Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Like we didn't know it | Main | The Anti-Semites are up Early This Sunday! »

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Same sex marriage debate in one week's time?

So-cons in Ottawa are sending out mobilization e-mails this afternoon. This is due to a report, based on the usual anonymous leak from a "reliable source", that the Conservatives will be bringing forth their motion on revoking or changing same-sex marriage December 4 "or thereabouts".

If (and this is a big if) this is true, it may be an indication that the government wants to use the Chrismas break to pressure MP's to decide quickly so they can go home for the holiday.

Posted by Rick Hiebert on November 25, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Same sex marriage debate in one week's time?:


I wonder if the timing is more because Harper wants to fulfull his promise to bring up the issue but at the same time does not want to waste a lot of time on it. So bring it up right before Christmas, have a vote (which is almost certain to result in not reopening the issue again), then we all have Christmas and forget all about it. Come January, serious issues can take the floor again.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-25 5:03:20 PM

Cheap shot, Mark. Same-sex marriage isn't a serious issue? It's serious if you take Western civilization seriously; it's serious if you have a backbone. It's not serious if you're an amoral libertarian, or if you are afraid of being called a homophobe.

Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-11-25 6:09:41 PM

They are scheduling the debate for that week so that the brand new leader of the Liberals will have to deal with it right off the bat, and hopefully will get stuck with some problems from MPs who a) did not support him and b) are anti-samesex marriage.

Posted by: bcbarbie | 2006-11-25 6:16:32 PM

Good thoughts k k

Harper certainly keeps things interesting as well as entertaing

A master of strategy in my opinion

Good to see the opposition and msm off balance so much and 3 steps behind.

Nice to see a shrewd man in power with a few brains and willing to take a few calculated risks

I believe our ceo is worth his wages.

Posted by: Simon | 2006-11-25 7:27:56 PM

Can politicians be trusted to do the right thing on “same-sex marriage?”
By Stephen Gray

The politicians are to have a so-called “free vote” on the “same-sex marriage” issue in the fall of 2006. On June 8, 1999, politicians voted in parliament to “preserve the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.” It passed by 216 to 55 against, and commonsense, decency, sanity and truth prevailed.

Then in June 2005, parliament voted by 158 to 133 in support of so-called “same-sex marriage.” Did some of them make liars of themselves? For in 1999, some of them voted for traditional marriage. Which poses the question: Why would any thinking people trust them again on this issue? Most of them now bend and break like rotten branches blowing in the wind when the nonsense of “same-sex marriage” is raised and they now support it. Therefore, I believe this matter is much too important to be left to untrustworthy politicians. In fact, some politicians who were against “gay marriage” are now wavering and others cannot be trusted to do the honorable and decent thing and come out against this perversion of justice, law and politics.

The Globe and Mail of June 3, 2006, had this to say: “Several Conservatives, most recently Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, who originally said no to same-sex unions, now say they would not vote to reopen the issue, arguing that Canada has moved on.”

And Liberal MP, Keith Martin, who was a former Tory MP (it’s getting harder and harder to keep track of these guys and their politics) was quoted in a Canadian press story on the “same-sex marriage debate” which said: “Liberal MP Keith Martin said the country has more important things to deal with and Harper should get on with them.”
"The prime minister has to get over it," Martin said in Ottawa. "This issue is dead. It's over. The provinces, the courts and Parliament have decided the [sic] same-sex marriage is the law of the land." [1]

Note: Keith Martin voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 in Parliament.

Parliament sensibly decided in 1999 that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. But then the House of No Shame, sometimes called Parliament “decided” in 2005 that people of the same gender could marry each other. So I ask the question again: Can we trust the politicians in this Parliament? Some of them have betrayed the people who voted for them by crossing the floor. So double crossing comes easy to some politicians.

Another politician who crossed the floor from the Liberal party to the Conservative party, David Emerson, had this to say on the “same-sex marriage” issue: "Candidly, I'm not excited about reopening the issue," Emerson said. "Even in the last election, when I ran as a Liberal, it was not a big issue that I was confronted with at the doorstep." [2]

In summing up, one can see, based on the evidence of the original vote in Parliament in favour of traditional marriage, that many of these politicians do not have the courage of their convictions. They can change their vote as easy as some of them change parties. So I ask once again, can any of them be trusted? I believe the only hope is the use of the notwithstanding clause by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to protect “the rule of law.”

“We are the product of our values, a country that cherishes freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.”[3] Prime Minister, Stephen Harper

The above words by P.M. Harper sound good. But are they true? Since when did this aberration called “same-sex marriage” have “values?” If we cherished “freedom” the people would be allowed to vote by referendum on whether they accept this lie of so-called “same-sex marriage.” If we cherished “democracy” non-elected judges would not be allowed to “read in” words not written in the Charter. And finally if we cherished the “rule of law” this nonsense called “same-sex marriage” would never have been made into “law.” I believe the not-withstanding clause is appropriate in this matter.

“In sum, using the section 33 Notwithstanding power is a perfectly legitimate response to the courts’ usurpation of the legislative responsibility to make laws—in this case, the law of marriage. This is especially true for homosexual marriage, as the courts have added new meaning to the Charter that was explicitly rejected when the Charter was being written….Critics of section 33 say that we cannot trust politicians to act as a check on the courts. Fine, if that’s the case, give the decision to the people. Legitimize the use of the notwithstanding clause by democratizing it. It [sic] we cannot trust politicians, surely we can trust the Canadian people.” [4]

The people must be allowed to speak based on the evidence of subversion of the Charter by non-elected judges, or Prime Minister Harper should do the honorable thing and invoke the not-withstanding clause.
This is what he could say: This distortion and invention of words called “same-sex marriage" was never in the Charter. It was imposed by non-elected lawyers that we now call judges. Therefore I am going to use the not-withstanding clause to return sanity, truth and decency to this country for the sake of our children. But unfortunately he is dedicated to holding this so-called “free vote” on a lie and is on record as saying he would “never” use it on this issue.

The Prime Minister, by even holding a “free vote” on this lie, is giving credibility to judge-imposed nonsense and political charlatans who concocted a “law” on this matter. Surely, he must know that this issue was NEVER in the Charter. Decency, truth and justice demands that he should invoke the not-withstanding clause. If he won’t do that, then let the people decide by referendum. For I do not believe, based on the earlier evidence of their actions, that politicians can be trusted to revoke this lie called “same-sex marriage.”

