# Openly Gay NS Liberal MP Scott Brison's Christmas card slammed



## CougarKing (20 Dec 2009)

On the bright side, at least it wasn't like a certain music video posted in the World's Worst Music videos thread.  ;D

From the Canadian Press via Yahoo News



> *Homophobic remarks slam gay MP's Christmas card *
> 
> Thu Dec 17, 5:16 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

> At least one news website had to shut down its comments section running under a story about the card. The Globe and Mail web editor said the section was shut down because of "hateful and homophobic remarks."
> Toronto Star blogger Susan Delacourt tried a pre-emptive approach: she closed off comments before any vitriol could be posted.
> "So crazy hateful people  should probably just walk away from the keyboard now," she wrote. "Yes, backward, just like that, slowly, hands in the air. There you go. Get outdoors; it'll be good for you."
> *But Matt Mills, editorial director of the gay news group Pink Triangle Press, said it's a mistake to block homophobes*.



I saw the part above (in yellow), and it fried my eggs.  Then I saw the part above (in *bold*) and said "You're so right!"
Yes, that's it, Susan Delacourt, people who disagree with you are crazy and hateful.  I make no bones about my position on marriage (I believe it should be restricted to one man and one woman, who are of sound mind, who enter the marriage of their own choice, who are not related, etc.).  I guess that means certain cultures and groups out there (Polygamists, proponents of arranged marriages and of same-sex marriage) think that I'm both crazy and hateful.  Still, irrespective of my opinion, I see no reason to post anything against Mr. Brison's card.  I saw it, and it's a nice card.  But, if you want free speech, even the "crazies" and "hateful" must also have their day.  As Mr Mills stated, it's an exercise in denial.  (EDIT TO ADD: though I object to the term "homophobe", but that's another topic for another day).


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2009)

So this guy is gay and makes a holiday card of him and his husband and people are flipping out over it?
Who cares?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So this guy is gay and makes a holiday card of him and his husband and people are flipping out over it?
> Who cares?


Have you even read most media comment forums?  There are comments made when soldiers die in combat, some of which proclaim "victory to the oppressed of Afghanistan", etc.  (Not those words verbatim, but close enough).  Yes, it boils my skin to read that, but that's free press.

I'm not disturbed by Mr. Brison's card.  I'm disturbed that people are so afraid to voice their opinions, and others are afraid of others' opinions on this matter that they will, in some cases, pre-empt their opinions by locking out comments.  Yet allow other "contraversial" comments on other topics.  To me, _that_ is the disturbing part.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Dec 2009)

Just to keep things in order, Susan Delacourt's blog from the Star:

December 16, 2009
Don we now our gay apparel. Or maybe not.
The good news: It's 2009, and Liberal MP Scott Brison proudly sent out a Christmas card, featuring his (same-sex) spouse in the picture.  

The bad news: The Globe put the photo on its Politics blog and had to shut down comments to the site. The explanation was given thus: "Editor's Note: This thread has been closed due to hateful, homophobic comments." 

 We'll do the same here, by the way, so crazy hateful people should probably just walk away from the keyboard now. Yes, backward, just like that, slowly, hands in the air. There you go. Get outdoors; it'll be good for you. 


December 16, 2009 at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0) 

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/12/index.html


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

Baden Guy
I read that, and with interest, I also read the comments.
This one was just odd:


> We need more people like Brison in politics -- people who are open and honest rather than people who are just presenting a facade based on what they think will win them an election.


  
I don't know Mr. Brison from Adam (pardon the biblical reference), but I dont' really understand what this person was saying.  I guess if you're gay your open and honest?  I'm fairly certain that homosexuals are like heterosexuals and bisexuals, in that some of them can be closed and dishonest.  Anyway...


> Just as the backwards thinking of yesteryear kept civil rights away from women and blacks, the gay community, especially those that desire to wed or are already wed will fight through it and end up seeing real equality and the vitriolic haters will be the tiny, minor, lunatic fringe that are still upset about women voters and a black U.S. president. Time is on sensibility's side.


Ah, yes, just because I think that marriage is reserved for SOME men and SOME women, I want to keep women in the kitchen and out of the ballot boxes, and apparently I'm racist too.  Nice.


