected to recognize their religious institution's documentation and rituals. They get married in their religious institution, and register as married man and woman with the gov't to be treated as a married couple for tax and immigration purposes. The only reason the gov't recognizes marriage is a scheme to get more money from tax payers.

Same goes for 'gay marriage'. No one asks you to celebrate or condone it. No one asks you to even take part or be happy about it. Indeed, you have every right to dislike it - but you have no right (save that of fascist authority) to deny that right.

Since when is marriage a right?! No one has the right to marriage. It's a privilege granted through gov't legislation, which should be abolished altogether.

Speaking of which, what's with all those stripper bars all about (the ones with the sticky floors and the rumpled old men lining up outside - and run by the Biker Gangs)? What about Janet Jackson showing her boobies at the Super Bowl? What's that all about? Or the fact that my daily newspaper prints a picture of a half-naked woman each day? Or all those advertisements that portray heterosexual eroticism as a way to sell cars/appliances/furniture/soap/clothes/perfume/widgets? Or all those naked-girlie magazines that dominate the newstands at my corner store? Or Hooter's restaurant with all those shameless girls in tight t-shirts showing off their chests... etc., etc., etc.

I never approved of heterosexual perversion either.

I'd disapprove of any sexually provokative parade.

Is this Falon Gong religion being shoved in my face? Who allows these people allowed to get married?

This is irrelevant. If someone is of Chinese background, they cannot change this. No changing of religion, plastic surgery, behavior, being raised by caucasoids, etc. could change this. Being Chinese does not affect one's behavior either. If they want to celebrate their culture on the streets, povided they do not break any local laws and are not provokative, there's really no issue here.

However, if you find a Chinese parade unacceptable, you could always complain and maybe it would be controlled, the town hall could at least make sure the parade would not cross streets where concerned residents live, and if the town hall sees it an issue, it could even be banned altogether.

This really isn't an issue, but you can do more than simply dislike something.

@Drea:

Your *god* (the men that wrote your bible, as there really is no god) already condones incest and polygamy

You cannot prove that there is no God. There have been sufficient proof to believe that there is a God, however you are free to believe otherwise. Christians worship God and not the authors God used to compose the Books of the Bible.

I will be cremated so no one gets my remains!

You're not dead yet. You cannot guarantee this.

[ScottSA]

Well, since you hinge your flippantly sophomoric argument around "two consenting adults," then you ought not have a problem with legalizing incest, pre-contractual necrophilia, and pre-contractual cannabalism, right?

I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it then. Who am I to say that two people cannot draw up a contact...

Your *god* (the men that wrote your bible, as there really is no god) already condones incest and polygamy...

and if you want to get it on with your dead wife -- go ahead. I will be cremated so no one gets my remains! As far as "pre-contractual cannabalsim" -- what does that have to do with marriage???

Or do I sign a pre-contractual agreement with that side of beef I am going to purchase? Pffffft.

This discussion is obviously well over your head.

[Blu-Truth]

This idea that - people are born with strong desires therefore we should accept, condone, and celebrate these desires - is such weak logic but yet has caught on as a rallying cry for the gay movement.

This is a strawman.

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything.

For example, many corporations seek to reduce their corporate tax burden. Does that mean they seek for you to accept, condone and celebrate corporate their profits and tax loopholes?

No, homosexuals seek only that you refrain from interfering with their private behaviour. They seek that you refrain from applying legal double-standards to your dealings with them. They seek to limit your legal power to harrass them. Just like the private corporations seeking to limit your legal power to tax them. These are perfectly rational behaviours.

Most homosexuals couldn't care less about what you condone or celebrate.

Indeed, perhaps they might hate you as much as you hate them. So be it.

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything? Are you kidding me? TV, Movies, News, Commercials, Music, Public Policy, what children are shown and taught in school... Right, good one!

I think homosexuals greatly care what we as a society condone and celebrate which is why there are so many legal challenges to those that oppose their views.

