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.

Now who is jumping to conclusions...

I have asked that you clarify your position based on statements that you have made...

Apparently you are misunderstood. When I am misunderstood I try another approach to see if I can make my argument clearer... perhaps you can do the same.

Precisely. You claim that you didn't include red heads because red headedness is not a "choice", and yet you included several groups who have no choice in their condition, including homosexuals.

I think one of the key problems here is that j8ear is using the word "abnormal" imprecisely.

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: (")ab-'nor-m&l, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
Date: circa 1836
: deviating from the normal or average : UNUSUAL, EXCEPTIONAL <abnormal behavior>

It's my sense, just from the tone of the discussion, because the term hasn't been otherwise defined here, that j8ear is adding a more connotative definition that includes "undesirable" or "harmful."

First, I would say that you have to substantiate that claim, if that is in fact what you mean.

Second, j8ear, I don't think anybody's disputing your claim that some of the "conditions" you list are "abnormal" using the strictly denotative definition. What we are objecting to is your apparent claim that because these conditions are not mainstream, they should be considered neither acceptable, nor worthy of the rights of "normal" human beings.

To compare pedophiles (criminals, or if you prefer, people who have presumably unconsensual sex with children) with porn stars (a profession), midgets, dwarfs, lepers, the retarded and mentally ill, (medical conditions) and homosexuality (biologically-based sexual identity) is frankly quite confusing and I can't see how any of them relate, except that they are technically abnormal. As, someone pointed out, are redheads. So are albinos, punks, anarchists, libertarians, amputees, deaf people, black people, and men (after all, there are now more women than men on the planet - does that make men abnormal?)

So if you're talking about people whose identity somehow varies from the mainstream...what exactly is your argument? Because I'll be damned if any of us can tell what you're trying to say.

If on the other hand you're saying that these behaviors/conditions/professions/identities are harmful in some way and therefore should not be tolerated, all we ask is that you prove it. Show us the research, or state your reasoning clearly and using NORMAL and explicit definitions of terms.

If you are saying that these behaviors/conditions/professions/identities are contrary to social norms and should therefore be discouraged, well, norms change. They are societally defined, they are subject to evolution. If you think change is a bad thing, well, I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Finally, don't belittle us because we, many of us who have established reputations in this community as intelligent and reasonable people, can't follow your arguments. The common denominator in our confusion appears to be you.

Whoops, the last point was not final. Many of us here are homosexual, bisexual, physically challenged, mentally ill, some of us are (wannabe) porn stars, and for the most part we value diversity of opinion, which is why you have been allowed to remain here. You have a Halx-granted right, in this community, to your opinion, however ignorant, unfounded, and undefended it is, as long as you are civil (which, to your credit, you have mostly been so far). If you have such a problem with "freaks, geeks, and weirdos" as you term them/us, perhaps you should seek out a more "normal" audience for your ideas.

Thank you Lurkette... well put.

Agreed, well put lurkette.

Also, (this is to everyone, really) don't make the mistake of thinking that every member of a "minority" group wants the special treatment that the government of Canada/US is trying to force on people.

Check out Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty, the most vocal pro-liberty gay group which supports the rights of private organizations over the feelings of minorities.

I agree with the government's actions against the Catholic school. I understand that said school wishes to instill its values within its students, but many of the values that this particular faith held so dearly many years and centuries ago (such as burning "heretics" who dared to think differently) are no longer practiced. Religion, like the world and society, has evolved throughout the years. For example, Mass is no longer read exclusively in Latin and (in Canada) gay marriages are legal. While I'm aware that said unions are held in a legal court and not in a Catholic church, the act symbolizes progress in our society and I believe that the government's actions are a step in that direction.

Has the article mentioned whether or not the two people involved were Catholic? Since the student wanted to invite someone to his prom, this means he is part of that school and it follows to assume that he is Catholic. Since his community knows he is gay, can the school prevent him from graduating based on his activities that are "forbidden" by the faith? If said school had the authority to prevent him from bringing his partner, then it follows that it would react negatively against the knowledge of his lifestyle and could impose censure.

Therefore, I believe that the government has done the right thing, since it defended the rights of the individuals concerned and attempted to inject open-mindedness in a group that needed it. If a faith believes that we should forgive those that transgress against us, why wouldn't it let someone love a person of the same sex and celebrate that love openly?