> I'm sorry, in a way, that their innocent and mutual greeting has become an issue to those whose minds and values are still locked in the 19th century! But the fact that a normal gay couple feel free to express themselves without fear is just another reason why I'm so thankful to live in Canada!
> It's too bad there isn't so time-machine to send the bigots back to some time B.C. as slaves to some tyrant who would regard their lives as worthless and expendible as I regard their opinions. Just a thought.


Ah, sweet irony.  You are indeed sweet.  I guess it's ok for _some_ to feel free "...to express themselves without fear", while _others_ should be sent off into slavery, or, in other words, NOT feel free "...to express themselves without fear."


> Some people reject the homosexual lifestyle, and reject the homosexual agenda. To some, homosexuality is as objectionable as paedophilia, incest, or bestiality. These people are not "crazy hateful" (wait - aren't newspapers supposed to be objective? When did THAT go out the window?), they simply have a broader definition of perverse sexual preferences/acts. Oh, and throughout the whole world - these people are the majority.


Now, just because the majority think a certain way doesn't mean that they are right (witness the minaret ban in Switzerland.  Yes, the majority voted that way; however, I _think_ it's wrong.)  But I do think that this poster hit the nail on the head re: newspapers supposing to be objective.

For those who haven't seen the card, here it is:






Nice card.


----------



## Nauticus (20 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I saw the part above (in yellow), and it fried my eggs.  Then I saw the part above (in *bold*) and said "You're so right!"
> Yes, that's it, Susan Delacourt, people who disagree with you are crazy and hateful.  I make no bones about my position on marriage (I believe it should be restricted to one man and one woman, who are of sound mind, who enter the marriage of their own choice, who are not related, etc.).  I guess that means certain cultures and groups out there (Polygamists, proponents of arranged marriages and of same-sex marriage) think that I'm both crazy and hateful.  Still, irrespective of my opinion, I see no reason to post anything against Mr. Brison's card.  I saw it, and it's a nice card.  But, if you want free speech, even the "crazies" and "hateful" must also have their day.  As Mr Mills stated, it's an exercise in denial.  (EDIT TO ADD: though I object to the term "homophobe", but that's another topic for another day).


I don't think the point has anything to do with being against same-sex marriages or gay people, but the way people say it.

If you take a second and actually look at what kind of comments are posted on the average comments section, it isn't intelligent argument that causes them to close these comment areas down. There's a difference between being against same sex marriage, and being a hateful bigot, which I suspect is more of what would have been written on these comment areas.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I don't think the point has anything to do with being against same-sex marriages or gay people, but *the way people say it*.


Probably right; however, if they moderated those comments, then the truly hateful and bigoted ones could be filtered.  Instead, they just shut it down.  Of course, they could leave them up, and let them expose themselves for what they are. 


			
				Nauticus said:
			
		

> If you take a second and actually look at what kind of comments are posted on the average comments section, it *isn't intelligent argument *that causes them to close these comment areas down. There's a difference between being against same sex marriage, and being a hateful bigot, which I suspect is more of what would have been written on these comment areas.


Some of the posts I've made personally haven't been intelligent, but then again, I know what you're getting at.  But they did let the comments like this one:


> I'm sorry, in a way, that their innocent and mutual greeting has become an issue to those whose minds and values are still locked in the 19th century! But the fact that a normal gay couple feel free to express themselves without fear is just another reason why I'm so thankful to live in Canada!
> It's too bad there isn't so time-machine to send the bigots back to some time B.C. as slaves to some tyrant who would regard their lives as worthless and expendible as I regard their opinions. Just a thought.


As pointed out earlier by me (a couple of posts up): irony is so sweet!    Express yourself freely, so long as your expression fits the _cause du jour_.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2009)

Oh my god, they look gay!
And, his name
Garey Pridham
GAreY PRIDham

GAY PRID(e)

It's an unholy attempt to corrupt our Christian way of life  ;D

Just kidding.
Technoviking I completely disagree with you and I think if two people want to get married good for them. 
Role Models like Tiger Woods show ups how important Man and Woman marrages vows can be in this day and age.

While I disagree about the marriage thing I totally agree with you about not being able to have an opinion without someone labeling you a monster, a nazi racist homophobe gay hater bla bla bla JUST because you have a personal opinion and disagree about homosexuals getting hitched.
That's standard internet stuff. You disagree with someone WELLLLL their a nazi. Or you're a hater.
If someone doesn't see things YOUR way then their wrong wrong wrong, and subject to dehumanization like what Miss Susan Delacourt does.

