Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Leafless]

Thanks for that write up. Very informative!

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

This is what makes defending homosexuality a bad joke.

There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot.

Legalizing homosexuality and SSM all could be a terrible mistake with no one to blame but government who was to foolish to wait until the cause of homosexuality is firmly established.

[Black Dog]

I personally am against 'Pride Parades', I really don't see the point. If we can have parades based on sexual orientation, why can't I organize the "All-Canadian Tit-F*cker's Parade"? (Or, the "I wish my Wife Would Swallow" Parade?)

Do t*t fuckers and and frustrated husbands have a long history of social repression?

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

That's two questions.

The first: marriage may be a religious tradition, but that's not relevant to our discussion. We are talking about marriage as a legal, civil entity, not the religious version.

The second: IMV someone who opposes homosexuality because they belive in the Bible is, by definition, a bigot.

[newbie]

Does anyone here really think that God cares about any of this crap. The 2nd free vote will win, just like the first one. Gays will marry and life will go on. No straight person here has said one thing that will happen to them that I know of on account of a gay marriage. Get over it folks and get on with your lives.

[bk59]

No doubt there are an abundance of links promoting homosexual culture and lifestyle.

No doubt there are. But those links were not promoting anything homosexual. Please read those links and you will see that two links do not mention homosexuality at all, and the third link is an overview of how scientific studies have been misused to reach wrong conclusions.

We all know and realize, articles containing criticism of gays are being removed from the net as perceived hate propaganda.

Is there any proof of that, or is this just your personal opinion? You seem to have found a number of links fairly easily. (Even if we disagree as to their accuracy.)

You seem to think SSM does not affect anyone. Your WRONG. The legal ramifications of SSM affect all Canadians in financially supporting homosexual ideologies and lifestyles, even down to the public funding of gay parades. This also includes legal cost pertaining to legally supporting and defending homosexuals issues that are directly related or associated with SSM or their lifestyles. This also has a negative affect on reducing the impact religion per se has on the country, that could cause many Canadians to lose faith in religion and turn to crime oriented diversities.

No one is financially supporting anyone else because of same-sex marriage. SSM has nothing to do with gay pride parades. You imply that someone who is not religious must be committing criminal activities. This is not supported by any proof at all.

At present gay pride parades could be funded (and they are in our city) by city taxpayers. The same goes to when government must defend gays from perceived or interpreted hate literature or the feds are put in the position to defend gay rights at PUBLIC EXPENSE.

A single example of this is in parliament itself when many days are devoted to debating 'gay issues and implementation of laws ' including SSM at public expense.

Then if gays are recognized as equal to heterosexuals, textbooks in schools must all be altered to include that fact as well as as promoting the gay lifestyle all at taxpayers expense.

When someone is being prosecuted for hate speech / literature it does not matter who the victim is. Your point about the cost of having Parliament debate issues is a bit ridiculous. It is their job to debate issues, and create / modify / repeal laws based on those debates and discussions. They are getting paid to do this. Having Parliament discuss issues relevant to today is not a waste of money. By your logic, having the Conservatives re-open the SSM debate after it has been decided is a waste of taxpayer money and should not be allowed. And no one is "promoting" any type of sexual lifestyle with taxpayer money.

This is what makes defending homosexuality a bad joke.

There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot.

Legalizing homosexuality and SSM all could be a terrible mistake with no one to blame but government who was to foolish to wait until the cause of homosexuality is firmly established.

For you to make this point is laughable. You opened this thread with:

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

You claimed that immorality and viciousness brought about homosexuality. That is what makes you a bigot - the fact that you are implying all homosexuals are somehow below heterosexuals. Those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but still treat homosexuals as equals, are not bigots in my opinion. Only those who then try to debase homosexuals are worthy of the title of bigot.

Your last bit of logic is also interesting: You say that the cause of homosexuality has not been proven therefore government should make it, and everything associated with it, illegal.

Using that same logic: The existence of God has not been proven, so should the government make all religions, and everything associated with those religions, illegal?

[Black Dog]

While we'r eon the subject of SSM, I'd like to give props to Israel, which has just recognized gay marriages.

[Liam]

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

I don't mean any of the following to be a personal attack and I hope that my calmness comes across. It is not meant to be bitter or an angry rant:

Why marriage and not civil unions? I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US, the Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Ed. that separate is not equal. Having two different statuses (stati?) is inherently unequal.

Marriage as a Christian sacrament is defined as the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord. (Other religions, Islam for example, allow for different marital structures such as bigamy, so even the Christian definition of marriage as one man-one woman is not universal.) Being gay myself, knowing many people who led the marriage equality fight here in Massachusetts, and reading a lot of gay media, I have never seen nor heard one single gay person even whisper about wanting to force churches and religious institutions to honor gay marriages. Your church is safe. Your faith is safe. We know we're not welcome and we have no interest in crashing your party.