Stephen Gray
July 5, 2006.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo


1 http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060602/n060253A.html

2 http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060531/n053177A.html

3 http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060701/n070123A.html

4 F.L. (Ted) Morton National Post, A14, Sept. 4, 2003)

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-11-25 7:49:23 PM

Doubt Harper will go so far as making same sex a confidence motion. It is a serious issue for our society however.
If it's a true free vote for all parties we know it will be close and may even be defeated.
It would then be an election issue as it should be.
It's hard to grasp the fact that polls tell us we are evenly split on the issue.
Could it be people don't understand the anatomy of gay sex and all the different categories, trans-sexuals, bi-sexuals, trans-genders,it sounds like a confused mess of humanity and looks like something serious has happened to the human race.

Parliament can't fix it but they can stay with the traditional definition of marriage, it should never have been tampered with by government in the first place.
In typical Liberal fashion they used it s a wedge issue against the Conservatives and it has backfired, they will still be dealing with it, Harper has assured it.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-25 8:17:37 PM

Although this vote may be defeated and that would be the end of it for this session of Parliament, I think that we are not done with this issue until the law is overturned. Therefore, if it is defeated, we will have another vote in a future government. My thinking is as follows.

I think that as long as those promoting the so-called "alternative" lifestyles were framing the questions, they were able to get their agenda accomplished in law. Questions like:
1) does the state have any business in the bedrooms of the nation?
2) why should anyone stop consenting adults?
3) should religious conservatives be able to force their morality on everbody?
were all designed to get the response desired. I think that if the questions and agenda being pursued had been limited to these three questions, the homosexual community would have received fewer privileges than they now enjoy but would have been able to keep those privileges without much struggle. I see a battle coming.

The coming battle is over the issue of NIMBY. As long as the "alternative" lifestyles remained "alternative", most Canadians were willing to grant freedoms even if a sizable minority believed the lifestyle to be "immoral". NIMBY, don't ask, don't tell, etc.

However, the marriage issue changes things for a lot of people. In the minds of many (but not all), marriage is primarily for the formation of a family through procreation. There are certain biological facts that we all know... This new type of marriage does not fit the type of marriage to which most of us are accustomed. Although fine by some, for many others, it has moved the alternative lifestyles from NIMBY to "in my face".

I recently saw a poll published by the CBC that stated that about 1/3 of Canadians still view homosexual behaviour as "immoral". I believe that the real number is higher. I base that statement on my own (admittedly unscientific) polling of people I know. Now, there is a delicate way to ask people you know this question and I have never dared ask any female this question without a third or fourth person present:
4) can you ever imagine yourself engaging in this type of activity or would you date/marry someone of the opposite gender whom you felt had tendencies towards these activities?
The response is almost always the same; this is not asking if you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream, or if you want to wear a blue or grey shirt. This question almost withoput exception evokes a very strong denial given almost immediately without any pondering of the question. Many also have a change of expression on the face as well. So, based on my own polling, I believe some of those who do not list homosexual behaviour as "immoral" are simply telling the pollsters that they think it is OK for people to choose their own lifestyle. This question is important because it leads into the next one.

5) Should homosexual activists be able to influence your children in the schools to be more "sensitive" to the homosexual lifestyle, and would it bother you if one of your children chose to engage in this lifestyle after having received sensitivity education? I believe that this question will be the defining question to overturn the law. As long as the activists can keep the debate on questions 1 to 3, they will continue to win the debate. However as the debate moves to question 5, I believe the tide will change.

The morals of a civilization sometimes do move in cycles from generation to generation. Perhaps we are at the bottom, perhaps we are not yet there and we have further to go before things are turned around. They do not turn around by themselves. Yet, this change in what is called marriage may be just what is needed to have the large majority in Canada "push back" against something they never had a decision on in the first place.

Mr. Harper, understand there are not just 3 questions in this debate; there are the 5 I have listed. The opposition to same-gender marriage will not go away untill the law is overturned. Do the right thing.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-25 10:15:45 PM

Gays should be forced to marry each other and live in the suburbs with 2.3 children, 1.7 pets and a granny flat in the basement...

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-11-26 12:10:17 AM


That is where the battle will be fought. As long as children are not involved, most people will say NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY. Once children are involved, people have grave concerns. Question 5 can be asked as I stated it or it can be simply a rephrasing of Question 3:
3) should religious conservatives be able to force their morality on everybody?
5) should homosexuals be able to coerce their morality (or lack thereof) on everybody's children?
Most people will answer both questions in the negative. And, of course, there is also the issue you raised....

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-26 4:57:51 AM

Same Sex Marriage, Official Bilingualism, and Official Multiculturalism are all about the same weight in by books. The almost 50-50 split in the first and total minority control of the other two have become totally intolerable. It is ripping the cultural fabric of Canada apart and no - we should not trust the politicians to make these decisions. Nor should it be left to the Supreme Court.

If it takes the notwithstanding clause as regards the first, then it is also useful to use it to bring a major correction in terms of the other two as well.

If it doesn't happen federally, it may well happen within some provinces.

Its beginning to sound like another move as was Law S-3. Get it all done behind closed doors by the current crop of MPs and then leave the rest of Canada to pay a huge price - just at was done with Law S-3.

Take a look at just how many conservatives voted on S-3 and then went off into retirement while they surely must have been holding their noses.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-11-26 7:51:16 AM

In a somewhat related topic, here is what the Libs will be proposing on the floor of their "leadership" convention -

Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity." The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.
Legalize anal kiddy diddling - a Liberal "value".

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-11-26 8:54:20 AM

Have to agree, sodomy,anatomically anal intercourse, is a Liberal "value", it's their "baby".It all ties in with their same sex marriage bill. We are now a well publicized haven for the worst of the worst of humanity.

To even think about children at age 14 being used legally by pimps and perverts with the derangement of pedophilia should be enough to send us into the streets in protest.

Would that be one of the Liberal values Paul Martin spoke of in his last desperate attempt to keep power? He said then that Harper did not have Canadian "values", implying that only he and his Liberals had.
Well folks it IS their values, they've proven it and they can wear them.
If we need to use the Notwithstanding Clause so be it, that's what it's there for and we would not have the Charter it it hadn't been included. Remember too Martin said in his last rant on the stump he would ABOLISH the Clause. He was running scared at that point, rambling off in all directions for votes, even down to the dregs of society. What was he afraid of beyond defeat?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-26 9:44:28 AM

The Growing Lunacy
By Stephen Gray

Nobody was quite sure of the exact moment in time that the brains of the country’s judicial, political, social and media elites became infected and contaminated. This virus that appeared to be eating away at their brain cells was a deadly destroyer of rational thought. It first showed up in the “brain” of a certain judge who “read in” words not written in the country’s Charter. This illness was known as the: “Great Hallucination,” and was the first deadly symptoms of the lunacy to come amongst the judiciary.