And here we see once again the "if you don't agree, condone, and celebrate homosexuality then you hate us" tactic.

By this line of thinking every impulse we have should be celebrated (as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else). Men fantasizing over enfant children, should we celebrate these desires? Are these men born with these desires? (and they would tell you these are very strong desires) How about Bi-sexuality, are people born this way as well?

I don't know. Were you born that way?

Fortunately I was not born with such desires nor was I subjected to the sort of abusive childhood which seems to lead to such confusions, I also am aware that "but by the grace of God, there go I" and I am sympathetic to those caught up in this as they too feel they have not chosen these desires, but ultimately we have to fight against these desires as we are soley responsible for our lives. We all have demons to fight, some are more fierce than others, but the answer can't be that we just give in and change what we think is right and wrong to appease our guilt.

What's amusing to me is that liberal minded people regard themselves as progressive and yet purport ideas that sound more like regresive animalistic behavior based upon merely our instinctive nature.

Liberal minded people don't judge the private behaviours of others - provided no harm is caused.

I don't have to tell you the word we use for those who do make it their business to attempt to legally control the behavior of others in the name of their own moral theology.

No, but I bet it's one that can also be used for those making it their business to change society to accept their own views.

Animals act upon their instincts, humans are supposed to rise above that which at times means to fight against one's instincts. Sometimes we have to say no to the girl at the bar and go home to our wife.

If homosexuals aren't 'born that way', that means that they, ipso facto, are rising above their animal instincts. Indeed, according to your argument, it is the hetersexuals that are obsessed with (and wallowing in their) animalistic 'instincts' here.

If you want to make hatemongering arguments, you need to learn how to make rational and consistent ones!

Once again someone has written a point-by-point response without addressing the main point which about the liberal arguement of gays being born with these desires (may even have 'gay' genes!), therefore homosexuality is just a normal/natural life-style which should be embraced by society, which is exactly what I was disputing. Instead we start discussing whether or not some or all instincts are good, bad, neutral. This is a discussion worth having but trying to justify a behaviour based solely upon a natural desire or instinct is not a legitimate arguement.

I don't believe the homosexual lifestyle is healthy to the individual or the society we live in, I also believe it is just another step in our fall to a society without any boundaries to limit our sexual behavior. I'm not going to appologize for disagreeing with you and it has nothing to do with hatemongering. As of late, debating the issues is becoming more and more difficult due to the left crying intollerance, hatred, and any other name they can come up with in attemps to stifle debate and avoid having to face the challanges presented to them with sound responses.

[Mad_Michael]

This idea that - people are born with strong desires therefore we should accept, condone, and celebrate these desires - is such weak logic but yet has caught on as a rallying cry for the gay movement.

This is a strawman.

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything.

For example, many corporations seek to reduce their corporate tax burden. Does that mean they seek for you to accept, condone and celebrate corporate their profits and tax loopholes?

No, homosexuals seek only that you refrain from interfering with their private behaviour. They seek that you refrain from applying legal double-standards to your dealings with them. They seek to limit your legal power to harrass them. Just like the private corporations seeking to limit your legal power to tax them. These are perfectly rational behaviours.

Most homosexuals couldn't care less about what you condone or celebrate.

Indeed, perhaps they might hate you as much as you hate them. So be it.

No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything? Are you kidding me? TV, Movies, News, Commercials, Music, Public Policy, what children are shown and taught in school... Right, good one!

I think homosexuals greatly care what we as a society condone and celebrate which is why there are so many legal challenges to those that oppose their views.

No. The legal challenges are against attempts to legally discriminate against them.

Imagine the nerve of some people objecting to being treated as second class citizens? Don't they know their proper place?

And here we see once again the "if you don't agree, condone, and celebrate homosexuality then you hate us" tactic.

Please define "here" since you see this thing "here" - yet it is no where except in your own post. Looks like you are 'projecting' (accusing others of being guilty of that which you are engaged in).

