# Canadians Losing Freedom of Speech?



## MAJOR_Baker (24 May 2004)

Freedom of speech?
Hate speech or?



On April 28, the Canadian Senate dealt a serious blow to free speech and religious freedom. It passed Bill C 250 to amend the criminal code to expand its definition of an â Å“identifiable groupâ ? relating to hate propaganda to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation. The legislation is the work of openly gay Member of Parliament Svend Robinson. 

The passage of this bill poses great concern. It restricts free speech and can be used as a tool for religious persecution against those who do not support the homosexual agenda. Gays are pushing to silence those who do not agree with them to the point of severely hindering the right to speak contrary to their social agenda. 

It is disconcerting that parts of the Bible, as well as other religious texts and statements, can be labeled â Å“hate propaganda.â ? In addition, portions of the bill do not have the protection of the attorney general, which means that anyone can file a hate crime charge before the courts. 

Consequently, ministers who preach in support of traditional marriage between one man and one woman only, and brand same-sex marriage as deviant behavior run the risk of being fined and/or faced with criminal prosecution. A judge could issue a warrant for the seizure of any materials being referenced. 

It is important to understand that if it can happen in Canada, it could happen in America. 

Although proponents state that the bill protects religious texts, a slippery slope has been created. MP Robinson has stated, â Å“A pastor would not be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality on the basis of the Bible.â ? He further states â Å“That there are numerous assurances that any such charges would only apply to the most obnoxious or severe critics of homosexual behavior.â ? 

However, without these â Å“assurancesâ ? spelled out in the legislation, problems loom. Who makes the determination as to what is obnoxious or severe criticism? Without specificity, it's left up to individual interpretation, and that's where the danger to individual freedom lies. 

Similar legislation has been used to limit freedom of speech. According to a press release issued by the Catholic Civil Rights League, â Å“In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal pastor was prosecuted for 'hate speech against homosexuals' for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.â ? This possible threat of prosecution is not limited to the clergy; it reaches to the average Canadian citizen. 

Picture this: You're sitting in a public restaurant talking to some friends about how marriage should be defined. You say you do not agree with same-sex marriage, that marriage should be between one man and one woman only as God intended. The group at your table chimes in, agreeing with you. The person at the table or booth next to you files a complaint, charging that you were inciting a riot against gays. 

Nothing could be further from the truth, but Canadian officials can pick you up, and you will go before the courts to allow them to interpret the intent of your words. For simply exercising your right to freedom of speech and thought, you run the risk of being fined, imprisoned or both under the vague and cloudy definitions found in the proposed legislation. If government can control what we can and cannot say, we've lost all of our liberties. 

Why devote so much attention to Bill C 250? Canada is a democracy and member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Who would have thought that free speech restrictions would become a part of their laws? It could happen in America. 

Thank God we have the First Amendment that is supposed to guarantee our freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of religion for all Americans and not just some. We must be alert and vigilant, less we wake up one morning and find our endearing freedoms snatched away by those seeking special class protection. We should also be diligent about electing to public office those individuals who embrace freedom for every citizen in a free society


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (24 May 2004)

I dont care what bill they pass. I‘ll express any religious beliefs I have against homosexuality, and they can do what they want.

"Gays are pushing to silence those who do not agree with them to the point of severely hindering the right to speak contrary to their social agenda."

Yah...see how far they get with that. Everythings going to **** in a handbasket in my opinion.


----------



## wongskc (24 May 2004)

That bishop is over-reacting.  All Bill C-250 does is afford homosexuals the same protection from discrimination that other minorities have.  Nothing more.  In many ways, the US already has similar legislation.  It just has not been extented to the gay community yet.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (24 May 2004)

who was that guy who was trying to have the bbible classified as hate literature?


----------



## bradley (24 May 2004)

There is a clear difference between discrimination and ones own opinion. Why anyone wastes their time trying to appease someones wishes just because they feel they are different is beyond me.


----------



## nbk (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by wongskc:
> [qb] That bishop is over-reacting.  All Bill C-250 does is afford homosexuals the same protection from discrimination that other minorities have.  Nothing more.  In many ways, the US already has similar legislation.  It just has not been extented to the gay community yet. [/qb]


Exactly. This is a very good move in the right direction. I‘m quite happy to see the government taking progressive steps for a change, to guarantee equality for all its citizens.

This will project a good image of Canada to the world. People need to learn that their bigoted ideals cannot be tolerated in a civilized, peaceful country.

I just hope the liberals will stick with it and not backtrack on this decision like they do on every other issue.


----------



## condor888000 (24 May 2004)

You all need to remember that Canada is very open compared to many other countries. Heck in the US George Bush is trying to make same sex marriages illegal.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 May 2004)

He is just following what the majority of the people ask for. As for trying to make same sex marriages illegal, it already is, and the majority of people want it to stay that way. 

Get a brain. Even if Kerry gets in, he to will do the same. Even the rebel state which passed the law, if the people voted on a referendum on it, it would truly be defeated too.


----------



## atticus (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by wongskc:
> [qb] That bishop is over-reacting.  All Bill C-250 does is afford homosexuals the same protection from discrimination that other minorities have.  Nothing more. [/qb]


Gee whiz, then why the heck do I hear way more hate talk about muslims, christians and natives than you ever do about gays? If you hear a Christian preacher saying to hate gays and that they are terrible people, then that preacher is obviously not reading what it says about this in the bible. It does say that homosexuality is wrong but it doesn‘t say to hate the person. It says hate what they do but don‘t hate the person.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (24 May 2004)

Exactly, the bible DOES NOT say to hate gays, but it does not condone it, and expresses Homosexuality as a sin.


----------



## girlfiredup (24 May 2004)

Exactly so if the bible, which is the inspired word of God, says that the very act of homosexuality is sin and that the wages of sin is death then legalizing same-sex marriages is stupid!!!  Don‘t hate the person, have mercy of them for the love of God but by legalizing same sex marriages is only going to support the very act.


----------



## McG (24 May 2004)

*Canadians disdain homophobia, survey finds*
The Globe and Mail

Montreal â â€ Almost 60 per cent of Canadians surveyed indicated they believe being homophobic is as bad as being racist or anti-Semitic, says a new poll.

The Léger Marketing poll found 5 per cent of respondents indicated they viewed homophobia as worse than racism or anti-Semitism, 58 per cent thought they were comparable, while 24 per cent said homophobia was not as bad. About 14 per cent of respondents said they did not know or refused to answer.

British Columbia, at 65 per cent, had the highest level of respondents who thought being homophobic was as bad as being racist or anti-Semitic.

Alberta, at 47 per cent, had the lowest level.

- - Full Article Here - -


----------



## Duotone81 (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb]
> 
> By the way, why were "same sex" marriages not legal in the 17, 18, 19, 0r 20th century in Canada?  Descrimination my ***, its stupid! [/qb]


What does that have to do with anything? Legislation which allowed women to vote was only passed during the Great War. This was less than 100 years ago!


----------



## nULL (24 May 2004)

I wonder if the writer of that article would feel the same if he had lived at a time where it was socially acceptable to refer passingly to him as a "******" and be opposed to the concept of mixed marriage. One would hope that he‘d be a staunch defender of Jim-Jim and Billy Bob‘s *GOD GIVEN RIGHT* to free speech.     







EDIT: Oh, what do you know...according to the site, the n-word is prohibited. Perhaps somebody here can argue that that is a clear violation of free speech.


----------



## Duotone81 (24 May 2004)

S_Baker,

It just seemed to me that you meant if it wasn‘t acceptable back then, it shouldn‘t be acceptable now. That‘s why I brought up women‘s suffrage. Past customs shouldn‘t be the deciding factor in our future debates. If so women wouldn‘t be voting today. As far as I understand it their have already been gay marriages and my life hasn‘t taken a turn for the worse. In fact I don‘t even think about it. Of course our courts are based in Judeo-Christian ideology however denying a human right because of sexual orientation is discrimination. If you don‘t like people because of who they are attracted to, fine. That‘s your prerogative. People will demand equal rights and will not stop until they get it. Just look at your countries civil rights movement in the 60‘s. Maybe people are afraid if gay marriages become legal, their lives will somehow become less rightious or moral. If that‘s the case then they only have themselves to blame. Traditionaly though, marriage was more of a business venture than a committment of love.


----------



## Rick_Donald (25 May 2004)

This only reinforces the social acceptance of homosexuality by a noisy minority of citizens to an already confused and super horny legion of young teens who just might be swayed to lean thet way.
 If you don‘t mind the possibility of your son or daughter coming home some day with a same sex partner than go ahead and support the bill.
  I‘m not saying they‘ll stay that way after they get their **** together but until then they don‘t need any misguided messages from the noisy minority.
   What do the people really want if they aren‘t afraid to say it? Passing a bill like this forces you and I to suppress those opinions and before you know it will have George Bush‘s army jumping into Canada to liberate us from the evildoer‘s on Parliament Hill.


----------



## nULL (25 May 2004)

How can a teen be confused about their sexuality...? Even in kindergarden, before I even knew _how_ to have sex, I knew I liked girls. 

I had some ideas about sex, but...there were metal parts involved, and something about robots...

Would I want my son/daughter to be gay? No. Absolutely not. There‘s no biological *point* to it. But I‘d _like_ to think the reasons for that are my own, and not based on a fear that they would be considered by the government and the people to be the embodiment of sin.


----------



## 48Highlander (25 May 2004)

Rick, it‘s already illegal in Canada to make hateful statements about racial and ethnic groups.  Would you consider "supprsing" THOSE opinions to be a bad thing?  If people deserve to be protected from hatefull statements based on their religion, race, or culture, then they also deserve to be protected from hateful statments based on their sexual orientation.  Either we expand the bill to cover homosexuals as well, or we scrap it altogether.  Otherwise the bill itself is discriminatory.

As to gay marriage encouraging children or teens to become gay, that‘s pretty unlikely.  Mixed racial marriages have been legal for a long time, but it‘s still fairly rare to see white marrying blacks.  Just because something becomes socialy acceptable does not mean everyone will suddenly want to do it.  If you‘re really worried about your children turning gay, you can always go the bible-thumper route and brainwash them into beleiving that homosexuality is a sin.  If I were you though, I‘d be more concerned about what your teenage daughter may be doing with members of the opposite sex rather than the same sex.  I‘ve known numerous females who‘ve lost their virginity to two mmen at the same time, and then proceeded to have sex with anything with a penis and a pulse for the next several years.  Teaching children (both male and female) that excessive sex with multiple partners is wrong would be a lot more productive than trying to make them beleive that their attraction to members of the same sex is "wrong".