Marriage as a secular institution is what gay people seek. The state issues licenses for marriages. In the US, the state has an obligation to treat all its citizens equally unless the state can argue a compelling state interest in acting in a discriminatory manner. There is no compelling state interest in banning gays from getting a civil permit to be married. Gay marriage does not threaten the family unit -- but even if it did, the onus is on the state to prove in a court of law that preserving one man-one woman marriage is a compelling state interest and that gay marriage would destroy it. The reality is that states cannot prove it because it is not provable. Therefore, gay couples should be issued marriage licenses as freely and as equally as the state gives them to straight couples.

About bigotry, no, being against gay marriage doesn't automatically make you a bigot. But since opposition to gay marriage almost always boils down to one's dislike of gay people, revulsion, or misinformation about some "gay agenda" to kidnap and convert your children, you have to understand why most gay people automatically call their opponents bigots. The fact is that most of the people who oppose gay marriage do so based on certain bigoted impulses. If you can think of a purely non-bigoted reason why the state ought to discriminate and/or treat people differently, I'd love to hear it. Religious belief doesn't count as an argument, since we're talking wholly about the issuance of a civil (i.e., secular) marriage license.

About the sin aspect... I would never tell you what your religious faith should be, but I would encourage you to at least be consistent. Either the entire Bible is the word of God or none of it is. I am one of those people who is frequently called a Cafeteria Catholic because I don't live my life 100% according to Catholic doctrine. Well, how about most Christians? Most are awfully selective about which parts of they Bible they choose to follow and which parts feed their outrage. Either apply your religious beliefs as the basis for every aspect of civil life, or apply none of it. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then you also ought to be against gambling, being disrespectful of one's parents, touching the flesh of a dead pig, and being covetous of your neighbor's goods and wife and you ought to be equally engaged in the battle to outlaw such Biblical proscriptions.

If you want to legislate according to the contents of the Bible, fine, be against gay marriage. But don't be surprised when someone leads the charge to shut down Las Vegas, or to burn all those Pamela Anderson posters, or execute people who work on Sunday -- for all are sins (gambling, lust, not honoring the Sabbath) explicitly proscribed in the Bible. Will you be as equally acquiescent to their legal/Biblical wishes as you ask the rest of us to be with regard to yours?

But you raise an interesting point: sin. It may be a sin to be actively engaged in a gay relationship, but isn't it also a sin to be unfair to your fellow man? All I ask is that the state give me the freedom to sin in the privacy of my home and in the privacy of my personal relationships. Opponents to gay marriage seek to enshrine a different sin (inequality) into the law of the land.

[MightyAC]

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

Marriage has nothing to do with religion and has existed long before Christianity. All religions have since put their own spin and conditions on marriage but the idea that Christianity somehow owns or is responsible for it is absurd. Plus not all Christian churches oppose SSM. Same sex couples can get married in United and Anglican churches and likely others as well.

The current law is fair to everyone. Any couple can get married in a civil ceremony or at a consenting church. Plus, any church that is opposed to SSM can refuse to perform the ceremony. Why do conservative religious types feel the need to inflict their beliefs on others?

[DarkAngel_]

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

I don't mean any of the following to be a personal attack and I hope that my calmness comes across. It is not meant to be bitter or an angry rant:

Why marriage and not civil unions? I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US, the Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Ed. that separate is not equal. Having two different statuses (stati?) is inherently unequal.

Marriage as a Christian sacrament is defined as the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord. (Other religions, Islam for example, allow for different marital structures such as bigamy, so even the Christian definition of marriage as one man-one woman is not universal.) Being gay myself, knowing many people who led the marriage equality fight here in Massachusetts, and reading a lot of gay media, I have never seen nor heard one single gay person even whisper about wanting to force churches and religious institutions to honor gay marriages. Your church is safe. Your faith is safe. We know we're not welcome and we have no interest in crashing your party.

Marriage as a secular institution is what gay people seek. The state issues licenses for marriages. In the US, the state has an obligation to treat all its citizens equally unless the state can argue a compelling state interest in acting in a discriminatory manner. There is no compelling state interest in banning gays from getting a civil permit to be married. Gay marriage does not threaten the family unit -- but even if it did, the onus is on the state to prove in a court of law that preserving one man-one woman marriage is a compelling state interest and that gay marriage would destroy it. The reality is that states cannot prove it because it is not provable. Therefore, gay couples should be issues marriage licenses as freely and as equally as the state gives them to straight couples.

About bigotry, no, being against gay marriage doesn't automatically make you a bigot. But since opposition to gay marriage almost always boils down to one's dislike of gay people, revulsion, or misinformation about some "gay agenda" to kidnap and convert your children, you have to understand why most gay people automatically call their opponents bigots. The fact is that most of the people who oppose gay marriage do so based on certain bigoted impulses. If you can think of a purely non-bigoted reason why the state ought to discriminate and/or treat people differently, I'd love to hear it. Religious belief doesn't count as an argument, since we're talking wholly about the issuance of a civil (i.e., secular) marriage license.