Indeed, above I argued that you have every right to dislike homosexuals all you like (just like I don't like Mormans or Jehovah Witnessess). You don't have the right to legally discriminate against them, or to create laws to harrass them.

In other words, it is YOU who is attributing hate to your opponents who disagree with you.

Fortunately I was not born with such desires nor was I subjected to the sort of abusive childhood which seems to lead to such confusions, I also am aware that "but by the grace of God, there go I" and I am sympathetic to those caught up in this as they too feel they have not chosen these desires, but ultimately we have to fight against these desires as we are soley responsible for our lives. We all have demons to fight, some are more fierce than others, but the answer can't be that we just give in and change what we think is right and wrong to appease our guilt.

That's nice. Would you like a medal? And what does this 'personal testimonial' have to do with the topic under discussion?

Oh yes, let he who is without sin cast the first stone... (despite your lovely claims, I suspect that you are not without sin).

No, but I bet it's one that can also be used for those making it their business to change society to accept their own views.

The only ones seeking to change society are those reactionaries trying to 1) ban legal same sex marriage in Canada or 2) create a constitutional ammendment in the USA to ban same sex marriage.

Those are the people making it their business to change society to reflect their own hatemongering views. They seek to institutionalise their hatreds as law. That is a major change in society since our society is not built on the principle of enshrining hatred in law. Indeed, most of the history of post-WW2 is all about removing such obnoxious and exclusionary hatemongering laws from the books, one by one. That is the nature of our society.

Trying to insert NEW hatemongering exclusionary laws onto the books now doesn't preserve anything - it creates NEW hatemongering.

Animals act upon their instincts, humans are supposed to rise above that which at times means to fight against one's instincts. Sometimes we have to say no to the girl at the bar and go home to our wife.

If homosexuals aren't 'born that way', that means that they, ipso facto, are rising above their animal instincts. Indeed, according to your argument, it is the hetersexuals that are obsessed with (and wallowing in their) animalistic 'instincts' here.

If you want to make hatemongering arguments, you need to learn how to make rational and consistent ones!

Once again someone has written a point-by-point response without addressing the main point which about the liberal arguement of gays being born with these desires (may even have 'gay' genes!), therefore homosexuality is just a normal/natural life-style which should be embraced by society, which is exactly what I was disputing.

I address the arguments that seem most worthy of rebuttal. You ignore the rebuttals and just continue on as if nothing happened. Curious dynamic that.

Anyway, I didn't bother to address the point about 'nature vs nurture' since it is irrelevant to the discussion. I can argue that homosexuals deserve equality and legal rights regardless whether you believe that homosexuality has a genetic or an environmental 'cause'. Indeed, nothing seems less relevant than this argument.

So, take your. I don't care which version you choose. I'll defeat any argument you choose to raise.

But one argument I'm not getting into, is the relative merits of whether or not homosexuality is genetic or environmental or a combination of both. The amount of junk science used to support these positions make the debate interesting only for the hard-core partisans on the issue. Me? I'm interested in the law, not biology. And as a matter of law, there is no valid reason to deny homosexuals equal legal rights.

Instead we start discussing whether or not some or all instincts are good, bad, neutral.

You apparently have a 'projection' problem. I haven't said a word about "instincts" being good, bad or neutral. That is your language, your terms, your words, your argument. It is all just drivel to me.

This is a discussion worth having but trying to justify a behaviour based solely upon a natural desire or instinct is not a legitimate arguement.

You are the one who wants to have this discussion entirely within your own terms - to you, it is all about the morality of behaviour. That is an issue for your shrink or your priest.

For me, the issue is all about the law - and it is ONLY in those terms that I will address the issue. I don't care what you think is moral or immoral. That is irrelevant to me.

I don't believe the homosexual lifestyle is healthy to the individual or the society we live in, I also believe it is just another step in our fall to a society without any boundaries to limit our sexual behavior. I'm not going to appologize for disagreeing with you and it has nothing to do with hatemongering.