----------



## atticus (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by 48Highlander:
> [qb]  If you‘re really worried about your children turning gay, you can always go the bible-thumper route and brainwash them into beleiving that homosexuality is a sin. [/qb]


What the heck? The biblethumber route? And what would that be exactly? Right here is an example of a double standard. You can go and say whatever the heck you want about christians, jews, etc because they have different morals than you do but they can‘t teach in a place of worship that homosexuality is wrong?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 May 2004)

"I,ve known SEVERAL females who lost their virginity to two men at the same time"
My BS detector is rising unless your the militia‘s answer to Dr. Phil.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (25 May 2004)

Thats exactly the point. It is MY choice which faith I choose to follow, and if my religion openly condemns homosexuality and deems it a sin, then its MY right to believe it if I want, and support it if I want. Its not "the bible-thumper route" nor is it "brainwashing". Its my faith, and thats what this bill is beginning to come down to. Which is more important, the right to practice ones own faith, or the right to equality? It also comes down to a thin line, is the church calling them f@ggots, or sinners? Im yet to hear ANY leader of ANY church call them anything but sinners. Flame your own beliefs, not mine.


----------



## K. Ash (25 May 2004)

Did you guys hear about what Arnold Schwarzenneger (sp?) said when asked his opinion on gay marriages? Something like this: "What goes on in a man and woman‘s bedroom is none of my buisness" 

Poor bugger, he must have been flabberhgasted or something...


----------



## McG (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb]  Its my faith, and thats what this bill is beginning to come down to. Which is more important, the right to practice ones own faith, or the right to equality? [/qb]


Why can it not be both? Your faith does not require you to hate those who are homosexual, it just requires that you abstain from such activity.  Just as other faiths require members to abstain from certain foods.


----------



## Rick_Donald (25 May 2004)

In the process of screening one of my daughter‘s favourite website I was surprised to find the number of kids who listed on their profiles that their sexual preference  is bisexual. They don‘t even know what they are yet. Now, chances are they are only blowing their horns cause at the same time they all like to brag about how dysfunctional their family is to the point that it is almost a competition.
But my point is when did bisexualism and dysfunctionallism become fashionable and why?
With the lack of guidance and discipline that these kids face today do they really need a mixed messages from their authority figures.
I am not promoting hatred of gays. I‘ve known plenty and never treated them any different. But I am an adult and never had a counsellor, teacher or other adult preaching to me that homosexuality is acceptable. I made the choice to treat them as equals based on the way I was raised to treat all people.My folks were even a little predjudiced to other races and they‘re folks even more so but we are evolving and it is not because of legislation that we are.As we work, play and drink with each other we learn tolerance and the walls of hatred,fear and discrimination fall away.I even watch the odd episode of Will and Grace from time to time.
But when I see the behavior of the gay community at their parades in public places I often ask myself would heterosexuals carry on in this manner? Bills like this only encourage more of this behavior and send the wrong message out to teens.
we don‘t need to be tying up the government with ridiculious matters as this with all the other pressing issues such as healthcare, defense and education.
That‘s just my opinion.


----------



## girlfiredup (25 May 2004)

Interesting read...what the bible says about homosexuality:

 http://www.bible.com/answers/ahomosex.html


----------



## willy (25 May 2004)

The Bible is irrelevant.  How would those of you who make religious arguments against homosexuality feel if a Taliban style government were to come to power in Canada and proclaim Shari`ah?  We shouldn‘t make law based on the moralistic preaching of any particular group.

I‘m not a homosexual.  I‘m also not a Christian, nor do I belong to any other religious denomination.  Why should I care if two homosexuals want to get married any more than I care whether or not Christians want to go to church?  Neither affects me, so neither is any of my business.


----------



## atticus (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by willy:
> [qb] The Bible is irrelevant.  How would those of you who make religious arguments against homosexuality feel if a Taliban style government were to come to power in Canada and proclaim Shari`ah?  We shouldn‘t make law based on the moralistic preaching of any particular group. [/qb]


Why is it up to you to say that the bible is irrelevant? I don‘t recall Christians reading it and then going and blowing themselves up or saying that you cannot follow another faith or even have no faith at all? And we shouldn‘t make law based on the moralistic preaching of any particular group? Then why would we make a law based on the preaching of homosexuals?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (25 May 2004)

*Cough*...crusades...*cough*

also, as with any other large religion, there are sects in Christianity which resort to extreme acts to promote their views.


----------



## willy (25 May 2004)

1.  The bible is irrelevant because it has no bearing on this situation at all.  So what if it says that homosexuality is wrong?  We, in Canada, don‘t base our laws on the bible and what it says.  My point about the Taliban style government was meant to make you think about how you would feel in a situation where a government started making all manner of proclaimations based on religious criteria that you didn‘t agree with.  Obviously, you missed that.

2.  We wouldn‘t be making law based on their moralistic preaching.  We‘d be making it based on the fact that the moralistic preaching of OTHERS is no reason to deny them the right to marry.  

The marriage of two homosexuals would have no effect on your life.  None.  On the other hand, what you are asking for is to be able to have an effect on theirs.  That is unreasonable.


----------



## 48Highlander (25 May 2004)

Atticus:  "Biblethumpers" doesn‘t include all "christians, jews, etc".  Just the militant ones, and the ones who decide to base all their opinions on what the bible has to say.  Most Christans understand that the bible isn‘t the direct word of God, and form their own opinions and morals based on their interpretation of the bible and their own life experiences.  Others (the bible thumpers) decide to march around yelling "God hates fags".  I have nothing against any religion, but I do dislike people who use the bible as an explanation for the majority of their beleifs.

Burce:  You don‘t want to beleive me, that‘s your prerogative.

Shortbus:  Nobody‘s flaming your beleifs.  Should a church here be allowed to preach that all Americans are infidels though?  You want to beleive that homosexuality is wrong, you‘re entitled to do that, just like you‘re allowed to beleive that blacks are a lower form of life, and that the Aryan people will one day rule the world.  Just don‘t make public statements about it, or you‘ll end up in jail.

Rick:  You‘ll notice that only female teens put down that they‘re bisexual.  That trend is easy to understand.  Most men love the idea of having two or more females at once.  Therefore, females who claim to be bisexual are immediately more appealing.  So in addition to putting on makeup and screwing around with their hair for hours in order to impress guys, todays female teen also claims to be bisexual.  A lot of them are, or will eventually be, and some aren‘t.

And Atticus for the second time:  The Oklahoma bomber was a christian if I remember correctly.  There have also been multiple killings of abortion-doctors by Christians.  The only difference between Muslim fanatics and Christian fanatics is that the Christian variety doesn‘t want to die while killing others.  And nobody‘s yet made a law based on the preaching of homosexuals.  If you think I‘m wrong, please point out one.


----------



## muskrat89 (25 May 2004)

We are never going to solve the gay marriage issue here, nor are you going to convince the "other side" to adopt your point of view. If we could focus the discussion on the hate speech law (see beginning of thread) that would be dandy.....


----------



## loyalcana (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] it all has to do with activist judges and politicians who think they know better than its citizens.....go figure.
> 
> By the way, why were "same sex" marriages not legal in the 17, 18, 19, 0r 20th century in Canada?  Descrimination my ***, its stupid! [/qb]


So what some laws go out of date anybody want the law that requires automobile drivers when approaching a horse-drawn carriage to drive to the side of the road, dismantle the automobile and cover with canvass sheet to avoid scaring the horses. Or perhaps you want "a seperate but equal school system". As long as society changes the laws have to change with it.


----------



## atticus (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by 48Highlander:
> [qb] Atticus:  "Biblethumpers" doesn‘t include all "christians, jews, etc".  Just the militant ones, and the ones who decide to base all their opinions on what the bible has to say.  Most Christans understand that the bible isn‘t the direct word of God, and form their own opinions and morals based on their interpretation of the bible and their own life experiences.  Others (the bible thumpers) decide to march around yelling "God hates fags".  I have nothing against any religion, but I do dislike people who use the bible as an explanation for the majority of their beleifs. [/qb]


Where I grew up biblethumper is a term used to put Christians down that simply just believe in the bible. Including the people that try to push their faith on others and the ones that keep to themselves.




> Originally posted by 48Highlander:
> [qb] And Atticus for the second time:  The Oklahoma bomber was a christian if I remember correctly.  There have also been multiple killings of abortion-doctors by Christians.  The only difference between Muslim fanatics and Christian fanatics is that the Christian variety doesn‘t want to die while killing others.  And nobody‘s yet made a law based on the preaching of homosexuals.  If you think I‘m wrong, please point out one. [/qb]


Sorry, I meant by the preaching of homosexuals would be how they go into highschools and talk to already messed up kids giving them even more to deal with, and by how some (not all) are trying to pass laws like this ristricting freedom of speech. And I know for a fact that elementary school children in B.C. have to read books about homosexuals, about what they are and what they do. Also some people just use their beliefs to justify killing other people. Just like 9/11, the oklahoma bomber and abortion-doctor killers. I know for a fact that murder is wrong and these people are just twisting their beliefs so they don‘t feel guilty afterwards.


----------



## nbk (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by willy:
> [qb] The Bible is irrelevant.  How would those of you who make religious arguments against homosexuality feel if a Taliban style government were to come to power in Canada and proclaim Shari`ah?  We shouldn‘t make law based on the moralistic preaching of any particular group.
> 
> I‘m not a homosexual.  I‘m also not a Christian, nor do I belong to any other religious denomination.  Why should I care if two homosexuals want to get married any more than I care whether or not Christians want to go to church?  Neither affects me, so neither is any of my business. [/qb]


You are right on. Thank you. I was reading over this thread and thought the entire Canadian military had gone insane, until I had gone to your point.

The fact is I still have yet to hear a single solitary argument for having homosexual marriages illegal. Other then "we dont like them and we want to restrict their freedom, and treat them like second class citizens".

I wonder how many people knew homosexuals could not get married to eachother before this issue came up? I sure didn‘t, as it makes no sense. In a supposedly free country like Canada it seems completely backwards to deny people the right to get married, based on their sexuality, race, or anything of the sort.

