A teachers' float there? That's just sick.

I reckon being gay is officially a 'Canadian value' eh?

I live in Toronto, it's a weekend where a million tourists arrive, law takes a holiday, and a million residents get the hell out. I went to the cottage.

Ya gotta wonder why there is so much political support for an issue that has very little popular support.

IMO there will be another bump up for the Conservatives if they can reenact Canadas' legal recognition of marriage as being only between one wife and one husband.

Children's Aid and Teachers floats? That is really symptomatic of a society that places little value on its children.

All that's apparently missing is a float from NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. That's the organization of homosexual pedophiles that has a goal of getting adult male to boy sex made legal.

Yeah, that's how far homosexuality has come in degeneration.

How many of us think that back, oh say, thirty years ago, when homosexuals claimed they just wanted societal tolerance and to not have consenting adult homosexual sex illegal, the rest of society would have expected it to degenerate to what we have today?

Homosexual "marriage"; homosexual adoption; affirmative action for homosexuals; homosexual "diversity" bureaucrats on public payrolls...and anyone expressing any moral or religious objections is immediately shouted down as "homophobic". (Which is really just an ad hominem attack, as the LAST thing homosexual activists want is to have to engage in an intelligent, dispassionate public debate and discourse on all this.)

That's what you call an incremental agenda, the extreme left's favorite tool to get the formerly illegal, aberrant and unacceptable to become legal, "normal" and acceptable. With those objecting to be made the objects of derision and marginalization.

NDP homosexual activist Svend Robinson has publicly advocated for a 12 years old Age of Consent. What do you think Svend & Friends had in mind for those 12 year olds?

Meanwhile, Harper and the Conservatives are doing the right thing in seeking to raise the Age of Consent to 16, to seek to protect vulnerable teens from adult sexual exploitation. Such as what Svend Robinson has in mind.

Where's the CPC float?

Apparently shamelessly pandering to Canadian-Chinese is OK but gays...

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for everyone to keep in mind that the gay collective isn't about sexuality any more, it's become just another socialist front. At least, that's what those of my friends who are right-of-center and homosexual tell me.

Meanwhile, what's with all this pride celebration stuff? The University of Alberta has UofA Pride banners all over the place. Don't they know that pride is the gateway to hubris?

Anyhow, as soon as all the pride week stuff is over, at least we can look forward to greed week, and then lust week, and then envy week, and then gluttony week, followed by wrath week, and then sloth week. Have a happy summer.

Irwin,

Is this the only weekend of the summer you go to the cottage?

Vitruvius, there IS such a thing as a healthy (non-narcissistic) self-regard and respect for one's heritage.

I'm referring, for example, to Canadians or Americans just pride in our respective countries history, our accomplishments, our standing up for Liberty whenever it's needed to be defended.

Isn't that what Canada Day, the Fourth of July, Remembrance Day, Memorial Day are supposed to be about? :-)

Of course the government is there. Aside from being staffed by socialists, if they didn't go some bloody pinko activist would sue you for discrimination like they did London's Mayor.

I don't have a problem with anyone having their little event, I just don't like making acceptance of it mandatory.

Vitruvius said:
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for everyone to keep in mind that the gay collective isn't about sexuality any more, it's become just another socialist front.

Exactly right! I would add that enviornmentalism is not really about the environment, anti-poverty activism is not really about poverty [except perhaps how to increase it!], the UN childrens' rights isn't about children.

These movements are about, statism, statism, and statism respectively.

This is the key to understanding the mental illness that is modern liberalism: it is never about what it is alleged to be about. You can't be in the world like that 24/7 and retain your sanity.

Iggy is now a gay dhimmi.

Modern conservatism is the root cause of statism.

If conservatives weren't: so opposed to gays, hell-bent on cutting taxes, slashing social services, curtailing the rights of women and cutting loose the fringe-living unfortunates of our society.

My guess is statism wouldn't stand a chance.

yes, all this talk about pride day brings back a special memory....about 10 years ago my kids and I (3 daughters) were enjoying what is called the teddy bears picnic...we were enjoying our pancakes, when all of a sudden we hear these whistles, pots banging and bad music...when i looked up and saw the pride parade ending at the teddy bears picnic..i almost peuked...instead, i grabbed my kids and made a run for it.....unbelievable....

I lived in downtown Toronto for 15 years, and am soooooo glad that I'm not there anymore, especially during the week from hell.

Someone was surprised that there was a teacher's float??? Well, there are lots of gay teachers in the system, and there's a unit on "families - diverse" (can't remember the correct name used for it) that is taught in the primary grades. There's a gay agenda going on....oh yes there is...this is more of a political/social agenda that equal rights.

very nice, me no dhimmi. Yes, all those emotive guilt-laden join-a-group movements have increasingly lost any and all connections with their original mandate and are now socialist statism agendas.

Nice Seven Deadly Sins, vitruvius.

I find it objectionable that any gov't leader or institution joins in any 'identity-group' ceremonies. After all, a politican and a gov't institution (police, RCMP, fire, teachers) are bound, ethically and legally, to represent all citizens and to ignore group-based identities. So, why align themselves with any group-based identity?

Sure - if you must have a gay parade, let those individuals involved have such a parade. But, what does any gov't leader or gov't institution have to do with it?

After all, we just had an example, with McGuinty, of him representing ONLY the natives in Canada. He and the OPP refused to help the residents in Caledonia, refused to help the builder-developer in Caledonia, and, using taxpayer money, simply bought out the builder. This doesn't solve the problem, it simply silences it for now. But, the native actions were terrorist actions, and McGuinty didn't protect the citizens against these actions.

Instead, he played 'identity-politics' and aligned himself with a group. Rather than with all citizens. If he had aligned himself with all those involved, ignoring their ethnic identities, he would have focused only on the law, defined the natives as terrorist, and arrested them.

Groups are a cultural phenomenon and have no business as a political and legal phenomenon.

Oops!!! "than equal rights" ....not "that"....

david brown - you have a list of assertions but no connections and no proof. Can you link any of them, with proof? Or do you just prefer to make assertions without proof?

Warwick said:
I don't have a problem with anyone having their little event, I just don't like making acceptance of it mandatory.

I compliment you on your apt bit of irony here in the phrase "little event". A deft touch.

About the only thing Pat Buchanan has ever said that had my whole-hearted agreement was this: "It has changed from the love that dare not speak its name to the love that won't shut up".

Interesting how "Gay Pride Day" has morphed into "Pride Day". I first saw the shortened version in a Vancouver Magazine piece about Hedy Fry preparing for "Pride Day" and thought it was a simple editing error. Not so I gather. Would we say that "Pride Day" is therefore a "more inclusive" event celebrating "greater diversity".

Gawd, will the silly season never end?

Did you know?: Gay Pride Day has been extended to Gay Pride WEEK in Vancouver?

I'm guessing, it may be a case of the organizers "inviting" some groups to be in the parade and daring them to decline.

With the resultant "they won't be in our parade, they're homophobic" smear.

ahhhh, David Brown of "Bovine Dolt" infamy.

According to the bovine reasoning of Herr Brown, the reason statism is rampant is that there is a group that speaks out against it. Nice piece of logic once again, DB. So, if we would just learn to accept this crap, it would go away?

I don't know why anyone is surprised about the teachers' being in the Pride parade. Gay input into the curriculum is actively happening in BC with little chance for parental veto. Get used to it folks.

A million people turn out to watch the parade. Like it or not, that's a million people that do want to see this and do enjoy it and do have fun.

Is Conservatism about only associating with people exactly like yourself? From views on immigration, gays, religions, etc. it would seem for a good number of conservatives, it is so. Where is the 'live and let live' that I've been told is also part of the small 'c' conservatives?

I reckon being gay is officially a 'Canadian value' eh?

No, but acceptance of people who differ from you is.

Coming back from a downtown pub where I watched Italy v Oz, I saw a sticker plastered on a garbage can (yes, they DO exist in downtown T.O.).

The sticker featured what is apparently the sign for “family” parking at IKEA, and as such had the obvious silhouettes of a mom, dad, and baby in a pram.

But the creator of said sticker was obviously upset with the use of traditional family icons, and added the following to the bottom: “Gay families shop at IKEA too!”

So again, the shrill desire to change the universal meaning of family.

I suppose IKEA could add the silhouette of two guys in ass-less pants, or one guy dressed up as a woman with another in leather and studs – all on display during the parade - but I’m not sure anyone but the author of the sticker would know what the heck that’s all about.