First and foremost, no one really cares what you think about the "homosexual lifestyle".

Indeed, I have a rather low opinion of the "religious lifestyle".

Perhaps we ought to ban all such lifestyles?

Oh yeah, your point is all about hatemongering. We are talking about equal legal rights for homosexuals. Those who are denied equality before the law are denied human dignity - and are made into second class citizens that may be discriminated against or violated with legal immunity. Ergo, the ultimate goal of your policy is to foster hatemongering against a specific group in society.

If you can't handle the hatemongering label, maybe you shouldn't be proposing hatemongering policies?

As of late, debating the issues is becoming more and more difficult due to the left crying intollerance, hatred, and any other name they can come up with in attemps to stifle debate and avoid having to face the challanges presented to them with sound responses.

Please feel free to cite any example from my posts of this "crying intolerance" or whatever. You apparently have a serious 'projection' issue.

Anyway, it will give you something to post about since we all know you will ignore the critical arguments that I've thrown at you. But feel free to surprise us by coming up with a decent cogent argument that is based on actual facts, not just projections from your moralistic imagination.

[Mad_Michael]

@Mad_Michael:

By your own argument, why do heterosexuals daily ask homosexuals to accept their pussy-licking? For the most part, homosexuals just don't care about your need to lick pussy. But you demand that homosexuals celebrate and support it with their taxes. Homosexuals only ask to have the same equal right as citizens and taxpayers.

Equal rights for gays imply greater rights for gays. If the gov't adapts everything serving heterosexuals, 98-99% of the population, in order to serve gay fags aswell, consisting of 1-2% of the population, that means much more than 1-2% of tax money will be spent on this adaptation and its maintenance. Gays should have to conform to the same society heterosexuals do. It may sound pretty to hope that gays be treated equally, but equality is not possible because a larger proportion of gov't funds than the proportion of gays in the locale/country's population would be wasted on catering to them.

Right, since women constitute a technical majority over males, all policies that favour or concern males ought to be banished.

Likewise, any law that defends a minority against the sanctimonious morality of the majority ought to be eliminated immediately.

Apparently only women can make laws since they are the only technical majority out there - and even then, 'white women' can't command a pure majority needed by your absolute majority system of government.

Oh yeah - rich people can't be more than a few percentage of the population. And Christians aren't much of a majority (less than 50% attend Church each week) so we ought to ban them too.

If you aren't over 50% of the population, you are dirt. Males, Christians, minorities, rich people - all ought to treated like the second class citizens they are since they can't make the 50% plus 1 position.

It doesn't matter if the Hindus get married or not in Canada, it's a non-issue, because you're not expected to recognize their religious institution's documentation and rituals. They get married in their religious institution, and register as married man and woman with the gov't to be treated as a married couple for tax and immigration purposes. The only reason the gov't recognizes marriage is a scheme to get more money from tax payers.

And how is this different than 'same sex marriage' done in a civil ceremony (where over 95% of all legal same sex marriages have occured in Canada)?

Please elaborate.

Since when is marriage a right?! No one has the right to marriage. It's a privilege granted through gov't legislation, which should be abolished altogether.

But same-sex marrige is granted by government legislation, making it legal.

So what's your point? You want to take this right away from homosexuals? You want to take this right away from heterosexuals? The religous folks? Immigrants?

So, regardless of whether it is a 'right' or not, it is a legal fact. So please give us a reason why the law ought to be changed to reflect your subjective caprice?

I never approved of heterosexual perversion either.

I'd disapprove of any sexually provokative parade.

Your sanctimonious moral posturing isn't pretty - or interesting - or relevant to the topic.

Indeed, it seems to me that the whole purpose of this discussion is to give you the opportunity to make your sanctimonious moral postures. Apparently, such posturing is popular and fun (since it is so common).

Is this Falon Gong religion being shoved in my face? Who allows these people allowed to get married?

