Homosexuality is an anomaly

[AndrewL]

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

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

Wise assessment concerning homosexuals.

To bad our politicians are not as intelligent.

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

Really? Define immoral and define for me how homosexuality fits your definition of immoral. Here is the trick, do not mention god once.....

Andrew

Define a moral Christian society but do not mention God?

Canada is a secular nation made up of a diverse group of people some who have religion some who do not.

We are not a christian society, and if we were that would not make us moral.

Our laws are not to be based on religious tenets. Our laws are made for practical reasons, in the interests of health, happiness, security, and equality. We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise.

Andrew

[Leafless]

Canada is a secular nation made up of a diverse group of people some who have religion some who do not.

We are not a christian society, and if we were that would not make us moral.

Our laws are not to be based on religious tenets. Our laws are made for practical reasons, in the interests of health, happiness, security, and equality. We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise.

Andrew

Who is " We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise."

Some enlightenment for your reading pleasure:

http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/partyPolicy6.htm

[Canadian Blue]

http://www.united-church.ca/action/

Here's a sample of the views of the United Church. Besides, I don't really take the CHP that seriously, I doubt anyone does since they can't even get 1% of the vote or run more than 75 candidates.

[Higgly]

Oh man. When this thread popped up (11 pages yet), I thought 'This must be where old dinosaurs go to die...'

[Leafless]

http://www.united-church.ca/action/

Here's a sample of the views of the United Church. Besides, I don't really take the CHP that seriously, I doubt anyone does since they can't even get 1% of the vote or run more than 75 candidates.

I only posted CHP for info regarding human rights and our constitution preamble for the previous poster. I didn't vote for them either.

Pertaining to the United Church, I wouldn't take them to seriously either as they only represent 17.5% of Canada's religions. As a matter of fact all protestant denominations in Canada when broken down are fairly insignificant.

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_28.html

[Warwick Green]

http://www.united-church.ca/action/

Here's a sample of the views of the United Church. Besides, I don't really take the CHP that seriously, I doubt anyone does since they can't even get 1% of the vote or run more than 75 candidates.

As I suspected the United Church is a political party, not a religious organization.

[Drea]

When Harper won't "toe the Christian line" who else are they going to vote for besides the CHP? The NDP?

[Adelle]

I think Canada should have a single official religion, outlawing or subjugating all others, upon which all laws and traditions are based, like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or other fundamentalist countries. This would decide, without doubt or appeal, the fate of gays, libertine's, women/feminists, children/teens, etc.

The various Christian sects had their chance all over Europe (History speaks) and the Muslim nations invoking Shara law can be observed in situ (my Latin sucks). Personally, I vote for Buddhism or maybe Wicca, anyone else?

[Canadian Blue]

As I suspected the United Church is a political party, not a religious organization.

I was pointing out that even christian's disagree on many political topics.

I think Canada should have a single official religion, outlawing or subjugating all others, upon which all laws and traditions are based, like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or other fundamentalist countries. This would decide, without doubt or appeal, the fate of gays, libertine's, women/feminists, children/teens, etc.

The various Christian sects had their chance all over Europe (History speaks) and the Muslim nations invoking Shara law can be observed in situ (my Latin sucks). Personally, I vote for Buddhism or maybe Wicca, anyone else?

I vote for a country where your free to believe whatever the hell you want. It's worked for all of confederation, why change it now.

[Leafless]

I think Canada should have a single official religion, outlawing or subjugating all others, upon which all laws and traditions are based, like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or other fundamentalist countries. This would decide, without doubt or appeal, the fate of gays, libertine's, women/feminists, children/teens, etc.

We do have a majority Christian religion but means little to the twits that run this country, who have purposely implemented the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', that in effect allows only 'politicians' to control the inner workings of Canada based on their interpretation of 'political equality'.

This of course will cause major problems in Canada, some of which are already surfacing as certain groups become stronger with rights and some groups stronger in sheer numbers, with their own ideas how to run the country with their political or religious interest at heart. This of course excludes Christianity and anyone who happens to be the colour 'white' and 'English speaking'.

Sounds like your in favour of scrapping the Charter?