As many posters have already said, it ain't about the "cause", it is just a socialist movement to PISS-OFF society. They are, in reality, just TROLLING, and ARE trolls.

Growen men on patrol with their body parts, pathetic alright, but it pisses off the ones they want to piss-off. Others put rings in their tongues, stupid, but it pisses. Drop out of society, like the hippies did, peace-man, free spirit-man, but they will then use the hospitals when their brains are fried. Hospitals that construction workers built. Thumb a ride in cars the auto workers built. Just like the TROLLS, the "in-your-face-wakos" know they are out to lunch, but it pisses society off. That is the whole point. In the end it is they who will inevitably flunk out, just like the hippies. And the rest of us will enjoy the fruits of our labour.

Politicians are now being taken to task as the MSM is exposed by the blogs. The MSM is in fact ONE BIB TROLL. Creat controversy and then perpetuate it.

joanne, I don't think people are surprised that the teachers are in the gay parade; some of us are upset that they are. Teachers are supposed to teach all as equal and not be selective.

As me no dhimmi and vitruvius have pointed out, these parades have become socialist propaganda events, where socialism publicizes its value system. The socialist value system is a statist system and focused on group homogeneity.

The homogeneity, however, has a specific value system, defined by the top bureaucrats. In Canada, the socialist ideology is cultural relativism, pro-gay, SSM, pro-Kyoto, anti-American. Effectively, it's pure sophistry, bit on emotional groupie scenes and that's it.
So, unions, teachers and gov't bureaucracy, are the basic infrastructure to act as enforcers.

Robert in Calgary - wouldn't it be possible for these groups to refuse to take part by stating that they serve all people and therefore don't participate in any 'single focus' public events?

One group of pride participants were dressed like Mounties because, "the Mounties always get their man." - the Star

The Mounties are a Canadian icon being co-oped by gays for their own perverted purpose. But I guess they must like it, given that they too were participants in the parade. But was it to show that they are 'tolerant' and believe in 'diversity' so much so, that decency laws are suspended? Or is it that they've succumbed to the threat and blackmail of being called names? Tolerance, apparently, has its limits.

David Brown,

I try to get away to the cottage every weekend, that's what it's for. However, this particular weekend is a time when most sane Torontonians have extra impetus to leave. It's not a time of pride, but shame for the city.

ET,life here would be a lot easier for all of us if you would STOP seeking out trolls to hijack threads with.How could you POSSIBLY find any value in challenging DB"s pointless,OT barbs(RobR,you too.).
You must of slept through the Trolls 101 class we just finished!
Why do you insist on setting a grand stage for these people to perform who are ONLY here to slag conservatives,and in doing so,ruin many a good thread with mindless partisan b*llsh*t?...with all due respect...

Anyways,to get on topic myself.You all make valid points on politicians aligning themselves with special interest groups for party gains.It brings me to a point I have made on a few threads here,yet have NEVER had any feedback on.(maybe I should try trolling,it sure seems to work!)Let me try once again...
Is there any current or past democracy that works without a party system?...For it is partisanship that is crippling our country and diverting COUNTLESS time and energy that should be put to actually addressing our problems,not just talking FOREVER about them.(healthcare for example)Politicians are too scared of possible political fallout to actually DO anything that may be deemed unpopular,or maybe even just unpartisan.I suspect though that too many in NA enjoy this'bloodsport'too much to consider changing it for the better.A sad thing indeed...

Discrimination is the essence of decision making, if you don't allow discrimination, no further decisions will be possible. Think about it!

A little satire on the Crotch in your face fest.

http://tinyurl.com/g9978

peter d - are you saying that the basic criteria for acceptance of someone and something else, is only that it is 'different'.

A criminal is different from me; should I accept him? An islamic fascist is different; should I accept his values?

I think that one should evaluate those 'differences' first and then, based on that evauation, conclude whether or not one should accept them.

Consider a small cellular organism. It meets up with another, smaller cellular organism. Should it acknowledge that this second organism is 'acceptable to eat because it is different'? Or, should it first evaluate that difference, and conclude: 'hmm, this different thing is poisonous; I don't think I should accept it'.

Peter D,

"No, but acceptance of people who differ from you is." (A Canadian value)

Well, I guess many homosexuals, Socialists, Muslims, etc wouldn't share this particular Canadian value, would they?

Hey, David, without tax funding from the state you are still free to be gay or have all of the illegitimate kids or abortions that you want. If the law protects these activities, why do you need tax payer funding in the equation? You just have to pony up your share of the cost of your decision. A rather responsible action.

Lots of people, in spite of ample opportunities, make stupid choices like drug addiction, single motherhood without dads, inadequate education, poor work habits, crime, etc. Welfare makes it easier to be irresponsible, because the state creates a subsidy for your laziness. And, as a ward of the state subsidy, you in turn need your welfare pimp politician always in office to vote yes for the subsidies. Statism is a circular racket that not all citizens want to be party to. Some of us hard working stiffs would like more of our earnings back, our reward for not being irresponsible. A definately conservative value.

Rob R,

I bet you say that about everything you don't agree with...ignore the trolls.

ET

Assertion: Conservatism is thew root cause of statism.

What came first the chicken or the egg...well the chicken of course. Animals can evolve and adapt, eggs can not.

Let's say for arguments sake that Jesus was the first conservative. The Crusades were conservative , the Inquistion was conservative and so was/is every Pope in Rome.

The conservative movement is as old as the hills and twice as dusty.

Liberalism is only a few hundred years old at most and evolved as direct competition to conservatism.
It gained popularity because people were fed up with stuffy and constricting ideology.

Take a moment and 'blue sky' what a world would be like that is totally conservative and devoid of any form of liberalism. I have and what I see are countries like Iran and North Korea.

I could care less how many homosexuals have a parade.

I want an open debate and a vote on the legal definition of marriage in Canada.

IMO, the NDP and the Liberals backing of the gay agenda will not withstand the facts.

And this will only be revealed in a Parliamentary debate on the importance of having the legal definition of marriage in Canada as being between one husband and one wife.

A million people turn out to watch the parade. Like it or not, that's a million people that do want to see this and do enjoy it and do have fun.

Is Conservatism about only associating with people exactly like yourself? From views on immigration, gays, religions, etc. it would seem for a good number of conservatives, it is so. Where is the 'live and let live' that I've been told is also part of the small 'c' conservatives?

I think you have your answer from this very thread.

I am amused, however, by the so-called opponents of "identity politics" falling into the obvious trap:

I saw a Children's Aid float, an Ontario Teacher's Association float, a CAW float, a CUPE float, and of course- the Fire Department, the Police, and the RCMP were in the parade.

The suggestion here is that there are no gay CAS workers, no gay teachers, no gay CUPE members, no gay firefighters, no gay metro police, no gay RCMP ....

Of course, what we are seeing right here in this thread is a slick slobber of homophobia, right down to the suggestion in several postings that gays are pedophiles, and children are not safe around them.

Sick? Yeah, I feel that way when I see conservatives ooze this much hatred.

Oh. My. God. He used "blue sky" as a verb. That's disgusting. Get a room, mate.

Vaclav Klaus, who knows a thing or two about totalitarianism, ended his recent award acceptance speech at FEE with the following:

The substance of such ideas and policies are claims and presuppositions that following private self-interest is always wrong, that people are not rational and not moral and should be controlled, guided, and made better by the anointed who know what is good for the rest of us. Thus the rulers acting in the public interest must restrain freedom in favour of higher values and goals they choose to set.

We lived in such a system in the past, but I see its many symptoms again in Europe today, and probably, dare I say, in this country as well.

And finally, there is another danger: the emergence of non-ideological but very aggressive “isms”, which are really quite new. Let me at least name them:

We all care about human rights, but I am afraid of “human rightism”.
We all want to have a healthy environment but I see the danger in environmentalism.
To put it politically correctly, I admire the second gender, but I fear feminism.
We are all enriched by other cultures, but not by multiculturalism.
I am aware of the importance of voluntary associations, but I fear NGOism.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/notes/NFF_0506.pdf

I'll admit to having a bit of chuckle with his unintended irony in believing he was speaking "politically correctly" in using the phrase "second gender".

Is Conservatism about only associating with people exactly like yourself?

LIKES ATTRACT! That is how societies are formed.
Deviants create a fringe element that sometimes makes a society interesting. That is what it should be because that is what works!

Canadian Observer - I think that David Brown is not a troll; he's just incredibly ignorant.