About the sin aspect... I would never tell you what your religious faith should be, but I would encourage you to at least be consistent. Either the entire Bible is the word of God or none of it is. I am one of those people who is frequently called a Cafeteria Catholic because I don't live my life 100% according to Catholic doctrine. Well, how about most Christians? Most are awfully selective about which parts of they Bible they choose to follow and which parts feed their outrage. Either apply your religious beliefs as the basis for every aspect of civil life, or apply none of it. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then you also ought to be against gambling, being disrespectful of one's parents, touching the flesh of a dead pig, and being covetous of your neighbor's goods and wife and you ought to be equally engaged in the battle to outlaw such Biblical proscriptions.

If you want to legislate according to the contents of the Bible, fine, be against gay marriage. But don't be surprised when someone leads the charge to shut down Las Vegas, or to burn all those Pamela Anderson posters, or execute people who work on Sunday -- for all are sins (gambling, lust, not honoring the Sabbath) explicitly proscribed in the Bible. Will you be as equally acquiescent to their legal/Biblical wishes as you ask the rest of us to be with regard to yours?

But you raise an interesting point: sin. It may be a sin to be actively engaged in a gay relationship, but isn't it also a sin to prejudge? to be unfair? All I ask is that the state give me the freedom to sin in the privacy of my home and in the privacy of my personal relationships. Opponents to gay marriage seek to enshrine a different sin (inequality) into the law of the land.

Wow, i do agree, as it seems the bible says we all sinned... dammed we are! i sin more then your average goat (on rock tour 2007 with tool and ozzy) so i guess in my definition, the term should not be 'marriage' for that is culture based, marriage is a union of man and woman, but what, shall i ask, will be the union between man and man or woman and woman? i do not feel that it harms me, children? well, maybe, so i call that all gay's sensor themselves as a non-gay would! when in Rome! (oh that’s right, Rome fell...) you get my point... keep it safe, do the '?' thing, but any suggestions on the name of this license? 'gay license' is too over the top sooooo....(must work for homosexual as well as Heterosexual)

[Rue]

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

I don't mean any of the following to be a personal attack and I hope that my calmness comes across. It is not meant to be bitter or an angry rant:

Why marriage and not civil unions? I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US, the Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Ed. that separate is not equal. Having two different statuses (stati?) is inherently unequal.

Marriage as a Christian sacrament is defined as the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord. (Other religions, Islam for example, allow for different marital structures such as bigamy, so even the Christian definition of marriage as one man-one woman is not universal.) Being gay myself, knowing many people who led the marriage equality fight here in Massachusetts, and reading a lot of gay media, I have never seen nor heard one single gay person even whisper about wanting to force churches and religious institutions to honor gay marriages. Your church is safe. Your faith is safe. We know we're not welcome and we have no interest in crashing your party.

Marriage as a secular institution is what gay people seek. The state issues licenses for marriages. In the US, the state has an obligation to treat all its citizens equally unless the state can argue a compelling state interest in acting in a discriminatory manner. There is no compelling state interest in banning gays from getting a civil permit to be married. Gay marriage does not threaten the family unit -- but even if it did, the onus is on the state to prove in a court of law that preserving one man-one woman marriage is a compelling state interest and that gay marriage would destroy it. The reality is that states cannot prove it because it is not provable. Therefore, gay couples should be issued marriage licenses as freely and as equally as the state gives them to straight couples.

About bigotry, no, being against gay marriage doesn't automatically make you a bigot. But since opposition to gay marriage almost always boils down to one's dislike of gay people, revulsion, or misinformation about some "gay agenda" to kidnap and convert your children, you have to understand why most gay people automatically call their opponents bigots. The fact is that most of the people who oppose gay marriage do so based on certain bigoted impulses. If you can think of a purely non-bigoted reason why the state ought to discriminate and/or treat people differently, I'd love to hear it. Religious belief doesn't count as an argument, since we're talking wholly about the issuance of a civil (i.e., secular) marriage license.

About the sin aspect... I would never tell you what your religious faith should be, but I would encourage you to at least be consistent. Either the entire Bible is the word of God or none of it is. I am one of those people who is frequently called a Cafeteria Catholic because I don't live my life 100% according to Catholic doctrine. Well, how about most Christians? Most are awfully selective about which parts of they Bible they choose to follow and which parts feed their outrage. Either apply your religious beliefs as the basis for every aspect of civil life, or apply none of it. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then you also ought to be against gambling, being disrespectful of one's parents, touching the flesh of a dead pig, and being covetous of your neighbor's goods and wife and you ought to be equally engaged in the battle to outlaw such Biblical proscriptions.

If you want to legislate according to the contents of the Bible, fine, be against gay marriage. But don't be surprised when someone leads the charge to shut down Las Vegas, or to burn all those Pamela Anderson posters, or execute people who work on Sunday -- for all are sins (gambling, lust, not honoring the Sabbath) explicitly proscribed in the Bible. Will you be as equally acquiescent to their legal/Biblical wishes as you ask the rest of us to be with regard to yours?

But you raise an interesting point: sin. It may be a sin to be actively engaged in a gay relationship, but isn't it also a sin to be unfair to your fellow man? All I ask is that the state give me the freedom to sin in the privacy of my home and in the privacy of my personal relationships. Opponents to gay marriage seek to enshrine a different sin (inequality) into the law of the land.