[Higgly]

I think Canada should have a single official religion, outlawing or subjugating all others, upon which all laws and traditions are based, like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or ...

... like Canada was 50 years ago.

[gerryhatrick]

When Harper won't "toe the Christian line" who else are they going to vote for besides the CHP? The NDP?

Don't stereotype Christians as idiots. They're more than capable of having deeper concerns than gay marriage.

[AndrewL]

ANDREW POSTED: Canada is a secular nation made up of a diverse group of people some who have religion some who do not.

We are not a christian society, and if we were that would not make us moral.

Our laws are not to be based on religious tenets. Our laws are made for practical reasons, in the interests of health, happiness, security, and equality. We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise.

Andrew

Who is " We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise."

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY CRACKPOT RELIGIOUS FANATIC: AKA LEAFLESS: Some enlightenment for your reading pleasure:

http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/partyPolicy6.htm

A fundamentalist fanatic site for enlightenment? OK. I guess it s not really possible to have a discussion with somebody who considers religion to be a legitimate basis for a code of laws.

Good for a laugh though, i suppose.

Andrew

[Warwick Green]

When Harper won't "toe the Christian line" who else are they going to vote for besides the CHP? The NDP?

Don't stereotype Christians as idiots. They're more than capable of having deeper concerns than gay marriage.

I agree most do. It's those few who look upon SSM as the end of the world who give all other Christians a bad name.

[Rue]

All I want recognized is for the feds to do what they say they want to do and treat everyone EQUAL.

At present the Charter discriminates by giving certain groups elevated rights and should be rewritten.

All Canadians should have the same rights.

No Canadians should be treated as special interest groups with special status decided solely by government. Society pertaining to social interaction within the confines of the law is created by Canadians, NOT GOVERNMENT.

But they (gov't or society or whomever you are talking about) more or less do or try to treat everyone as equal with respect to the stated aims and values of the government... I think.

The fact that certain groups in society are treated differently than some others has to do, if I am not mistaken, with the fact that in order ensure a basic level of equality some groups require that special requirements be met in order to ensure that society is able to grant that equality. All concerns that this kind of equality promotes a rather commonplace and disgusting brand of equality (read as mediocrity) aside, this kind of thinking serves certain purposes. For example, retards and handicapped (sorry to anyone that belongs to one of these groups... I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was encouraging special rights for certain groups with regard to their right to be called whatever they want) people require that certain priveleges and aids be extended by society in order to ensure that they can excercise basic rights like taking a shit in a public washroom or filling out tax forms, etc.

I am NOT saying that homosexuality is qualitatively like a mental or physical diability, however all three states of existence mark out those who live these existences as different in some way from the majority of canadians, in some more or less banal way.

With regard to SSM, the government as the elected body that is supposed to be representative of canadians, all Canadians not just the majority of canadians (this is the part that is supposed to be about the equality of all canadians as you desire), is extending the same legal rights to homosexuals... the rights that are currently extended to the largest canadian special interest group--white hetero judeo-christians.

It occurs to me that one way to solve your little "definition of marriage" problem would be to take legal marriage off the books entirely. Everyone would then have an equal right to nothing in the strictly legal sense. Then your various churches that claim access to divinely inspired definitions of marriage could just marry whomever they see fit since it is not the mandate of the religious to treat all canadians equally... would this satisfy you??

Its actually quite logical and makes sense legally. You would have to ruin this debate with logic and common sense!

[Rue]

Leafless I do not have a problem understanding why you want a Christian society based on what your cconcept of Christianity is and how you do not want the state and your version of Christianity seperated. That I understand. What I do not understand is when you call gays vicious or suggest they are mentally ill or intellectually impaired in your debate.

If you want to debate laws and making society Christian that is one thing- but making disparaging negative comments about gays accusing them of being intellectually imaired, pedophiles or mentally ill is what I am calling you on. I apologize for before if you thought I was insulting you. I was being sarcastic as I did not really think you were that uptight about gays until I read more of your stuff. It actually shocks me that you hold some of the views you do in this day and age. I do not mean that as an insult.

This thread started out as, "homosexuality is an anomaly", which I agreed with.