David Brown. Kindly define your terms; what is a conservative; what is a liberal. Until you do that, your posts are without meaning.
N. Korea is an example of totalitarianism.

And, no, a chicken can't evolve; it's already existentially closed, as that individual chicken. I've never seen a chicken evolve into an eagle. Its eggs, however, can evolve, for they are 'open data' which must be organized according to relational patterns to form a distinct entity (the chicken). In the organizational process of generation, fertilization and development, the egg can produce a different entity than the parent.

A million people turned out to watch, just like they turn out to gawk at a car accident and burning building. When will these people discover that they are only accepted for the dollars they spend, and not because they agree with the life style. Iggy should research what happened to Joe Clark after being in the gay parade in Calgary. He just lost what few votes he may have got in the west, and maybe gained some in Vancouver. Is he married, I have never seen or heard about a wife. Maybe he is also a closet gay. Poor Scott, he will have to fight harder for the gay vote now. Neither will ever be the P.M. of Canada. As for the candidates for leader of the libs, is there one that will not support the gay agenda and ssm. Check out the poll in the NP, re would you support a gay pride parade in your city or town. Over 50% vote no.

"The suggestion here is that there are no gay CAS workers, no gay teachers, no gay CUPE members, no gay firefighters, no gay metro police, no gay RCMP"

Ah, no, that isn't the suggestion.

"Of course, what we are seeing right here in this thread is a slick slobber of homophobia, right down to the suggestion in several postings that gays are pedophiles, and children are not safe around them."

Really? Where are those suggestions?

"Sick? Yeah, I feel that way when I see conservatives ooze this much hatred."

You don't have to stick around if you don't like what you see, and you won't be missed.

Very interesting suggestion, canadian observer - not to have a party system.

Hmm. A party system focuses power within a party. The party must garner votes. It must appeal to the population to elect it. I am assuming that you are still in favour of an elected gov't. What would be the basis for an electorate to vote for X person over Y person?

If we acknowledge that diversity MUST exist in a large population because diversity provides a group with the capacity-to-adapt; that homogeneity provides a basic infrastructure but cannot overwhelm and stifle diversity..then, you have a society with a basic contractual substructure and also, differing opinions.

How would you enable these two different forces - the force of symmetry inducing homogeneity and the force of asymmetry inducing diversity- how would you enable them to operate in your society?

RE: Socialism and the homosexual agenda

Socialists policies embrace eventual death and destruction in their never ending quest to improve our world. /half sarc

I just hope we can keep these no good do gooders out of government for a long long time.

ET,

The Toronto Star would be in full hysteria mode if, say, the RCMP refused to take part.

I can't see that any explanation of refusal would be accepted.

ET said: Canadian Observer - I think that David Brown is not a troll; he's just incredibly ignorant.

I think that David Brown does not in fact exist as an actual person. I think he's a Liberal Platitudes Nickelodeon on a grant.

It was BS when I heard the "1 million" figure used on a newscast yesterday and it's still BS today.

Another example of homosexual friendly propaganda tossed around without any critical thinking.

From the Toronto facts page

Toronto - 2.5 million, double that for the GTA

# the top four visible minority groups in Toronto were:

* Chinese at 259,710 or 10.6 per cent of our population
* South Asian at 253,920 or 10.3 per cent
* Black at 204,075 or 8.3 per cent
* Filipino at 86,460 or 3.5 per cent

# 49 per cent of Toronto's population was born outside of Canada, up from 48 per cent in 1996
# new immigrants to Toronto since 1991 number 516,635, representing 21 per cent of our population.
# fully one in five Toronto residents arrived in this country during the 1990s

Man, every time I read the phrase "Pride Parade" or "Pride Week" it gives me the creeps. It's as if the English language were a doll in a horror movie that's just spun its head through 720 degrees.

Anyway, I agree with Klaus. For example, I have no quarrel with homosexuality, but I fear homosexualism. I am in favour of conservation and liberty, but I fear conservativism and liberalism. Art, science, law, society, all are things I support, but I fear artism, sciencism, legalism, and socialism. Hell, I'm a libertarian, and I fear libertarianism.

But to really get the punch the concept needs, you have to add "ist" to the end of the words:, as in: homosexualismist, conservativismist, liberalismist, artismist, sciencismist, legalismist, socialismist, and libertarianismist.

"Ismists" are always bad news.

(PS: Sorry about my comment on the blue sky comment. It was off-topic and gratuitous.)

"The suggestion here is that there are no gay CAS workers, no gay teachers, no gay CUPE members, no gay firefighters, no gay metro police, no gay RCMP"

Ah, no, that isn't the suggestion.

Ah, yes, it is. Here is how the thing was prefaced:

Sent by a reader, who notes that there seemed to be more representation at the parade by government "flunkies" than by gays;

Reading comprehension problems?

"Of course, what we are seeing right here in this thread is a slick slobber of homophobia, right down to the suggestion in several postings that gays are pedophiles, and children are not safe around them."

Really? Where are those suggestions?

How about:

A teachers' float there? That's just sick.

Children's Aid and Teachers floats? That is really symptomatic of a society that places little value on its children.

yes, all this talk about pride day brings back a special memory....about 10 years ago my kids and I (3 daughters) were enjoying what is called the teddy bears picnic...when i looked up and saw the pride parade ending at the teddy bears picnic..i almost peuked...instead, i grabbed my kids and made a run for it.....unbelievable....

Unbelievable, indeed.

Very good discussion here however i have to agree with concrete, You can have as many parades as you want but I also want a vote again to see just where canadians stand on marital issue.
I have to disagree with david brown if you think a world made up totaly of all Iran, N.Korea like societies I suggest you go & visit those 2countries then come back & let us know if you still think that way.

Vitruvius,

Is that the best you can come up with...a personal attack over a verb.

I'll consider your old room when they move you to another ward.

Where is your ideal conservative country...maybe you should move there.

"I think that David Brown is not a troll; he's just incredibly ignorant."

BS ET,you may be well educated but you seem to be seriously lacking in street smarts.You know damn well,when you see a shiny lure in the water exactly what it is.I believe you just CANNOT resist a partisan dustup because you are the most prolific here in these pointless,insult-filled left/right circle-jerks.YOU are a trolls best friend!

My apologies to all for being OT,I get so damn pissed at regulars here thumbing their noses at REPEATED requests not to engage trolls!ET,if you sincerely do not'get it',I'm sure a look in the dictionary for the meaning of the word'ignore'might help you.

Now ET,I will actually thank you for being the only one to respond to my'idea'.I hope my previous rant at you has not'lost'you to at least exploring this idea,after all you are the only one to show me the courtesy of feedback so far...Of course,voting is fundamental in any democracy,surely there are less primitive methods than choosing clan A or B.How about elected'managers'and'CEOs'for the business end of government and separating social issues from this as much as possible.I understand social issues will by it's nature foster division among varying philosophies,however,it couldn't possibly be as confrontational as the current system....again,just food for thought...

I already said I was sorry, David. Please accept that. Also, sorry I can't respond to you, Dawg, but your shtick is in violation of the Small Dead Animals posted commenting policy, and I respect our proprietor's wishes.

Me No Dhimmi,

Did you spend the weekend looking at a dictionary and working on insults to amuse the 'platitudinous' conservatives of SDA?

Frankly, I'm impressed that you can't find anything worthwhile to rebutt my assertion that conservatives are stuffy and constricting.

Vitruvius said:
It's as if the English language were a doll in a horror movie that's just spun its head through 720 degrees.

Well that's what Orwell warned us against. And of course this all started with the hijacking the very word "liberal" itself by lefties who came to believe that freedom meant free from want or worry.

What about the au courant meaning of "Partner"?

I'm a male. How do I now refer to my retired white male business partner? This is not a quibble. This is now a problem.

Is my white female "wife" (now there's a quaint word, what?) the same as my "partner". Would this mean that I scr***d my business partner?

Did you catch Jack Layton's comments about how some countries in the world aren't tolerant of gays?
Did you mean countries like Afganistan, Jack?

Got dragged to the 'pride parade' by my Russian wife, ( who just arrived in this country about a month ago).
Not much imagination in the floats, but when a dozen and a half totally naked males walked past us, ( preceeded by Mayor Whatzisname), my wifey expressed surprise: "Do people walk around the streets here with no clothes on?"
I replied: "Yup- in this neighbourhood, anyway." (Haw- that'll burn up the emails back to 'Mother Russia'.
Personally- I got no probs with gays, (don't have to watch it if I don't want to). But here in Toronto, we had 8 shootings- two by cops- in the past two days. None of that was connected with gay pride..........