You don't like the idea of Gays marrying that's your business who am I to tell you that you're wrong? I think gays should marry who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

No Technoviking I think you brought up a very good observation.

LOTS of the posts you find on those forums ARE infact pure stupidity though.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Oh my god, they look gay!
> And, his name
> Garey Pridham
> GAreY PRIDham
> ...


:rofl:


			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Role Models like Tiger Woods show ups how important Man and Woman marrages vows can be in this day and age.


That's a squat argument, I must say.  Yes, marriages have failed, and for those I have the same opinion as I do of same-sex marriage.  Now, perhas this is my religion interfering with logic,  but _to me_ it's a sacrament, a promise (a holy one at that), if you will.  If you can't keep your word, then your word is useless.  (I hope you know what I mean...it IS getting late here).  I just think that marriage, secular or religious, isn't taken seriously anymore, and I find that a crying shame.  For me, I see the "traditional, one man, one wife, 2.5 kids and a dog" family to be the "traditional" cornerstone or building block of our society.  Yes, I understand that societies evolve, but I don't agree with legislated evolution.  But, I'm drifting off topic, because the topic here isn't whether or not marriage is as I see it, or if it can also include man/man or woman/woman marriages, or man/woman/woman/woman, or arranged, or whatever.  The topic, and I may be stretching things, is the PC-ness of "think and talk like us, or else!" attitude that some of the press has shown here.


----------



## DirtyDog (20 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Have you even read most media comment forums?  There are comments made when soldiers die in combat, some of which proclaim "victory to the oppressed of Afghanistan", etc.  (Not those words verbatim, but close enough).  Yes, it boils my skin to read that, but that's free press.


How often have you ever seen them shut down for that?

Personally, I never have.   Nor have I ever seen that situation become a national headline.

I guess they just aren't  "hateful" or "crazy" enough.


----------



## Nauticus (20 Dec 2009)

But you've actually got to be mentally disabled if you're going to believe that stopping people from calling this guy a "f@g" is censorship. We get that you don't agree with same-sex marriage - thats fine. I'm in favor of same sex marriage. But that's irrelevant - the discussion is whether or not people should be allowed to anonymously post hate based on sexual orientation.

I think they shouldn't be able to.


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2009)

If interested in polls:
"CNN poll: Generations disagree on same-sex marriage":
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html


----------



## brihard (20 Dec 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> But you've actually got to be mentally disabled if you're going to believe that stopping people from calling this guy a "f@g" is censorship. We get that you don't agree with same-sex marriage - thats fine. I'm in favor of same sex marriage. But that's irrelevant - the discussion is whether or not people should be allowed to anonymously post hate based on sexual orientation.
> 
> I think they shouldn't be able to.



Fine line to be drawn here. Our laws, appropriately, are that the government cannot through legal methods censor our free expression unless it should extend to the point of specifically _inciting_ hate against other people. We've got a series of Supreme Court decisions that affirm this; only in the most severe cases of incitement can the state restrict our speech or expression, and rightly so. There is no right not to be offended.

That said, it is well within the rights of the owner or operator of a website to shut down discussions if they see fit. This is not any sort of legal sanction with adverse effects on the participants. Indeed, it is the very ability of the social discourse to moderate itself through the castigation of extreme or offensive viewpoints that allows the court to take such a liberal view of the freedom of expression. It's generally held that it's better for this kind of expression to be legally unrestricted so that it can be confronted publicly by society as a whole. Society itself has an ability to recognize what is merely an unpopular or fringe view (e.g., gays shouldn't marry) and what is truly repugnant (e.g., there was no holocaust).

Essentially the courts have granted us the right as free people to both spout off like tools, and to say to each other, "No, that's wrong, you're three fingers left of right the f*** out of 'er." To paraphrase Ezra Levant (with whose politics I'm often in disagreement,  but who is also a hero to me in the defense of free speech rights), "The best way to protect the rights of any is to protect the rights of all".

Society can feel free to censor itself in an unofficial manner, so long as the power of the state is restricted to truly necessary instances.


----------



## Fusaki (21 Dec 2009)

I just can't help but notice how well dressed they are.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I just can't help but notice how well dressed they are.







But...that photo is just wrong.  SO WRONG.  












I mean....where's the snow?  It's supposed to be Christmas, instead it looks like Thanksgiving!

