🚀 go-pugleaf

Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> In article <3524553B.1C972D88@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>,
> commodore-lars@geocities.com wrote:
> 
> > Norman Gall wrote:
> > > Socred <socred@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
> > > > "It's time for moral leadership, not political correctness, invoke
> > > > the notwithstanding clause"
> 
> > > Trans: "It's time to forget about the individual rights of our citizens."
> 
> > Gays already have individual rights.  Try again.
> 
> So do women, Muslims, and blacks.  They need their rights pointed out
> *explicitly* because of freaks like you.

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).

Homosexuals engage in homosexual behaviour. It's apparently the
behaviour that many don't want their children subjected to (for whatever
reason). 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.

[snip]

> have you even met the children of homosexual couples? No? Shaddap.


I didn't know that enganing in homosexual activity could create
offspring.

[snip]
> 
> > > 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.

[snip]

> > 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?

Gordon.