I find what you said susinct and to the point and precisely the point.

[Rue]

Thanks for that write up. Very informative!

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

This is what makes defending homosexuality a bad joke.

There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot.

Legalizing homosexuality and SSM all could be a terrible mistake with no one to blame but government who was to foolish to wait until the cause of homosexuality is firmly established.

You again miss the point. Homo-sexuality occurs in every animal life form and that in itself would suggest it is not an anomoly but a common form of behaviour in all life forms-most likely as a built in way to assure population control.

More to the point if you opened your mind and read you would realize there is ample conclusive evidence to indicate that homo-sexuality can be biological or genetically inherited and based and/or it can be learned from the environment but that learned homo-sexuality is clearly different in characteristic and features and how it is manifested.

There is a reason the American Medical Association and every other medical association and psychological professional association does not describe homo-sexuality as a mental illness or abnormality anymore.

There is a reason why when autopsies have been performed on lesbians they found distinct brain structural differences when compared to straight women and that their brain structure was identical in formation to male brains.

If you want to be a dinosaur and stick your head in the sand be my guest and yes you are a bigot when you encourage or incite people to believe being gay is "vicious". That is most certainly hate mongering and you should be called on it. If you want to go around calling gays immoral no one can stop you but as I said if you want to judge other people, you yourself also have to be willing to be judged for your own actions and since you seem to trying to defend your right to call gays immoral then they have the perfect right to call you the same for even saying that. Also if you look at the legislation you are talking about it does not "legalize" hetero or homo sexuality. What it has said is you can't define laws and make exceptions only for hetero-sexuals precisely because neither being gay or straight should be considered illegal or legal.

The days of defining homo-sexuality as illegal in the criminal code have long been over in case you haven't noticed. You are again confusing the concept of homo-sexuality being a crime listed in the criminal code with human rights principals enshrined in the Charter of Rights that don't define things as legal or illegal, simplu guarantee equal or consistent treatment of the application of law.

[Leafless]

Thanks for that write up. Very informative!

I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?

This is what makes defending homosexuality a bad joke.

There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot.

Legalizing homosexuality and SSM all could be a terrible mistake with no one to blame but government who was to foolish to wait until the cause of homosexuality is firmly established.

You again miss the point. Homo-sexuality occurs in every animal life form and that in itself would suggest it is not an anomoly but a common form of behaviour in all life forms-most likely as a built in way to assure population control.

More to the point if you opened your mind and read you would realize there is ample conclusive evidence to indicate that homo-sexuality can be biological or genetically inherited and based and/or it can be learned from the environment but that learned homo-sexuality is clearly different in characteristic and features and how it is manifested.

There is a reason the American Medical Association and every other medical association and psychological professional association does not describe homo-sexuality as a mental illness or abnormality anymore.

There is a reason why when autopsies have been performed on lesbians they found distinct brain structural differences when compared to straight women and that their brain structure was identical in formation to male brains.

If you want to be a dinosaur and stick your head in the sand be my guest and yes you are a bigot when you encourage or incite people to believe being gay is "vicious". That is most certainly hate mongering and you should be called on it. If you want to go around calling gays immoral no one can stop you but as I said if you want to judge other people, you yourself also have to be willing to be judged for your own actions and since you seem to trying to defend your right to call gays immoral then they have the perfect right to call you the same for even saying that. Also if you look at the legislation you are talking about it does not "legalize" hetero or homo sexuality. What it has said is you can't define laws and make exceptions only for hetero-sexuals precisely because neither being gay or straight should be considered illegal or legal.

The days of defining homo-sexuality as illegal in the criminal code have long been over in case you haven't noticed. You are again confusing the concept of homo-sexuality being a crime listed in the criminal code with human rights principals enshrined in the Charter of Rights that don't define things as legal or illegal, simplu guarantee equal or consistent treatment of the application of law.

Yes, I fully realize homosexuality occurs in animal life.

But on the other hand what distinguishes humans from animals is the much larger mass of grey matter called the brain, functioning as the coordination center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.

This is the significant factor that leaves animals by the way side and is the primary factor why humans have the capability to form civilizations. It has been decided by the majority of civilized countries around the world religion and heterosexual marriage is the accepted factor that forms the base of all civilized societies.

Homosexuality is classified as a mental disorder in the U.S. military.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200200,00.html

But homosexuals have caused such a furor with demanding exclusive proof that homosexuals are not mentally deficient as compared to heterosexuals, that in effect society has no option but pertaining to Western society to allow it. But this in fact does not allow homosexuals to declare homosexuality as just as normal as heterosexual because like I said previously there is no conclusive proof of this, unless of course you can provide that proof which up to now you have NOT that homosexuality is not only immoral but in fact is a mental illness.