Listen to this carefully: If it does not hurt anyone, and does not effect you at all, the only way you could condemn it, is if you have unfounded prejudice against it. This makes you a bigot.



> Main Entry: big ·ot
> Pronunciation: ‘bi-g&t
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
> : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


The government should not and cannot support bigorty in a free nation such as Canada. You cannot claim that allowing gay marriage is discriminatory against your religion, because no one is forcing anyone to get in a gay marriage, the option is there for people who want it. If straight marriage was banned, there would be no debate that that would be discriminatory towards heterosexuals. So same goes for homosexuals like it or not. Suck it up and accept it.

Be religious if you choose, be happy that you live in a free country where you are allowed to be religious. But do not for one single second think that your bible or koran or anything applies to anyone else in the country in the slightest. They are your own personal religious beliefs, not one single others. Believe in what you want, but when it comes to the real world, realize we are not in some fairytale fantasyland with gods and wizards and jesuses and dragons and angels, we are in the real world, and your beliefs must be seperated from reality when it comes to things like laws and acceptance of others.

The government is ideally a secular institution, as they need to govern this place which exists in reality. Their policies should reflect that, and not be caught up in fantasy matters.

To the religious people: put yourselves in the homosexuals fabulous looking shoes for a moment. Canada is a hardline Athiest country. The only way to get married is by the government since priests are outlawed. You religious people want the ability to get married in churches by priests, and the government introduces a bill and if it is past then you may be able to.

Then a bunch of people come around and start campaigning to prevent you from being able to get married in a church by a priest. The way in which you want to get married will not effect them at all, yet they still want to prevent you guys from doing it. 

"We dont care one way or another if they are religious, but our society cannot allow them to get married by priests. It is an affront to our nation and our ideals and morals. If they get married in churches then what will happen to the kids? They will get brought up with the same morals as the parents. Do you want a bunch of religious people taking over your schools and influincing your children to worship some naked guy on a cross? It starts with christians, but soon they will let muslims, hindus, satanists, scientologists and any number of whacko religious death cults get married and spread their disgusting ideals. We need to protect our children and our families, so we must prevent the religious people from getting married to eachother by priests."

Like it or not, gay marriage will become accepted, just as interracial marriage did. Peope will either adapt and accept or remain stubborn and die off. Its evolution, those that adapt to changes survive, and those who dont will die off.


----------



## nbk (25 May 2004)

One more thing. I cannot think of one single girl that I have ever met since junior high who was not very openly bisexual. Almost all the guys I know, save a few fascists who just "tolerate" are quite openly bisexual as well.

Most people are bisexual. If you think about it, there is no reason not to be bisexual. If you only like boys or only like girls, you are cutting off 50% of the entire population that you may have a meaningful, loving relationship with. 

Personally I‘ve never met a guy who I could see having any sort of romance with, but if someone came along I would not deny them just on the basis that they were a guy. Doing that would just be pertty stupid. If you like a person, you like them, who cares what the specifics are.


----------



## ZipperHead (25 May 2004)

I‘m not going to make any profound comments here, other than one of the only people posting comments here that makes any amount of sense is NBK. 

People need to save their hatred for things that affect them personally, like say a pedophile or a rapist. If it doesn‘t affect you, like a rapist or a pedophile might, let it be. Homosexuals aren‘t out to "convert" adults, or children for that matter, to their way. As for them raising children, which because of biology they can‘t have their own, much like quite a few heterosexual couples, let them adopt children and raise them in a loving, caring environment. Believe it or not, people are born gay, they don‘t become gay (well, that‘s my take on the situation... I‘m sure somebody will "straighten" me out on this (couldn‘t resist the pun)). 

The issue of hate literature, and the government judging what constitutes it, is to protect people, even if they are in the minority (especially if they are in the minority, I suppose). If the bible is judged to be hate literature, so be it, and maybe people should examine their beliefs. The Bible was written a long time ago, and many of the concepts in it are outmoded, and as many people have pointed out, we do have a separation of church and state (thank, er, god) in Canada. 

I am not religious, but that doesn‘t make me a heathen. I think that I have based a good deal of my morals on Christian beliefs, but also on other beliefs as well, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. I don‘t see why people feel that they have to stick to one "brand" of religion or philosophical outlook, or that one is any better than another. Most religions worship the same god, or concept of god, so what makes one way better or worse.

One of Canada‘s saving graces is it‘s tolerance for many different types of beliefs, and the (general) attitude of live and let live. I think we are influenced too much by our neighbours to the South, and their televangelical ways. I think most Canadians show their faith the way they show their patriotism: quietly (usually, except for those beer commercials) and without preaching. I think the last thing we need to do is start telling people what to think, who to worship, and whom we can and cannot love.

Hate is hate, and is usually based on ignorance and prejudice. Allowing hate literature, in any form, means that we can let our children (whom we have to teach right and wrong) think that is OK to hate people, just because it is black and white, and the government endorses it. Nobody is telling you what to think, just that you can‘t say hateful things because they are in a book, be it the bible or a newspaper.

There, I‘ve had my say.

Have a good one,

Al


----------



## atticus (25 May 2004)

> Originally posted by nbk:
> [qb] One more thing. I cannot think of one single girl that I have ever met since junior high who was not very openly bisexual. Almost all the guys I know, save a few fascists who just "tolerate" are quite openly bisexual as well.
> 
> Most people are bisexual. If you think about it, there is no reason not to be bisexual. If you only like boys or only like girls, you are cutting off 50% of the entire population that you may have a meaningful, loving relationship with.
> [/qb]


I‘m sorry, that just makes no sense. Are you saying every girl you met is openly bisexual? And that most guys you know are openly bisexual?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (25 May 2004)

> (well, that‘s my take on the situation... I‘m sure somebody will "straighten" me out on this (couldn‘t resist the pun)).


No, you have it right there, Sergeant.  I learned in my psychology courses that although it still isn‘t 100%, there have been biological links made to homosexuality, proving that it is not merely a lifestyle choice.  

If its not their choice, let them do what they want, since they probably have no alternative.


----------



## nbk (26 May 2004)

> I‘m sorry, that just makes no sense. Are you saying every girl you met is openly bisexual? And that most guys you know are openly bisexual?


Yes I apologize for not being clear. All of my friends who are girls, and all of the girls who I have known since about junior high (when they first start to take intrest in sexuality) have been pretty openly bisexual. Some of the guys I know are more bashful and maybe not that mature, but most of my male friends are also bisexual. 

But for girls I know it to be certain, because it seems all the girls I know have had girlfriends or just fooled around with their friends. Girlfriends that I have had, have all been with other girls before me and sometimes still fooled around with other girls while I was dating them, which I didn‘t mind too much. And this is hardly just me, people I talk to on the internet and soforth are all the same. It is just the maturity level that people have nowadays. People are more open about their sexuality, much more easygoing, and concerned about enjoying life, and not denying themselves enjoyment for arbitrary reasons (people‘s gender).


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 May 2004)

Three cheers for the toronto love parades.

Speaking of open sexuality, have you seen the latest reality TV show to come out? 
Its about husbands and wives swapping patners. (meaning their kids are going balastic). Real smart. There comes a point where people are too open. Reminds me of a good quote i heard.

‘Careful your not too open minded or your brains will fall out‘


----------



## 48Highlander (26 May 2004)

NBK, I find that kinda hard to beleive.  Maybe things are different in Europe than they are here, but to that extent.....are you sure you don‘t live in a gay neighbourhood?

Anyway, sex is all about "arbitrary reasons", otherwise you‘d have sex with every male, female, or animal that walked by.  Personaly, I like to have a set of standards.  I don‘t especially want to have sex with someone who weighs 300lbs or looks like their face caught fire and was subsequently extinguished with a shovel.  Similarily, I don‘t want to have sex with men.  Different people like different things.  Sex without any limitations or standards is too easy and rather pointless.


----------



## K. Ash (26 May 2004)

I agree with what Allan said. If a person is gay and wants to marry another gay person, fine that‘s their buisness I, the government, the church, or anyone else for that matter has absolutely no right to interfere. 

With that said, I don‘t see the need for gay parades and the like. 

Oh yea, NbK what part of Europe did you say you were from?


----------



## nbk (26 May 2004)

Haha well I‘m from Germany but the girls here are just as open as the girls back home. Its the men who are a little less mature over here and a little more uptight about things like that. Maybe it is a big city thing, since I lived in a big city in Germany and a big city here (Toronto). I don‘t really know how people are in little towns. 

Usually its just something that comes up in conversation, for example if you are chatting up a girl at a bar and ask her if she has a boyfriend, follow it up right away with "or a girlfriend?" and they will usually give a chuckle and say "nothing too serious" or something. Or when you talk about past relationships, usually they are pretty open about talking about when they fooled around with their girlfriends.

I thought up another thing as well. What if you really liked a girl but she had some difference that is not "socially desierable" or that you are not used to liking? What if you really liked a girl who was a little chubby, where you usually always only liked skinny girls? What if you fancied a burnette when you convinced yourself that you only go for blondes? Should you ignore your feelings for them just because they do not have a charicteristc that you have became accustomed to desiring? What if you met a really lovely Asian girl, even though you only think of yourslf dating white chicks? Some people may see gender as a more significant factor than hair colour or whatever, but is it really? They are all still people. If you fancy them, you fancy them. Just have fun.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 May 2004)

You‘re from Toronto?  Do you by any chance live near Church and Alexander?     Because that‘d certainly explain your experiences....


----------



## rdschultz (26 May 2004)

I‘m going to call bullshit on NBK too.  First its every girl you‘ve met, then its all of your friends that are girls.  While your circle of friends might be a little more curious about their sexuality, you‘re stretching the truth when you claim that most people are bisexual.  Without proof to back that up, it is a claim that cannot be made in good conscious.  

The simple truth is that most people are heterosexual.  Most people aren‘t bisexual.  Whether you or your friends are, that has no real bearing on this.  I see guys and girls holding hands, kissing, or dating all the time, and very rarely do I see two guys or two girls doing the same things.  Unless its a massive coverup by most people in the world, this is pretty strong evidence.  