This means pertaining to homosexuals, that they lack the usual or ethical STANDARDS pertaining to Canadian society.

In turn Canadian society is 70% Christian making it a majority Christian society.

Personally I am not even a moderate Christian, but I am a principled individual and think homosexuality is wrong and morally destructive. I think Christianity, morals and the ten commandments for instance help form the basis concerning a positive outlook, to respect the laws of the country and shape the mind to help become mentally principled to be able to recognize when society goes astray.

You for instance defend homosexuals in an unprincipled way pertaining to a code of conduct that does not protect the natural interest of society.

Your use of the word "unprincipled" and "ethical" is probably not accurate but reflects your own subjective views as to what principles or ethics you feel are appropriate. To me it is unprincipled and unethical to discriminate against gay people, call them vicious, anomolies, mentally defficient etc.

It sounds like you feel you have a monoply on understanding what is ethical or principled. Sorry you don't.

How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything. It only is unethical not because you don't approve of it, but if it entails one adult using violence, a power imbalance, duress or coercion or misrepresentation/illegal means/drugs/booze to induce the other side to consent.

As for your quoting the ten commandments if you want to get religious, the stoning references to homo-sexuality come out of Leviticus. Do you subsribe to those as well? The Bible also said deaf people should not marry because they were not able to understand marriage vows. You still agree with that?

[Leafless]

Your use of the word "unprincipled" and "ethical" is probably not accurate but reflects your own subjective views as to what principles or ethics you feel are appropriate. To me it is unprincipled and unethical to discriminate against gay people, call them vicious, anomolies, mentally defficient etc.

It sounds like you feel you have a monoply on understanding what is ethical or principled. Sorry you don't.

How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything. It only is unethical not because you don't approve of it, but if it entails one adult using violence, a power imbalance, duress or coercion or misrepresentation/illegal means/drugs/booze to induce the other side to consent.

You are confusing two separate issue's.

You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything."

What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals.

For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then?

I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision.

[Leafless]

As for your quoting the ten commandments if you want to get religious, the stoning references to homo-sexuality come out of Leviticus. Do you subsribe to those as well? The Bible also said deaf people should not marry because they were not able to understand marriage vows. You still agree with that?

Stoning?

The ten commandments I am familiar with pertaining to 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' or 'Traditional Catechetical formula'.

No, I don't want to get religious but only quoted the ten commandment relating for a preliminary base pertaining to morals, nothing else.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/arch...ism/command.htm

[Adelle]

As I suspected the United Church is a political party, not a religious organization.

I was pointing out that even christian's disagree on many political topics.

I think Canada should have a single official religion, outlawing or subjugating all others, upon which all laws and traditions are based, like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or other fundamentalist countries. This would decide, without doubt or appeal, the fate of gays, libertine's, women/feminists, children/teens, etc.

The various Christian sects had their chance all over Europe (History speaks) and the Muslim nations invoking Shara law can be observed in situ (my Latin sucks). Personally, I vote for Buddhism or maybe Wicca, anyone else?

I vote for a country where your free to believe whatever the hell you want. It's worked for all of confederation, why change it now.

Just so you know, I wasn't being serious. My statement was made with huge tongue in tiny cheek. I just wanted to point out that, just because a single religion or philosophy holds sway and is supported by government action (laws) it doesn't go to say that it will be the religion or philosophy that you hold dear (ie. Christian). Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Although a large portions of Canadian society are Christian and a number of Canadian religions hold same-sex activities to be an anomaly, it does not appear that Canadian society, in general, is intolerant of homosexuality, homosexual relationships or unions. Anglicans, Buddhists and Wiccan are three religious groups that are very accepting of such things and inclusive of the gay community. What is accepted under the law and what individuals accept may be two different things. That right to disagree is protected by those same laws. The right to promote hate is not. That means that you can disagree with a person’s lifestyle, you can choose not to share that lifestyle but you cannot discriminate on the basis of that lifestyle. That is whether we are talking about a homosexual relationship, inter-faith relationship, inter-racial relationship, inter-generational relationship, polyamorous relationship etc. These are the concern only of those persons involved in those relationships, not the government, not the law, not society-at-large, as long as these relationships are not exploitive or abusive.