This contamination of madness then made its way into most of the political “brains” of the country and became a source of infection in the Halls of Power. Lunacy was now a “right” under the Charter and this epidemic of insanity became a “normal” fact of life.

Human life in one eastern province was declared to have no longer a mother or a father, and this province’s statutes were changed and the words mother and father were eliminated. This was done to give “credibility” to the growing political insanity.

Not to be outdone in the march towards derangement of the political minds, the “leader” of a provincial government in the western part of the land had a secret meeting with two men. One of these men was described as being the “husband” of the other man and they proposed to the “leader” of this government that this insidious lunacy should be taught to the children in the schools. In fact they would call this course: “Queer History.” Surely a fitting name for what was to take place!!

But, after large numbers of sane people protested this nonsense, the foolhardy government decided to try and camouflage their insanity and decided to rename this: “Queer History” course: “Social Justice.” Such is the progression of this disease that even the language becomes contaminated and distorted to justify the idiocy of the times.

The people of the country who had not yet succumbed to the growing delusions of the growing insanity wondered if they themselves were watching madness becoming legitimate amongst the elites.

The media elites who controlled most of the country’s “news” became immediately infected and supportive of the growing insanity, and promoted and acclaimed it at every opportunity. They also declared that those opposed to this sickness, were “intolerant,” “hateful,” “bigoted,” “vile,” and many other epithets to numerous to mention. Those opposed knew they were getting a “bum rap” from the bum supporting media and they continued to fight against this folly.

The social elites which consisted of many “intelligent” professors and many of the union bosses had also succumbed to the prevailing daftness. And it was said to be in some union contracts that a man could be the “spouse” of another man and likewise a woman could be the “spouse” of another woman, thus making a truth of the statement that unions were: “Unholy Unions.”

“Civil Unions” were also being promoted throughout the land and these two words were also a sign that even the language could be debased to support the growing insanity.

The uncontaminated people of the land were still trying to fight this epidemic of growing lunacy. They wrote letters to the political rulers, visited them in their offices in the Halls of Power and tried to explain the consequences of this disease that had infected the ruling classes. But, all to no avail. The growing madness was now firmly ensconced in the brains of most of the country’s political elites, and they did not know they were suffering from a sickness that needed treatment for they were in a state of denial. And anyway, how could they know that they were quite mad and in need of help?

The only antidote or cure for the growing insanity amongst the elites was a return to decency, morality and principles. Politicians suffering from this disease of the mind, needed to be removed from public office, and put into a political asylum. Truth in media was also needed to stem the misinformation disguised as “news” that had contributed to the land’s sickness. And finally the judges in the judicial system who had been the original carriers of this disease that had infected much of the country’s elites needed to be removed from the benches and put into quarantine. Then and only then, could this country perhaps be cured of the growing lunacy.

Stephen Gray
November 21, 2006.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-11-26 9:56:43 AM

Same Sex Marriage ie: Connubial Sodomy was created by Lesbian Lawyers in the Federal Justice Department
who realized they had compliant Ministers and Prime Minister, in Graham, Cotler and Martin. Martin in my opinion was advised by his EA Herle (he and is "wife"
look like a Same Sex Couple). But the phenomenon is not about "rights" it is all about money. The political implications quickly focus on the huge homosexual community of GTA which Liberal Strategists quickly built into the Federal election campaign, but it proved very costly for many Liberal MPs who were defeated because many in the public will not now or ever accept the thesis
of connubial sodomy as part of the Law of the Land
-It is the right time for Harper to take the first major tactical step to confine and eliminate this traversity as part of his next election mandate. Many Liberal MPs will
consider retirement and resignation rather than "fight" for this issue. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-26 11:59:16 AM

To hear you folks go on, you'd think that sodomy was a practice exclusive to homosexuals, rather than a popular pastime, enjoyed by about 40 percent of heterosexuals.
Of course, given the number of posters here with a clearly tenuous grasp on reality, (Karolak and Gray come immediately to mind)and the approving comments they receive from the rest of you clowns, I'm hardly suprised that you have managed over ignore or overlook this pesky detail.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 12:32:44 PM


Correction ... If you are implying that 40% of heterosexuals are indulging in anal sex then it is safe to say that only 20% of the hetros are enjoying it.

I have never met a women who actually like anal sex. Having had a couple of prostate exams in my life, I can attest to why that may be so.

Sticking large objects in and out of your rectum is not only whacked out, but it is unhealthy, painful and disgusting.

Anyone who prefers a rectum (home of fecal matter) to a vagina home of embryos is either mentally or emotionally ill.

The vast majority of the Liberal and NDP members fall into that category already since as many of us are aware ... Liberalism is a mental disorder.

A little humor on the subject here ..

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-26 1:08:48 PM

Thanks for a little humor Duke. American Author Edna Ferber; Cimarron, Giant, Saratoga Trunk etc. was once accosted by British Composer and Playwright, the openly Gay Noel Coward, when homosexuality was hidden away. He remarked to Ferber noted for her quick and acerbic wit; "You look just like a man"
to which Ferber replied; "so do you". MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-26 1:20:51 PM


Call us Clowns for not agreeing with making anal intercourse legal in any manner, whether for gays or to make it legal for perverts and sickos to prey on fourteen year olds if you wish. No problem.
It really isn't a concern if adult heterosexuals engage in such revolting practice, it's their sick choice and it goes beyond religious beliefs into the realm of human decency. As for your stating 40% do, I don't think so, where do you get such stats? A Liberal poll maybe?
At least the lowly animals know better.
How about we call you a Clown, Brownie the Clownie. Enjoy your peccadillos and "pastimes".

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-26 2:10:06 PM


I created that graphic and the joke. I am unaware of what you are referring to.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-26 2:26:40 PM

Making Sodomy Respectable
By Stephen Gray

"As the AIDS epidemic expanded, homosexual advocacy groups quickly realized that the negative association of sodomy with a fatal communicable disease could reverse past political achievements. Without aggressive countermeasures, AIDS could impede their drive for a national law equating homosexuality with race, skin colour and ethnicity. Homosexual groups had previously succeeded in pressuring the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations into declaring that homosexuality was no longer a mental aberration." ( page 207, AIDS: Rage and Reality by Gene Antonio.)

In Canada today, homosexuality is being equated with race. The National Post of August 18, 2003, had the headline: "DO NOT SEGREGATE GAYS: FRY " Member of Parliament, Hedy Fry was quoted in this article as saying, in response to an alternative being proposed to gay marriage, " It’s like suggesting you have water fountains or washrooms - they’re equally equipped, etcetera - but one is for blacks and one is for whites. You’re still segregating."