This is irrelevant. If someone is of Chinese background, they cannot change this. No changing of religion, plastic surgery, behavior, being raised by caucasoids, etc. could change this. Being Chinese does not affect one's behavior either. If they want to celebrate their culture on the streets, povided they do not break any local laws and are not provokative, there's really no issue here.

Bemused giggles. Did you have a straight face when you typed that?

Lets see if I understand you. Gay people make a public parade. This is "shoving it in your face" and a demand that we "accept, condone and celebrate" their lifestyle because they aren't Chinese or something.

However, when the Falon Gong people make a public parade, this is just a nice parade and no danger to the public because I am not Chinese - or something.

Indeed, that seems to be your point.

However, if you find a Chinese parade unacceptable, you could always complain and maybe it would be controlled, the town hall could at least make sure the parade would not cross streets where concerned residents live, and if the town hall sees it an issue, it could even be banned altogether.

I didn't say it was Chinese parade. It was a Falon Gong parade. Many of those taking part appeared to be Chinese, but many were caucasion. Does that change your analysis?

This really isn't an issue, but you can do more than simply dislike something.

Yes, I can go on the internet and make hatemongering posts against the Falon Gong. No matter what anyone says, I can just ignore their rational and intelligent arguments and just repeat my hatemongering over and over again!

I'm sure you are quite familiar with the concept!

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Mad_Michael:

Right, since women constitute a technical majority over males, all policies that favour or concern males ought to be banished.

Likewise, any law that defends a minority against the sanctimonious morality of the majority ought to be eliminated immediately.

Apparently only women can make laws since they are the only technical majority out there - and even then, 'white women' can't command a pure majority needed by your absolute majority system of government.

Oh yeah - rich people can't be more than a few percentage of the population. And Christians aren't much of a majority (less than 50% attend Church each week) so we ought to ban them too.

If you aren't over 50% of the population, you are dirt. Males, Christians, minorities, rich people - all ought to treated like the second class citizens they are since they can't make the 50% plus 1 position.

Well, you are mad indeed. Firstly, I was pointing out that the gay proportion is insignificant (less than 5%). I wasn't looking at it as 50+% vs. 50-%, but rather 95+% vs. 5-%.

Men probably collectively pay more into Canadian taxation than the women do. If you want to be proportional in terms of tax dolla's, men should be favored. Gays probably pay more taxes than straights per capita, but because there are so few of them, it doesn't add up to much.

Anyway, there's no point bringing up most other minorities because they are not minorities based on behavior.

There is the exception of religious minorities... and by minorities I'm refering to less than 5-10% of the population, and being very inclusive (regardless of how often or little they practice, provided they're registered under the given religion). Lets say muslim fundamentalists want the law system to cater to them at the expense of all taxpayers, yet they are less than 5% of Canada's population aswell. Should female circumcision be legalized in Canada, even though most would agree that it's unethical, just to cater to a few fundamentalist Muslims?

And how is this different than 'same sex marriage' done in a civil ceremony (where over 95% of all legal same sex marriages have occured in Canada)?

Please elaborate.

For marriage to be legal, it has to have a civil registration, whether the event is held in a courthouse or a church. My point was whether man and woman marry in a church, mosk, courthouse, their home, etc. makes no difference in terms of whom the gov't is catering to, however when they marry gay people, they are approving such behavior that so many taxpayers disagree with. I won't interfere with those falling into carnal desires, however I do not agree with my gov't approving of this using my tax dolla'.

I didn't say it was Chinese parade. It was a Falon Gong parade. Many of those taking part appeared to be Chinese, but many were caucasion. Does that change your analysis?

Not at all.

If Falon Gong is a concern to you, you can complain about it.

I have participated in complaining to the gov't about same-sex marriage, I'm simply sharing my point of view on this thread, being the purpose of a forum.

Your freedom of speech allows you to make hatemongering on Falon Gong, it's up to those with an opposing point of view to argue otherwise.

