Canada, and Government Mind Control!
 

Pardon the melodramatic subject. :D

LINK

What do you guys think of this? I think it's pretty interesting (read as: scary) to see a nearby government being so ready to force its societal beliefs upon its population. Then again, if Canadians don't like it they can move 300 miles south. Reading this made me glad that I live in the good ol' U S of A, where it is possible to actually practice what I preach without the government forcing itself down my throat.

I'm glad that the law was enforced in the case of the school prom.

However, in the case of the printer, they should have just gone to another printer. Who cares if the printer doesn't want your business... his loss and not worth the cost to take it to court.

How can you defend that? :o I am assuming that since it was a Catholic school, that it is a private school and so is an independant organization (much like the Boy Scouts, or the printing company).

Scary that a government can force a catholic school to allow a GAY couple to attend it's prom....A 17 year old with a 21 year old none-the-less.

While Canada is NOT a secular country like the US...i.e. public schools are available with a religious doctrine based education, that is purely ludicrous.

This world is getting very close to a revolution. The freaks, the geeks, and wierdos, (like it or not, homos are just that, in the exact same class as pedofiles, porn stars, midgets, dwarfs, lepers, mentally ill, retarded, etc...) are being mainstreamed as ~normal~. They have great lobbying tactics.

One of the principals spewed out on the tv production of the 4th of July Macy's firework spectacular was that the US was founded on four principals. One being freedom from fear? FREEDOM from fear. Anyone else ever heard this absolute crap? You have a constitutional right not to ever be scared or fearful?

Strange things abrewing in this world....Didn't the Roman Empire implode right about the time that most 'abnormal' behaviours or lifestyles were being mainstreamed?

over,

bear

Catholic schools are publicly funded in Ontario and as such should fall under that same laws as any public school. They are subject to:

THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

(section 15)

Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

This is the same law that was enforced with regards to same sex marriages.

hehe, whooooooaaaa there. :crazy:

The fact that you equate homosexuality with pedophiles is simply repulsive...

The fact that you equate midgets and dwarfs (dwarves), leper, etc. with pedophiles is just insane...

I tremble in fear of the mentally ill lobby groups... how dare they ask for money and rights... (/end sarcasm).

The point of the US Bill of Rights (as I understand it) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is do ensure that the rights of minorities are not squashed by the majority.

This is not revolutionary. It is basic human rights.

I know you don't mean a physical revolution with the military forces and what not, but I just can't get over the thought of a retard fumbling with a grenade or a dwarf bayonet charging my house. Lepers might prove trouble though, they'll stand near you.

Repulsive to you...maybe. A fact none-the-less. I did neglect to mention that an easy, plausible and realistic link between homos and bestiality can be made. That being extended...

Perhaps that repulse you also? I could care less. Speaks more about you then anything. The fact that the equations elude you is interesting.

The revolution will be the people reclaiming their creator endowed human rights, slowly being stripped away under the guise of what ever ~you~ want goes. WRONG. Just because it feels good, doesn't make it a basic human right. SORRY.

Being busted for taking a cock in your pooper, in your own bedroom is unacceptable, BUT it doesn't by extension make this a basic human right.

Forcing a Catholic School to accept homo's at the prom is just as unacceptable.

That's like forcing the Congrssional Black Caucus to accept the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Or even forcing the KKK to make room in their "club" for members of the CBC. (This is a slight leap granted, but illustrates the point nicely.)

over,

bear

First of all, I'd like to thank you for posting. It's kind of nice to be able to have a much more right-leaning person to compare my views against.

Secondly, there is absolutely no credible connection between pedophilia (or beastiality) and homosexuality. Pedophiles victimize children, often without regard of the child's gender. If you have evidence that states otherwise (that isn't religiously based), I'd like to see it.

How is consensual sex between two men at all similar to forced sex between an adult man and a child, and often subsequent killing of the child? I see no similarity here.

I agree with you that the government shouldn't be able to tell private organizations who they can and cannot admit into their organizations, however similarly, I think that it is not the government's place to involve itself in the consensual sexual lives of its citizens. If I want to have sex with seven women, or three old women, a jewish fireman, and a judge, it should be none of the government's business as long as no ones civil liberties are being violated.

Don't make the mistake of claiming to want a limited government except when it suits your theological/personal needs. Basing your political views on something as dynamic and unsupportable as religion is a very bad idea.

j8ear, you scare the shit out of me. I swear to god. How can someone be so increduously ignorant?


As to what Charlatan said earlier. I support the Catholic School ruling as it is a publicly funded organization.

A business should have the right to refuse anyone's business period.

Is not compassion an endowment from the creator?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from Daval:
j8ear, you scare the shit out of me. I swear to god. How can someone be so increduously ignorant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Could you possbily be more vague with this blatantly ad hominem attack? I appreciate you being scared shitless...I'm not sure it follows that I am therefore ignorant, or even increduosly so, though.

Please elaborate. Try to avoid using any of the many fallacies often presented in these types of discussions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from geep:
Is not compassion an endowment from the creator?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think not.