Your definition of progress is most certainly not the same as that held by those of the Catholic church. What you see as progress, they may see as degredation of the values and decency of the populace. Honestly, I don't see why a Catholic school would be funded by the government -- in accepting government funding they are just begging the government to poke their nose into its business. If they want to bar anyone they want from their activities, they need to decline subsidies from the government.

If the school were a private one (meaning, not subsidized by the government) it should have the freedom to decline to allow a gay student to enroll, much less graduate. However, it's not a private organization so the school loses a lot of power of determining who participates in its activities.

I'm willing to defend the rights of Catholics in the US (Canadian Catholics that leech government funds are on their own) to do as they please, and associate with who they feel comfortable with -- this includes denying homosexuals admittance to their private schools. Suggesting that a practiced theology is bad because it sees something as wrong which you do not is a bit close-minded yourself.

Let's take this in another direction -- would you support the same decisions if they were made in the US against a private Catholic school, and a private printer?

Interesting site.

As I think I managed to say before (we were driven off track), I don't take issue with private groups such as the Boy Scouts having a policy against minority groups. However, when those private groups make use of public money they had better be ready to deal with inclusive policy.

In the case of a private school not allowing a gay couple to attend a prom, while I can't see what the fuss is all about, it is that student's right to go to another school. When that school is a public school, they have no right to ban the gay couple.

As I brought up before, the Bill of Rights and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in place to prevent discrimination. As I read it, in the public forum... this would include places of employment as well.

These rights are in the constitution and therefore can be contested in a court of law much as the same sex marriage issue that happened here in Ontario.

yikes missed a lot...will catch up shortly.

In a nut shell....I have cast no aspersions on any of the classes of abnormal that were identified. I did differentiate between abnormal activity and trait (like red hair or albinism).

I believe essentially that special protections or considerations for abnormal activities is inappropriate. REGARDLESS of how benign it is.

To Charlatan...I do apologize, I did jump to conclusions. It was someone else who refered to me as prejudiced, you just defended the position, I thought, without actually taking the stance it self.

This thread is getting kinda long and the additions are coming fast and furious. My work is beginning to interfere with this forum :).

Anyway more later.

On the face of it, I look at these decisions and think "well, good! Chalk up another one for gay rights." But I wonder if I would be so enthusiastic if the decision with the printer involved the KKK or some such group. Bottom line, whether the outcome was "good" or not, depending on your opinion, should the government have the right to force private entities to perform actions that, in practice, support activities they don't agree with?

I just don't know! At first, I think, well, no!

On the one hand, if a private business wants to turn down custom for whatever reason, shouldn't that be up to them?

But on the other hand, at what point does one group's civil right to free speech (the gay group) conflict with the businessperson's right to behave according to his beliefs? What if nobody would print this group's flier? Or what if a printer refused to serve an African-American group? A biracial marriage support group? The Methodist church? Do businesses in Canada have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? And what if it wasn't a printer, but say, a restaurant (Denny's anyone?) or a hotel that refused service?

Sorry. Thinking out loud. But I wonder what everyone thinks of these alternative situations.

*sigh*

Not that I relish prolonging the agony of this part of the thread, but:

if you differentiate between abnormal activity and traits, then you would have to acknowledge that mental retardation, leprosy, mental illness, midgetism, dwarfism, etc. are traits, not activities and are therefore exempt from your judgments about abnormality.

It's also strongly arguable - based on scientific research, not my opinion - that homosexuality as an identity is also a trait - it is a trait for which there is a very strong biological/genetic predisposition. As behaviors, I'd argue that there's nothing abnormal about anal sex, oral sex, snuggling, hand-holding, monogamy, infidelity, child-rearing, etc., which are behaviors engaged in by heterosexuals, so why should these behaviors be considered abnormal when they are engaged in by people whose only abnormality is a TRAIT beyond their control that causes them to be attracted to people of the same sex? Isn't denying homosexuals the RIGHT to engage in these behaviors "special treatment" (albeit negative - therefore discrimination) of a group of people?

To get back to the thread at hand *ahem*:

If anyone can deny service to homosexuals because they disagree with homosexual identity/behavior, then can they deny service to ANYONE they disagree with or don't like? The government's answer was "no!" To argue otherwise is fine as far as I'm concerned, at least until it happens to be YOU they disagree with.

You say these things but offer nothing in return.