Me No Dhimmi,

The word 'wife' has Germanic roots and means 'woman'. Taken in it's original definition it's a woman you own or is your possession. If your wife likes being owned in let's say the Islamic sense by all means call her your wife.

I have called the woman I married my partner because we have gotten together to challenge life as well as enjoy it together.

This I dare say is the problem with conservatism, you want the old value system...but without the old baggage...an impossible notion.

"Sent by a reader, who notes that there seemed to be more representation at the parade by government "flunkies" than by gays"

So to you, more = zero gays. I see.

"about 10 years ago my kids and I (3 daughters) were enjoying what is called the teddy bears picnic...when i looked up and saw the pride parade ending at the teddy bears picnic..i almost peuked...instead, i grabbed my kids and made a run for it.....unbelievable....
"

Perhaps the lady didn't think that kids at a Teddy Bears picnic should be exposed to public nudity and overt sexuality. I guess you think that's strange.

I still don't see any evidence for the "gays are pedophiles" charge. I'm sure you'll make it up.

Canadian Observer: I agree with your concept that the two parties are for all intents and purposes 'interchangeable' with very little variation in policy and/or implementation. Partisanship is fodder for the masses. Keeps us busy, no? It's the fools' fodder (public are the fools). But they are even now recognizing the charade is up with producing some results for the people. That is why Dems in U.S. are looking at increasing minimum/border wages.

Canada as usual will tag along as a response and possibly as the 'new election ploy.'

A figure of $80 million was thrown out by the MSM as what the event brought in in terms of revenue.
There's one reason for bi-partisan, all groups and orgs support for this. It's the money, stupid. There's no business like illicit business.

Noone can get even the numbers right... you have reports of over a million, hundreds of thousands, 10,000. Was you there Charlie?

MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN AND THE INFLUENCE ON THEM?

david there is nothing wrong with calling your wife your partner in life, however you compare the use of wife with conservatism, that would mean that every church marridge service should stop using the terms Take this women to be your Loving Wife & take this man to be your loving husband & even some use the phrase your partner in life also in the same text, so therefore every church no matter of what denomination is conservative based.

I really don't see why i(as a conservative) should be labelled by some statist as "stuffy" if i dare defy the edicts of socialist engineering ..just because you have no backbone and are willing to stand idly by while society is shaped and changed by these fools. Does it mean i have to comply with their edicts on what i( as a tax paying citizen)find repugnant and crass?

I don't remember anyone coming to my door and asking me about change before you spent MY money on another utopian cause...

While we are at it,no one is suggesting that there is a connection between homosexuals and paedophiles..however,what exactly is the message we send to kids when their mushy minded parents send them to a parade where gay men literally shove their crotches at them?

..And dare i say David Brown,that you want the new value system with all the rest of us that don't agree with it to shut up and take it...sorry mate,doesn't work for me..

The problem with modern Liberalism (as practised in Canada today) is that there is a view that everything that happened bfore 1968 and PET somehow has no value and is destined to be torn down..

Let's say for arguments sake that Jesus was the first conservative. The Crusades were conservative , the Inquistion was conservative and so was/is every Pope in Rome..

Let's say you've done a ridiculous job cherry picking history. Jesus of the "turn the other cheek" and the parable of the loaves and fishes has hardly been cast as a conservative. The last few Popes have been exceedingly socialist and liberal. And, no, their moral position on abortion, doesn't cancel that out one bit. The Church has been accused in SA of being very openly leftist and politically active about it.

Trying to put a conservative vs liberal in modern context spin on the Crusades and the Inquisition is absurd.

You really need to define your terms. Crying foul that you are being personally attacked hasn't advanced your cause.

I, for one am totally pissed off at the attempts by certain groups to hijack the English language for their own gain. Good Lord, I remember when gay used to mean happy. Now some dipweed is telling me that calling my spouse my wife is a demeaning slur. I dare you to tell my wife of 31+ years that. Same with marriage, if you want to call a homosexual partnership/relationship something then make it any new word you want but don't change the language to suit your purpose. It isn't that hard, thousands of new words have been created to describe things that didn't exist or were acknowledged 20 or 100 years ago.

With respect to "Gay Parades" I am always amazed that a group seeking acceptance by mainstream society use dancing transvestites, naked people in leather, chains or the Village People as a showcase to the world to see how normal they are.

why shouldn't there be a teacher's float at pride? my oldest is in 3rd grade. she's had 2 gay men for teachers so far. they're were both excellent. both men are openly gay and all th parents know. futhermore, the school my child attends is in the inner-city and she attends class with kids from every ethnic possibilty conceivable. we all get along fine. the reality in toronto and the hype we read from the rest of the country about our troubles never seem to jive somehow.

Also, sorry I can't respond to you, Dawg, but your shtick is in violation of the Small Dead Animals posted commenting policy, and I respect our proprietor's wishes.

In what way? I was asked to justify my claims with examples, and I did so. Most of last my post, in fact, consisted of other commenters' remarks.

If you're out of arguments, it would be more honest simply to say so.

A million people went out to see Gay Circus ... so this means it is popular and accepatble.

Freak shows are popular and always have been.

People go out in droves to see buidings burn, they go to outrageous movies and everyone slows down to see a car wreck on the side of a road.

I suggest this is merely bored jaded Torontonians taking in another weird, perverted circus.

Hey, entertainment is entertainment and everyone loves a parade no matter how idiotic and offensive it may be to many.

No decent person wants to harm gays, but by putting their perverted sexual culture on display in the manner of huge parades in major cities is harmful to a decent society.

Pride Week makes me proud as hell because nothing says Canadian like sexual permutations and combinations. To listen to the fawning assertions of the MSM one would think sexual preference is the single most important characteristic of "canadian values".

Given that, the Pride parade is the natural expression of these all important "values" and a celebration of the only "diversity" that apparantly matters.

I mean really, where else will you find the bull dykes consorting with the faeries, the pre and post op transgendered swapping spit freely, the catchers given equal footing with the pitchers, the bus depot washroom crowd celebrated for spreading the word and the elder statesmen from NAMBLA volunteering their time to give guidance to the youth.

Afterall the really important thing about being Canadian is that you can express your sexuallity with whomever, whenever and wherever!!

Whatever!!

Syncro

ET, do you have a blog of your own? you seem to be the trolliest of all trolls to me. you try and dominate the tone of the comments daily. i have never read such a bloody know-it-all in all my days.

perfect response, texas canuck. I fully agree with you.

As for david brown, he has so far refused to define his terms: liberal, conservative. So, there is no point discussing anything with him. Words aren't soap bubbles which change colour in the wind; words are supposed to convey common meanings.

His redefinition of 'wife' to imply subservience, his redefinition of 'partner' to include/exclude an economic relation, and so on, well, that's his private language.

davidson - the fact that your child had gay teachers is not the issue. The issue is why a teachers' organization should be involved in a single topic promotional parade. Why are they promoting a particular mode of relationship? Since they are not supposed to be selective, then, why did they 'select'? Same with gov't; it has no business getting involved. Those decisions are up to the people, not to the gov't.

The fact that the unions are major supporters simply backs up the reality of the parade; it has become hijacked by the social engineers, aka the socialists NDP/Liberals to act as a part of their party propaganda.

I don't like kids. Never did, even when I was one. Don't have any of my own. I'm married to the ship, captain (as Scotty would say), and I try to work hard enough on being responsible for her to make up for the responsibility I am avoiding by not directly helping to produce the next generation of fine upstanding Canadaians.

I also fully agree with John Stuart Mill's note to the effect that "Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good", and I've earned my volitional adult credibility in that department.

Yet, having said all that, I agree that this is one of those cases where I actually think: What About The Children?

Perhaps the reason I say that is because I was (as I now understand it) very fortunate indeed to have experienced a most supportive and yet not over-bearing environment in my own first dozen years. I am so, so, glad that I was largely shielded from, and in particular not forced to deal with, adult sexuality, at that time. Learning the names of all the species of plants and animals, and figuring out how to engineer effective sand-castles, was enough to keep us developing optimally. It was a wonderful place to grow up. And I just wish that every child could have the time for that.

Canada stands on the shoulders of common law, which recognizes the difference between the commons (say, the corner of Main and Center street), and private establishments (say, Sinderella's Night Club). Citizens are afforded wide freedoms of private behaviour, with the proviso that when in the commons, the generally accepted best practices for commons behaviour should be respected.