Sheesh, wtf do those two think they are doing?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

......and with the muddy water in the background ..... It could be Saskatchewan.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> But you've actually got to be mentally disabled if you're going to believe that stopping people from calling this guy a "f@g" is censorship. We get that you don't agree with same-sex marriage - thats fine. I'm in favor of same sex marriage. But that's irrelevant - the discussion is whether or not people should be allowed to anonymously post hate based on sexual orientation.
> 
> I think they shouldn't be able to.


Calling someone a fag, breeder, whatever, is just that: name calling.  "Sticks and stones" and all that.  Advocating sending people off into slavery, well, that's a bit different, but apparently ok according to that one blog.  And people can hate based on any discriminatory reason.  After all, do we believe in freedom of expression or not?

Now, saying hateful things is one thing; however, inciting violence etc is another.  For example:

"Blue eyed people should not be allowed to carry walking sticks," is ok to say.  "Blue eyed people carrying walking sticks should be beat with a bigger stick" is another.  A fine line, perhaps, but there it is.  I don't think anyone could 100% accurately describe that line, but I also think that most people would recognise it when they saw it.


----------



## observor 69 (21 Dec 2009)

I live in the Greater Toronto Area and have my WASP comfort zone stretched on a daily bases.
Hell these guys don't even come close.  :christmas happy:


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I live in the Greater Toronto Area and have my WASP comfort zone stretched on a daily bases.
> Hell these guys don't even come close.  :christmas happy:




 ;D

My spouse feels the same.  She thinks 90% of Ottawa's population is "Gay".


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2009)

I've _heard_ that their dog cross-dresses as a poodle.   :nod:


----------



## DirtyDog (21 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> But...that photo is just wrong.  SO WRONG.
> 
> 
> I mean....where's the snow?  It's supposed to be Christmas, instead it looks like Thanksgiving!
> ...


Duh....

Global warming....i mean, climate change. :'(


----------



## mariomike (21 Dec 2009)

It's nice scenery. I saw an awkward moment on "Curb Your Enthusiasm" where Larry is surprised to learn that his doctor is gay at the 01:10 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTlkBu_ya8


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2009)

I'll get upset when these guys join the Canadian Forces Reserves one of them gets a boob job and sex change paid for by the CF. The other gets laser eye surgery. Both issued tacvests and BEWs that sit in their basement. 
They both go over their 12 or 16 class A days a month. A nice 3 year class B falls on their lap in NDHQ then they join the reg force, get posted together with no headache hassle or fighting over moving claims. They n't get a disgrunteled corporal saying 'Oh just show up in Petawawa and the paperwork will be done and waiting for you'  ........ THEN  they don't deploy on a month ex to Wainwright in the cold because they are hockey stars and  needed to win games where they finally print their Christmas cards with DND funds.

Ohhh That'd burn me.

The card looks nice but something about it... Like their missing $2500 over and under shotguns with a Support the NRA! stamp in the corner.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2009)

I just can't tell, which of them is Abercrombie, and which one is Fitch?


----------



## gcclarke (21 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I'll get upset when these guys join the Canadian Forces Reserves one of them gets a boob job and sex change paid for by the CF. The other gets laser eye surgery. Both issued tacvests and BEWs that sit in their basement.
> They both go over their 12 or 16 class A days a month. A nice 3 year class B falls on their lap in NDHQ then they join the reg force, get posted together with no headache hassle or fighting over moving claims. They n't get a disgrunteled corporal saying 'Oh just show up in Petawawa and the paperwork will be done and waiting for you'  ........ THEN  they don't deploy on a month ex to Wainwright in the cold because they are hockey stars and  needed to win games where they finally print their Christmas cards with DND funds.
> 
> Ohhh That'd burn me.
> ...



Ok, I'm rather confused. What, praytell, does that wild scenario have to do with the topic at hand? Or, frankly, any other topic?


----------



## DirtyDog (21 Dec 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm rather confused. What, praytell, does that wild scenario have to do with the topic at hand? Or, frankly, any other topic?


I'm pretty sure it\s called humour.

On a side note, I wonder what all these cards cost the taxpayer?

I don't think any of these politicians should be sending professionaly photographed Christmas cards by the thousands on my, and your, dime.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I mean....where's the snow?  It's supposed to be Christmas, instead it looks like Thanksgiving!