The only way your claim could possibly work is if you choose to redefine bisexual, at which point this becomes an argument of semantics.  If someone who is bisexual is simply someone who feels an attraction to both sexes, then thats one thing.  But its incredibly hard, if not impossible, to quantify attraction.  As well, for that to be true, it would require that most people suppress their feeling of attraction on a regular basis.  A bisexual is strictly limited, in my opinion at least, to someone who actively pursues or engages in sexual relationships with both sexes.


----------



## ZipperHead (26 May 2004)

Hoser rd, I suspect your worldview is limited to Saskatoon, which isn‘t exactly the most cosmopolitan of cities. I am not exactly a jet setter, but I have travelled somewhat whilst in the Army (mostly on leave and such). Cultural differences between Canada and other parts of the world dictate what is "normal" here. For example, in some parts of the world it is normal for men to kiss each other on the cheek, and that doesn‘t mean they love each other (in the sexual way). In the Middle East, men hold hands out of custom, not romance. 

People need to realize that our white-bread ways in Canada are only one of many ways, and what is normal??? Alexander the Great was purported to be gay because that was the "stylish" thing to be in his time. So was he bi-sexual, or homosexual? Who cares, I suppose, as he did a lot of ***-kicking in his day, and I don‘t suppose any of the tough guys frequenting this forum would‘ve survived calling him Nancy Boy. People seem to get pretty worked up when they find out someone is gay, but if the person is someone they "like" they seem to forgive that fact. I always seemed to think there was something "funny" (lotsa leather....) about Rob Halford of Judas Priest, and then heard rumours that he was gay, and it made sense, but some people I know went into heavy denial, because he can‘t be gay, "‘cause Judas Priest kicks ***, dude!!!!".  Sort of like the SHARP video, where the guys says "He can‘t be gay, he‘s Native!!"

Anyway, I think the reason so many people are vehemently homophobic is that because they are afraid that they might actually enjoy a homosexual experience. And really, how can you know that you aren‘t gay unless you‘ve had a homosexual experience and didn‘t enjoy it? Did you know that you didn‘t like liver or brussel sprouts until you ate them? For the record, I don‘t know if I‘m homosexual..... (save your "flames").

And that‘s what I got to say about that...

Al


----------



## 1feral1 (26 May 2004)

Allan:

I think Saskatoon is a good representive of a slice of real Canada, as is any city overall in the country, and saying otherwise is just plain ignorance. 

Saskatoon is the largest city in Saskatchewan, with a population well exceeding 220,000. The same TV programs, websites, movies, magazines, and the rest of it, influence people in Saskatoon as they do in TO or Vancouver. So, I find your comment pisss weak.

You want tolerance? Remember, I am originally from rural Saskatchewan. Try coming to Sydney, where there are entire suburbs that are gay, and I mean entire suburbs, not just a small area. 

Sydney‘s population is over 4.1 million with over 800 suburbs, and the population grows at over 1000 per week. Like Canada, the mainsteam population base of Australians in maily NW Eurpoean, but certain sectors of the metro area are divided not only by sexuality, but ethnic groups, so whilst travelling thru, one gets a mosaic experience. Some pleasant, some not.

I am totally a straight bloke, happily living in sin, 44 yrs old, been around, well travelled, and I have seen it all.

One of my first eye openers here was down on Oxford St, Darlinghurst, in inner Sydney, one hot January night, while witnessing two of the most intense totally flamboyant gay men dressed in short-shorts, singlets, having the biggest pash (French kiss)whilst on a street corner waiting for the light to change. 

My GF noticed the disgust on my face and said "welcome to Sydney, get used to it". She was not wrong! 

Thats now going on 10 yrs ago, and I have long accepted that people are people, and what they do is their business, and as long as everyone happy, I don‘t really care, just don‘t flaunt it in front of me or touch me.

Personally I do not approve of this lifestyle, but what people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business. Allthough I accept this behaviour, I do not approve of gay marriage, because I consider that lifestyle abnormal, but thats my choice. I do not openly condem them for how they live, and as I said, if they‘re happy, so what.

As for Poofs in the ADF, we have one in the regiment, yes a SNCO (a regimental band member)at that. 

He recently approached one of the Diggers, off duty at a local pub, telling him he loved giving oral sex, and when the Digger said "NO WAY", he even gave him his business card, saying "if you ever change your mind, give me a call". The rumours ran wild within the Bty, and that SNCO now is looked upon without respect, and the lads do not have much time for him.

Although when I found out about this, and after a good long laugh, I think it was in bad taste (no pun intended) that a gay SNCO would prey on a young straight digger. It was wrong, and the SNCO was way out of line, but on the other hand how many straight SNCOs have asked a female soildier the for a date? Any behaviour involved frat, to me is is unprofessional, and damages the chain of command, and damages morale. We all know that.

Anyways my 2c.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## K. Ash (26 May 2004)

Allan,

I get your point and I know what your trying to say. But, I‘ve never had a homosexual experience and I KNOW I‘m not gay. 

So please don‘t go using the brussel sprouts and liver analogy, please...


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2004)

yawn....

STAT


----------



## atticus (27 May 2004)

Wes, I totally agree with you but what the heck is a digger? Is that the same as a sapper but in the ADF?


----------



## 1feral1 (27 May 2004)

Digger = Private.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## rdschultz (27 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Allan Luomala:
> Hoser rd, I suspect your worldview is limited to Saskatoon, which isn‘t exactly the most cosmopolitan of cities.


Agreed, it isn‘t the most cosmopolitan of cities.  Far from it.  And while I‘ve done my growing up in Western Canada (Alberta, to be specific, I only moved to Saskatoon a year ago), you‘d be wrong in asserting my worldview is limited to what I see here.  




> I am not exactly a jet setter, but I have travelled somewhat whilst in the Army (mostly on leave and such). Cultural differences between Canada and other parts of the world dictate what is "normal" here. For example, in some parts of the world it is normal for men to kiss each other on the cheek, and that doesn‘t mean they love each other (in the sexual way). In the Middle East, men hold hands out of custom, not romance.


Ok, perhaps I used that statement a little haphazardly.  The point I was impressing was that in every day life, its normal to see public displays of affection between men and women, and much rarer to see the same displays between same-sex couples.  I‘ve got no more a problem seeing gay couples showing affection than I do straight couples.  Its just that its much more common to see straight couples doing so.  While Canada might not be representative of the world, you‘ll note that this topic title specifies Canada, and we‘re on a Canadian army forum.  Its no doubt going to dominate the discussion. 



> People need to realize that our white-bread ways in Canada are only one of many ways, and what is normal??? Alexander the Great was purported to be gay because that was the "stylish" thing to be in his time. So was he bi-sexual, or homosexual? Who cares, I suppose, as he did a lot of ***-kicking in his day, and I don‘t suppose any of the tough guys frequenting this forum would‘ve survived calling him Nancy Boy. People seem to get pretty worked up when they find out someone is gay, but if the person is someone they "like" they seem to forgive that fact. I always seemed to think there was something "funny" (lotsa leather....) about Rob Halford of Judas Priest, and then heard rumours that he was gay, and it made sense, but some people I know went into heavy denial, because he can‘t be gay, "‘cause Judas Priest kicks ***, dude!!!!".  Sort of like the SHARP video, where the guys says "He can‘t be gay, he‘s Native!!"


You‘re assuming here, or reading too far into what I‘m saying.  I don‘t care if someone is gay any more than I can if they‘re straight (unless that someone is a attractive single female).  I hate to pull out the "I‘ve got friends" argument, but it fits.  I‘ve known a good number of gay or bisexual people throughout my life and I consider many of them friends.  I‘m one of the people who honestly doesn‘t care.  Its not my place to judge someone else, so I quite simply don‘t.  

The only complaint I had was that I don‘t NBK had a correct statement in that "most people are bisexual".  Unless most people are closet bisexuals (or non-practicing, as that would generally work out), it isn‘t true.  Unless you‘ve got some real evidence to the contrary, such a statement defies common sense and logic.  



> Anyway, I think the reason so many people are vehemently homophobic is that because they are afraid that they might actually enjoy a homosexual experience. And really, how can you know that you aren‘t gay unless you‘ve had a homosexual experience and didn‘t enjoy it? Did you know that you didn‘t like liver or brussel sprouts until you ate them? For the record, I don‘t know if I‘m homosexual..... (save your "flames").


Again, I‘m not homophobic.  Obviously my saying that doesn‘t make it so, but you‘ll have to take my word for it.

As for your brussel sprouts analogy, I think thats a tad bit of an oversimplification.  I‘ve never had a homosexual experience, but I‘ve never had the inclination to have one either. I‘ve also never eaten raw liver (raw simply because I‘ve eaten cooked liver, so I can‘t really say that), nor had the desire to try it.  For that reason, I think I can safely call myself a non-raw-liver-eater.  

Science has yet to tell us what the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is, so the best we can do is speculate.  I don‘t see a neuroscience degree up on my wall, so I‘ll refrain from such speculations.


----------



## Rick_Donald (27 May 2004)

So there are alot of homosexuals and bisexuals out there. So there was in Rome and Greece prior to those great empires falling.


----------



## Gunnar (27 May 2004)

To get back to the original topic....

Why shouldn‘t hate speech be legal?  Why shouldn‘t I be able to discriminate against people who are "bleen"?

Think about it.  Freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, property rights to do what I want with MY money and property.

Now, when it comes to breaking the law, i.e., committing acts of violence, harrassment etc., that‘s right out...because then you are violating real individual rights.  Government should be totally neutral on that issue...violate rights, receive the statutory punishment.  But freedom of speech involves freedom of ideas....and you don‘t really have freedom of speech unless you are free to express it.

At the risk of invoking Godwin‘s law, Nazi Germany had hate speech laws too....anybody who said "Jews are of positive benefit to the culture of Berlin, and have brought us ethnic foods, culture and traditions from other nations and the past" would likely be considered to be anti-Aryan, and carted off to prison.  That‘s because NG had accepted the idea that the government had the right to legislate speech in the first place.  Free speech needs to be FREE, first and foremost.

Carrying this into the whole gay discussion, the logical extension would be:  "go ahead, be gay.  But don‘t have Pride Days or anything....you‘re anti-hetero".  How about we just leave them the **** alone, and let them believe, say and live as they choose, provided they aren‘t actively trying to kill us & etc.