As I've made pretty clear on this thread, I would say that no, the government has no right to force private organizations to associate with people that it does not want to. A private organization should be able to deny service to anyone, for whatever reason they wish. If society feels that the organization is unfair, they will "punish" it accordingly. Take a look at all of the negative publicity about the Boy Scouts, for example.

There are always other options. In the specific example of a printer, it is possible to have things printed out of state/country, or to print something privately (hello PrintShop + $200 laser printer), use other medias (the Internet for example), etc. Even the KKK has a website, so I think it would be unreasonable for a group to suggest that it is possible to be completely blacklisted to the point of having your freedom of speech imposed upon. The constitution doesn't guarantee that expressing controvercial views will be easy. :)

It's not worth trying to reason with you. I'll debate with Lebell, Liquor Dealor, seretogis, and sixate all at once in a steel cage with no support rather than exchange one more word with you. You're only interested in provocation and fighting. Welcome to my ignore list, population: you.

j8ear,
You referred to "natural selection" in another thread. Is it possible that "abnormal" could be defined as NOT "fit and able"? If that is the case, I can understand (I will qualify "understanding" to preclude agreement) more of what you're saying. Why didn't you respond to my post decrying natural selection? Please explain the relationship between natural selection and the "creator" you've mentioned in previous posts. Excuse my questions please, they are not meant to antagonize, only to clarify.

Kadath...you have broken my heart. BOOHOO. You poor hate filled person with a mind so seemingly narrow that the eye of a needle becomes the I-405/I-5 split in Irving, California.

Geep, forgive...I got wrapped up here. I don't think so. They aren't mutually interwined. Abnormal (as defined presently, not in this threaad but in our generation) could very well be the trait or characteristic which natural selection deems worthy of progressing the species. Who knows? As far as the natural selection thing....I struggle with the notion of people 'not believing in it.' It is so well documented, so thoroughly researched, and NOTHING has ever been identified to disprove it, all the while, the evidence keeps mounting. It's kind of like atheism. How is that possible? TO KNOW that no GOD exists. TO KNOW. Quite arrogant of a position to take for a simple homo sapien...with so many unanswered questions. I was gonna ponder it...try and get out of here unscathed...too late for that it seems...and get back to ya.

The "appeal to motives" ( i.e. pity, consequences, popularity, and prejudicial language) arguments being presented here in are kicking my ass. I think it's the nature of a political discussion, I guess.

I want to add to lurkettes def. of abnormal. I agree thoroughly with her (presumably?) take on abnormal. I do take exception with a value (i.e. harmful or undesireable) or judgement being placed on any of my contributions. I have made none. Perhaps freak and wierdo is a poor choice of words in which to lump groups of people. Maybe 'fringe of society' would have been better. That will probably ruffle some feathers, but GOD DAMN....isn't everyone sick of double talk and PCspeak.

My point from the beginning is how the FUzUCK can a governement tell a catholic entity to violate it's policies. On the public teet or not. Catholic churches in the US are tax-exmept places of worship...or however they are classified, does that make them subject to government regulation?

I take exception personally when a minority view point is thrust down people's throats with two options: It's MY way and the alternative being labelled intolerant and racists.

No one wants to be hated...but EVERYONE is hated somewhere, somehow, by someone....in fact everyone HATES too...that's life. It's circular and will probably come back to bite you in the ass. The golden rule stikes again.

Personally I hate no class of people. Doesn't mean, as I've said before, that I have to celebrate them all though. Most of you have taken excpetion with my classification as abnormal certain 'types' of people. Even of the lumping of the lot into one group. I understand completely. It was provocative. Your excpetion or even distaste doesn't make it wrong though.

I concur too that I am a very confusing person, and apologize for that which I have created. I have remained courteous so far, tried to reason soundly and pointed out were I felt reasoning was unsound, an extension not all that forth coming my way.

You presume correctly.

Quote:

take on abnormal. I do take exception with a value (i.e. harmful or undesireable) or judgement being placed on any of my contributions. I have made none. Perhaps freak and wierdo is a poor choice of words in which to lump groups of people. Maybe 'fringe of society' would have been better. That will probably ruffle some feathers, but GOD DAMN....isn't everyone sick of double talk and PCspeak.