Totally setting aside science, the emphasis as been on the good of civilized society to determine what civilized standards are pertaining to the functioning of a country. Since we have never had a national referendum the homosexual issue it is now imperative that we do since government has improperly legalized homosexuality WITHOUT CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

The U.S military has decided homosexuality is a mental illness and in the case of Canadian society it should be up to Canadian society to decide whether to accept homosexuality as normal and not a mental disorder.

This is why I think (parts) the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' are badly flawed and Canadian citizens should not allow 'any' aggressive (possiably mental) minorities to steer the country in an undesired path.

BTW- Everything I say, you seem to relate as if I am the only one in Canada who thinks this way which is total BS and is the primary reason we need a referendum for Canadians to answer important questions relating to the functionality of their country. And one to address why the government thinks it has the power to promote the interest of 'special interest groups, and enshrine governments decisions as 'rights in our constitution'.

[Black Dog]

There is no conclusive evidence what causes homosexuality. Until there is it is fair ball to consider homosexuality whatever you wish, including being plain immoral or as a mental disorder without the aspect of being tagged a bigot.

If it's fair for you to consider homosexualoty immoral or a mental disorder, its fair for me to consider you a crank and a bigot. Fair is fair.

Since we have never had a national referendum the homosexual issue it is now imperative that we do since government has improperly legalized homosexuality WITHOUT CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

Why should we have a national referendum? Who you, me or anyone else wants to fuck is not the business of any other citizen.

[Canadian Blue]

The U.S military has decided homosexuality is a mental illness and in the case of Canadian society it should be up to Canadian society to decide whether to accept homosexuality as normal and not a mental disorder.

I wouldn't put too much faith into what the US military says about homosexuality. That move to ban gay marriage was pushed by the Christian right. Its a wrongheaded policy, and is unfair to those who want to serve their country.

I don't mean any of the following to be a personal attack and I hope that my calmness comes across. It is not meant to be bitter or an angry rant:

Why marriage and not civil unions? I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US, the Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Ed. that separate is not equal. Having two different statuses (stati?) is inherently unequal.

Marriage as a Christian sacrament is defined as the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord. (Other religions, Islam for example, allow for different marital structures such as bigamy, so even the Christian definition of marriage as one man-one woman is not universal.) Being gay myself, knowing many people who led the marriage equality fight here in Massachusetts, and reading a lot of gay media, I have never seen nor heard one single gay person even whisper about wanting to force churches and religious institutions to honor gay marriages. Your church is safe. Your faith is safe. We know we're not welcome and we have no interest in crashing your party.

Marriage as a secular institution is what gay people seek. The state issues licenses for marriages. In the US, the state has an obligation to treat all its citizens equally unless the state can argue a compelling state interest in acting in a discriminatory manner. There is no compelling state interest in banning gays from getting a civil permit to be married. Gay marriage does not threaten the family unit -- but even if it did, the onus is on the state to prove in a court of law that preserving one man-one woman marriage is a compelling state interest and that gay marriage would destroy it. The reality is that states cannot prove it because it is not provable. Therefore, gay couples should be issued marriage licenses as freely and as equally as the state gives them to straight couples.

About bigotry, no, being against gay marriage doesn't automatically make you a bigot. But since opposition to gay marriage almost always boils down to one's dislike of gay people, revulsion, or misinformation about some "gay agenda" to kidnap and convert your children, you have to understand why most gay people automatically call their opponents bigots. The fact is that most of the people who oppose gay marriage do so based on certain bigoted impulses. If you can think of a purely non-bigoted reason why the state ought to discriminate and/or treat people differently, I'd love to hear it. Religious belief doesn't count as an argument, since we're talking wholly about the issuance of a civil (i.e., secular) marriage license.

About the sin aspect... I would never tell you what your religious faith should be, but I would encourage you to at least be consistent. Either the entire Bible is the word of God or none of it is. I am one of those people who is frequently called a Cafeteria Catholic because I don't live my life 100% according to Catholic doctrine. Well, how about most Christians? Most are awfully selective about which parts of they Bible they choose to follow and which parts feed their outrage. Either apply your religious beliefs as the basis for every aspect of civil life, or apply none of it. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then you also ought to be against gambling, being disrespectful of one's parents, touching the flesh of a dead pig, and being covetous of your neighbor's goods and wife and you ought to be equally engaged in the battle to outlaw such Biblical proscriptions.

If you want to legislate according to the contents of the Bible, fine, be against gay marriage. But don't be surprised when someone leads the charge to shut down Las Vegas, or to burn all those Pamela Anderson posters, or execute people who work on Sunday -- for all are sins (gambling, lust, not honoring the Sabbath) explicitly proscribed in the Bible. Will you be as equally acquiescent to their legal/Biblical wishes as you ask the rest of us to be with regard to yours?

But you raise an interesting point: sin. It may be a sin to be actively engaged in a gay relationship, but isn't it also a sin to be unfair to your fellow man? All I ask is that the state give me the freedom to sin in the privacy of my home and in the privacy of my personal relationships. Opponents to gay marriage seek to enshrine a different sin (inequality) into the law of the land.