Would you rather have people accept your belief system because they understand where you‘re coming from and actually agree, or would you rather have people accept it because they‘re too dumb, or sheltered (thanks to censorship) to know otherwise?  Isn‘t it better that someone know that racist/homophobic arguments are bullshit rather than think there might be something to them because they‘re not allowed to hear them?

"The Government is suppressing the truth!" is the cry of every censored whacko.  But you‘ve read web sites where some fool goes on a rant...eventually you can see what a whack-job he is, and you don‘t need to refute everything he‘s said.  So let them talk.  Let them live as they wish, within the bounds of a common respect for the individual rights of everyone...because if you object to the laws you live under, you are free to attempt to change them, or move somewhere where they don‘t apply.  

Civilization is all about living under common rules, like no murder.  If you can‘t accept those rules, then as long as you attempt to remain in that society, society will attempt to protect itself by excluding you, i.e., prison.  Problem is that the anti-bleen factions want their version of society to be based on more than the objective "bare minimums" of individual rights, and keep trying to invent more....like the right to a job (paid for by the racist owner who doesn‘t want to employ a bleen), the right to not see men kissing in public (at the expense of these people‘s right to expression, pursuit of happiness, etc.).

Abe Lincoln said "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".  Similarly, your right (as a man) to kiss men on the mouth ends where MY mouth begins, but beyond that, it isn‘t my problem.  I may not like seeing it, but it isn‘t going to predjudice me against you as a person.  You have every right to believe that bleens are a blight on society, and that they should be hunted and killed at every opportunity...but if you try it in OUR society, a society based on respect for individual rights, we‘ll take you out.

Problem we have now is that a small clique of judges and politically correct types think they have the right to re-write our rules along the lines of how THEY think things ought to run, instead of following the KYFHO principles of leaving us alone...for our own good.  The paternalistic state.  To the extent that they do that, they no longer represent Society, and we have the right to take THEM out, using legal means on which we DO agree.  There‘s an election going on.  Vote!


----------



## nbk (27 May 2004)

> Originally posted by hoser rd:
> [qb]
> 
> The only way your claim could possibly work is if you choose to redefine bisexual, at which point this becomes an argument of semantics.  If someone who is bisexual is simply someone who feels an attraction to both sexes, then thats one thing.  But its incredibly hard, if not impossible, to quantify attraction.  As well, for that to be true, it would require that most people suppress their feeling of attraction on a regular basis.  A bisexual is strictly limited, in my opinion at least, to someone who actively pursues or engages in sexual relationships with both sexes. [/qb]


Well that is another place where we differ. By bisexual I do mean people who can be attracted to both sexes, not perticularly sleeping with everyone they see.

If you only like girls but are a virgin, does that mean you are not heterosexual?

I honestly do not know any girls who are not attracted to other girls as much as they are to guys. I don‘t know how else to put it.

I can‘t really prove anything I have said about my friends, and I dont really care enough to think up a way, so let me just say to you, look in your own life and ask yourself: have you ever really known any girls who are not attracted to other girls or fooled around with their female friends?

Believe me or don‘t believe me, it wont matter much to either of us. But if you really knew your friends then maybe you would not be so quick to dismiss what I said.


----------



## rdschultz (27 May 2004)

Ok.  Well, thats a little different then.  Your take seems to be more of a "everybody has the potential to be a bisexual, so they are one".  Attraction and sexual orientation are two totally different things.  I‘m very much attracted to porsche 911‘s, but I‘ve never had the inclination to bugger one.  Not all attractions are sexual, so your definition leaves much to be desired.

As for the virgin, I think my definition covers that.  Like I said, a bisexual in my opinion is someone who actively pursues or engages in.  If you‘ve got a virgin who doesn‘t pursue sexual relationships, then I guess you‘re right.  They kind of aren‘t a heterosexual.  I guess there are varying reasons for why someone might not pursue sexual relationships, so this isn‘t a perfect example.  You‘ve still got underlying sexual attraction issues which are hard to explicitly nail down.  



> I can‘t really prove anything I have said about my friends, and I dont really care enough to think up a way, so let me just say to you, look in your own life and ask yourself: have you ever really known any girls who are not attracted to other girls or fooled around with their female friends?


What your friends do and don‘t do, again, isn‘t an issue.  I never asked you prove anything about your friends.  The problem I had was that you said "most people", and use only your friends as the example, when there is much evidence to the contrary.  And have I ever known girls who are not attracted to other girls?  As I‘ve stated, attraction can‘t be quantified, and that doesn‘t automatically determine if one is bisexual.  Have I known girls who haven‘t fooled around with other girls?  As much as I‘d like to pretend or fantasize otherwise, I have met girls/women who have expressed they have no inclination or experience fooling around with other girls.  I don‘t have the experience of walking around with a girls brain on my shoulders, so I can‘t pretend to feel the feelings that a girl feels.  



> Believe me or don‘t believe me, it wont matter much to either of us.


Believe you or don‘t believe you?  I never said anything about not believing about your friends or anything otherwise.  I just don‘t think "most people are bisexual".  This is not a belief issue.  



> But if you really knew your friends then maybe you would not be so quick to dismiss what I said.


Umm, I‘m pretty sure you have absolutely no knowledge about me or my friends, so this is a real stretch of a point.  I never claimed to know anything about your friends, so please refrain from pretending to know about mine.  The only relevant topic here should be society in general.  

This has turned into a semantics debate anyways, so I‘m just about done.  Obviously we disagree about the meaning of bisexual.  I don‘t think its fair to say everybody is bisexual, just because the potential is there, or the attraction is there.  By that logic, everybody who‘s ever thought a kid was cute is a pedophile (And using Allan Luomala‘s logic, we won‘t know until we try it.).   And please don‘t anybody pretend I was comparing bisexuals or homosexuals to pedophiles, I‘m just extending the logical method to an extreme to show its fallacious reasoning.   

Obviously we‘re going to end up agreeing to disagree, so I‘ll probably leave it at that.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 May 2004)

Today the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard will pass a law that all homosexual marriages in Australia will be illegal, and all overseas homosexual marriages will be not recognised, plus all adoptions of children by Australian homosexuals made overseas will also not be allowed.

So there ya go.

Try www.news.com.au or www.dailytelegraph.com.au for more info.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 May 2004)

Hoser RD,
"I‘m much attracted to Porsche 911‘s, but I‘ve never had the inclination to bugger one."
PRICELESS!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 May 2004)

Double post


----------



## ZipperHead (27 May 2004)

The reason I used the not knowing if you are homosexual until you‘ve tried it example, is because when I first heard it, I thought it was brilliant. I was teaching on a SQ course in WATC, and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and some young guy made the de rigeur comment along the lines of "Oh I hate fags!!!". One of the MCpl‘s asked the guy: "So, you didn‘t enjoy your homosexual experience?". To which the young guy waffled and stammered that he never had one. And then the MCpl said, "How would you know you‘re not gay unless.........". I thought it was great because it catches people off guard, and makes them defend themselves and possibly question their own sexuality. 

As for the comment that we don‘t see gays displaying a lot of affection in public (a la holding hands, kissing, etc), it wasn‘t that long ago that inter-racial relationships were frowned upon, and some people even thought it was disgusting (and some still do, alas...). The only reason it isn‘t common is because people aren‘t accepting of it, and in White-bread Canada people aren‘t ready for it. In some places "gay bashing" is a real threat, and I suspect that most people would prefer not to get their *** kicked by a group of Neanderthals because they wanted to show some affection. I grew up in Campbell River, BC (population roughly 25000 when I grew up there) and I distictly remember the kafuffle when some of my classmates saw (horrors!!!!) two gay men holding hands in the movie theatre. So I know what it‘s like to live in a small town, and what small town attitudes are like.

I doubt anybody is going to change their opinion about any of this, but I suspect that some people might do some thinking, and question what they were "learned", and maybe, just maybe, might start thinking for themselves instead of what they are "told" to think. A mind and a parachute are alike..... they both must be open to function properly.

Al


----------



## 1feral1 (27 May 2004)

Come here and its in your face. Holding hands, kissing, and tonnes of public affection from gay men and women, but again its in their suburbs. I cant see them doing that in Red Deer, Alta or Kirkland Lake, Ont.

I personally find the entire behaviour disgusting, but I accept it as some people are always going to be that way inclined. I cant change that, its none of my business.

In fact here in Australia gay bashing is not all that common, as people seem to be more accepting here.

Thats just how it is.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## ZipperHead (27 May 2004)

That was my point. It has become common, almost to the point of "normal". I‘m not a big fan of seeing young (straight) people making out in front of me and my family when I‘m at the mall, so it doesn‘t really matter whether it‘s gay or straight people, there should be some decorum and restraint shown. I think hand holding or hugging is OK (again, in some cultures same sex hand holding and hugging is "normal") so that‘s where people should just live and let live, and really just mind their own business.

Al


----------



## 1feral1 (27 May 2004)

Public affection between a man and a woman is a perfectly normal thing. The same between two gay people is totally abnormal, but its a lifestyle which is more accepted now than it was before. 

We can never stop it, its just how some people are. Is it genetic or by choice? Its most likely a bit of both. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## ZipperHead (27 May 2004)

Wesley, I think you are dating yourself a bit (the Archie Bunker is coming out in you        ). 

What is "normal"??? You say it‘s abnormal, but by your own admission, it happens all the time in Sydney. So, wouldn‘t that be normal, or at the least, not abnormal. Abnormal would be bears ice skating, but I did see a bear that was trained to do that (the bear probably didn‘t like it much.....). 

I think what you are trying to get at is that you don‘t like it, and it makes you uncomfortable. Nobody is asking you to like it, or be comfortable with it. I don‘t like seeing those gay pride parades with the transvestites/drag queens prancing around, mainly because it plays into the stereotype. Nobody forces anybody to watch them, the same as nobody is forced to watch troops march through downtown Edmonton, Washington, Berlin, etc. We always had people (in Edmonton) whinging about how military parades glorify war, and they should be banned. Let them think it. I think a lot of good men died so that people are free to voice their opinions, no matter how misguided they may be.

Take care,

Al


----------



## 1feral1 (28 May 2004)

If its considered normal, why is not legal for gays to marry? Listen here mate, I have my opinion, and you have yours.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## girlfiredup (28 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Wesley H. Allen, CD:
> [qb] Today the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard will pass a law that all homosexual marriages in Australia will be illegal, and all overseas homosexual marriages will be not recognised, plus all adoptions of children by Australian homosexuals made overseas will also not be allowed.
> 
> So there ya go.
> ...