Compassion is an emotion. Maybe the 'right to be compassionate' can be endowed, as can be the right NOT to be compassionate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from seretogis:
Secondly, there is absolutely no credible connection between pedophilia (or beastiality) and homosexuality. Pedophiles victimize children, often without regard of the child's gender. If you have evidence that states otherwise (that isn't religiously based), I'd like to see it.

and

How is consensual sex between two men at all similar to forced sex between an adult man and a child, and often subsequent killing of the child? I see no similarity here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The link as I see it is simple. They are ALL abnormal. As it in not adult/adult/male/female sex. What is so bizarre about homosexuality being abnormal. That's not to say I frown upon it, nor do I celebrate it. No special protections for abnormal behavior, regardless of how benign. This has nothing to do with a victim or victimless activity...it has to do with the activity only. It is abnormal. Outside the norm. Not normally practiced.

Pedophilia is not neccessarily 'forced.' I call that rape. That is also an abnormal sexual behaviour (another equation identified?). I concede that children need to be protected from a developing decision making apparatus, BY PARENTS, Not governments. The 'often subsequent killing' part (not sure about the 'often' part of that assertion) I call murder. Again an abnormal activity.

What happened that things can no longer be normal or abnormal?

I don't hate homosexuals...well, unless your a homosexual asshole, because I'm not particularly fond of assholes. Figuratively here, as in that dude is such an asshole, what an asshole thing to do, or don't be an asshole.

over,

bear

Supposely 10% of the population is homosexual, so it is not as abnormal as you think. Also, homosexual behavior has been documented among primates, so it isn't specific to humans. Less people are red-headed than homosexual. Would you be willing to lump red heads along with lepers and pedophiles? I would hope not.

Whether or not something is practiced by more than 50% of the population does not by any means make it "right" or "wrong". Your political and philosophical ideals should probably be based upon what you feel is "right" and "wrong", not what is common or uncommon.

endowed: to provide with something freely or naturally

Disagreed. Compassion is endowed- the right you refer to is a choice which you are free indeed to make. Do you think the creator would supply you with anything he did not intend for you to use?

I think it irrelevent what percentage of the population or what other species participate in the activity. Abnormal is abnormal. Redheadedness is also abnormal but it's not an activity.

I agree with the right wrong vs. common uncommon comment, and always try and conduct myself accordingly, after all I'm rather uncommon myself :)

A government forcing a Catholic entity (which believes homosexuality to be a sin), like a school, to violate it's beliefs is in itself a violation of church and state (although not applicable to Canada). It's WRONG.

Thanks for the back and forth,

out,

bear

one thing seretogis i have heard say that primates have been documented haveing homo relations, do you have any articles on that. I've never seen any, and would be interested in reading them.

Man, seretogis, I never thought I would appreciate your brand of kooky rightism. This feels kind of like provocative behavior, designed to get a reaction and little else.

I saw you in "American Beauty".
You killed Kevin Spacey, you bastard!

Dead horse reference removed. Anything else? Does that make you feel better?

Do you have anything else to make up?

oh....and provocative indeed. Working isn't it?

:)

So if Halx were to take moral issue with troll-like and unsupported ramblings of right wing fanatics, would he have the right to expurgate all of j8ear's postings hereafter?

:D

As long as he doesn't call left-wing people by nasty names, he's good, so far as I can figure out.

If your goal is to appall people and bring together the lefties and the righties in mutual disgust, then...hey...you genius!

j8ear,

I think you would have to premise most of what you say with "I believe" because you certainly don't have any legs to stand on factually.

And yes, your views ARE ignorant because they ignore all of the main stream research into homosexuality and its probable causes.

Also, to equate bestiality (the act of unconsentual sex with an animal) with homosexuality (the act of consenting sex between two adults of the same sex) to pedophilea (the act of unconsenting sex between an adult and a child) is also ignorant, not to mention, offensive.

I know too many gay couples in long term, loving relationships (who would get married if they could) and to have their love and commitment compared thusly is highly offensive to me.

Wow... it looks like I signed off too soon yesterday afternoon...

I don't have much more to add that hasn't been already said. Except that it is nice to see Labell, Kadath and seretogis all playing together so nicely... ;)

Lebell,

I've got plenty of legs to stand on. Each of your definitions is inaccurate. To assume unconsensual is where the inaccuracies lie. No matter. You use inaccurate definitions, you come to inaccurate conclusions. I find that blatanly ignorant, frankly. Making up your definitions of activities to support your pre determined conlcusions.

It's easy to slander with ignorance an opinion when you have nothing additional of substance to offer. Anecdotal evidence about gay couples is worthless to this discussion. As are fabricated definitions.

over,

bear

LINK

There are also ungoing studies in humans to determine if there is a "gay gene" which may be responsible for homosexuality, and if fetal conditions (meaning, a large amount of stress for a mother mid-pregnancy) may contribute to it.

Are you suggesting that animals are consenting to sex with humans that are involved in beastiality? Maybe I'm just reading you incorrectly...

Anecdotal evidence? What anecdotal evidence? Are suggesting that none of the people who claim to have had consensual sex with a member of the same sex did so consesually? It seems that is what you are suggesting...