Deciding what is good for other people is great right up until other people decide what is good for you. Therefore, it is to societies benefit to ‘Live and let live’. I guess this is what is meant by “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”.

Adelle

[jefferiah]

As for your quoting the ten commandments if you want to get religious, the stoning references to homo-sexuality come out of Leviticus. Do you subsribe to those as well? The Bible also said deaf people should not marry because they were not able to understand marriage vows. You still agree with that?

Stoning?

The ten commandments I am familiar with pertaining to 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' or 'Traditional Catechetical formula'.

No, I don't want to get religious but only quoted the ten commandment relating for a preliminary base pertaining to morals, nothing else.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/arch...ism/command.htm

I think the penalty for smoking marijuana shoud be getting stoned.

[Leafless]

Deciding what is good for other people is great right up until other people decide what is good for you. Therefore, it is to societies benefit to ‘Live and let live’. I guess this is what is meant by “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”.

Adelle

This is how wars are won, whoever has the most troops or weaponry, wins.

"Live and let live", should be to the standards of majority society is acceptable.

You are forgetting, this country was GIVEN to us by the British who won the war on the plains of Abraham against the French. The French have no rights other than originally provided by the original BNA Act to conform to their political desires.

Canada's culture included Judo-Christian values since its beginning.

Our constitution was altered in a manner I for one thinks as totally unacceptable by mere POLITICIANS, rather than the citizens of Canada, that reflect a high degree of an over abundance of socialistic values, never intended for this country.

Why did Canada's political system deny the right of Canadians to decide what is best for this country?

Canada's politicians DID NOT fight for this country and have no right to impose their constitutional views and implement them into OUR constitution.

[Rue]

You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything."

What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals.

For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then?

I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision.

No what I am seeing is that NEITHER you nor I let alone society, should be asked what we think is morally acceptable or not acceptable between two consenting adults.

Clearly I am arging the standard moral relativist position that I personally do not believe like you, that what the majority deems acceptable or what your version of the Christian religion deems acceptable is universal moral truth.

What I am arguing is that when it comes to acts between consenting adults that are not violent, do not hurt anyone else, it really is none of your business and what you or people who think like you believe is irrelevant. Now I am not trying to be rude. Nothing personal. I am arguing that any of our beliefs, perspectives, ethno-centric values, are no more valid than another's.

From a legal perspective I am arguing the criminal code states what acts are considered crimes against society. I suppose of legislators wanted to place homo-sexual behaviour into the criminal code, they could and at one point people were arrested for being gay.

What I am saying is using your arguements, society then decided to criminalize being gay so if I followed your arguements, since the majority of society accepted homo-sexuality was not a crime, let alone a mental illness, we shouldn't have to revisit the issue because you feel it should be revisited because you feel you represent the majority of society's feelings as to homo-sexuality.

To me I do not look at ethics or morality as a popularity concept to be socided by the prevailing desires of society at any given time.

I don't because at one point Witches were burned at the stake in the name of Christrianity ad so were Jews and it was all done based on morality and ethics and good Christians feeling it was ethical and moral to sone and kill witches, Jews, etc.

The place I am coming from is prgmatic and realistic. I argue that humans as soon as they get into discussions on what is moral, ethical, appropriate, normal, abnormal, necessarily are stating subjective personal feelings and no one's personal opinions or feelings in my opinion and with due respect, have any more merit then anyone else's.

In my personal opinion criminal laws enact codes to prevent behaviour that endangers humans. So I can perfectly well understand laws against child sex, laws against sexual violence, laws that regulate sex to protect the public from disease. These are all laws I can understand from a pragmatic and realistic point of view to protect people.

What I do have a problem with is when someone says, I don't like two men having sex so we should out-law it. Why? How is that a danger to you? If they are having sex in public, then yes we have municipal by-laws that regulate the time and place for sex. But for you to say, I think its morally unacceptable, let us make it illegal, well that brings us to the next point-do you want your laws based on majority rule-because if you do-then society has already spoken about this issue and it seems you are now deviating from the norms of what society now wants.

I would prefer to argue it this way-you practice your type of religion in the sanctity of your church and in your home, gays can do the same, and when you are both in neutral or public places, both of you have the same right to privacy and government services and benefits precisely because neither of you are right or wrong.