[Mad_Michael]

@Mad_Michael:

Right, since women constitute a technical majority over males, all policies that favour or concern males ought to be banished.

Likewise, any law that defends a minority against the sanctimonious morality of the majority ought to be eliminated immediately.

Apparently only women can make laws since they are the only technical majority out there - and even then, 'white women' can't command a pure majority needed by your absolute majority system of government.

Oh yeah - rich people can't be more than a few percentage of the population. And Christians aren't much of a majority (less than 50% attend Church each week) so we ought to ban them too.

If you aren't over 50% of the population, you are dirt. Males, Christians, minorities, rich people - all ought to treated like the second class citizens they are since they can't make the 50% plus 1 position.

Well, you are mad indeed. Firstly, I was pointing out that the gay proportion is insignificant (less than 5%). I wasn't looking at it as 50+% vs. 50-%, but rather 95+% vs. 5-%.

And what, praytell, is the 'moral' difference between 95% vs 5% and 50.1% vs 49.9%?

Methinks you require some numeric quibbling (aka 'dancing on the head of a pin') to rescue yourself from your own argument.

Go for it. I'm sure your attempt will be entertaining!

Besides which, geniuses are mighty rare - are they allowed to be married? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? They must be less than 5% - are they allowed to have legal rights and get married? I could list a hundred 'minorities' or 'behaviours' (if you prefer) that fall in this category.

Men probably collectively pay more into Canadian taxation than the women do. If you want to be proportional in terms of tax dolla's, men should be favored. Gays probably pay more taxes than straights per capita, but because there are so few of them, it doesn't add up to much.

Indeed, homosexuals contribute a higher per capita tax remittance than heterosexuals do.

And your point is...

Anyway, there's no point bringing up most other minorities because they are not minorities based on behavior.

Right. Like Christians for example. And rich people. And politicians. And members of the Republican party.

Does it annoy you when your arguments are proven to be foolish?

There is the exception of religious minorities... and by minorities I'm refering to less than 5-10% of the population, and being very inclusive (regardless of how often or little they practice, provided they're registered under the given religion). Lets say muslim fundamentalists want the law system to cater to them at the expense of all taxpayers, yet they are less than 5% of Canada's population aswell. Should female circumcision be legalized in Canada, even though most would agree that it's unethical, just to cater to a few fundamentalist Muslims?

According to your reasoning, everyone save women are a minority group. If race and sex is combined, a 50% majority is impossible to achieve on anything since white women are less than 50% of the population and they are the largest 'group'.

Btw, your example requires an action on the part of non-Muslims - thus your analogy is spurious to the issue under discussion here. Homosexual legal rights require NOTHING from you, save perhaps a limitation upon your cherished liberty to bash them to a pulp.

Your acceptance and celebration is not requested, nor is it desired.

And how is this different than 'same sex marriage' done in a civil ceremony (where over 95% of all legal same sex marriages have occured in Canada)?

Please elaborate.

For marriage to be legal, it has to have a civil registration, whether the event is held in a courthouse or a church. My point was whether man and woman marry in a church, mosk, courthouse, their home, etc. makes no difference in terms of whom the gov't is catering to, however when they marry gay people, they are approving such behavior that so many taxpayers disagree with.

Huh?

You are saying that when heterosexuals marry, it is none of anyone's business because they are heteros. But when gay people marry, this is essentially equal to the government giving their 'blessing' upon the union?

That argument is so absurd as to be unworthy of reply or retort.

I won't interfere with those falling into carnal desires, however I do not agree with my gov't approving of this using my tax dolla'.

Right. All government actions must be approved by Kapitän Rotbart. I can see how you approach government and matters of public policy.

I suppose as long as 'carnal desires' are not involved, the government may do without your expressed permission to operate?

I must hand it to you Kapitän Rotbart, your argument style is colourful, if not anything else.

Indeed, I can't see much reason to bother to reply, other than to offer my attempt at 'colourful' commentary to go along with the ride! Pass the popcorn, what's next?