It doesn't snow in hell,








































..at least until the Leafs win the cup. :nana:


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..at least until the Leafs win the cup. :nana:


Boo-urns!


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm rather confused. What, praytell, does that wild scenario have to do with the topic at hand? Or, frankly, any other topic?



Because some things deserve your anger and  others do not.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (23 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> It doesn't snow in hell, at least until the Leafs win the cup.



The bicentennial?  Anyone got hell's weather report for 2067?

I believe Hell is frozen over right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway

I have absolutely no interest in what Brison's doing with his junk.  I'm too old and too straight to ever think it's normal but I can certainly be tolerant.  I do see a trip to Norway in his future but that's his worry or not.


----------



## bilton090 (24 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I saw the part above (in yellow), and it fried my eggs.  Then I saw the part above (in *bold*) and said "You're so right!"
> Yes, that's it, Susan Delacourt, people who disagree with you are crazy and hateful.  I make no bones about my position on marriage (I believe it should be restricted to one man and one woman, who are of sound mind, who enter the marriage of their own choice, who are not related, etc.).  I guess that means certain cultures and groups out there (Polygamists, proponents of arranged marriages and of same-sex marriage) think that I'm both crazy and hateful.  Still, irrespective of my opinion, I see no reason to post anything against Mr. Brison's card.  I saw it, and it's a nice card.  But, if you want free speech, even the "crazies" and "hateful" must also have their day.  As Mr Mills stated, it's an exercise in denial.  (EDIT TO ADD: though I object to the term "homophobe", but that's another topic for another day).




+100 on that , And I don't like same-sex marrage , and that they tell kids in school its ok to be gay , its normal ? both are not normal !.

 P.S- Feel free to call me names now, because I said what I feel.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If interested in polls:
> "CNN poll: Generations disagree on same-sex marriage":
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html



What, exactly, does public opinion in another country have to do with this topic?


----------



## mariomike (24 Dec 2009)

Sorry if any offense was taken. None was intended. I would remove the link, but it is now too late.


----------



## BlueJingo (24 Dec 2009)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> P.S- Feel free to call me names now, because I said what I feel.



You can feel how you feel that it's okay.
Just like it's okay for openly gay people to send out a beautiful card with themselves on it regardless if he's a politician or not!. (BTW I love the card...)

Nobody should hate each other for doing what they feel is right to them.


----------



## CountDC (24 Dec 2009)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> +100 on that , And I don't like same-sex marrage , and that they tell kids in school its ok to be gay , its normal ? both are not normal !.
> 
> P.S- Feel free to call me names now, because I said what I feel.



ok

OLD MAN


----------



## FastEddy (24 Dec 2009)

Jingo said:
			
		

> You can feel how you feel that it's okay.
> Just like it's okay for openly gay people to send out a beautiful card with themselves on it regardless if he's a politician or not!. (BTW I love the card...)
> 
> Nobody should hate each other for doing what they feel is right to them.



How would you apply this to "Charles Manson and the Like" ?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Dec 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> How would you apply this to "Charles Manson and the Like" ?



I know that you are not comparing openly gay politicians to psycho mass murderers, but the juxtaposition is a little odd...


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Dec 2009)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> And I don't like same-sex marrage , and that they tell kids in school its ok to be gay , its normal ? both are not normal !.


Bilton 090, your expressions aren't in line with those of the Collective.  Please report to your nearest re-education facility where you will be corrected.  Thank you.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Dec 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I know that you are not comparing openly gay politicians to psycho mass murderers, but the juxtaposition is a little odd...



Your absolutely right, I'm not. So she can just answer the question.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Dec 2009)

Jingo said:
			
		

> Nobody should hate each other for doing what they feel is right to them.


I think this is the crux of the issue as raised by FastEddy.

The statement above is typical of moral relativism.  "It's OK for them" may count for amoral things, such as speed limits, colour of hair, or whatever.  "It's their way, so who are we to say?" is not, when it comes to moral issues.  Is homosexuality a moral issue?  Methinks not.  Or maybe it is.  I don't know.  But, the statement by itself that excusing others' behaviour because it "feels right" to them shouldn't be applied as wide as is stated above.  


That is all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2009)

You shouldn't hold it against gays for doing what feels right to them.
What about mass murderers who kill because it feels right to them?
Thats different murdering people is breaking the law.
In many places homosexuality is illegal.
It's only illegal because of the various religions saying it is.
So separate church and state.
 :nod:

FD for the win, and the crowd goes wild.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> FD for the win, and the crowd goes wild.