I have a major problem with the fundamentalist Christian concept that it uses government as a tool to impose its religious beliefs. I have the same problem with Islam, or any other religion that wants to impose religious morality. This is why for example I have an on-going battle with Jewish Rabbinical courts on who they define as a Jew and do not subscrive to Orthodox Jewish religious laws as to homo-sexuality or

sexuality in general.

I do not believe religion should be mixed with government and I do not believe anyone should have the right to use government as a religious weapon to impose its views or else place people in jail or of course stone them, lash them or cut off their arms.

I believe we have evolved past the point where we call people mentally ill or mentally incompetent or vicious or an anomoly because we don't like who they are or what they do. I would like to think we have evolved to the point where we won't kill each other or feel the need to imprison people when they are different then us unless and until it harms children or promotes violence or constitutes an actual physical imposition on another without their consent.

The major weakness in your arguement is in the belief that when two consensting same sex couples have sex you feel it is an imposition on you. It is not and has never been and is no more an imposition then on you having consenting sex with a female.

If I followed your logic, if the majority of society and Christians of your belief decided women with black hair should not have sex because its unethical and immoral, then we would all have to go along with it.

Sorry, what's next? What would you morally legislate next? Oh I know, abortion, euthenasia, on and on.

I believe how people control their bodies and what they do with their bodies is an individual decision and thank you I do not need your version of Christianity lecturing to me or telling me what is appropriate.

We have had enough religious massacres, pograms, and injustice, thank you very much.

[Rue]

Your use of the word "unprincipled" and "ethical" is probably not accurate but reflects your own subjective views as to what principles or ethics you feel are appropriate. To me it is unprincipled and unethical to discriminate against gay people, call them vicious, anomolies, mentally defficient etc.

It sounds like you feel you have a monoply on understanding what is ethical or principled. Sorry you don't.

How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything. It only is unethical not because you don't approve of it, but if it entails one adult using violence, a power imbalance, duress or coercion or misrepresentation/illegal means/drugs/booze to induce the other side to consent.

You are confusing two separate issue's.

You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything."

What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals.

For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then?

I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision.

No what I am clearly stating unlike you is I do not believe either of us has the right in the name of what we think is morally acceptable or ethical to impose those beliefs on others.

I am arguing moral relativity, no more no less.

I reject your attempts to claim you know what is moral and ethical and what is universal truth. I reject your arguement that the majority of society thinks like you do. I reject your arguement that you represent mainstream Christianity for that matter and in fact represent a fundamentalist approach more and more of your own Christians have rejected and continue to reject.

Using your arguement for a second, I would suggest the majority of society already elected politicians that

represented their views and made it clear they do not want people going to jail for being gay nor do they want gays treated as second class citizens.

It seems you Sir, now claim you in fact represent the real majority and want things changed to your liking.

Here is why I have a problem with this idea that if the majority decides something is acceptable ethically or morally then it automatically is.

I have a problem with that because it wasn't too long ago Christians in the name of morality and ethics engaged in wide spread torture and persecution of Jews. They also burned witches and the stake for being evil.

Excuse me if I am a tad cynical with anyone invoking the name of Christianity to claim what is right and wrong and why it should be imposed on all of us. I have heard it over and over again not just as to homo-sexuality, but abortion, euthenasia, what constitutes pornography, etc.

I have a major problem with any human being telling me what is right or wrong and claiming they should be able to use government to shove it down my throat or else I go to jail or get stoned, put on the wrack, lit on fire, etc. Been there. Done that. All it does is culminate in massacres, programs, mass slaughters, war and was the cause of the holocaust and so many other religious mass murders.

No I don't need people who feel they have a monopoly on moral truth telling me that they should be able to vote on whether gays can be married or not.

To me this preoccupation with what two consenting adults do and feel the need to turn it into an issue to discuss in parliament and vote on is absurd.

With due respect what next?

No I am a moral relativist and if you read what I write I am not trying to impose my beliefs on you at all or say what is right or wrong and just want you to leave me and gays alone -it is you coming at me with your version of what is right or wrong, making references to how you represent the majority of society and of course the majority of Christians.

