🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35246644.BC092E5C@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>,
commodore-lars@geocities.com wrote:

> Norman Gall wrote:
> > commodore-lars@geocities.com wrote:
> > > 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.
> This act doesn't explicity point out rights.  It holds behavioural
> characteristics such as homosexuality or walking backwards in the same
> stature as unalterable characteristics such as colour or gender.

Let's see.  Does the Act talk about religion? I think it does.  Well,
religous behaviour is a matter of conscience, not unalterable
characteristics.

> > > > Well, interestingly enough, your wrong.
> > > We all look forward to the proof.
> > Take a look at any Marriage Act in any province or territory.
> I didn't realize any of them were written by any creators.

They weren't. That's the joy of it - all alleged creators are irrelvant to
the issue.  Marriage is a secular contract in Canada.

> > > Poor kids.
> > have you even met the children of homosexual couples? No? Shaddap.
> Do I need to?  Studies show that without BOTH a mother and father
> figure, that child rearing suffers as a result.

"Studies"! Cite them.  I can trot out 10 that show that homosexual couples
rear just as well-adjusted and actually *more* successful children than
heterosexual couples.  

> Why should foster children be put in such unfortunate scenarios.

Begging the question.  They aren't unfortunate.

> > > Really?  With these new "rights", trying to weed out pedophiles becomes
> > > all the more difficult.
> > Not at all. more scarmongering.
> Tell that to the Scouts or Boys & Girls Club.  Or WORSE, tell it to the
> parents of the poor kids who are molested because of this ruling.

Yawn. More unsubstantiated claims.

> > > And Trudeau's action in 1968 wasn't going to eventually lead to
> > > homosexual rights either.
> > False analogy.
> That's what was used to dispel the critics of the legalization of
> sodomy.  No, it wasn't going to lead to gay rights, it was just getting
> the state out of the nation's bedrooms.

More idiocy.

> > > Pedophiles say so.
> > No they don't.
> Yes they do.  They affirm that their lifestyle is perfectly normal and
> just one more orientation.  I know.  I've had the misfortune of
> communicating with them.

They can assert all they want, but you know as well as I do (and this is
what makes your argument so damn offensive) is that sex with children is
objectionable on the grounds that children cannot enter into consensual
sex acts. Any objection on the grounds of sexual orientation are just as
dismissable as claims that were should allow heterosexual persons to marry
as age 11.

Your position is a paragon of ntellectual dishonesty.

> > > None of those are behaviours.
> > Ok, how about people who drink beer?
> Behaviour.  If you don't want your kids' babysitter to be a person who
> drinks beer, you can do that.
> >                                       People who drive cars rather than
> > bikes? People who read novels? People who watch TV? People who wear
> > sweaters?
> Same, same, same, and same.  It is perfectly legal to discriminate
> against anybody based upon these behaviours.

You can fire someone on the grounds that they watch TV? I think you'd
better study a little labour law before you keep shooting off your mouth.
 
> I see.  First you want to see the torturous reasoning.  Then you refer
> to drivel the fact that 3% of the population makes up 35% of our
> pedophiles.

I challenge your statistics.... as you knew I would.  It is more like 10%
and 10%. But it was a nice try.
 
> > > The slippery-slope has been in existence for 30 years...why will it stop
> > > now?
> >  You *are* an idiot, aren't you?
> Apparently being an idiot merely means knowing the facts and learning
> from history.

Well that lesson is only apparent if you fail to learn from history and
invent your own facts.

-- 
"A thing is not necessarily true just because a man dies for it." 
 Oscar Wilde