The strategy to equate a behaviour with ‘race, skin colour and ethnicity’ is obviously working. Many people have been cowed into silence. After all, who likes being called a racist if they dare to speak out on this matter. Although people of colour are entitled to be upset to see themselves used as examples to justify respectability for a disease ridden lifestyle. Words are being used as weapons to suppress any criticism. The latest buzz words are "equality" and "discrimination."

Even the Justice Minister, Mr. Cauchon is getting in on the act. He is quoted on the issue of same-sex marriage as saying: "Anything less is discrimination." (National Post, August 18, 2003.) Orwellian doublespeak has come to Canada. And of course the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used by assorted "experts" to say that this lifestyle is all about "equality." Never mind that this behaviour was never in the Charter, yet we are being brainwashed into believing that it is, by all the usual suspects, politicians, media etc. In fact, the Prime Minister says "all Canadians respect and cherish" the Charter (National Post, August 20, 2003). Which makes one wonder, Is our "great leader" deluded or daft or both? Though one of the ruling party’s politicians did say this about his government: "We’re at the stage where nonsense is the rule of the day" (National Post, August 18, 2003).

There is a madness abroad in the land. It seems to have infected the brain cells of judges, most politicians, the media, the law and all those who form the so-called "intellectuals" and ruling class of society. Ask yourself the question: Is it normal for two people of the same-sex to be married? Should this insanity even be up for discussion? Any child would say that same-sex marriage is stupid, but not our so-called mature and "sensible" adult politicians and judges. How do you certify a ruling class and who would do it? Why is it that those who practice this abnormal lifestyle are able to make judges and many politicians subservient to their wishes? What can be the reason for this insanity being proclaimed as a Charter "right?" Do we have a defective democracy? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was never voted on by the people. But now it is used as a weapon to impose on the country a lifestyle that is detrimental to the health of society.

"Instead of enacting appropriate measures to protect the public, many politicians have identified with the cause of those spreading mass contagion" ( page 248, AIDS: Rage And Reality by Gene Antonio).

The highest percentage of AIDS cases in Canada are caused by homosexual behaviour, and an article titled, "AIDS: Medical and Scientific Aspects" by Thomas Curran, Research Branch, Library of Parliament stated regarding AIDS that, "...most of the cases of the disease in Canada have been diagnosed in the gay community. By 30 June 1995, 76.4% of total AIDS cases were related to homosexual or bisexual activity."

Despite all the evidence available in their own departments on this dangerous and disease ridden lifestyle the government and the judges supported by most of the media are determined to impose on the country this deadly conduct and call it "marriage." Practicing a behaviour that can bring disease and death is all about "equality." One must be "tolerant," cry our mad rulers. Canada’s blood supply was contaminated by those immersed in this "nice" lifestyle. Innocent people who received tainted blood were victims, because some people were afraid to ask questions of homosexuals, fearing it might be discriminatory. Others were afraid of "offending the gay community."

We are now in the final stages of a political and judicial disease: legitimizing the sodomite lifestyle. No matter that this behaviour is costing our healthcare system billions of dollars. Sodomy is to be celebrated. Sodomy is a "human right." Sodomy is all about "tolerance" "diversity" "equality" "inclusivity" and being "non-discriminatory." Sodomy is being made respectable by the powers that be and only they know their reason for doing so. But then in the words of one writer: "Insanity destroys reason..." and perhaps that is the explanation.

Stephen Gray
August 22, 2003.
[email protected] website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-11-26 3:31:02 PM

"Do you prefer kinky sex and AIDS/HIV as a result of it?? If yes vote Liberal.

Do you prefer straight sex and having children as a result of it??? If yes vote Conservative."

I vote on the basis of economic and foreign policy.

Posted by: exile | 2006-11-26 4:14:28 PM

The CPC now has the chance to become a long term political force in Canada. To re-open the SSM debate would seriously reduce the likelyhood that will happen.

Instead, the best path forward would be for CPC to propose that the state should exit entirely from the marriage business.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2006-11-26 6:06:41 PM

Disgusting is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure many, if not most women would consider the prospect of connecting with your grizzled flesh repulsive, but I wouldn't think of accusing those who might consent to such as act of beind mentally or emotionally ill. I might suggest they had taste or bad judgment, but I save those other terms for folks like Karol and Stephen Gray, who are clearly loons.
The figures are from the National Centre for Health Statistics, which is associated with the Centers for Disease Control. Does that make it a liberal poll? Well, as Stephen Colbert has observed, "Everybody knows reality has a liberal bias."
Perhaps after you wipe the foam for your mouth and finish setting your hair on fire (I'm not holding my breath) you might explain why there should be a four-year gap in the age of consent depending on the orifice the person consenting choses to allow access to. And I mean real reasons, and not just your personal preferences or the fact that your find anal sex icky.
And when you're done with that, maybe you can be the first conservative who can offer a coherent explanation about why gay people marrying makes your wedding vows worthless.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 6:59:47 PM

We have not yet come to that crossroads in our generation where we as a civilization are prepared to turn our hearts to God. Yet it may be beneficial for some of us to remind ourselves of the way God sees things in preparation for that day; we are not the first generation to have travelled this road. This simply describes the problem of our day, the solution is listed in further chapters of Romans.


Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-26 7:05:51 PM

That's a whole lotta rage you got built up there.

"And when you're done with that, maybe you can be the first conservative who can offer a coherent explanation about why gay people marrying makes your wedding vows worthless. "

High divorce rate, demographic death spiral, western cultural suicide.

Oh, I forgot. Narcissistic, self-indulgent, decadent spoiled brats.

See the connection? Nah. Thought not!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-26 7:27:26 PM

true West; Here is some medical info for you.


from Medical Issues

Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?
By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
Delaware Family Foundation
The writer of this article, health professional and medical reporter Kathleen Melonakos, describes the impact of male-with-male sex upon physical health.

I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices. As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of NARTH in the research and treatment of homosexuality.

I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, I knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an engineer, and a hairdresser that died in their mid-forties of infectious diseases related to their homosexual behavior patterns. I know of many others that have died young as a result of living a gay lifestyle.

The co-author of my own medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses,[i] was the head of the surgery department at Stanford. She related case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts. I am certain--in light of my clinical experience, and since doing considerable amount of studying about it since that time--that homosexuality is neither normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.[ii]

As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals. This, to me, is tragic, when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help.

I now live in Delaware and work in conjunction with the Delaware Family Foundation to inform the public about homosexual issues. We are debating gay activists who want to add "sexual discrimination" to our anti-discrimination code. In trying to make the case that homosexuality is not healthy and should not be encouraged, we come up against the fact that neither the American Psychiatric Association, nor the American Psychological Association recognize it as a disorder. Our opponents say we are using "scare tactics."