I hardly think that according people the courtesy of not calling them "freak" or "weirdo" qualifies as double-speak. To say "the fringe of society" would have been a better choice: it's a descriptive term that is pretty much true, as a lot of those people are on the margins - and not a deliberately offensive epithet.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously and not have your intentions misunderstood, I'd urge you to be a lot more careful with your choice of words. You certainly don't have to be PC around here, and nobody's going to jump on your ass for stating your opinion. Just be sure that the words you write match your ideas or, yes, we will call you to account.

Quote:

My point from the beginning is how the FUzUCK can a governement tell a catholic entity to violate it's policies. On the public teet or not. Catholic churches in the US are tax-exmept places of worship...or however they are classified, does that make them subject to government regulation?

I think someone posted above that in Canada, where these cases happened, Catholic schools are in fact public schools that receive public funding and are therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws.

I think you'll find that most people here agree with you on this point. Where we disagree is when you started spouting nonsense about some revolution against freaks and weirdos like lepers, the mentally ill, and porn stars. ??!??

Quote:

I take exception personally when a minority view point is thrust down people's throats with two options: It's MY way and the alternative being labelled intolerant and racists.

You are absolutely entitled to take this exception. However, I think you'd do well to examine the lives and experiences of the people you seem to decry - the so-called fringes of society - before you start bemoaning the label of intolerance. Nobody's legislating your thoughts and preferences, only your actions. You can dislike a group all you like, but when it comes to denying them rights, well, that's a boundary that's still being drawn, witness this story and the outrage it's causing.

And nobody called you a racist here, I don't think.

Quote:

No one wants to be hated...but EVERYONE is hated somewhere, somehow, by someone....in fact everyone HATES too...that's life. It's circular and will probably come back to bite you in the ass. The golden rule stikes again.

Actually I'm pretty sure the golden rule is something along the lines of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Quote:

Most of you have taken excpetion with my classification as abnormal certain 'types' of people. Even of the lumping of the lot into one group. I understand completely. It was provocative. Your excpetion or even distaste doesn't make it wrong though.

No, logic makes it wrong. You claimed to be decrying behavior, and most of the "abnormalities" you listed had nothing to do with behavior. You've been beaten up enough for that paragraph and I'm sure you wish you'd chosen other words. I'll leave it.

Quote:

I concur too that I am a very confusing person, and apologize for that which I have created. I have remained courteous so far, tried to reason soundly and pointed out were I felt reasoning was unsound, an extension not all that forth coming my way.

Actually we have taken great pains to reason soundly and point out where we thought reasoning was unsound, and for the most part we have remained courteous in the face of what you admit is a good deal of confusion caused by your injudicious choice of words.

I don't want to discourage you from posting - we need and welcome all points of view here - but if you want your arguments to be taken seriously you should think carefully about what you want to say and then say it in a way that's clear and respectful. Ignore your two seasons of debate training and stop jumping on people!!! Just say what you mean, and you'll be understood.

And Kadath is not a narrow-minded, hate-filled person. He's just understandably fed up with your nonsense in this thread. You make confusing statements and then attack us when we question what you SAID instead of what you MEANT. Instead of taking the criticism to heart and considering whether it might not be valid, you instantly defend yourself with an ad hominem attack on his character. Which is what you've been accusing us of all along. You can see why some of us are a bit frustrated.

I'd honestly love to have you around as part of the crowd - you've clearly got some strong opinions and geep could use some company ;) but you might think a little longer before you hit "submit."

You can say the same thing about theists. How can you be so arrogant as to KNOW that any gods exist. It goes both ways. But people believe both ways. If you say you can't prove that no gods exists, it can be said that there is no way to prove any gods exist.

Seretogis,

I see your point about private organizations. Upon further thought, I agree that PRIVATE organizations and businesses should not be subject to government censure, but as you said, any religious institution that receives government funding is begging to be scrutinized. As for your question at the end of your post, my answer is no, I would not support the government if it pushed it's values upon a PRIVATE organization or business, whatever its philosophies. I would leave it to the public at large to either patronize or boycott said establishment and then the laws of economics would kick in. Therefore, following that logic, I believe that the printer should do business with whomever he chooses.

While I find it sad that the Catholics look down on gays, you are right in pointing out that this is just my opinion. However, in this particular case of the Canadian government acting on the situation with a PUBLIC Catholic school, I fully endorse its actions, since the school left the door wide open.

seretogis

While I agree in principle about the government staying out of private organizations and businesses I do have to wonder where we should draw the line... The situations that arose in the southern US with regards to blacks on buses and blacks eating at lunch counters.