Wait, there's a flag on the field.  The crowd is hushed.

"Technical foul.  FD.  Employing a false dichotomy.  Ten yard penalty, repeat third down."

 >


----------



## bilton090 (24 Dec 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok
> 
> OLD MAN



 That was nice , I didn't say anything bad about gays ! Iam saying I don't like them or there lifestile ! and its not normal , but you have to call me names. That was very grownup for you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2009)

I think he was just having some fun at your expense..............................good thing you're not Gay, you would have to buy a thicker skin.

Merry Christmas all!!


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Merry Christmas all!!


And a Happy New Year!  :christmas happy:


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2009)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> That was nice , I didn't say anything bad about gays ! Iam saying I don't like them or there lifestile ! and its not normal , but you have to call me names. That was very grownup for you.



LOL
Don't be a cry baby.
You stated your opinion then turned around and said feel free to call me names. Someone makes a joke and you get butt hurt.

You don't need to beat around the bush (I wonder if there's some kinda joke......ah nevemind).
If you don't like Homosexuals and gay marriage the just say, Hey, me I don't like it. End of story.
Whether it's normal or not is probably open to argument but your opinion is your opinion, no need to defend it dude.

Me I don't like flaming in your face Hollywood style homosexual's and I'm not going to apologize for it.
Also included- Grumpy veterans, abrasive native Americans, radical islamic apologists and people wearing different colored socks running around telling everyone how enlightened and progressive they are.

Don't apologize for your beliefs but if you prompt people to call you names, and the oblige. Well what do you expect?



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...........good thing you're not Gay, you would have to buy a thicker skin.


Or use someone else's skin like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs.
I'm not sure if he was Gay or what his deal was though. All that stuff confuses me (Like Luke Skywalker french kissing his sister in Starwars, how come no one else seems weirded out by that??)


----------



## bilton090 (24 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> LOL
> Don't be a cry baby.
> You stated your opinion then turned around and said feel free to call me names. Someone makes a joke and you get butt hurt.
> 
> ...




Your right ,  What I was tiring to say was the P.C. people are going to have a hay day !. LOL  

  It was a nice picture , they look so gay, ( happy )


----------



## xena (24 Dec 2009)

A lot of this seems to boil down to misunderstanding what morality is.  Is morality relative?  Some think so - I don't.  However, does that mean I try to force my morality on others?  Not a chance!

Certain things, like the behaviour of previously mentioned Charles Manson, for example, are disallowed, and punished, by society because they are inherently dangerous to that same society.  That's the point of many laws.  They are society's self preservation mechanism.  His behaviour was both immoral and illegal.  He's in jail because it was illegal, not immoral.  He's currently paying the price for the illegality of his actions.  The immorality of his actions will only be dealt with (IMHO!) when he meets his Maker.  The two issues are separate.

Other things, like, for another example, taking the Lord's name in vain, are hardly illegal (although I am aware that there are various laws still on the books in various places that make it illegal, but these are vestigal laws and never enforced in the modern, western, world).  Some of us might think that taking the Lord's name in vain is nonetheless immoral.  Okay.  The legality and morality of the same action are separate issues.  That's why no one is going to throw you in jail (in Canada anyway!) for swearing, but they will for robbing banks.

Society has decided that homosexuality should not be illegal (a move I agree with, BTW).  That has no impact on people's different beliefs about morality.  One could still believe homosexual activity is immoral, but support it's legality.

Morality, when it's thought out, is usually linked to a persons theological or religious beliefs (as vague as they may be for some folks).  When it's not thought out, it's usually just knee-jerk reactions.

But, morality and legality are two separate issues.  And, in the society we live in, we cannot enforce our morality on someone other than ourselves.  Our laws, however, should apply to all equally.