I agree with pretty well everything you say. With the exception of people's opposition to gay marriage, some people do have valid arguments against gay marriage. Some are unsure of whether the law could mean polygamy being introduced in the future. As well the idea that a family needs both a mother and father to be healthy so both sexes can have an influence on children's lives.

But I'm in favor of gay marriage, and have yet to see that gay marriage will cause more of a breakdown in the institution that heterosexuals have ruined over the past 50 years.

[Remiel]

I'd like to point out how Leafless openly admits to subverting the term Western ideology in this thread. Seeing how he uses that term in just about every thread he replies to, he does such a wonderful job of dealing a mortal blow to all of his own arguments.

[Rue]

I am not even sure why I bother to respond to Leafless but he made 3 comments that just beg for a response.

1. Firstly he originally raised homo-sexuality as being an anomoly. When I pointed out it happens in all animal life forms, he responded by stating that animals are in effect animals and humans are humans. This does not make any sense. It was Leafless who said it was aberated behaviour not me, and when he is shown it is common in many life forms he then switches the topic to say humans have more grey matter. That was not the issue, claiming it was an anomoly was, and his saying humans are allegedly "smarter" then animals does not address the issue in any way. More to the point it does not adress the point I made that homo-sexuality is a natural phenomena found in all life forms that reproduce. More to the point, humans are the only life form on the planet that kill for the sake of killing so for Leafless to twist the subject and try change it and suggest if all life forms exhibit homo-sexuality it is because they are stupider then humans is ludicrous.

2.Leafless referred to a U.S. policy defining homo-sexuality as an illness or disability. Well if we are to discuss this topic intelligently it then must be disclosed that this policy has been rejected and has been clearly repudiated and the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association definitions of homo-sexuality and the DVSM classification is what is used.

More to the point the Uniform Code of Conduct does NOT allow nor does it state gays will not be recruited or allowed to enlist or discharged simply because they ae gay. What the Uniform Code clearly does is to state

sexual conduct and not just homo-sexual conduct but conduct by BOTH gays and straights sexual in nature

is forbidden and that includes oral sex and sodomy.

It is again ludicrous to compare the internal opersational considerations of the US military army with our society. For starters the U.S. military is not a democracy and has never claimed to be a democracy for obvious reasons. It is a military institution. Someone should explain to Leafless we are not a military institution that has to forbid sex for obvious reasons.

More to the point what Leafless skips over is of that the 17 Nation military forces only 4 actually ban gays from service and in 1993, the U.S. implemented a policy called " Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" when it comes to homo-sexuality.

The U.S. Army and every other military operation obviously can not have its troops screwing each other and that has nothing to do with whether they are gay or not.

Also for your curiousity even the Israeli Army does not ban gays.

3. Leafless made the comment that gays are mentally defficient and more mentally defficient then straughts. This is again preposterous to the point where I ask, did he say this to deliberately bait gays or is this just again one of his unsubstantiated prejudices. There is not one piece of data that could suggest or does suggest that gays are impaired intellectually because they are gay as opposed to straight.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with intelligence quotients or capacity and this is no different then some person saying blacks are stupider then whites, etc. Its bigotry based on sheer ignorance. Gays are not defficient intellectually because they are gay.

Now the original attempt to refer to homo-sexuals as being more likely to commit pedophilia then hetero-sexuals just so we are all clear originates with Steve Baldwin, Executive Director of the Council for National Policy in an arricle he wrote called Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, in the Regent University Law Review.

This article is an opinion and has not one shred of substantiated objective data to prove this.

The Council for National Policy is a Christian fundamentalist group that seeks to return the United States to fundamental Christian rule. Here is a direct quote from it;

"Today, America is in trouble because we have departed from the original premise, the original design, the original contract. It does not have to be this way. We can return to Godly, Biblically based constitutional government. Instead of determining what kind of cultural messages are emitted by the National Endowment for the Arts, we can and should remove every single penny from its coffers. Instead of waging rear-guard actions against special legal protections and privileges for practitioners of buggery, we can terminate billions of dollars in federal subsidies which are given to militant homosexuals that they may propagandize for and implement their agenda for evangelization and recruitment in the name of AIDS education."

Just so you know the Council for National Policy boasts among its supporters the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and my good and close friend Jerry Falwell who of course stated that 9-11 was caused as punishment by God against the U.S. because of gay people having sex.

One last thing. When I find myself engaged in debate with someone who generalizes that gays are mentally defficient or compares Canadian Society to the US Military as if they are the same and can be equated as the same environment I ask myself what is going on?

That said, from my perspective as someone who has worked in the legal system with people who hate gays I will say this. It has been my personal experience that when people get to the point where they really hate gays, to me what I am seeing is someone who feels threatened by gays.

When we hear the arguement that if you let gay people get married they take away rights from straight people who marry what you are really hearing in my opinion is a clinical behavioural phenomena called irrational fear. It makes no logical sense that if gays marry, that takes away rights from straights. It does not. The arguement that when you grant someone a right it necessarily comes at another group's expense is not based on reasoning or logic but is simply an emotional response not based on anything real or logical.