Would you say that a black person should be denied the right to use a public lunch counter in a store? If I a store owner decided that this was to be their policy would it be OK then to ask the Police to remove an unwanted patron?

I can understand where you are coming from on this issue, especially when you point out that there are other businesses that can take your business (in the case of the printer in the original story). Why give your business to someone who doesn't want your business? But what if there is nowhere else to go?

What if there was only one gas station in your town and they refused to serve you on the basis of religious, race or sexual discrimination? It is impractical to suggest that someone open a competing gas station although that might solve the situation.

Ultimately, I would rather live in a world full of tolerance for all walks of life. People should have the same rights and freedoms across the board regardless.

Honestly, for someone in the US to deny someone's service in a situation such as the gas station example would be absolutely suicidal. If it were to happen, most likely a competing gas station *would* open, and anyone who isn't an ignorant fool would go there instead, essentially driving the discriminatory business under.

Society should police itself, as it has in the past, when it comes to discriminatory behavior. Thirty years ago it would have been difficult to exert enough pressure on local businesses which are discriminatory, but I think that in this age there would be national media coverage of it and a quickly presented alternative.

When you willingly get the government involved in thought-policing, you may unknowingly bring about something very negative on yourself. By tearing down the right of a redneck hick gas station owner to deny service to whomever he wants, you may inadvertedly allow pedophiles who are aquitted on a technicality to work at your child's school.

I think that the people are smart enough to know what is wrong and what is right and apply pressure accordingly. I'd rather not have the government decide that for me.

I dont see how this follows.

I think we've hit upon our major difference. I don't think people are smart enough to know what is wrong and what is right. Examples: 33% of people think a woman should be subservient to her husband. 30% think the Bible is the word of God and should be followed absolutely. Hell, 5% are afraid of THUNDER AND LIGHTNING! People are fucking morons. They need your help. I pulled those stats off of National Polling Center or some shit. I'll back them up, if you want, when I'm sober.

That is incredibly disturbing.

Yes, very useful, and here I thought we could be on the verge of a meeting of the minds. You...you. *shakes fist*

You've hit on one of the major philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals.

It also directly relates to why I am a centrist.

What's the centrist point of view on this?

I have to agree with Kadath on this - I have known too many people who were disturbingly ignorant to trust "the people" to make the right decisions when it comes to how to treat other people. How many times on this board do we have to correct someone who thinks that "democracy" means "majority rules"? Do you really think that the population in the 60s would have, on its own, adapted to the demands of blacks if the government had not stepped in with legislation? Doesn't it disturb you that 70-some percent of people think that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, or that about the same percent think we've found WMD in Iraq? I'm personally not really excited about the prospect of having my fellow Americans decide for me what's right and what's not.

Now, is having the government decide that a better solution? Hell if I know. But at least in the area of civil rights it seems to be working.

Where do you think legislation (and legislators, and PACs) comes from? The people. If the people don't want it, the legislators who support it will not be in office for much longer. Yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there, but there are also some smart and compassionate people with the resources and intent to make a positive difference. Those who are interested in making a difference (either by voting, boycotting, or putting up lawn signs) will do so and impact the others.

Our government is a particapatory one. Standing by the sidelines and letting others make decisions for you -- be it holier-than-thou rich legislators or "the ignorant masses", is not the intent. In reality, our government is one run by special interest groups and PACs -- groups with financial resources to represent the views of a group of people or a corporation and influence both the masses and the legislators.

The centrist position is to use government as a regulatory agency only when it appears that mob rule overrides reason, but not to take distrust of the people to govern themselves as the basic tenet.

I don't know if you mean that the liberals don't trust people or the conservatives don't. It seems to me that neither side trusts people to do what's right.

For that matter I don't either, but in the end there is no other option. People seem almost inherently evil to me, but who else are we going to put in charge, dogs?

I do however believe that anything on the public teat should not be prejudiced in any way. After all they are inevitably taking money from the person they are screwing over, and refusing to pay taxes is generally not an option.

Oh as a side note towards the beginning of this thread there was a little talk of censoring bear out. While I couldn't disagree with bear more (hell, I think seretogis is most of the way to fascist, to me bear seams downright psychotic) I sincerely hope he isn't silenced. That sort of invisible purging of the memepool is more dangerous than any opinion ever could be.

Liberals tend not to trust the people in fiscal matters while conservatives tend not to trust the people in moral matters.