Wow, someone with a brain.  Maybe we could get this guy to run for PM here.  Does he also support funding the military?  Then again, that might be too much to ask.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2004)

> I think a lot of good men died so that people are free to voice their opinions, no matter how misguided they may be.


I would guess there are quite a few homosexuals burried on the beaches of normandy.

I disagree however that it‘s not being forced down our throats. You can‘t turn on the TV with out seeing a sitcom without a token homosexual. 18 year old girls making out on music videos.Some trash talk show about trailerpark trash leaving her boyfriend for another woman only to flip out when she finds him sleeping with another man. Even the oprah show has shows on secret homosexual societies and meeting places. Go to bars and straight girls are humping each other all over the place because it‘s the cool thing to do.  Woe to anyone who states they don‘t like homosexuals, your automatically a bigot who isn‘t with the new times.

Trying to lump a military parade with a gay pride parade is a little off the mark. It‘s unfortinuate more people would probably ***** about the military parade too.


----------



## CDNsig (24 Jun 2004)

I wonder if everyone will be so happy when all these same sex couples start demanding all the tax deductions, benefits, and government services heterosexual couples receive, not to mention the bureaucracy that will probably go with it. After all, someone will have to foot the bill...


----------



## Gunnar (24 Jun 2004)

Shouldn't cost all that much.  Benefits for equivalent to married?  Not a big deal.  Already factored into most deductions.  Insurance?  Same thing, they already have spouse plans.  Financially, it doesn't matter all that much, as long as I'm not paying.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2004)

..and then there's Bob and Tom's theory that first of all it would be good for the economy as they would spend lavish amounts on the weddings, etc.[its not like they need to save it for THIER kids education] and second of all why shouldn't we spread the misery around? ;D


----------



## ZipperHead (24 Jun 2004)

I have never really understood the big drama that is always invoked in reference to same sex couples getting the same benefits as heterosexuals. Do not people who are common-law get that? And any stun-assed hetero couple can procreate, and pump out an unwanted kid, and do they not get benefits? I think that people trot out whatever excuse they can to make it inconvenient for themselves to accept that same-sex couples are a reality, whether they are blessed by the state or churches. I would rather see a same-sex couple that has been together for 20 or more years get the benefits that they should be entitled to, than to see a couple that is destined for Jerry Springer (trailer trash, etc) that happened to get pregnant and bring another unwanted child into the world receive the benefits. Who is the bigger drain on society?

And are these same-sex couples not members of our society already and entitled to government services (ie they are taxpayers)? Or are they less than equal in your eyes? Don't look, but your ignorance (and hatred) is showing.....

Al


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2004)

You know, for all my past opposition, I agree with Allan.

No one has ever really given me a real satisfactory reason why not to let gays marry.

I always think back to an editorial I seen by a cop.  He had been through two divorces and was with his third wife; had a kid from each marriage.  He said he a had a quiet gay couple for neighbours.  These guys had been together for twenty years.  The cop goes on to say "with my marriage record, what makes me the authority on who can and can't live in a recognized monogamous relationship."

That one always makes me really question opposition to it.  I would be up to allowing it, but I would want a better definition of marriage given, lest we let the flood gates open.

Either way, it really bothers me that this has become an election issue.  Nothing will prevent gay people from living together.  Canada will not end if gay marriages are permitted tomorrow, and Canada will not end if gay marriages are not recognized tomorrow.  However, I do think Canada will have some serious problems if we don't sort out some of our foreign and domestic policies and trends.  Let's keep our eyes on the ball.


----------



## ZipperHead (24 Jun 2004)

Somebody that agrees with me!!! Alert the media. Seriously though, I used to be more or less opposed to it (probably because that is what I was "trained" to do) but once you see that people are people, there isn't much point in trying to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do. Within reason of course.... 

I like the example you gave of that editorial. I heard something similiar before, and it reinforces how I feel about the issue. I have heard people say that they would kill their children if they told them that they were gay. That's pretty sensible, I think (****sarcasm****), and when I hear people talk like that, I pretty much disregard anything that they have to say. 

That this has become an election issue, is indeed sad, but I think it is what is called a "hot button" issue, and if you don't have a stand for or against, your opponent(s) will, so that's how it goes. 

Al


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2004)

Some more food for thought.

If gay marriage is recognized by the government, should we give them the right to adopt a child?

I reflected on this following what was to me a pretty thought provoking event.  I was at my girlfriends apartment the other night and her neighbour comes over and asks for a ride to the bar.  Since it is pouring rain out, I decide to help her out.  Low and behold, a 20 year old girl, five months pregnant with a pack of cigarettes and her belly hanging out comes around the corner.  Although she was not going to drink, a greasy redneck bar full of thugs and drugs is the last place a girl with child should be.  As I drop this girl off, she muses to herself on how she is going to get home, being that she only has 2 dollars to pay the covercharge. I later find out that the guy who knocked her up is long gone.

My first thought was that here is a young, immature and clueless girl who will raise a child on her own.  Not only will I be paying her welfare check every month, but I will have to pay for most of the child's upbringing.  Not only that, there is a chance this kid was going to have a rough time of it living vicariously with a bimbo for a mom (hence the need for the government to often intercede for the child's welfare).

I then figured this; you have two women, married for 15 years and living in a good neighbourhood and bringing home a good income.  They obviously want to love and care for a child if they are going through the pains to adopt and raise an orphan.  They have the desire and the means to ensure that some kid will get a decent living and be properly provided for.

I figure that it is a bit unfair that some bimbo can spread her legs and get knocked up, not really caring about it, and yet people who are willing to do the right thing are shut out due to someone preconceptions of the "norm".

Mind you, there are other issues to the argument, but this one weighs heavily on my conscience when I debate the merits of the argument....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Jun 2004)

Just for the record, I'm for gay marriage and adoption.

I've worked with a large number of homosexuals in my day and I think denying the right to either get married
or adopt children is wrong....

My expectation is that within 20 years the laws will have been rewritten and our current system will be looked
upon much like segregation is today....



Matthew.


----------



## SFontaine (25 Jun 2004)

I'm all for gays getting the same benefits of being married (Hospital visitation, taxes etc) but I'm against it being forced upon me, my family and my church. I saw a gay pride parade once and there were all these men dressed as women making asses of themselves.. Being "proud", which I found offensive. Keep it in the damn bedroom I say. I don't want that to be forced upon me because as a straight male I find it disgusting. I won't treat them any different but I don't want to know anything about their private life. Period.
When I have kids I also don't want gay pride to be thrust down their throats much like black pride and asian pride has been thrust down ours (The hip-hop clothes, ricers etc).

On the subject of adoption. Think of the kid. How would the kid react if both his parents were men?  It seems pretty weird to me. How would the kids at school treat him if they saw this kid walking around with two men as his guardians? Pretty shitty methinks. This is a situation where you really need to "think of the children". How would it affect them?


----------



## Jascar (25 Jun 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> it all has to do with activist judges and politicians who think they know better than its citizens.....go figure.


What an incredibly hypocritical statement. You don't want a judge telling you what the definition of marriage is, but it's ok for you to tell a gay person what the definition is.......???


			
				S_Baker said:
			
		

> By the way, why were "same sex" marriages not legal in the 17, 18, 19, 0r 20th century in Canada?   Descrimination my ***, its stupid!


Yeah! And what about the days when we hunted Indians, moved the Japanese into "special" camps, and made women stay at home? Discrimination my ***! Let's bring those days back too!

And since you seem to think anything we did in the past is ok, did you know that homosexuality was practiced and accepted in many ancient cultures? Spartan men used to take young boys as their lover/student. Since it was ok then.........


----------



## ags281 (25 Jun 2004)

Stupid cat jumping on my head and waking me up at 0520... now I can't get back to sleep   :threat: Sorry, moving on,

Regarding the issue of homosexuals raising children, I can't help but think back to a story I came across a couple years back.

A lesbian woman became pregnant - can't remember the specifics, but I think it involved a sympathetic ex-boyfriend specifically for the purpose. So far so good, but then grandma hears her lesbian daughter is going to be a mother and loses it. She demands that she be given the child to raise. The mother, understandably, tells her own mom to shove off, and the child is born. 

Grandma, however, can't go down without a fight. She goes to the courts and actually files a lawsuit to have custody of the child given to her. The argument presented by her was that in the custody of her homosexual daughter, the kid would undoubtedly grow up to be gay. 

I found this argument absolutely hysterical. It's based on the premise that the child always takes the sexual orientation of the parent. Now, clearly this is stupid, as the lesbian woman was raised by her straight mother. From this we can assume that it is entirely possible for a lesbian mother to raise a straight child. As if that's not good enough, we can also examine the past history of each potential caregiver to determine the probability of the child being straight.

Mother: insufficient data - possibility of child growing up to be straight
Grandmother: batting 1000 - 0% chance of child growing up straight

Good argument grandma!   ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Jun 2004)

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue, but a couple of points:

- People talk about the threat to the "institution of marriage". I think that a 50% divorce rate is a far greater threat than the (relatively) few same-sex couples that want to get married.

- I truly think what bothers most right-wing conservatives (like me) is the appearance of making this normal. Some posters have mentioned "throwing it in our face". Accepting something, or not treating people meanly or discriminating against them is not the same as condoning it. I think that line is getting more and more fragile. Look at "Will & Grace" - it practically glorifies homosexuality. I think that is a different (and wrong) message than what I am comfortable with.

- I do think long term same sex couples should have hospital visitation rights, etc. 

- Why does it have to be "marriage", which most people agree is more a religion- based concept? What about a civil union, common-law, or whatever.

- I recently heard a homosexual man call in to a radio station that I listen to - he said many gays could really care less about marriage, per se - but that it was a way to politicize their issue

- How can you say "yes" to a homosexual, but "no" to a bigamist?

- Right or wrong, "traditional" values seem to be eroding. People are afraid, not necessarily of this issue, but what comes next. Where does one draw a line, and make a stand on their values? "You're sitting in a tub of water, and the temperature of the water is increased, one degree at a time - at what point, do you scream?" I think this is further demonstrated in that it almost seems that some kids are gay now, for the "cool" factor...