Think about it. How do two gay people being married take away the right of two straight people to marry?

This phenomena of jumping to the emotional arguement that if you give someone a right, it takes away your own is a classic form of insecurity that comes when someone feels a lack of control or threat.

So what about this lack of control? From a purely psycho-analytical point of view, we know people who fear change and loss of control or difference, fear this because they feel it is a threat to their own self. Why is such a threat. I would argue at the pith and substance of fear of homo-sexuality or being afraid of gays are two primal instinctual phenomena. One is an unresolved inner ego formation problem-i.e., if a person feels healthy about their own ego or self-esteem and who they are, seeing gay behaviour would not trigger off anxiety or threaten them-at least it shouldn't. In a normal, healthy human, if there is such a thing, they obviously will have a sexual preference, and find the sexual lifestyle they no not find themselves attracted to simply that-something unattactive-but it should not lead to such a strong reaction that it leads them to hate. Even in repulsive situations such as with pedophiles and rapists, (sexual violence and power imbalances) it is important we understand that pedophiles and rapists are people who engage in violence and power imbalances-they are not consenting adults and so are strong reaction is more understandable as they are engaging in crimes against society. Gays, consenting adults of the same sex are not commiting any crimes against society nor are they engaging in violence. If they are involved in an abusive relationship then we react to it the same way we would an abusive straight relationship. The point is in a healthy world, we

should not be afraid of people or sexuality and be able to openly discuss it without resorting to comments that generalize in a negative way or generate a physical response of violence.

That said I believe as do many psycho-analysts and behaviouralists that people who genuinely fear homo-sexuals may simply be expressing a primative, primal fear of being raped. Human beings are apes. In our society, as is the case with all apes and for that matter pack animals whether they be dogs or cats, the male establishes dominance over other males and females by size and prowess. It is probable humans, especially men are afraid of gays because it generates a fear of being dominated by another male or mounted. That may sound strange but it is not meant to be. We are quick to discuss sex using intellectual words but in reality simply animals with basic primative reactions.

[Leafless]

I'd like to point out how Leafless openly admits to subverting the term Western ideology in this thread. Seeing how he uses that term in just about every thread he replies to, he does such a wonderful job of dealing a mortal blow to all of his own arguments.

Never mind Leafless dealing a mortal blow to his arguments.

Can you supply proof in percent, the number of Canadians/Americans in 'favour' or 'against' homosexuality?

If you cannot supply these numbers, it is obvious we need a referendum to establish factually how Canadians/Americans really view homosexuality pertaining the total overall effect including AIDS has on Western society and if homosexuals enriches society in general.

[leonardcohen]

The first: marriage may be a religious tradition, but that's not relevant to our discussion. We are talking about marriage as a legal, civil entity, not the religious version.

The second: IMV someone who opposes homosexuality because they belive in the Bible is, by definition, a bigot.

1}Please show me if you will where marriage has a purpose outside of religious considerations?

2}It seems to me that you are saying Christans are by definition ,'bigots',a bigot being defined as a person who is unreasonably prejudiced or intolerant.That just seems unfair.

[Leafless]

I am not even sure why I bother to respond to Leafless but he made 3 comments that just beg for a response.

Well Rue, you have not supplied conclusive evidence what homosexuals actually are or if their lifestyles can even be viewed with any kind of normalcy as compared to the majority heterosexuals.

What you really fail to acknowledge is that government has no answer concerning what to do with (in Canada) 1% or around 3,200,000 of the total population of Canada.

Rather than government admitting failure it has allowed gay activist to flood the country with 'gay propaganda' to condition the heterosexual population to accept perversion as 'being normal and acceptable.'

Throwing gays in a legal fashion onto the heterosexual population is not the answer and this could only corrupt and complicate problems in Canadian society considerably.

Only time will tell what the outcome of this adverse decision by government will produce concerning the gay lifestyle on Canadian society.

[Black Dog]

1}Please show me if you will where marriage has a purpose outside of religious considerations?

Um..how about the fact we have a legal institution known as marriage that is administered by the state?

2}It seems to me that you are saying Christans are by definition ,'bigots',a bigot being defined as a person who is unreasonably prejudiced or intolerant.That just seems unfair.

Why is it unfair? To me, being predjudiced against someone because some ancient manuscript allegedly penned by an invisible and ominipotent sky-being tells you to is pretty unreasonable.

Well Rue, you have not supplied conclusive evidence what homosexuals actually are

Like Soylent Green, they are people.

or if their lifestyles can even be viewed with any kind of normalcy as compared to the majority heterosexuals.

What's "normalcy". Is that just when the pee-pee goes into the hoo-hah?

What you really fail to acknowledge is that government has no answer concerning what to do with (in Canada) 1% or around 3,200,000 of the total population of Canada.

Sure they do: treat 'em like everyone else.

Throwing gays in a legal fashion onto the heterosexual population is not the answer and this could only corrupt and complicate problems in Canadian society considerably.

Having the state police individual behaviour is such a conservative position...