Dr. Satinover brilliantly laid out in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth the solid, irrefutable evidence that there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality--that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse.

It doesn't take someone trained in medicine to recognize that, as Brian Camenker of the Parent Right's Coalition said on national TV, "A lifetime of anal sex does not do great things for the body." Brian also said, "As troubling as that statement sounds, there is no logical argument against it." Thus, even lay people recognize what should be obvious, especially to those trained in medicine, and who know the basic facts about homosexuality. It seems to me that medical professionals should be more aware and concerned about the consequences of habitually engaging in promiscuous anal intercourse, and other oral-anal practices of active homosexuals.[iiia]

The risk of anal cancer soars for those engaging in anal intercourse. According to one report, it rises by an astounding 4000%, and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.[iiib]

Can anyone refute that anal intercourse tears the rectal lining of the receptive partner, regardless of whether a condom is worn, and the subsequent contact with fecal matter leads to a host of diseases?

Diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable can be classified as follows:

Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).[iv]

Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex--not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle?[v] People with this whole cluster of behavior patterns are somehow "normal"?

My primary question is: why isn't homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences alone? Dr. Satinover and others have made a solid case for why homosexuality parallels alcoholism as an unhealthy addiction. It should have a parallel diagnosis.

There is a lot of literature, including on the NARTH website, discussing the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a diagnosis. The arguments against the change in diagnosis seem to center around "societal standards," moral relativism, "subjective distress" of the client, and whether or not there is any objective standard for "psychological" normalcy (for instance, the debate between Joseph Nicolosi and Dr. Michael Wertheimer in A Clash In Worldviews: An Interview with Dr. Michael Wertheimer).

While these considerations are important, it seems like we can set aside, for the moment, the debate on whether homosexuality should be classified as a developmental disorder. Very simply, it seems, an objective person just looking at homosexuality's lifestyle consequences would have to classify it as some kind of pathology. Does it or does it not lead to a dramatically shortened lifespan? Studies say it does, some by as much as 40%; the Cameron study being only one of many other studies that suggest this.[vi]

Taken together, these studies establish that homosexuality is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction. However, it appears that far too few physicians or other professionals are making arguments in favor of homosexuality as a diagnosis based on its adverse health consequences.

While doing research into the history of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of disorders, I have been shocked to find out the specious reasoning upon which the decision was based, and that qualified physicians have allowed the decision to stand.

On Feb. 5, 2002, I corresponded by e-mail with Dr. Robert Spitzer of the APA and asked him to send me references for the position papers and studies upon which his committee based its decision to remove the diagnosis. He told me to read Ron Bayer's book,[vii] the "closest thing to a position paper" (American Journal of Psychiatry,130:11, 1207-1216), and he said, "There was no specific list of references, but what was influential too was the Evelyn Hooker Rorshach study and the Eli Robins community study."[viii]

I have read many of the criticisms of the Hooker study--how respondents were specifically selected rather than at random, and other methodological limitations.[ix] Dr. Charles Socarides informs us also that Spitzer was influenced by the Kinsey Report, which was recognized as early as 1976 by "social progressives" like Prof. Paul Robinson of Stanford as "a pathetic manifestation of Kinsey's philosophical naivete.. a mechanical contrivance, which...bore little relation to reality,"[x] and since has been discredited by the work of Judith Reisman and others.

It is clear that Dr. Socarides was right when he said that the decision to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis "involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists and educators over the past seventy years..."[xi]

It appears even more obvious that the Task Force on Nomenclature cavalierly ignored (and the APA's continue to ignore!) the substantial and unambiguous evidence that homosexuality involves a life-threatening behavior with an addictive component which has serious health implications.[xii]

That the APA's have escaped accountability for their lack of scientific and professional integrity is especially incredible since the advent of the AIDS epidemic. There are currently an estimated 900,000 people in the United States that are infected with the HIV virus, or 1 in 300 Americans. Though there has been a decrease in AIDS deaths per year due to drug therapy, (which costs an average of $12,000 per patient per year) the rate of new infections per year has remained the same, at 40,000, despite the twenty year "safe-sex" campaign.[xiii]

These facts demonstrate the failure of current policies in containing the AIDS epidemic. While drug therapy will briefly extend the life of these patients, AIDS remains the fifth leading cause of death among those aged 25-44, and 60% of new cases are contracted by men who have sex with men.[xiv] According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than the general heterosexual population[xv]

Dr. Satinover has said in an interview with NARTH:

"A recent article in a psychiatric publication informed us that 30% of all 20-year-old homosexual men will be HIV positive or dead by the age of thirty. You would think that the objective, ethical approach would be: let's use anything that works to try to take these people out of their posture of risk. If it means getting them to wear condoms fine. If it means getting them to give up anal intercourse, fine. If it means getting them to give up homosexuality, fine. But that last intervention is the one intervention that it absolutely taboo.

"There is no doubt that a cold, statistical analysis of this epidemic would lead you to believe that this attitude of political correctness is killing a substantial proportion of these people. I think there is an element of denial, in the psychological sense, of what gay-related illnesses really mean."[xvi]

It seems to me that the APA's should be aggressively pressed to recognize the facts about the morbidity and mortality directly attributed to homosexuality, or be exposed for the recklessly irresponsible "guardians of the public health" they have become, at least on this issue.

When will doctors and other health care workers demand that officers in the American Psychiatric Association respond to the clear evidence in the following: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth: the mortality rates listed in their own "APA's Practical Guidelines for Treating Patients with HIV/AIDS";[xvii] and other important reports, such as the Monograph put out by the Institute of Sexual Health, Health Implications of Homosexuality?[xviii]

Lest we think that APA officers justify their neglect of medical consequences of homosexuality on the basis that sexual orientation cannot be changed, we note that Robert Spitzer acknowledged in his original 1973 position paper on Nomenclature that "modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so."[xix]

He has now confirmed the fact that sexual orientation can be changed with his recent study.[xx] We know that changing sexual orientation only became "impossible" in the nineties, as part of a political strategy by gay activists.[xxi]

Spitzer and his allies' rationale for removing homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973 was that to be considered a psychiatric disorder,

"it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning....Clearly homosexuality per se does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder, since, as noted above, many are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning." (Spitzer, et.al, p. 1215).
The Task Force's reasoning fails for several reasons. First, even if we grant the validity of their stated criteria (which is questionable), the fact that many homosexuals "are satisfied with their sexual orientation," fails to take into account the large number of homosexuals who are not satisfied with their sexual orientation and who do experience "subjective distress and generalized impairment in social functioning." The removal of the diagnosis is not just unfair, but cruel to those who would seek treatment for their condition.