- People say "its genetic" or "its not their choice"... they've isolated genes related to alcoholism - does that mean it's OK to be an alcoholic? That we shouldn't nudge, steer, counsel people towards a life of sobriety?

- I'm supposed to be more accepting of someone's lifestyle choices, but they can't be accepting of the fact that I don't want my 6 yr old daughter to watch 2 men sucking face in public?

I guess, in my ramblings, here is what I think - both sides seem to try and pull us to one extreme or the other. I would like to think that many people are more in the middle, and that somewhere in the middle, a compromise can be found..


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Jun 2004)

I hear the argument that "these" people (be it gays, blacks, asians, Trekkies, whatever) throw "it" (their pride, culture, whatever) in our face. Will and Grace is cited quite often on the gay issue, Hip-hop culture on black's, etc. If "Will and Grace" comes on and you don't want to watch it, change the channel. There must be a NASCAR race on the boob-tube somewhere. I personally hate the baggie pants and sideways baseball caps of hip-hop culture, but I don't think it's thrown in my face. I hate the white-trash look, but I doubt it will be banned, nor do I feel it is an extension of my Caucasian persona (I'm a fashion assasin, so I don't know what is really in fashion, so my examples may be dated......). 

My wife uses the gay pride parades as an example of what's wrong with the same-sex issue. "They shove it down our throat.....". Well, I don't remember the last time we were forcibly dragged out and forced to stand at attention and watch while the drag queens and mincers pranced down the streets of Oromocto.... I think it's kind of silly, but no sillier than grown men wearing fez's driving mini-cars in circles during "normal" parades. Or the floats in parades that are just glorified advertising for local businesses. 

One day, people won't bat an eye in White Bread Canada when they see two men holding hands walking down the street, much in the same way nobody notices when an inter-racial couple does the same (just go back 50 years in the U.S in some places (and Canada for that matter) and it would have caused a stir. 

As for "marriage", my wife and I are married, even though we weren't "married" in a church. Should we call it a civil-union? Should we have less rights than someone who had a member of the clergy perform the ceremony. There's a concept called separation of church and state. Definitions are changed all the time, so the definition of marriage can (and will) be changed. People trot out examples such as legalized rape and bigamy being legalized if same-sex "unions" are. Sure. How about registering our guns because we have to register our cars. Ooops, we have to do that don't we. Unless you want to break the law..... It seems that the people who are most against gun control are also the ones most opposed to same-sex marriage. Seems kind of ironic, doesn't it.... If it's not the church making the rules, it's judges, and if it's not priests or judges, it's politicians..... Well, who else is going to do it? Seeing as how we elect politicians, they should be the one's making (or passing) the laws, and judges enforcing them. So, in effect, if a law comes to be, it's our fault if it's not "right". 

Whether we like it or not, things and times change, even if we're not comfortable with it or ready for it. A lot of people start to sound like their parents a lot sooner than they should.....

Al


----------



## nbk (25 Jun 2004)

I thought this thread was long dead, but good posts and points Allan and yes even Infanteer. Infanteer, you seem to have been posessed by a "making sense" fairy. I like how you are making sense now, and I shall promote you for it.   Try not to go mad with enthusiasm.


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Jun 2004)

Well, as I said - I have mixed feelings on the issue - and posted points, some rhetorical, both pro and con.

So, Allen (or anyone) - let me ask you this (am sincerely asking, not being argumentative) - when it comes to your children (not sure if you have any, or their ages) - how are you raising them? Do you teach them that they can be gay if they want? When talking of dating, growing up, who likes who at school - is it totally either sex now? Or do you/we teach our children the "traditional" way, and then if they express interest in the same sex - cross that bridge when we come to it? I mean if society is evoving to the point where we truly accept alternate lifestyles - shouldn't we alter the way we teach our children accordingly?


No one has answered my question regarding bigamy. That should be OK, too - right?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jun 2004)

I don't know Muskrat, maybe you should ask the wife. :evil:  Bye Muskrat :akimbo:


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2004)

Just to clarify: we don't elect politicians simply to make laws; we elect politicians to - preferably only as necessary - enshrine our values in law.  Just because we enshrine a value in law doesn't mean it's correct for all time, or even correct now.

The problem with "gay marriage" is that it isn't an equal rights issue.  It has been misdefined.  A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man, and vice versa for a woman.  Not exercising a right the way you might prefer is not the same as not having the right at all.  The problem is that the de facto redefinition of marriage sought is away from the basis of a (presumed) partnership for the purpose of natural childbearing and childrearing to one of adult companionship and sexual expression.  The fact that the institution of marriage has been weakened by reproductive technologies, no-child (by intention) couples, divorce, and the irresponsible behaviour of entertainment celebrities is not necessarily an excuse to further weaken the institution.  As I have written before (maybe somewhere else), if we wish to redefine marriage we had better first determine very carefully our intentions.  If it is a companionship/sexual issue, then we might as well broaden the definition right now to include every possible arrangement between consenting adults.  (Presumably we would not extend marriage to children below the age of consent, animals, or inanimate objects despite whatever yearning the prospective adult human spouse has.)

Again, the solution may be to reserve "marriage" as a religious institution to be decided by each established religion, and "civil union" as any other legally recognized union.  All marriages would be civil unions, but not all civil unions would be marriages.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jun 2004)

Brad,
That was  excellent post and the perfect way to see the situation.   I said this before in another thread a long time ago to me marriage is not so much about love but the commitment to raise children for the DURATION of their childhood.  To me anything else is just about showing you own something.
BRUCE


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Jun 2004)

I see there is much preaching to the choir on both sides on this issue. Those that are for, will probably never be against. And those that are against..... well......

I do indeed have children. Two girls (4 and 5) and one on the way. I will never tell them that they "can be gay". If they ARE gay, I will live with that. Trying to "beat" it out of them is like cutting the tongue of someone who stutters. Useless and damaging. 

I don't think marriage is about pumping out the maximum amount of offspring possible, though I think it was the intent of the church and the state in the past (for the church, more income, and for the state, more soldiers). I don't think that anybody should feel compelled to have children just because society says they should. Too many people marry too young, have children when they aren't ready to, all because society or their families expect them to. I married 1 month shy of my 29th birthday, and had my first child just before I turned 30. I cherish my children moreso because I waited until I was more prepared than if I was 19 (or even younger yet). I know people that had children when they were young that love them, and raised them well, but I think we can all relate a story of people who weren't ready or willing to perform the task.

My wife and I are raising our children to be tolerant of all people, if they are black, native, asian, gay, handicapped, and when they are ready to understand what "gay" is, gay. I had the misfortune of being raised in an era where it was common to refer to people by the stereotypes and derogatory slurs that were in abundance. Until I had friends that were native, asian, black, Polish, German, etc I thought there was nothing wrong with what I was "brainwashed" with by family, society, etc. But I learned eople are people. 

Let me ask all of you opposed to same-sex marriages: how many same-sex couples, or gays for that matter, do you personally know? Not the brother of a cousins friend, but that you actually know, as a co-worker or acquaintance. Probably none. Much like those people that don't know any muslim people, but hate them regardless. Ignorance and hatred. Hitler did a great job with those tools.

As for bigamy, the only thing that makes it illegal is law. If you change the law, it would be legal. Does it make it right? To me, I don't know if I could handle multiple wives. One is plenty for me. Some people that are married have mistresses, with both the wife and mistress knowing of the other, and life goes on. I think that if all the parties involved are in agreeance, who am I to deny them. Whom does it hurt? You? Their children? Some people think that just because they don't agree with something, that it should be illegal. By that token,I think  smoking should be banned outright. Not in your car, not in your house. Nowhere. But that isn't going to happen, now is it? Smoking in PUBLIC places is being banned and rightfully so. However, if someone wants to sit in their own house, and poison themselves, their children, their pets, stain their clothes and their walls, giv'er. 

I know this is an issue that polarizes people, because it is something that almost everybody is uncomfortable with. I don't personally know any gays, or same-sex couples. Why do I support it? Same reason I realized that apartheid in South Africa was wrong. I didn't know any blacks from South Africa, but I still thought it was wrong. Gay people aren't going to "convert" our children, or us. Let them live, and be happy, if that's what they want. I know that as soon as the first legally wed same-sex couple applies for divorce, there will be many cries from high horses that "they" were wrong to have ever being allowed to have the luxury of being married. People will always make mistakes. Let them have the opportunity to do so, without uninformed moralizing. 

Al


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2004)

Ok, this may be a bit long-winded, but I've been doing much philosophising of late, so bear with me (or not, it's your choice )




			
				Jascar said:
			
		

> And since you seem to think anything we did in the past is ok, did you know that homosexuality was practiced and accepted in many ancient cultures? Spartan men used to take young boys as their lover/student. Since it was ok then.........



Actually, it appears that Spartan's were rather intolerant of homosexual relationships.   In Athens, it was very common and socially acceptable for an older man to adopt a younger one and act as a sort of mentor.   A sexual relationship was figured to be part of this mentorship in which the older man taught the younger one social grace.   Of course, women were a completely different story, being confined to the home and to their husbands or fathers.   It's quite shocking to read some of the more current translations of playwrights such as Aristophanes and to see how much fun was poked on homosexuality in quite blunt language.   Anyways, I am starting to sound like an expert here, it's just that Classics was my minor.
 ----

As for your points Muskrat:



> - People talk about the threat to the "institution of marriage". I think that a 50% divorce rate is a far greater threat than the (relatively) few same-sex couples that want to get married.



I completely agree with you.   What I want to see come out of this if a Canadian definition of what marriage is, not what it isn't.   One of the reservations I have about the entire debate is the opening of the flood gates.   Okay, marriage isn't a man and a women; so what do we say about polygamists, how about people who want to marry their relatives?

I've seen no logical explanations to justify sticking to a heterosexual formula.   Before we go further, I want to see a logical formula that justifies what Canada will consider a marriage.



> - I truly think what bothers most right-wing conservatives (like me) is the appearance of making this normal. Some posters have mentioned "throwing it in our face". Accepting something, or not treating people meanly or discriminating against them is not the same as condoning it. I think that line is getting more and more fragile. Look at "Will & Grace" - it practically glorifies homosexuality. I think that is a different (and wrong) message than what I am comfortable with.



What I figure is that straight-shooters like you and I are bothered by the erotic nature of it.   Could I care less if two men live together - no.   Could I care less if they care for each other deeply - no, although it is of a different nature, soldiers can attest to the strength of male bonding.