So, frankly, while Ru Paul is arguably one of the best entertainers of variety known as XY-chromasomed impersonators of the XX-chromasomed, I do not think it appropriate for the more bawdy forms of that shtick to be perpetrated upon the commons.

In the vernacular, if you feel you have "let it all hang out", then damn it, get a room.

davidson, no, I don't have a blog of my own. I do, however, run an online journal.

It deals with informational and cognitive processes, and morphological generation, in artificial and natural (biologial chiefly) and social systems. We are particularly interested in complex networking as a means of information generation.

I doubt if you'd be interested as the papers are rather abstract and the authors are in physics, biology, bioengineering, computers etc. If you are, let me know and I'll send you the link.

No, in reply, I don't have a blog. I do have an online journal.

The journal deals with information generation and processing, and morphological generation and development, in biological, artificial and social systems. We are particularly interested in cognitive processes, and morphologies, in complex networks. A society is a complex network.

Authors are in physics, biology, bioengineering, computers.

If you are interested, let me know and I'll send you the address.

Davidson,

What's wrong with putting children under the care and supervision of male homosexuals you wonder? Where were you during the scandals in Christian Brothers schools, the abuse of alter boys and the awful degradation of young inmates by warders in various provincial detention centres? Sure, your daughter is safe, but what about little boys in the class?

And don't tell me that male hetrosexual teachers are as much a threat to little girls as homosexuals are to boys. How often do incidents of institutional hetrosexual abuse occur? Not totally unknown of course, but nothing like the horrendous mass abuse of boys that has been reported. Perhaps it has something to do with the stability of normal family life and the social mores that go with it.

"Progressives" don't play fair. They win a game, then promptly move the goal posts and create new issues built on ever more extreme viewpoints of what is, and what is not, a social norm. It would seem that the game is to insult Canadian sensibilities... winning is no longer good enough... it's the never ending game of push-the-boundaries that counts for them.

There is no end... there is no pacifying this deranged need to oppose and create illusions of normalcy where there is none. It is pathologic among the extreme left, and it is very profitable for those who hijack it for their own ends.

The good part is that "progressive" politicians have moved along with the extreme-left tide, and have now alienated mainstream Canadians. "Progressives" have progressed themselves right into the wilderness. Other than in a few urban jungles, "progressives" no longer resonate with normal tolerant people.

Teachers Union???

This explains why the Pedophile teachers rarely get fired and merely lay low for awhile and get relocated at another school to access a whole new stock of children or teens.
As for CUPE , someone tell Syd Ryan that gay in Palestine are murdered in public by the Sharia-law zealots doing a favour to Allah.
Some are stoned to death , one was crushed by a wall pushed over onto him as perscribed by Sharia.

The CAW lost my business when I discovered they sponsored a immigrant Centre that indoctrined newcomers to hate Jews and Americans, I witnessed workers from the centre telling Muslims that "The Jews" caused WW2 , and Bush used illegal means to rig the Election that Al Gore really won.

I now buy non-Union Canadian made Toyota's like the Corolla , the CAW and at the time Peggy Nash , can promote whatever agenda they want , but I have the right to use my wallet to protest the CAW's antisemetic anti-American propaganda .

Zog: Sorry, but I must disagree with you. I'm somewhat of a specialist in this field, and overall statistics suggest that the primary victims are little girls. There are far fewer homosexual predators than heterosexual predators. The problem is that because of stigmatization, predators of boys usually have far more victims before they are caught, than do heterosexual predators. Here are the rough stats:

- Convicted pedophiles average about 52 victims each.

- Convicted pedophiles of boys average about 150 victims each.

- Virtually every convicted pedophile is a male.

David Brown

"Modern conservatism is the root cause of statism"

This was your statement. Devoid of support.

You're betting I say that to all the trolls? Actually, no. Just you.

Debris Trail,

Thanks for the stats.

Have you done any evaluations of frequency of offenses relative to the proportion of homosexuals in the general population? In other words, if there is no greater likelihood of homosexuals than of hetrosexuals to offend, hetrosexual pedophiles should outnumber homosexual abusers by a factor of about 50 to 1. Has that been your observation?

What about my assumption that hetrosexual pedophelia is very rare in institutional settings and that most abuse of little girls is perpetrated by family members?

I don't think it's the progressives per se that are the cause of the goal-post moving syndrome, Debris Trail, they are principally a symptom of the problem, because they depend on institutions. The base problem in institutionlism, namely, that institutions, once the job they have been promulgated for has been done, have a nasty habit of going out of their way to not go away.

I supported the efforts of the "Homosexuals Are Homo Sapiens Too" crowd thirty years ago. That has now been broadly acknowledged, at least by western civilization. The gay movement is obsolete; instead, they've become statists.

It's like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Thirty years ago people used to drink and drive without second thought. With wild abandon, even. Now they don't. MADD is obsolete; instead, they've become prohibitionists.

As Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier once said: "Experience has established that institutions, which at the outset were useful, often end by becoming intolerable abuses owing to the simple fact that everything around them has changed [...] and they have not." "The role of government [is ...] not to force action in any one direction but to remove barriers to man's own efforts to undertake personal and social improvement [...] Man must be free to seek his own improvement and be responsible for his own destiny. If you remove the incentive of ambition and emulation from public enterprises, you suppress progress, you condemn the community to stagnation and immobility."

(Sir Wilfred was a Liberal, by the way, and arguably one of the greatest Canadian prime ministers.)

Anyway, for now, I'm sticking with PETA and DAM, they aren't obsolete yet. Oh, sorry, I should define my acronyms: People Eating Tasty Animals, and Mothers Against Dyslexia.

I know the Gay Pride parade has been going on for years. However, it seems to me that those normal people who are gay must be absolutely embarrassed out of their minds watching men dressed as women, people half undressed and generally making a mockery of their livestyle. Like society the gay community is made up of all kinds of people. However, for those gays who want respect and acceptance this type of thing cannot help their cause. The heterosexual community looks on and says if this the gay lifestyle let's continue to fight to marginalize this group.

This was posted by: David Brown at June 26, 2006 03:16 PM
"The word 'wife' has Germanic roots and means 'woman'. Taken in it's original definition it's a woman you own or is your possession. If your wife likes being owned in let's say the Islamic sense by all means call her your wife."

In case you're interested, consult the following:
from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wife

«O.E. wif "woman," from P.Gmc. *wiban (cf. O.S., O.Fris. wif, O.N. vif, Dan., Swed. viv, M.Du., Du. wijf, O.H.G. wib, Ger. Weib), of unknown origin. The modern sense of "female spouse" began as a specialized sense in O.E.; the general sense of "woman" is preserved in midwife, old wives' tale, etc. M.E. sense of "mistress of a household" survives in housewife; and later restricted sense of "tradeswoman of humble rank" in fishwife. Du. wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "bitch." Wife-swapping is attested from 1959.»

And from http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\germet&first=1661

Proto-Germanic: *wība-
Meaning: woman
IE etymology:
Old Norse: víf
Old English: wīf, wifmon
English: wife, woman
Old Saxon: wīf
Old High German: wīb
German: Weib

Nope, can't say that the etymology of "wife" refers to "a woman you own or is your possession" as stated by David Brown.

Fairy tales, hmmm, Mr. Brown?

Wonder how many folks recall a similar debate from almost a year ago:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002377.html

Yes, it's also about the T.O. Silly Naked Clowns March...

Many consider me a pretty centrist sort of liberal, even centre-right mostly on economic issues. Many friends wonder sometimes why I don't vote for conservatives or the Conservative Party. I think the next time someone asks me that, I'll send the permalink to this discussion thread.

Debris, sometimes you surprise me. Thanks for the sobering stats on pedophilia--a disorder that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Your intervention is a breath of fresh air on this thread. But I'm still interested in your odd notion of "progressives" moving the goalposts? How?

I've attended our local Pride parade/party in Ottawa for some years now. In one day, in one place, you get the whole spectrum, unlike heterosexuality, which is celebrated all over the place in a thousand ways. Yup, you can see the odd bare-breasted lesbian or ageing queen or leather boy with the behindless chaps, but that has to be about 2% of the people who show up. Most just look like partyers in high summer.