Secondly, there are unambiguous reasons to think that homosexuality per se does cause "generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning." If in fact it is a lethal addiction, and the many studies documenting the behavior patterns of homosexuals are correct (that show compulsive patterns of promiscuity, anonymous sex, sex for money, sex in public places, sex with minors, concomitant drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide), for the APA to argue that these features do not constitute an "impairment of social effectiveness or functioning," stretches the boundaries of plausibility. To argue that early death does not constitute an "impairment of social effectiveness or functioning" is absurd.

The APA claims its mission is "to promote a bio-psycho-social approach to understanding and caring for patients, in all aspects of health care, including illness prevention" (APA's Stategic Goals Statement). Thus the APA violates its own goals then when it ignores evidence that homosexuality can in many cases be prevented, and denies reorientation therapy to those who want it.

A careful reading of the articles opposing reorientation therapy reveals their authors' rationale that they find such therapy to be "oppressive" to those who do not want therapy.[xxii]

What if this logic was applied to any other lethal illness? What if doctors said, "We refuse to treat cancer (or, say, alcoholism) because we only achieve a 50% cure rate--and many people who don't want to be cured find it oppressive that we do cure the others?" Why wouldn't the lawsuits for malpractice be filed?

We know that Ronald Gold of the Gay Activist's Alliance, an openly gay man, was a member of the committee to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973. We know that gay activists were disrupting meetings, threatening doctors, and using other strong-arm tactics to get their way at that time.[xxiii]

We also know that homosexual activists like Dr. Richard Isay in the APA have pressed for resolutions to punish therapists for practicing reorientation therapy, and that threats of lawsuits appear to be the main reason the APA has not implemented his proposals.[xxiv]

We know homosexual advocates in the APA continue to suppress debate about Spitzer's new study documenting that sexual orientation can be changed (and to suppress debate about other supporting studies).[xxv] We also know that active homosexuals such as Clinton Anderson at the American Psychological Association refuse to permit NARTH to engage in open debate or announce NARTH meetings in APA publications simply because he disagrees with the premises upon which reorientation therapy is based.[xxvi]

For these reasons, I do not think it is far-fetched to use the analogy that the "drunks are running the rehab center," in reference to the APA's--at least as far as homosexuality is concerned. Active homosexuals can hardly be objective about an addictive behavior they engage in themselves. In light of the medical evidence, it seems that the Galenic dictum, "physician heal thyself," should apply, as it did it in the past, as Dr. Satinover suggests.[xxvii]

It seems to me the situation in this country will only get worse until the APA is held directly responsible for what is arguably their criminal negligence. In failing to reckon with serious medical consequences of the homosexual behavior pattern, they are harming our whole society, and especially the upcoming generation.

The recent decision by the American Academy of Pediatrics to endorse gay adoptions is yet another disturbing example of how the decision to "normalize" homosexuality by the APA has had a broad ripple effect. Health professionals especially, should heed Dean Byrd's outcry on the NARTH web site that it is time that the American people "insist on truth, not politics, from all of our professional organizations."

What will it take to insist on truth? Lawsuits? Protests? In my opinion, doctors and other health professionals must exert pressure, or share culpability.

What if every person reading this article sent a copy of it to the president of the American Psychiatric Association and asked for a response? Reasoned debate is the least that psychiatrists owe our society--especially those whose lives and loved ones are at risk.

The following is relevant contact information If interested in contacting these organizations, remember that our aim is to open up a principled, civil debate:

American Psychiatric Association

President, Richard Harding, M.D.
[email protected]

President-Elect, Paul Appelbaum, M.D.
[email protected]

Or: American Psychiatric Association
1400 K Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005
(888) 357-7924 -- FAX 202-682-6850 -- [email protected]


[i] Melonakos, Kathleen, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses, Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990, (2nd ed)., with Sheryl Michelson, , 1995.

[ii] Satinover, Jeffrey, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Hamewith/Baker Books, 1996.

[iiia] For an eye-opening survey of the medical studies and journal reports describing the unhygienic and disease-producing practices of homosexuals, see http://www.cprmd.org, "Homosexual Myths--Male Homosexuals are Healthy and Have Normal Sex Lives."

[iiib] Fenger, C. "Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies," Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp.190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., "Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," New England Journal of Medicine 317, no.16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., "Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking," Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81, no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., "Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases"; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men, http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

[iv] W.E. Owen Jr., "Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent," Journal of Adolescent Health Care6, No.4, July 1985, pp. 278-85.

[v] See O'Leary, Dale, "Recent Studies on Homosexuality and Mental Health," http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html. O'Leary gives a summary of health findings and references for specific studies.

[vi] Mr. Trey Kern, President of the Citizen's for Parent Rights, in Pasadena, Maryland has collected an impressive amount data on studies documenting the diminished lifespan of active homosexuals. See www.cprmd.org, "Homosexual Myths: Homosexuals Live Long Lives, Fact Sheet. Studies include: (G. Tardieu, 1858; M. Hirschfield, 1914, Kinsey, 1930's, 1940's; Mattachine Society, 1950's: Berger, 1960's, Kinsey Institute, 1969; Spada Report 1978; M. Mendola, 1979; Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, 1994; Hogg, R.S., et. al, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997; Cameron, P, Cameron, K, Playfair, WL., Psychological Reports, 1998.

[vii] Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, Princeton University Press, 1987. Mr. Bayer chronicled the story of how homosexuality was removed as a diagnosis. It confirms that the APA did not officially investigate or study the issue thoroughly before it gave formal approval of the deletion of homosexuality from the DSMII.

[viii] Personal e-mail correspondence with Dr. Spitzer, Feb. 5, 2002.

[ix] Socarides, Charles, W., "Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality," The Journal of Psychohistory, 10:3, 1992, p. 309 Dr. Socarides explains that a task force within the APA itself concluded in 1973 that Hooker's study was full of methodological errors, and did not warrant her conclusions. See also, Joseph Nicolosi, "Clash of Worldviews: Interview with Michael Wertheimer", www.narth.com.

[x] Socarides, p. 324.

[xi].Socarides, p. 315

[xii] Spitzer, R.L, et. al, in "Symposium: Should Homosexuality Be in the APA Nomenclature?" American Journal of Psychiatry, 130:11, 1973 make no mention whatsoever of any health implications of homosexuality. Also, I asked Dr. Spitzer in an e-mail correspondence April 4, 2001, whether there was any chance the APA might change its policy in light of evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and the negative impact of homosexual practices upon lifespan. He acknowledged nothing about shortened lifespan, but gave a one-sentence reply that said there was no possibility that APA would change its policy on homosexuality at that time.