Two sides of the same hang-up, IMO.

No, the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after it made Christianity the state religion.

seretogis seems to have a lot of faith in the general populace... as a libertarian I guess this is to be expected. I wouldn't say that he is fascist in the slightest for that would be government interference at the greatest level.

Question:

I have a private organization that believes in murder. Every month my group gets together to murder someone. Now we don't just murder anyone. In order to join this private organization you must submit your name to a lottery and allow for the possibility that you will be one of the murdered. We don't kill outsiders. You must sign a document upon joining giving permission to the club to murder you.

This is a private organization. It accepts no state funding. Pays its taxes regularly.

Should it be left to do as it wishes despite the fact that murder is illegal?




I would argue that the answer is no. Murder is against our laws and as such this group should not be allowed to perform its activities.

The problem with seretogis's argument against the state dictating what private organizations can do (for me) is... where to draw the line?

It is kinda funny that the Catholic church is on its high horse over homosexuals, given that gays are so overrepresented in the priesthood! The catholic church has been goofy over sex for a millenium or so, seeing it as a control issue rather than an expression of humanity.

As far as the denial of service to gays by the printer, if you set yourself up to do business with the public, you damn well serve the public in tis entirety. Lunch counters in the Southern States used to choose who they would do business with, anybody see a parallel here? The gays were trying to make an issue with this printer, and it all gets a little silly sometimes. Nonetheless, when a minorities rightds are denied, all our rights are denied.

I've been thinking about this for a long time now and I still can't think of an answer. For the record, I'm a member of a number of minorities(half asian, bisexual, anarchist, atheist, intelligent), yet I'm on the side of the printer in this case. But what if it was a cab driver driving a gay couple on their date. Should he be able to refuse them on the grounds that by driving them to their date that he is promoting homosexual activity? What about the restaurant that they want to eat at? It too could be seen as promoting gay activity. Should they be able to deny service on moral grounds?
Should the boy scouts, whom I agree with, be any differant than a private business? They hire people and they sell products(cookies?). Because they are non for profit should they gain the ability to descriminate in their hiring practices?

The basic thing that is comes down to is this: should a private association be forced to accociate with those that it sees as against their beliefs, whether they be black, GLBT, or redhaired? On this, I have no opinion at the moment.

lurkette:

your post regarding the rights of businesses serving groups is right now currently before the supreme court. In Quebec, for example, it is illegal to have a sign in English that is equal to or larger than the French text. "Language Police" - they actually exist, in the "Office de la langue francaise" which send out patrols to check on signs. This is legal because our constitution has a loophole in it called the not withstanding clause, allowing any province to back out of a national law or part of the civil rights legislation if it is seen to run contrary to the cultural or social well being.

As for Bear, since I have a mental illness, I guess my words don't matter (obviously the above are the ravings of a madman) so I will just go have a shower in Zyklon B and arrange to have my remains cremated. Heaven knows, depression might be catching!!!

You might want to enter Aktion T4 into your search engine and find out where your opinions can lead.

I may not agree with the government stepping in here. However a publically funded institution should be held to the laws that govern the public. (I wasn't aware the Catholic schools were publically funded, learn something new everyday.) I also don't see the problem with age here. My In-laws are 6 years apart and parents 8.

Wow. I have been called a freak a few times when I was younger and a bit more irresponsible, as have many of the people on this board I am sure. So am I in the same class as a pedofile? I would urge you to answer that carefully.

That's what makes this country (Canada) and many others great. We can be freaks, we can be wierdos and still expect to be treated as human beings, which is one thing you and a 'homo' have in common.

Who is to say what is abnormal? You? Me? Seretogis? I think not. Just because you or I may find something offensive doesn't make it abnormal.

I have to agree with Kadeth on this one. I am not so sure people are willing to do this for themselves. As (I believe) j8ear said in another thread, people are lazy. We tend to live to much in the status quo and often don't realise we had something until that something has been taken away from us.

But, letting the government police our thoughts is no way to do things either.

People have to be made to care about things, but how would this be accomplished? Are we too involved in our complacency?

For every person who holds firm beliefs and expresses them, there are ten who do not. Because of this, it is that much more important for that one person to be especially vocal. Someone who can motivate the usually-do-nothings to make a difference, will be the victor (just look at former Governor Jesse Ventura).

/me nods

HOw often, though, is the vocal one considered a nutcase?