The local, and thankfully defunct, football team got women to lift their tops in return for some beads at football games. MuchMusic videos play, with their abundance of female bodies wrapped in plastic or leather or air. "Miss Nude" contests are held; wet T-shirt contests; "nice legs" contests. A car sells itself in ads featuring a bodacious woman and a caption to the effect of, "Great ride."

Funny. I've never heard anyone grousing about the "heterosexual lifestyle."

Now imagine all of this in one place: all of the above, plus perfectly ordinary men and women, churchgoers, Rotary stalwarts, car salesmen, university students. "Straight Pride Day." The media, of course, will look for the topless women and the macho men, the outrageous clothes--or lack of them, the openly straight amorous behaviour, the political chanting: "Don't hate! We're straight! Get used to it!"

Nope. Straights don't have to do that. They can be straight anywhere they please. No one gives it a second thought.

But you still can't walk unnoticed down a main street hand-in-hand if the two of you are of the same sex. At the very least, you'll get stared at enough to be made to feel uncomfortable. Judging from this thread (which is probably unfair) they could be the targets of visceral disgust and hatred. They could be confused with pedophiles. They could be used as foils to attack "progressive" governments. They might be denounced from pulpits as "disordered" or "diseased. Pillars of the community like Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Ottawa will be there too, offering a "cure" for their "condition."

But I guarantee you, they won't be left alone. Even in 2006.

Having one big party, once a year, gives numbers, safety and assurance. And in those numbers, as noted, you'll see the whole range of those who are gay, lesbian, transgendered...everyone but those with the one accepted sexual orientation. Of course the media will pick out the flamboyant, outré ones.The rest would just be your regular crowd scene--no newspaper sales in that.

I say that if goalposts have to be moved, they should be. Over to you. In the meantime, thanks for trolling by with your bona messagette. :)

Bravo, Ted. (Longer commentary caught in Kate's filter for the moment.)

Vitruvius,agree completely that it has gone WAY past acceptance and is now an agenda to completely normalize homosexuality.
Openly gay elementary teachers?I'm no prude but why is ANYONE'S sexuality a topic of conversation at an elementary school?How about letting our little kids just be kids for a change,and not a social experiment?
Let's say gay lobbyists dreams come true and male/female becomes completely redundant in relationships and kids are taught in school having 2 moms or dads is A-OK.What will happen to these kids when their hormones go f*cking crazy at puberty.Experimentation will be rampant and what boy or girl won't TRY both camps to try and find themselves?(anyone else here young enough to remember the confusion of those days,even without this added pressure?)
I am thankful my two daughters will make it through high school before the PC police demand everyone accept homosexuality as normal.
And,as gays DEMAND respect for their beliefs,they could show a little respect in return to those honestly offended by their public displays.
BTW,we're all grown-ups with computers here,out of at least curiosity I'm sure most have explored the seedier side of the net...and have discovered fetishes you never dreamed existed that cross all sorts of boundaries...straight,gay,bi,animals,etc.
Can anyone here explain to me why,when gays are trying to promote themselves as normal sexually,do they publicly promote and display such a bizarre collection of fetish loving exhibitionists?

It is time to put sodomy back on the books as a crime. You used to get 14 years for it, now you dance in the strets to flaunt it to all the "breeders". Time to send these sickos back to where they belong.

Oh, I see, Ted. It's all about sex. If it weren't for the sex thing, you'd be voting Conservative. I see. The corruption and cavalier incompetence and gross negligence of the Librano$$$ doesn't matter at all?

Ok. Gotcha, pal. For the record. It's all because of sex. Right. Just because a lot of Canadians, and not just conservatives, either (a lot of Librano$$$ opposed gay marriage, plus a NDPer), have cautious trepidations about the incredible, incessant fixation of our society and state apparatus on homosexuality and transsexuality and whatever else to do with sex... that's why you won't vote Conservative? Isn't that overly simplistic and reactionary, not to mention perhaps a tad emotional?

Just wondering, my good chap!

And just to be fair, you should similarly criticize ALL folks who express concern at the whole sexuality issue being forced to the top of the agenda in Canada to the detriment of more urgent problems... like health care, the economy, national security, equality of citizens (why can't straight folks walk around naked in public, too, and have straight bathhouses and fornication houses without being persecuted by police?)... you should denounce immigrants, for example, including Muslims, Sikhs, etc... for being opposed to official state sanction, canonization, taxpayer funding, special protections, etc. of just anything and everything some folks demand...

I mean, why do we need parades for just these folks? How much more special are they than straight folks? Why not have "pride" parades for absolutely all groups who demand the equal right to have the local gov't's declare a "pride week" and have police block off the entire downtown so they can dress like XXX-rated naked clowns and yell how great and proud they are...

I mean, it's getting to be a bit silly! Just look at the marchers, fo'fecksake! Naked! All that! Gawd! None of THAT is normal at all! Normal folks do NOT walk around naked or wearing bumless chaps, etc., etc....

Oh, never mind... I really don't care that much, but if you want to respond, that's ok. I just should go do more important things than talk about why you won't vote Conservative just because we see no value in folks walking around naked and stuff...

I can't speak for others, Ted, but you are welcome to publish my comments to your friends far and wide. Indeed, I would be interested in your opinions on the topic at hand, if you were ever to be so interested as to contribute to the discussion at hand rather driving around shooting at the pedestrians who are having a conversation on Kate's sidewalk.

Good catch, Canadian Sentinel, this topic is a perennial, that's for sure. Thank god for the republic of free speech, where we citizens can have an honest debate on the matter. We'll sort it out, over time, things take time.

Don't forget the words of Alan Charles Kors, who wrote: "The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one's breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry "caste." In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either "poverty" or "consumerism." In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry "alienation." In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry "oppression." In a society of boundless private charity, they cry "avarice." In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the "exploitation" of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry "injustice." In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like "liberty" in quotation marks when these refer to the West."

Just testing the filter to see if it accepts shorter comments and to advise that it caught a pretty good retort to Ted's comment. Not to worry, it isn't caustic, but rather funny.

What's this? Michael Ignatieff is so gay and more representation by government "flunkies" -- pretty inflammatory to me. Maybe even over-the-top propaganda.

DT says: "- Virtually every convicted pedophile is a male."

Which is a little different than saying virtually every pedophile is a male. We need gender normalization sentencing guidelines in Canada, because women are pretty much above the law in many instances. For example, I saw one study where only 2% of females convicted of diddling ever go to jail. I say (tongue in cheek) an equal number of men and women should be in jail at any given time; anything else is evidence of an anti-male bias in the legal system.

About Mother's Against Drunk Driving: they're getting uppity, it's time to form Drunk Drivers Against Mothers. 83% of those convicted of drinking and driving in Ont. are male ( women don't really get convicted of DUIs here; see Trudeau, Maggie). Yet drivers talking on cellphones actually cause more crashes than drunk drivers. Girls like chatting on teh phone ;-)

MADD got the Canada Safety Council to pretty much endorse chatting on the cellphone while driving last week, and the OPP are busy chasing beer drinking boaters rather than supressing the Mohawk Rebellion of 2006. Sometimes I hate this province...

Fair comment, Vitruvius.

I'll actually quote something you wrote over at a similar thread at The Shotgun:

"I also fully agree with John Stuart Mill's note to the effect that "Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good", and I've earned my volitional adult credibility in that department."

Me too.

This was the first Gay Pride Parade I have not been able to make it to in many years and that was disappointing. It's a great city event. Several streets are blocked off. There is basically a fare on Church Street. Lots of music. Dancing and singing in the streets. Laughter. A million people gathering and having fun. Together. A million people and you very rarely hear of any violent incidents or even tempers going off.

Is there some nudity? Last year having just started reading what could only be described as vitriol by some over at the Shotgun on this very subject, I paid more attention. Of the 1,000,000 bystanders, of the thousands on parade, I think I counted 5 sets of breasts (which, by the way, isn't illegal) and 4 penises. Oh. My. God. The. World. Is. Coming. To. An. End. I could personally care less about that. A lot more people with open booze coming out of Jays game and I've never seen anyone anywhere post about that, despite all these sudden ethicists and legal eagles popping up here.

As for pride, two obvious comments. (1) I feel pride for my nation, my city, my family, my house and the hours of work I've done on it, my legal practice, my relationships, the troops defending our freedom, Team Canada winning the gold (the women!). Pride is not a bad thing on its own. (2) the idea of a Gay Pride Parade (obviously) comes out of the shame that society had of gays, so the healthy response: I'm queer and I'm here, not going to be shamed, but proud of who I am. I'm not gay so I don't need to tell gays how to feel about themselves, but I think that's a pretty healthy outlook on life.