[xiii] "APA's Practical Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with HIV/AIDS," Epidemiology, Clinical Features Influencing Treatment, sections, www.psych.org/aids/

[xiv] Ibid, Anti-Viral Treatment section.

[xv] The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, January, 1992, p. 9.

[xvi] Satinover, Jeffrey, "Reflections: Interview with NARTH," Feb. 5, 2001, http:www.narth.com/docs/satinover.html.

[xvii] See American Psychiatric Association website, www.psych.org/aids/, or obtain bound copy of report available from American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., 1-800-368-5777, or www.appi.org.

[xviii] Monograph is available from The Institute of Sexual Health, P.O.Box 162306, Austin, TX 78716, ph (512) 328-6268, fax (ph) 538-6269.

[xix] Spitzer, R.L, et. al, "Symposium: Should Homosexuality Be in the APA Nomenclature?" p.1215.

[xx] Spitzer, R.L, "Two Hundred Subjects Who Claim to Have Changed Their Sexual Orientation from Homosexual to Heterosexual," presentation made at the American Psychiatric Association, May 9th, 2001, in New Orleans, available from NYS Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, 10032, phone (212) 543-5524.

[xxi] Rev. Dr. Earle Fox, former president of the chapter of Exodus Intl. whose members picketed the 2000 APA convention to protest the denial of therapy to those who want it (which resulted in Dr. Robert Spitzer's 2001 study on reorientation therapy), tells in "Homosexuality Wrongly a Civil Right," Delaware State News, January 13, 2002, how no one was disputing that sexual orientation could be changed until gay activists, Kirk and Madsen, in After the Ball: How America will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, Doubleday, 1989, outlined their plan to convince America gays were "born that way," and "beyond the realm of moral choice," p. 189.

[xxii] For an extensive survey of the articles promoting the view opposing reorientation therapy, see Diamond, Eugene, et.al, Homosexuality and Hope, the results of a two-year study, published by the Catholic Medical Association, p. 14, obtainable at P.O. Box 757, Pewaukee, WI, 53072 or http://www.cathmed.org. Some of the articles quoted are Davison, G., 1982; Gittings, 1973; Begelman, 1975, 1977; Murphy 1992; Sleek 1997; Silverstein, 1972; Smith, 1988. See also, "Psychiatrists Reject Therapy to Alter Gays: Efforts aimed at Turning Homosexuals into Heterosexuals are Harmful, Professional Board Declares, Even for Those Not Being Treated," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1998.

[xxiii] Socarides, p. 310. See also, Satinover, p. 31-40.

[xxiv] See Satinover, p. 36,180-182, and Stern, Mark, E, "The Battle Against the A.P.A. Resolution", www.narth.com, Interviews/Testimonies.

[xxv] Rev. Dr. Earle Fox, Delaware State News, Jan. 13, 2002.

[xxvi] NARTH Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 3, Dec. 2001, Letter from Clinton W. Anderson to Drs. Nicolosi and Byrd, p. 16.

[xxvii] Satinover, p. 47.

[ top of page ]

Updated: 20 April 2006

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-11-26 7:43:26 PM

Perhaps you missed the word "coherent". Or perhaps you don't understand what it means. In any case simply listing what you see as societal ills and blaming the fags doesn't qualify as coherent argument. But then you seem unclear on the word "rage" as well. Trust me, I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused. And you folks provide plenty of laughs.

Posting an article, long on anecdote, short of research, written by a homophobic RN from a website that sets out to blur the line between science and theology and spews nonsense about "curing" homosexuality, doesn't qualify as "medical info" anymore than your ravings qualify as journalism.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 8:15:45 PM

Sorry you don't see it that way.

I see nothing funny about civilization coming apart at the seams.

Enjoy your chuckles or rage or whatever.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-26 8:28:25 PM

Cut truewest some slack here people. In the effete salons where he does his merry-making, I’m sure he is lauded as a champion for the cause. That said, he certainly doesn’t add anything informative to this thread just the same old homo-rant. You will find true that the vast majority of people find your lifestyle disgusting AND anti-social. Attempt to colour it any way you wish but the reality is you are a depraved group existing on the fringe and that will NEVER change.

Posted by: Harry | 2006-11-26 8:28:31 PM

I don't need slack from swine, but thanks anyway. For the record, I'm not gay. But I'm not a hateful ignorant cracker either. And unlike H20 I'm not going to make scapegoats of people because they're attracted to people with the same genitalia and aren't ashamed of it.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 8:50:02 PM

Cracker? Your slip is showing dearie.............

Posted by: Harry | 2006-11-26 8:53:08 PM

Devastating wit there, Harry. Bet that winning sense of humour makes you a hit with the ladies.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 8:56:02 PM

Yep and the right sort of ladies too.

Posted by: Harry | 2006-11-26 8:57:23 PM

By which I'm sure you mean the CHEAP whores.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 8:59:43 PM

Well, I'll give you the last word. I'm not much for name-calling so I'll leave that game for you as I find that usually placates your smug group. If you meant the last comment to be insulting, it wasn't. You displayed yourself as a typical arrogant, ignorant elitist that always resort to name-calling and insults. Enjoy the skin you’re in mate.

Posted by: Harry | 2006-11-26 9:11:47 PM

" And unlike H20 I'm not going to make scapegoats of people because they're attracted to people with the same genitalia and aren't ashamed of it."

Umm. I haven't even used the words homosexual, fags, etc. I was speaking of civilization in general.

" In any case simply listing what you see as societal ills and blaming the fags doesn't qualify as coherent argument. "

Again, I made no such implication. I see it as a symptom of a larger problem.

That's twice you read something that wasn't there. Why the obsession? Clearly, something is bothering you.

It might help if you let it out in the open so I can properly address your concerns.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-26 9:36:36 PM

What is going to be very interesting, is this vote is going to be, or is suppossed to be, a free vote.

As far as I am concerned, the gay vote has had too much of the political spotlight. It is so very yawn. No matter how they try their damndest to look sexy, in chains and spikes and black leather, they still haven't figured it out, that all that jiggling is not going to produce much more than an appointment at the hospital for a sphincter muscle tightening procedure.

They get their vote, and as soon as it is over, we all get to get on with our lives, sticking to the real freedom and liberty issues, and the next generation of home grown Canadians.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-26 9:55:18 PM

Great info. I had read some info on the same subject before.

And it is coherent with plain logic and the Word of God. God created man and woman so they get married and become one flesh. And procreate children.

Why would a man be attracted to another man? It is a sick behavior. Just like pedophilia is a sick behavior. It is also a spiritual problem that causes this type of behavior.

