🚀 go-pugleaf

Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> In article <3528FC76.B065E81E@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Women and black (whatever that refers to) are not behavioural.  Muslim
> > may be, but as a religion it is a definition of thoughts.  After all,
> > Mormons believe(d) that a man can have more than one wife. The thought
> > is fine, but the country has apparently decided it's against the law to
> > actually carry out the behaviour. So discriminating against a religion
> > is ok, but not against the thoughts (my point is subtle).
> 
> Way too subtle actually.  First, you have a very poor account of Mormon
> History.  There was no law passed the outlawed the Mormon practice of
> polygamym, but the Mormon Church renoucing the practice was a condition
> for the entry of Utah to the Union. Second, ex hypothesi, we aren't
> talking about what people believe but what they do, so this is irrelevant.

Funny, I thought you couldn't be legally married to more than one person
at a time?

> Third, your view that discriminating against a religion is ok must be a
> moral judgement on your part because it is strictly not permitted under
> the Charter - which is what we're talking about here.

I must have been too subtle!

> > Homosexuals engage in homosexual behaviour.
> 
> This is not a definition.  Some homosexuals do not engage in homosexual
> sexual practices.  Some are celibate, some haven't found partners, etc.
> 
> > It's apparently the
> > behaviour that many don't want their children subjected to (for whatever
> > reason).
> 
> I'm not sure what this means: a) they don't want their children to
> participate in non-consensual homosexual sex, b) they don't want their
> kids to see acts of homosexual sex (be it consensual or not), or c) they
> dn't want their kids to know that there are people participating in
> homosexual sex somewhere out of their field of vision? A and B are already
> illegal, so there's no worries here.  But C is highly troublesome. They
> may have reasons for having this wish (I don't think I want my daughter to
> know how to torture plitical prisoners), but keeping this knowledge away
> from her seems rather odd to me.  Nevertheless, I don't see what onus that
> places on anyone else to help me keep this knowledge away from her.

No onus on you whatsoever, as long as you agree that a parent has the
right to keep any behaviour they see unacceptable away from their
child(ren).

> > This is no different than they don't waht their children to be
> > taught that stealing is an acceptable lifestyle choice. They don't want
> > their children to be taught that engaging in homosexual activity is an
> > acceptable lifestyle choice. Many believe it should be their choice as a
> > parent.
> 
> Then, by parity of reasoning, I should be able to keep my children from
> being taught that being {in the Army | a lawyer | a physician | a teacher
> | a heterosexual | a Christian | an elected official | a law-abiding
> citizen | a caring person | a parent} is an acceptable lifestyle choice.
> 
> Are you *really* saying this?

Yes.

> > > have you even met the children of homosexual couples? No? Shaddap.
> 
> > I didn't know that enganing in homosexual activity could create
> > offspring.
> 
> What an ignorant person you are then. See the world - read a book.

I have been in over 17 countries if it matters, and seem to have
recalled reading  numerous books.

Ignorant, a nice word.  I still didn't know that human beings engaging
in homosexual activity can result in offspring, especially if they are
both male.

> > > > > Based on irrelevant and incosequential ground, yes.  Do you think
> a parent
> > > > > ahs the right to have a black or male or female or asian or native or
> > > > > white teacher on the grounds that they they don't want one of 'them'
> > > > > teaching their children?
> > >
> > > > None of those are behaviours.
> > >
> > > Ok, how about people who drink beer? People who drive cars rather than
> > > bikes? People who read novels? People who watch TV? People who wear
> > > sweaters?
> >
> > Well this is an intersting point, because here people can't win.  After
> > the Exxon Valdez incident, Imperial Oil (owned 70% by Exxon) invoked
> > rules around the consumption of alcohol. Either some employees took such
> > action to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, or some entity took them,
> > I am not sure.  The point here is that the company was attempting to be
> > vigilant in protecting the public due to the concern over alcohol
> > consumption, which the government lauded, and then they were told you
> > can't, by the government.  WHICH IS IT? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Now, you see, here is the rub: you simply don't understand a complicated
> system of tules that require *relevance*. The reason the board said that
> making it such that no employee could ever use an otherwise legal
> substance in such a way that it did not affect job performance was
> unjustifiable because it is irrelevant what persons do in their off
> hours.  If I'm drunk on Sunday, and it doesn't affect my performance on
> Monday, the drinking is an irrelevant issue.

Apparently to you, not so to others I would imagine.

> It just seems to me that you guys get all wierd about what people do when
> you can't see them - as if it matters.

I didn't get wierd, and I don't work for Imperial or the Ontario
Governmnet. I am not sure why you made the generalization.

> > > > And the average homosexual pedophiles has 150 victims compared to 20 for
> > > > heterosexual pedophiles.  35% of all pedophiles are homosexuals, who
> > > > make up 3% of the population.
> > >
> > > Drivel.
> >
> > Now this is an intersting response. Does this mean that you agree with
> > him, but it's irrelevant? Or that he is correct and you have no comment?
> 
> Actually, neither.  His stats for pedophiles are wrong but even if they
> were they don't bear out any particular conclusion.  Sure 35% of all
> pedophiles are homosexual - I'll buy it.  But then 65% of all pedophiles
> are heterosexual who make up about 97% of the population - so what?  If we
> conclude that homosexuality is wrong on these grounds, or we have further
> grounds to now not allow them to have anything to do with children *just*
> on these grounds, then we'd better seriously consider the fact that > 99%
> of all pedophiles are male, making up 48% of the population.

Thanks for the clarification.

Gordon.