Sentinel: If you can't get the comment up, sent it to me by email. There's something about your vicious, nasty humour that tickles my funny bone sometimes and I'd hate to think I missed a good one.

Ted

So here we go again with the bogus claims that Heterosexuals are the main source for pedophilia, Rev.Brent Hawkes tried that scam on the John Oakley show and attack the Catholic Church for what a groups of Homosexual-pedophile Priests did .
This usual rant is like the same tripe by the pro-gay Pride supporter that insist the naked male getting their jollies flaunting their penis in front of little boys has nothing to do with sexual preference, it's gender-pride and Public expressions of affirming that men exposing themselves to boys is normal.
Funny how the Liberal were against raising the Consent age to 16 , Cotler himself said he feared it would criminalize some homosexual behaviour.

BTW, there is a big difference between heterosexual lust that may attract a adult to a under age person of the opposite gender and the outright sickness of a man that only wants boys and has no desire for any female adult.
The twisted logic used to defend homosexual pedophiles doesn't hold water when you apply it to the prison system, if gay males are believed
to be close to 2% of the population then this means the high homosexual activity in jails makes gays predisposed to crime because the numbers show a 10% gay-sex rate in jail.
Of course the arguement will be that the lonelyness makes the gay , but I thought we settled the debate about being Born that way and you can't Choose to be gay.
Men that enjoy being naked in front of little boys are sick and qualify as pedophiles, even when Mayor Miller and Chief Blair choose to ignore it and tell the world it's a Family event and bring the kids ( fresh meat) .

Oh, well, Teddy, I didn't save the comment. Crap. Maybe Kate'll allow it anyway. BTW, you saw four peenie-pipes in public? That's illegal, isn't it? But no arrests? Just out of curiousity, did you see any pussies? Or is society so harsh on women, making them feel so ashamed of their bodies, that even the big, fat, hairy, fearless dykes are afraid to display their genitalia whereas the gay guys are only too happy to expose their private parts to the child spectators?

Hmm... y'know... if the nudity in these parades is acceptable and the police and the public don't care about public nudity, then the law against public nudity must therefore be abolished as was the law against homosexuality by Jean Chretien in the late Sixties...

Oh, yeah... let's turn it up a notch... let's make The Netherlands look like Ahmadinejad's Iran!

Oh, yeah... let's make Canada the land where absolutely anything goes!

I think I'll send an email to Cheech and Chong to let 'em know we're gonna have a helluva party up here...

RE:"Sentinel: If you can't get the comment up, sent it to me by email. There's something about your vicious, nasty humour that tickles my funny bone sometimes and I'd hate to think I missed a good one."

It is a predictable liberal ploy to label a difference of opinion from their progressive platform as vicious and nasty.

In my experience it usually means the liberal is losing the debate.

Well, which is it Sentinel? Which do you want: Ahmadinejad's Iran or a Canada that has a few celebrations a year to celebrate life, liberty and security of person? My preference is Canada, but to each their own.

(And by the way, it was Trudeau as Minister of Justice who decriminalized homosexuality and moved us even further away from the medieval tribes of the world who punish consenting adults for loving each other. The same Trudeau who went all military the last time we had any kind of terrorist threat in our midst (the FLQ - now those guys were some real terrorists, not like the Idiot 17) and the same Trudeau who lamented the group think that had become of multiculturalism. Just cause I know you're dying to be accurate about Liberals.)

Ted

And what about having a straight pride parade? Surely there's some straight folks out there who would like to organize them? Why not? If it is denied by the cities, then we shall take 'em to court for discrimination! Oh, absolutely, we can do it, and have all state agencies and political leaders on floats celebrating the greatness of the straight... or else!

And let's walk down the street naked, too, including beautiful straight women! In front of children, promoting straightness and all that. And if the police bother us, we can sue 'em for millions!

I wish someone with that much energy and organizational skill would do that. Ain't gonna be me... I'm just a lazy blogger myself... and I'm proud of it! And sometimes I blog in my skivvies, too, to demonstrate how proud I am!

Oh, concrete, lighten up. That wasn't even an attack on Sentinel. A little friendly ribbing, jeesh. And hardly the first time between us.

Besides, my guess is Sentinel is a big enough boy that he can handle it and doesn't need you running to his defence.

Ted

Someone said, "you want the old value system."

That's the system that's brought us all this far; I'm not as confident about the "new value system"...

Ted said: "Well, which is it Sentinel? Which do you want: Ahmadinejad's Iran or a Canada that has a few celebrations a year to celebrate life, liberty and security of person?"

I reply: Ted, we're talking about a bunch of gay people walking down the street, for fecksake. How do you go from that to "life, liberty and security of person"? That's the meaning of some gay people walking around? My, but you're quite simple-minded if that's your belief!

Liberals, eh? ;-)

Sentinel:

Maybe I missed your point here:

"Oh, yeah... let's turn it up a notch... let's make The Netherlands look like Ahmadinejad's Iran!

Oh, yeah... let's make Canada the land where absolutely anything goes!"

... but if you were suggesting it was one or the other, I have no doubt which parade I'm walking in.

Ted

"I blog in my skivvies, too, to demonstrate how proud I am!"

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at June 26, 2006 07:36 PM

Thanks CS,a visual I could have done without. ;-)

Pride cometh before the fall

I remember a few years ago (or so), a group in Regina lobbied for Family Pride Day.

The city did make a proclamation, but the LGBT opposed this, saying it did not promote diversity in our society.

Where is the equality that the LGBT talk so much about where, on one hand, we are to accept their "values" and yet on the other hand, we are not allowed to celebrate our "values"?

BTW, Ted, my memory told me that it was Chretien as Justice Minister under Trudeau that abolished the ban on homosexuality. I recall reading about it in Collier's Encyclopedia, but guess I mixed the names up or something since. But who cares, anyway? Ain't a Liberal a Liberal, after all? Oh, I guess not... after whatshisname defected to my side on Day One of the new admin... plus there seems to be two kinds of Liberals, the Martinites and the Chretienites. Still infighting and all that.

Poor Teddy. Gonna be in the political wilderness for a real long time! Whatever will some of you folks do in the meantime, besides practice law or blog and play in bands with names like "Shit from Hell"?

Get used to it. The new sheriff is doing the job you guys never did, and the townfolk love him for it. He'll be in for a good long time.

A big thank you to the Librano$$$ for engineering their own ignominious downfall. I feared they'd be in forever!

Thanks Ted, fair comment.

The way I see it, Ted, is that it's not so much about homosexuality, it's about sexuality. Most non-adolescent folks don't want sexuality in their face all the time (literally or otherwise). So you can see how any collective that wishes to idenfity itself sexually would likely be well advised to tread lightly.

Interestingly, perhaps, I too happened to attend a few Gay Parades in San Francisco, in the early 1980s, as my business took me to the area, and some colleagues invited me. They were indeed, great parties. And they didn't go down Market Street to Union Square. They were at Castro and 18th, and as public functions go, they were as close to private as you can get. There were no children there.

There were some great Exotic Erotica (largely heterosexual) parties for Haloween in San Francisco in that era too. They also didn't happen in Union Square. Actually, one great one happened in the three-level underground parking garage of city hall. After midnight. Three bands, nine bars, party on. There were no children there.

Look. Something like 90 % of Canadians believe in equal human rights for homosexuals. Why are gays spending so much political capital at the margin? And the same thing goes for the so-cons too. People have to get over some of these changes and get back to good decent common public behaviour, while still leaving the nightclubs alone, independent of the changes. The changes will never stop, and net net they've been for the good.

Ted, I was sitting in the window at a local deli having a late breakfast a couple years ago and the local gay parade came marching by. (1) There's nothing worse than an aging drag queen. (2) What is that Communist Party of Canada banner doing in there? I don't need that sort of thing. Not before I've finished my coffee and eggs, anyway.

Parades should be for children, not adults. Adults should know better.

You people are so terrified of sex. You people think that teaching kids how to put on a condom will ruin them for life, and that if they see a few breasts or penises, (what, only four, Ted? :>) or leather gear it means that the world is coming to an end. Take a deep breath, people -- by the time you exhale, the Liberals are going to be steering our country in the right direction again.

Mr. Giles above raised a very valid point!

The gays want to have their exclusive (they call it "inclusive") parade, but they don't want anyone else to have their own parade?