[leonardcohen]

Why is it unfair? To me, being predjudiced against someone because some ancient manuscript allegedly penned by an invisible and ominipotent sky-being tells you to is pretty unreasonable.

That statement right there whether it was intended or not,mocks anybody who believes in God.Please don't do that.It is insulting.

[gnam]

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?

This early post by Leafless seems to sum up the essence of his/her position fairly well. So in an effort to avoid all of the confusing, headache inducing sidebars that seem to accompany this issue perhaps, Leafless, you might answer a question. To do so would help us understand what you are proposing, where you are coming from, and in the end to evaluate your position. Also, perhaps you might strive for both brevity and clarity in order to ensure that we all understand you position well.

The above quote/question (along with many of your other postings, too numerous to go into here) seems to suggest that your concern with SSM is one or more of a few things: either it is somehow associated with Liberals; or, it offends your christian sensibilities; or, it offends the sensibilities of the 'mainstream' (if this is your focus you had better give some indication of who you would include in this group--please don't avoid this requirement with some sort of "if you don't kow then you must not be one of us" drivel).

Here and elsewhere, you seem to express concern that by allowing SSM the Christian definition of marriage is somehow threatened. However, others have pointed out that what is at issue is not Christian marriage but civil marriage. Therefore, SSM in no way threatens Christian marriage unless you see Christianity as another word for the mainstream, or society. Indeed your concern that SSM might really be an effort to promote a "godless pagan society, all part of the liberal master plan" seems suggestive as regards your inclinations in this matter.

I feel that it should be pointed out that a godless pagan society is, in fact, something of an oxymoron. Pagan societies, traditionally, have maintained beliefs in many gods and therefore remain impervious to the charge of godlessness. Furthermore, it seems worth pointing out that Canada, if it should ever be successful in its attempts at multiculturalism and tolerance for different religious beliefs would likely become the closest modern approximation to a pagan society that has existed since the ancient epoch (ie. ancient Greece--pagan but without the tolerance). As such, I must confess that you seem (from your posts) to believe that the major problem with SSM is that it is not Christian, and by extension, SSM seems to paint a picture of a contemporary Canadian society that is not essentially Christian in character and belief. Is this basically your problem?? When you level the 'liberal' charge am I to understand that you are saying liberals are anti-christian in some significant way? Is your problem then, that SSM threatens the possibility of some homogeneous Christian-Canadian Utopia that you have in mind?

Please clarify...

Thx:)

[Leafless]

gnam

Canada is a country that has a history and traditons. It did not create itself.

You first have to understand Canada is a majority Christian country and the federal government has a moral responsibility to acknowledge this fact, which it does not, and tries to treat everyone as equals to appease its self invented status as being a 'officially multicultural country'. Canadians WERE NOT involved and DENIED the right to be part of this this important decision which should have been presented to Canadians in the form of a referendum.

The Liberal party could very well be considered anti Christian because of this. The Liberal party of Canada also has a powerful Quebec wing component, that at one time Quebec, was highly Roman Catholic but due to in my estimation, to a failure of God to propel Quebec politically, now shuns religion and instead now treats politics in a very religious manner, which also it seems, to be its full time occupation both federally and provincially.

What I don't agree with is the criteria that the Liberals use to identify and justify certain groups status in Canada that require special rights, over all other Canadians and written into the constitution. This includes Gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

For instance Gays have been given unilateral government decided rights concerning their perverted lifestyle as NORMAL and our federal government have decided unilaterally that nothing is wrong with homosexuals using the word 'marriage', to describe their same sex union. This is anti Christian.

It is argued that Christianity does not own the rights to the word 'marriage' but by the same token applied in modern times, every country in the world uses the word marriage to describe the union of 'heterosexual couples' and not 'homosexual couples'. So, in its own right Christianity and most other religions indeed does have the right reserved pertaining to the word marriage albeit not the legal right but the traditional right.

What I am proposing in a nutshell, your word, is to scrap the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or have it rewritten to exclude special status, for catered groups that I describe as 'special interest groups' being gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

[gc1765]

You first have to understand Canada is a majority Christian country

The Liberal party could very well be considered anti Christian because of this.

The NDP (& bloc), at the very least, also supports all of the things that you claim makes the Liberals anti-Christian, so if you believe the liberals are anti-Christian, then so are the NDP (& bloc). Now, taken together, the NDP, bloc and liberals have in recent history, had over 50% of the vote, making them the majority. So, the majority of Canadians are anti-Christian and Christian at the same time? Now that is too funny

[Canadian Blue]

No, the NDP is mostly supported by the United Church.

Really saying Canada is "Christian" is pointless because quite a few people have different perspectives on what "Christian" means. To some it is a rule book to be followed, to others it is about non-violence, tolerance, and charity.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

What I am proposing in a nutshell, your word, is to scrap the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or have it rewritten to exclude special status, for catered groups that I describe as 'special interest groups' being gays, Quebec and to a certain extent Aboriginals.

It also sounds like you would like to include 'non-Christians' though you don't say it but imply it.

A load of rubbish, but I can appreciate the fact that you are a devout 'sovial conservative'.