Just my two cents.  Your mileage may vary.

edited to correct typos and grammar.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I type like I've got mitts on... :


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Dec 2009)

Wow, given the title of the thread and some of the ensuing commentary, I expected a photo of Mr. Brison and his amour in some type of torrid, teetering on X-rated embrace. It's actually a very tasteful and beautiful card. They look very happy. I have to wonder why anyone would have a problem with it. Do some just not like it when others are happy? What a silly thing to get ruffled over.  :


----------



## bilton090 (24 Dec 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've _heard_ that their dog cross-dresses as a poodle.   :nod:




   No its fixed , swings both ways , lol


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Dec 2009)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Wow, given the title of the thread and some of the ensuing commentary, I expected a photo of Mr. Brison and his amour in some type of torrid, teetering on X-rated embrace. It's actually a very tasteful and beautiful card. They look very happy. I have to wonder why anyone would have a problem with it. Do some just not like it when others are happy? What a silly thing to get ruffled over.  :


I'm actually surprised that the card even made the news.  It's a nice card, and I'm certain that all MPs send out their fair share of cards during the holidays.  Though one could offer up that the news services were trolling for responses, and then shut down those responses when some made some comments that didn't fit the "cause du jour" or the "party line".  You know, the lines of "It's OK to be gay" or "They look very happy".  The fact that the comments were shut down is the story (IMHO), not the card.  Especially when some comments are so ironic, such as the one I posted earlier from one of the news sites, in which someone stated that it was great that the couple could express their love for each other without fear of recrimination, and in the next sentence, advocated some fairly harsh treatment for those who expressed otherwise.  In other words, "toe the line" or else.

That's my point.


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm actually surprised that the card even made the news.  It's a nice card, and I'm certain that all MPs send out their fair share of cards during the holidays.  Though one could offer up that the news services were trolling for responses, and then shut down those responses when some made some comments that didn't fit the "cause du jour" or the "party line".  You know, the lines of "It's OK to be gay" or "They look very happy".  The fact that the comments were shut down is the story (IMHO), not the card.  Especially when some comments are so ironic, such as the one I posted earlier from one of the news sites, in which someone stated that it was great that the couple could express their love for each other without fear of recrimination, and in the next sentence, advocated some fairly harsh treatment for those who expressed otherwise.  In other words, "toe the line" or else.
> 
> That's my point.



Point taken. One thing to add, though. While I agree that people are entitled to have (and to give) their opinions, I think that the timing of this 'opinion giving' is the problem. In other words, this is the wrong time to tell everyone what you/I/we think (positive or negative) about homosexuality. That's not what the card is about. It's Christmas, and two people are sharing a nice, warm holiday wish with others. Let's save the morality debate for another time and place.

MHO


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Dec 2009)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Point taken. One thing to add, though. While I agree that people are entitled to have (and to give) their opinions, I think that the timing of this 'opinion giving' is the problem. In other words, this is the wrong time to tell everyone what you/I/we think (positive or negative) about homosexuality. That's not what the card is about. It's Christmas, and two people are sharing a nice, warm holiday wish with others. Let's save the morality debate for another time and place.
> 
> MHO



It's a fact that some Christian sects, abhor homosexuality, hence why it is why this card has raised the Ire of some at this time of the year.

dileas

tess


----------



## bilton090 (24 Dec 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It's a fact that some Christian sects, abhor homosexuality, hence why it is why this card has raised the Ire of some at this time of the year.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




You are right , it is a Christian holiday ! we don't need to see it at this time of year , at the tax payers dollar.


----------



## bilton090 (24 Dec 2009)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> You are right , it is a Christian holiday ! we don't need to see it at this time of year , at the tax payers dollar.



  Its nice to be fair to all the people of Canada , but its a Christian holiday , we don't need that pushed in your face , we see it all year long.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Dec 2009)

So, now being gay is anti-Christian, and being gay shouldn't be allowed at Christmas?

I've never felt anyone else's personal choices were being "pushed in my face" just because someone tries to sell newspapers based on the possible controversy, you're acting like you expect it to become compulsory next.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2009)

Locked for Christmas,........let's see if anyone cares on Boxing Day.
Bruce


----------



## Scott (26 Dec 2009)

Hmmkay, unlocked for Boxing Day. 

Keep it civil.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> just because someone tries to sell newspapers based on the possible controversy


This, I think, is key.  The PM sent out a card that wished both Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.  That didn't make the press.  But I think you're right, it was about selling papers in a possible controversy, and the story became the story itself, as comments were shut down "to keep the barbarians from speaking out."


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This, I think, is key.  The PM sent out a card that wished both Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.  That didn't make the press.  But I think you're right, it was about selling papers in a possible controversy, and the story became the story itself, as comments were shut down "to keep the barbarians from speaking out."




You mean the Pm mentioned nothing about Kwanzaa?? 

The worm.....

dileas

tess


----------