I didn't say it was Chinese parade. It was a Falon Gong parade. Many of those taking part appeared to be Chinese, but many were caucasion. Does that change your analysis?

Not at all.

If Falon Gong is a concern to you, you can complain about it.

I have participated in complaining to the gov't about same-sex marriage, I'm simply sharing my point of view on this thread, being the purpose of a forum.

Yes, you've stated your argument above - in all matters of regulating 'carnal desires', the government ought to be required to have your permission in order that your own subjective caprice be legislated into law.

Indeed, your point has been quite clear and consistent throughout this discussion. And of course, to no one's surprise, you have offered nothing more than your own subjective caprice as the principal (and principle) justification for your proposed public policy. That and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee.

And your actions here in this forum are not at all consistent with one who is "simply sharing my point of view on this thread". Others have done that here - you are not one of them. Your actions here in this forum are entirely consistent with one who seeks to announce their own public policy view and to attack and argue with anyone who may not agree with your desire to issolate and deny common legal rights from a signficant number of our fellow law abiding citizens. You seek to deny legal rights to my fellow law abiding citizens. I object to that on principle.

Your freedom of speech allows you to make hatemongering on Falon Gong, it's up to those with an opposing point of view to argue otherwise.

Yes, it is true that the principle of freedom of speech protects your hatemongering (I have not encouraged any such thing with respect to Falon Gong). As a liberal, I accept that and am willing to defend your right to hate - and even your right to talk about who you want to hate and why.

However, it is when you try to enshrine your hatemongering into law that I rationally object.

And I don't see anything wrong with either a Falon Gong parade or a gay parade. None of my business if other people want to get together to enjoy themselves - or to make a political statement.

However, you haven't explained to me precisely how their parade past my own house on Sunday morning caused me to be "forced to accept, condone and celebrate" their lifestyle? (whether it is a Falon Gong parade or a gay parade, it is irrelevant to my question since one was last week and the other is likely to follow the same path in a week or two hence). How does their existence cause me to be 'forced' into anything other than perhaps becoming aware of them?

I'm really curious about the psychological, ethical or philosophic 'explanation' of this alleged phenomena.

[ScottSA]

Indeed, homosexuals contribute a higher per capita tax remittance than heterosexuals do.

Ah, so we're hanging our hats on higher per capita happenings, eh? Like the hugely disproportionate rates of pedophilia among homosexuals? Or the hugely disproportionate rate of AIDS among north american homosexuals? Wheee...this is fun!

Or are we only talking about the good per capita happenings? Are all the not-so-good things merely "bigoted" when we talk about them? I wonder if we should have a poll to see whether Canadians prefer to keep the few dollars more in tax remittance from homosexuals, or if they'd trade it for the billions upon billions of dollars spent in various lawsuits and medical research fighting AIDS, and a signifigant reduction in pedophilia? Hmmmm...

[M.Dancer]

Like the hugely disproportionate rates of pedophilia among homosexuals?

You ever wonder why professionals who study sexual deviancy consider this factoid nonsense?

I consider this sort of statistical malarkey about as interesting as reading the 9.11 nonsence from the toaster people.....

[ScottSA]

Like the hugely disproportionate rates of pedophilia among homosexuals?

You ever wonder why professionals who study sexual deviancy consider this factoid nonsense?

I consider this sort of statistical malarkey about as interesting as reading the 9.11 nonsence from the toaster people.....

That's because you gravitate towards the electric kettle people.

[M.Dancer]

Like the hugely disproportionate rates of pedophilia among homosexuals?

You ever wonder why professionals who study sexual deviancy consider this factoid nonsense?

I consider this sort of statistical malarkey about as interesting as reading the 9.11 nonsence from the toaster people.....

That's because you gravitate towards the electric kettle people.

Wrong. I am a programmable Microwave person. At least my GE Spacesaver has the same computing power that sent the first Apollo into space...(which was faked)