But I'm not too keen on guys swapping spit with eachother.   But is that the only form of eroticism I find morally questionable?   Some people like gangbangs and hardcore pornography, while others like shit-porn and fat chicks.   Some tight-laced prom queen may consider anything beyond missionary to be a sin.   I figure the line should be drawn at the point where eroticism goes beyond consensual and starts to be harmful (ieedophiles like kids, many rapists prefer the empowerment, some people screw animals) then it moves into the realm of deviance and we should deal with that.

As for the "throwing it in our face."   Some "metrosexuals" like to do nothing but go to bars and screw as many people as possible.   Flaming gays like to dress flamboyantly and express themselves.   I find both to be rather annoying.   "Will and Grace" is stupid, so is "Sex in the City".   But as Allan said, it is pop culture at best, and it appeals to me as much as the "gangsta" culture that is popular among teens.   For the most part, I consider all these "in your face" sub-cultures as part of the rudeness that is so prevalent among Western society, and to be honest none of it quite appeals to me.

For the most part, I would think most gay men and women are like most straight men and women; they just want to live their lives out dignified and quietly.   My belief in a free and open society commits me to let them have that, regardless of my personal thoughts of how they choose to live it.



> - I do think long term same sex couples should have hospital visitation rights, etc.



Sure, I don't think anybody could argue against denying a human of their most important form of support when they are ill or hurt.



> - Why does it have to be "marriage", which most people agree is more a religion- based concept? What about a civil union, common-law, or whatever.



I think for the most part we are speaking of state recognized unions.   As a nonreligious Canadian, I could care less about what the church wants to do regarding marriage.   However, I don't want the church meddling in what is a matter of the Canadian public sphere; the separation of Church and State works both ways.

I think the crux of the matter is that the government should give the same recognition to monogamous union, regardless of whether its is mixed or same sex.   That is the point of equality and justice we a seeking to establish here.   Although it may simply be cosmetic to refer to gay couples as "civil unions" and straight couples as "married", it is distasteful in the notion of an egalitarian society.   We wouldn't tolerate white people have "Citizen" on their passport and minorities having "Resident" on theirs, so it is clear that the phrases we use are considered as well.



> - I recently heard a homosexual man call in to a radio station that I listen to - he said many gays could really care less about marriage, per se - but that it was a way to politicize their issue



Yeah, we were having a debate in one of my classes and this one guy, an obvious homosexual, thought that gay marriages were a bad thing because they made the gay movement "mainstream".   He figured marriage is an obsolete institution and then proposed that we should move to some sort of Platonic society where everyone screws anyone and everyone cares for the children.   Like some weirdo communists, there will always be those fringe people who aren't satisfied with the status quo, but I don't think they are representative of the whole.



> - How can you say "yes" to a homosexual, but "no" to a bigamist?



That is an unfortunate byproduct of the PC culture we live in.   I can fully admit here that I don't really like the idea of homosexual relationships, I guess that is my right.   If people want to label me a bigot, they can go right on ahead.   But I figure as long as I am willing to respect another citizens choice in how they live their life, I've done nothing wrong, and those accusers can kiss my ass.



> - Right or wrong, "traditional" values seem to be eroding. People are afraid, not necessarily of this issue, but what comes next. Where does one draw a line, and make a stand on their values? "You're sitting in a tub of water, and the temperature of the water is increased, one degree at a time - at what point, do you scream?" I think this is further demonstrated in that it almost seems that some kids are gay now, for the "cool" factor...



Well, like I said before, I think this is a relatively harmless issue.   The world will not end if we allow gays to be married in the eyes of the government, they are fully engaged in relationships now and will continue to be down the future.   For what comes next, I suppose we can deal with that when it comes up.   But for me, my "value" of respecting the private sphere as private is more important than the "value" of how I think other people should live.

As well, I would hesitate to use the term eroding of traditional values.   No society stays the same, culture is constantly running through an evolutionary process as it collectively experiences new things.   I would rather have an open society that can contemplate changes based on their merit to our values than one that is ossified and facing an "erosion".



> - People say "its genetic" or "its not their choice"... they've isolated genes related to alcoholism - does that mean it's OK to be an alcoholic? That we shouldn't nudge, steer, counsel people towards a life of sobriety?



I think that is comparing apples and oranges.   Alcoholism is a self-destructive addiction, while homosexuality is a preference.   To quote a councillor acquaintance of mine "I've seen too many dead teenagers who hung themselves to think being gay is a choice."   Heck, my genes are oriented to women with big boobs and nice berthing hips, this is probably the predominant gene; does it mean it is the only (acceptable) one?



> - I'm supposed to be more accepting of someone's lifestyle choices, but they can't be accepting of the fact that I don't want my 6 yr old daughter to watch 2 men sucking face in public?



I wouldn't want my young sister to have to watch a man and a woman suck face in public.   In our society, excessive shows of affection are generally frowned upon, no matter who does it.   



> I guess, in my ramblings, here is what I think - both sides seem to try and pull us to one extreme or the other. I would like to think that many people are more in the middle, and that somewhere in the middle, a compromise can be found..



Well, here are my ramblings as well.   I agree with you entirely, extremes are trying to pull us to one side or the other.   However, I think there is a happy medium to be found between the flaming gays that like to march down the street on parade and the redneck who thinks they should all be shot.   It all goes back to that concept of "live your life quietly and respect the privacy of others" (Bossi, do you have a quote that fits that?).   
If we can do that, I think the issue will disappear in the long run.

Here is a rambling of my own though, related to the current political "hot-button" nature of the issue.   My local MP, a Conservative running for re-election, openly opposes gay marriages and puts it right on his brochures.   I challenged some of his supporters on the issue with most of the ideas we've seen here.   Basically I asked, "Why should we not allow them to marry?"   Low and behold, I never got a satisfactory answer.   Someone brought up the Bible, and quickly ended that line of thought when I said that idea was no better than Imams who find ways to restrict the rights of people through their interpretations of the Koran.

All in all, these rabid social "regressives" really take the "eye off the ball" for the Conservative Party.   I consider myself politically conservative, especially when dealing with fiscal matters and the structure of government.   But, conservatism means small government, which is out of the private sphere.   One of the key social differences between the US and Canada is that Americans live in a much more religious society for the most part, where as Canadians don't.   Whereas Stockwell Day turned off many voters with his religious overtones, a Republican Candidate almost requires the support of the Christian Coalition lobby in the States to win the nomination for the party.   Going on what I see as an advantage, I would really like to see Steven Harper clean out the party of these yahoo's and concentrate on what we need, a party dedicated to maintaining a strong and accountable government that can run things properly.


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Jun 2004)

Infanteer, you are a learned man. I wish that there were more people like you here on this forum who could give reasonable and intelligent points to a debate, than the standard "that sucks, and I hate it". I can see why your "demotion" rate is so high: you say what you want, damn what others say. Good for you. There seems to be too much mindless backpatting and agreeing for the sake of fitting in. People say that I argue for the sake of arguing. I only argue when I disagree. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I suppose that's what happens when you are issued with a brain. I don't want to be a sheep, I only want to be with a sheep   (that's a whole other topic....... though it has been alluded to in some of the posts in this thread)

Take care (I'll "promote" you to offset all the demotions you are sure to receive from the dissenters...  >)

Al


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2004)

Well, it took me a while to type my last response and I missed out on the conversation.

Mr Sallows, good post as usual.   You argument highlights the need to approach this matter carefully and rationally, because it is an important social institution.



> Just to clarify: we don't elect politicians simply to make laws; we elect politicians to - preferably only as necessary - enshrine our values in law.   Just because we enshrine a value in law doesn't mean it's correct for all time, or even correct now.



You're absolutely correct.   What are laws except the codification of our values of right and wrong?   And that is how I've justified this to myself.   The value of respecting the sanctity of the private sphere is a pretty important value to me, and if status is confirmed by the state upon people for the way they orient their living arrangement (ie family), I feel it should be indiscriminate in its nature.



> If it is a companionship/sexual issue, then we might as well broaden the definition right now to include every possible arrangement between consenting adults.   (Presumably we would not extend marriage to children below the age of consent, animals, or inanimate objects despite whatever yearning the prospective adult human spouse has.)



But isn't it just that.   If it was based on something else, we would have to limit many conventional marriages.   Bruce believes raising a child to be important.     My mother is married to man and they have a very strong relationship; both approaching 50, they have no desire to raise children.   Obviously, reproduction cannot be a defining factor of a marriage, as I think it would be completely unjust to forbid my Mother and her spouse to be married.

Like I said earlier, I hope we (Canadians) can gain from this debate and come up with a definition of what marriage is as opposed to what it isn't.


Allan, you said sides are pretty much set in their opinions on the matter, but I would have to disagree.   I used to be pretty intolerant of the whole idea; thought on the matter combined with a vigorous course on the theory of justice at school has caused me to reverse my opinion.   My old view just doesn't make sense to me anymore.   An even more surprising about face was my father.   Also intolerant, he runs a large firm that operates throughout North America.   He recently hired a very capable manager to run his operations in the United States, based out of Houston.   Low and behold, upon finishing his interview with a most Texan of Texans (Cowboy boots, you get the idea) the man said "I want to come out and be honest with you, I'm gay and I've been living with my partner for 20 years."   Caught off guard, my father now laughs about that, because he figures that if he knew that before meeting the guy, he might not of hired a most capable executive.

I figure if a man's opinion can be changed from the heart of Texas, anything is possible with thoughtful debate....


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2004)

No worries about the honest debate here.  People obviously feel very deeply about the matter, and it is better to get our thoughts out and put them to the litmus test of our real values than to let them sit unchallenged.  I know that even if Bruce and Muskrat and Brad all disagree with me, they really do love me (in a non-gay way)  :dontpanic:.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2004)

> I wish that there were more people like you here on this forum who could give reasonable and intelligent points to a debate, than the standard "that sucks, and I hate it"


   

Geez - now I'm hurt      

As I said, I'm floating around the middle somewhere. Both sides make good points. I agree with points made by Infanteer, AL, and Mr. Sallows. Generally, I'm not a fence sitter, but on this issue, I'm a little more centrist, than I am on many social issues. AL - it seems we are raising our children in exactly the same way.....


----------