Ultimately all I can see from your point of view is that you take issue with Others that don't share your state of mind and body as not "normal".

Normal, in the sense that you use it, is a very difficult definition to come up with...

Where this thread started was with seretogis taking issue with government interfering with (what he believed to be) a private institution. I believe we all generally agree that this is not a desireable thing. You have taken umbrage in general with those who you see as being different from you actually having the guts to stand up for their rights.

Sorry to piss in your cornflakes bear but that is the way it is in our culture. We try to recognize the rights that we have granted the majority as rights that must also be enjoyed by the minority...

Why you have an issue with the mentally challenged, lepers, porn stars, midgets, dwarfs, etc is beyond me. The truth of it is... these people have rights.

You appear to struggle with coherency. What IS worthwhile to this discussion? Your personal abhorrence of homosexuality, based on nothing more than prejudice? You try to bust out the big words, but you can't even talk a good game. And god damn you to hell for bringing me to Lebell's defense. I swear, this is a right wing TRICK to make said right wingers seem more reasonable! There's no other explanation. No human could truly be so ignorant.

"Also, to equate bestiality (the act of unconsentual sex with an animal)" - Lebell

This is accurate. No animal has the means to legally state its consent to sex with a human.

-----

"with homosexuality (the act of consenting sex between two adults of the same sex)" - Lebell

Unconsentual sex between two people of the same sex is called rape.

-----

"to pedophilea (the act of unconsenting sex between an adult and a child) is also ignorant, not to mention, offensive." - Lebell

Children are not legally able to consent to sex with an overage person. The age of consent exists to protect those who are underage from the effects of sexual behavior between minors and adults.

-----

If you think that Lebell's definitions were flawed (though they are not, if you agree with the above), then please feel free to state your own for our examination.

Homosexuality is uncommon, but government forcibly involving itself in the beliefs of others is wrong. If you learn the difference between uncommon and wrong, we will probably see more closely together.

Nor can an animal legally enter into contracts or otherwise do anything. What does this have to do with consent. Who is to say an animal can't consent or otherwise desire something. Is it still bestiality if a women smears her vagina with peanut butter hoping her dog will 'eat her out?' Probably. Was the animal forced into the activity...don't think so.

Just because something is legally so, doesn't make it so. It's tough to argue against laws using facts that are only so because of laws? Consent from a minor....17 or 7 is not legally possible. Does that make it so? Certainly not.

Imagine if you will a law which prevented homosexuals to legally consent to anything. That wouldn't make it so, would it?

I agree one hundred percent with your last sentence. I have said nothing to the contrary through out this entire discussion. Even though governments routinely and as a matter of principle do exactly that....forcibly involves itself in the beliefs of others. Always has...always will.

Sorry... you have lost me bear. Can you be a little more clear on just what it is that you have an issue with?

Have you even read a word I said? Please demonstrate ONE SINGLE instance of abhorrence or prejudice.

Just one. Go ahead...look hard, read carefully.

Don't pre judge me with your intolerance of novel ideas.

All the labelling, intolerance and prejudice spewing from your postings. Sad really.

The freaks, the geeks, and wierdos, (like it or not, homos are just that, in the exact same class as pedofiles, porn stars, midgets, dwarfs, lepers, mentally ill, retarded, etc...) -- j8ear

To equate homosexuals with paedophiles is ignorant and brimming with prejudice (and again, I just don't know what to make of the inclusion of dwaves and lepers).

There was no prejudging here on anyone's part but yours.

...and by the way your ideas are not novel in the slightest. If anything they are retrograde.

I take issue ONLY with normalization of abnormal behaviour...that's all.

"We try to recognize the rights that we have granted the majority as rights that must also be enjoyed by the minority..."

That is complete and utter bullshit. This only happens for the loudest minorities, who haven't been able to do it for themselves. Not for all of them. Not even most of them. We even do it for those NOT in the minority.

Oh...and don't worry about the cornflakes...I feel like cheerios anyways :)

Pure unadulterated intolerance and prejudice on your part only.

Nice quote from my ealier posting. You seem to have made a leap to a judgement of value or otherwise on my part. One which is not there.

Common tactic really....making things up. Extracting what you need from what isn't their to support your erroneuos conclusions.

Defend yourself till your blue in the face. There is but ONE hate monger amongst this group of posters. It's you.

If you take issue with the nomalization of abnormal behaviour then please explain dwarves, lepers and the menally ill or retarded...

These are not behaviours they are conditions that are beyond the control of the person with those conditions. Are you suggesting that we sequester them from "normal" society and if so to what end?

All I ask is that you explain your position... at this point all you have done is made an outrageous statement. A statement you claim does not mean what we have inferred.

If you are so misunderstood in your position... clarify your position. All you are engaging is the simple "no I didn't, you did!"

I suggest nothing of the sort. Have not and will not. Again extracting something from nothing.

Only you seem to have made the leap that im an intolerant prejudiced racist.

Some have accused me of ignorance and backed it up with marginal reasoning...im working on that.

I could careless about your hate at this point.