S. Gray is correct. I pity homosexuals and will do my best to help them recover and become healthy again. I'm not against homosexuals, I'm against homosexuality. Just like God is not against the sinner, He is against sin.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-26 10:06:06 PM

You're either dim or dishonest (but, hey, at least you're not crazy).

Once again, you toss around glib pronouncements and then play innocent and offended when you get called on it.

Let's review your contribution to this thread, which, lest we forget, deals with same-sex marriage.
You begin by quoting my challenge to whatsherface:
"And when you're done with that, maybe you can be the first conservative who can offer a coherent explanation about why gay people marrying makes your wedding vows worthless. "

And your reply followed immediately:

High divorce rate, demographic death spiral, western cultural suicide.

Now, in the real world, that juxtaposition suggests that your answer is a response, since you chose my quote and chose to put your quote immediately following. Now, if you want to disown that juxtaposition, and deny that necessary implication, step to the plate and give me a more plausible reading. But the plain and ordinary meaning of the words as YOU arranged them is that gay people marrying results in a "High divorce rate, demographic death spiral, western cultural suicide."

BTW, my money's on "dishonest"

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-26 11:53:10 PM

When will we be debating polygamy in this land of anything goes?
If it makes it to the Supreme Court it will happen.
No doubt it would be appealing to the Alternates as well, maybe even more so.

Agree with you Harry.

When it comes to name calling the debate is over anyway. Something many don't seem to grasp is the fact they have no idea who they are insulting with the anonymity of internet blogs.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-27 11:20:18 AM

I'm sorry to see that you are continuing to misread my assertions. I did indeed respond to your challenge and it is indeed on a post regarding homosexuals, however, there is nothing in the rule book stating I can't widen the scope of the discussion.

"In any case simply listing what you see as societal ills and blaming the fags doesn't qualify as coherent argument. "

Once again, I pointed to a larger problem. One that encompasses this issue. So I am in fact blaming the larger problem...not fags, as you so eloquently put it.

Your passion and obsession for homosexuals is duly noted. While I never thought you would agree with my assertions, I didn't figure you would distort them so...and validate them as well.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-27 2:13:18 PM

So what you're saying is that you are not only dim and dishonest, but incoherent, inarticulate and illogical as well. Glad we got that sorted out.

Oh, and btw Harry, there's something inherently hilarious about someone who tosses around words like "depraved" and "disgusting" get all shirty about name-calling.

Liz J.
Frankly, I don't care who I'm insulting. I do know that they appear to be abusive loudmouths with amazingly thin skin.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-27 7:12:19 PM

"So what you're saying is that you are not only dim and dishonest, but incoherent, inarticulate and illogical as well. Glad we got that sorted out."

You forgot incompetent, inconsiderate, illicit, and dismal.

Isn't it wonderful when people can debate each other calmly.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-28 5:47:02 AM

Extreme anger is telling.
It often exemplifies not only a "thin skin" but great frustrations and unhappiness in it.
"truewest" is an example.
Filthy diatribe and name calling are other symptoms and serve only to stifle or end debate.

Some topics are best left alone. One of those topics is what homosexuals get up to, spare us the details. Who really needs to know anything about anyone's sexuality? It's too much information in the first place.
It's the militant factions who taunt and flaunt who attract the wrong kind of attention. Instead of gaining respect and acceptance for what nature has dealt them they command the opposite.
One can be against something without being angry.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-28 6:56:57 AM

So you want to toss around terms like "demographic death spiral" and "western cultural suicide" AND have a "calm" debate? Gee, I'll try, but if you want calm, you might begin by not setting your hair on fire.
Speaking of which, I suspect talk of butt-sex isn't the only thing that get Liz bent out of shape. Something tells me she'd get as exercised by the sight of two boys holding hands or, god forbid, kissing. Oh, those terrible gay people, rubbing her nose in their tawdry depraved practices. Don't they understand that public displays of affection are reserved for heterosexual couples? Back in the closet or the whip comes down.
I have gay relatives, friends and colleagues. I fear none of them, for the simple reason that, unlike you and several other people here, they are sane, reasonable people.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-28 9:20:47 AM

It is quite simple. If you buy a car and you have questions how to use it or repair it, the best thing is get in touch with the car maker.

Same with man. How should a man be used? How a woman should be used? How should a child be used?

Read the manual which is called the Bible. God the creator of man never intended a man to kiss with a man. As well He never intended anal intrusion. We know very well the anus is not for sex. etc.. etc.

Those people trying to convince us homosexuals and all the perverted are normal and that we should teach children to consider homosexuality as an option are as perverted as the homosexuals themselves.

It's like saying we should drive a car with the wheels up in the air! Nonsense. Ask Ford if we should drive the car by grabbing the rear view mirror!

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-28 2:31:53 PM

One wouldn't need to have psychic powers to realize who is actually a practicing homosexual commenting on this thread. The passion on the subject can only come from such a person.
There is an undertone of frustration which is becoming more evident with each post.

There are those of us who object to dipping into the sewer for gratification and we will continue to object no matter what we are called.

It's also worthy of note, given the less than 2% of persons who are homosexual, how many friends and relatives they profess to have who have been dealt this freak of nature.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-28 2:58:09 PM

Do you prefer kinky sex and AIDS/HIV as a result of it?? If yes vote Liberal.

Do you prefer straight sex and having children as a result of it??? If yes vote Conservative.

I vote on the basis of economic and foreign policy.

Posted by: exile

Exile if you have no children what kind of economy do you have? Japan has been in a permanent recession for over a decade because they forgot how to have children. So you have lots of old folk in the homes but fewer workers every year.

Or do you want to wax poetic about the big picture while ignoring that the car is running out of gas.

Who cares what the Hittites foreign policy was, it doesn't matter if you ruin your country. It ceases to exist.

If you shrink the economy deliberately but hope in the meantime to have a swell foreign policy well it seems weird to me.

And the foreign workers we import are not as good as domestic ones regardless what the CBC says.

Posted by: ghollingshead | 2006-11-28 3:11:39 PM

"...but if you want calm, you might begin by not setting your hair on fire"

Who talks like that? Are you sure you aren't gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-28 5:12:54 PM

as I've said previously, I'm not gay. I'm merely inclined to speak out against bone-stupid religious bigots like yourself, who walk the earth assuming that your sweaty rutting is somehow sanctified , while condemning same-sex couples as "freaks" who are "dipping into the sewer."
I could, of course, ask the same question Who, after all, tosses off phrases like "demographic death spiral"? And, really, are you sure YOU aren't gay? You seem in denial about so much else.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-11-28 7:33:50 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.