I have a problem with what people do in public just like you do. Just like you do not want two gays in public getting married or probably kissing one another I don't want to have to go in public and have your version of religion imposed on me thank you very much.

I have a problem with religion no being seperated from state precisely because of people like you who honestly believe you know what is good and bad for people and want such views imposed on us all.

What is clearly happening is society is evolving and your views are being left behind and you are clininging to them and resisting change desperately wanting to turn back the clock to when everything was safe and the same and everyone thought the same.

Got news for you. Those days were never that safe. It may seem like there were good old days but there were not. Even in the good old days when everyone went to church and wore cardigans and women stayed at home and simply made babies and we didn't question mama and papa and went to church every Sunday, there were still gays, there were still abortions, prostitutes, people killing themselves rather then continue to live in pain, people making movies with full frontal views of genitilia, etc.

The only difference was in those days, it was repressed from your sight and sound. Now it is not. You see it everywhere. Damn that Elton John on t.v. Damn it every time we turn on a t.v. show there are more gays kissing or in open relationships.

Gee what do you know. You really think you can turn back the clock and repress this all.

Here is what I am saying. You retain your views and opinions and I will do the same. Respect my rights and I will respect yours. Try tred on my rights and impose laws on me that discriminate against me in the name of your God or what you think is right, and yes I will fight you all the way.

Your attempts to turn back the legal clock are too little and too late.

You might find your energy better spent on helping the poor rather then obsessing on two consenting adults of the same sex who want to be married. No one says you have to go to their wedding. No one is forcing anything on you so don't do it in reverse.

[Leafless]

Here is why I have a problem with this idea that if the majority decides something is acceptable ethically or morally then it automatically is.

How else do expect the SYSTEM should work in a democratic majority Christian country.

Like it presently is along the lines of communism or Nazism.

Like I said in another post :

"You are forgetting, this country was GIVEN to us by the British who won the war on the plains of Abraham against the French. The French have no rights other than originally provided by the original BNA Act to conform to their political desires.

Canada's culture included Judo-Christian values since its beginning.

"Our constitution was altered in a manner I for one thinks as totally unacceptable by mere POLITICIANS, rather than the citizens of Canada, that reflect a high degree of an over abundance of socialistic values, never intended for this country."

[bk59]

Leafless, there seem to be some problems with your arguments.

First, you say that politicians are passing laws that should be decided in a national referendum. Our politicians are elected to represent us. It is their job to pass laws. It is not their job to go running back to their constituents every five minutes. When you say society should decide, you are missing the fact that society has already decided. It decided when we elected our government and that government went out and passed laws.

Second, even if we were to have national referendums on multiple issues, who decides what must go to a referendum? What issues should be decided by everyone and what issues should be decided by Parliament? You have not made this distinction clear.

Third, your logic seems to say that if the majority of Canadians voted for something then that is the morally correct answer. According to that type of logic if the majority of Canadians voted to establish slavery for all non-white people that would be acceptable to you. This argument also means that the majority of Canadians could vote to outlaw Christianity. Are you really sure that you want to advocate this type of decision making?

Finally, you try to base some of your arguments on the fact that things used to be a certain way so that is the way they must remain. You also say that the British beat the French on the Plains of Abraham therefore the French have no other rights than those given in the original British North America Act. Here are the problems with statements like that:

1. If the British won the ability to impose their views then what stops other groups from now stepping up & doing the same? You say the British got this right by using violence. That argument seems to mean that any group who achieves supremacy, by force or otherwise, can set the rules for everyone. Our system of government is set up so that everyone can have their voices heard, not just those who yell the loudest or use violence.

2. Saying that everything must be exactly as it was in 1867 is extremely short sighted. Should we also get rid of all technology invented since 1867? Should women not be allowed to vote? If you want to roll the clock back to 1867 then please just come out and say that you think women's rights should be rolled back, etc. Times change, societies grow and mature. Our system of laws must accomodate this. If it didn't, then everything from Canadian businesses to Canadian infrastructure would be nothing but a joke in the international community and our system / society could never meet the needs of Canadian citizens living in the 21st century.