If this actually happened, this is proof that the gay movement might not be about "inclusion" after all. Perhaps it's about supremacy?

BTW, Cdn Observer, actually, I look good in my skivvies. Over ten years of hardcore bodybuilding saw to it, even though I've put on a bit of a spare tire recently. Oops, hope I didn't turn anyone on, except maybe the girls... ;-)

"I was asked to justify my claims with examples, and I did so."

Yes, but you were pulling them out of your backside, as I pointed out.

It did happen, Sentinel, and you are wrong. Someone organized a "Family Pride Day" and tried to exclude gays and gay families (gay parents and gay children). Heterosexuals are hardly banned from the Gay Pride Parade, they just wouldn't be allowed in the GAY Pride Parade if they opposed homosexuality.

The equivalent would be, as you suggested, holding a Heterosexual Pride Parade and allowing gay people to join in as long as they didn't oppose heterosexuals.

And p.s., please stop trying to force us into thinking about you in your skivvies, especially with all of your talk about hardcore and trying to turn people on. Kate runs a classier joint than that.

Ted

"A million people turn out to watch the parade. Like it or not, that's a million people that do want to see this and do enjoy it and do have fun."

The freak show at the circus gets a lot of attention and attendance as well.Me thinks most people go to the gay parade just to see if there really are men who have "boobs" and a "penis".

But I think the "real" trick will be to have both a penis and a vagina. Now, THAT I'd pay to see.

Horny Toad

Um, we have a problem here, Ted. There is no such thing as a homosexual child. By definition, a child is pre-sexual. Then they're adolescent. Then they're adults. Then they're post-sexual. Life goes on. Your slip is showing.

"Parades should be for children, not adults. Adults should know better."

I just had a thought...How about an SDA parade.

There's plenty of child-like adults at this blog. The 1 rule should be that you have to dress like your blogging name.

Vitruvius could dess like a Roman engineer, and ET like something from Star Wars. CS like a sentinnel and Irwin like a daisey. Come on conservatives let's have some fun.

It could prove to be the event of the blogging party season.

Hermaphrodite, Toad.

Vitruvius: I meant gay adults (or even gay teens) with their straight parents. We are all still the children of someone.

And I don't wear a slip.

Ted

Hey, I love a masquerade, David, and I look great as a Roman Engineer (Marcus Vitruvius Pollio to you, sir!), but for the sake of the children, let's keep it off Center & Main, and get us a room. Ok?

The last thing the children need to see is grown men running around in leather skirts carrying large screws of Archimedes.

Maybe some of the millions of dollars of revenue from this Parade should go straight to our health care system...

Sorry I wasn't more clear, Ted. When I said slip, I meant stumble (or equivalent). An article of clothing never occurred to me. But then, I didn't read Freud.

Ted, since you're pushing the "1 million people" propaganda, can you answer a few questions.

Toronto has 2.5 million people, the GTA has 5.

Were the supposed 1 million all GTA residents? That seems rather far-fetched.

10% of Toronto is Chinese, another 10% is South Asian, 21% is listed as new immigrants. A parade celebrating homosexuality doesn't seem like it would have great appeal to those groups.

or was the supposed "1 million people" half residents and half visitors? (even 500,000 local residents sounds farfetched) Were the visitors there for the day or the weekend? Staying in hotels or with friends? How many hotel rooms in the GTA?

You would think that many visitors coming and going in such a small time span would cause major traffic problems. Didn't hear a peep about that in the news.

Aside from the mention (no video) on a newscast, I've heard nothing about this parade watched by a supposed "1 million people"

Today's Calgary Sun, Herald, National Post and Globe & Mail, can't find a single peep about this parade.

1 in 33 Canadians attending a parade, sounds like it would be big, big news. Especially if it happens in Toronto.

I've heard more about the CN Tower than this big rootin' tootin' parade.

It's more likely 100,000 watched and the organizers put out the 1 million number.

Factual statistics has never been a strong point of the homosexual agenda.

I understood you Vitruvius. Given the subject matter, I just wanted to make it 100%, perfectly, indisputably clear that I don't wear a slip.

Children might be reading this blog after all!

Ted

Actually, I think I should apologize for my last comment. I don't think it was called for.

Concrete:

It's not your personal opinion, it's poll after poll which shows that gay marriage does NOT have majority support. No matter what the militant gay lobby would have you, or more importantly MPs, believe.

poll after poll which shows that gay marriage does NOT have majority support

Oh, nonsense. Most polls have shown considerable support.

www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/09/04/samesexpoll030904.html

www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm

General Lee Wright:

Your source? Most polls say that either a majority support equal marriage or the population is evenly split.

Wikipedia tabulates the polls and concludes:

"Public opinion polls in Canada have found more times than not, that the majority of Canadians back full marriage rights for same-sex couples. This can be seen as far back as 1996 when an Angus-Reid/Southam News poll reached the conclusion that 49% of Canadians favoured same-sex marriage, while 47% were opposed. In May of 1999, a Globe&Mail/CTV/Angus-Reid poll had public support at 53% for gay marriage, and 44% opposed.

Although these numbers have fluctuated, very few polls on the issue show oppostition to same-sex marriage receiving more support than the extension of marriage to same-sex couples."

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Opinion_polls)

Some polls have shown a lot higher support for equal marriage and some polls have shown a majority in favour of not allowing equal marriage. Personally, I believe and accept that Canadians are roughly evenly split on the issue.

Clearly and most certainly though the statement "poll after poll which shows that gay marriage does NOT have majority support" is at best highly and deliberately misleading since poll after poll shows either roughly even or higher support for equal marriage. Rare is the poll that shows a majority opposed to equal marriage or in favour of only traditional marriage.

Ted

General Lee Wright:

Your source? Most polls say that either a majority support equal marriage or the population is evenly split.

Wikipedia tabulates the polls and concludes:

"Public opinion polls in Canada have found more times than not, that the majority of Canadians back full marriage rights for same-sex couples. This can be seen as far back as 1996 when an Angus-Reid/Southam News poll reached the conclusion that 49 percent of Canadians favoured same-sex marriage, while 47 percent were opposed. In May of 1999, a Globe&Mail/CTV/Angus-Reid poll had public support at 53% for gay marriage, and 44 percent opposed.

Although these numbers have fluctuated, very few polls on the issue show oppostition to same-sex marriage receiving more support than the extension of marriage to same-sex couples."

Some polls have shown a lot higher support for equal marriage and some polls have shown a majority in favour of not allowing equal marriage. Personally, I believe and accept that Canadians are roughly evenly split on the issue.

Clearly and most certainly though the statement "poll after poll which shows that gay marriage does NOT have majority support" is at best highly and deliberately misleading since poll after poll shows either roughly even or higher support for equal marriage. Rare is the poll that shows a majority opposed to equal marriage or in favour of only traditional marriage.

Ted

So what's the comment count running at... 120 or thereabouts? Brilliant!! Gay Pride sure as hell must be important.

Really, the most important way some can find to define themselves as sentient beings is their sexual proclivities.

Well.....I'm in. I prefer to have the girlfriend on top.....cowgirl style (being a lazy redneck and all).

Yep....that pretty much defines me.

So if anyone else out there is interested I'm thinking I might have a "coming out" float in the Calgary Stampede Parade.

I'm so proud!!!

Syncro

General Lee Wright:

Your source? Most polls say that either a majority support equal marriage or the population is evenly split.

Wikipedia tabulates the polls and concludes:

"Public opinion polls in Canada have found more times than not, that the majority of Canadians back full marriage rights for same-sex couples. This can be seen as far back as 1996 when an Angus-Reid/Southam News poll reached the conclusion that 49 percent of Canadians favoured same-sex marriage, while 47 percent were opposed. In May of 1999, a Globe&Mail/CTV/Angus-Reid poll had public support at 53% for gay marriage, and 44 percent opposed.

Although these numbers have fluctuated, very few polls on the issue show oppostition to same-sex marriage receiving more support than the extension of marriage to same-sex couples."

Some polls have shown a lot higher support for equal marriage and some polls have shown a majority in favour of not allowing equal marriage. Personally, I believe and accept that Canadians are roughly evenly split on the issue.

Clearly and most certainly though the statement "poll after poll which shows that gay marriage does NOT have majority support" is at best highly and deliberately misleading since poll after poll shows either roughly even or higher support for equal marriage. Rare is the poll that shows a majority opposed to equal marriage or in favour of only traditional marriage.

Robert in Calgary: Give me a break. Attendees come from all over the world in fact - the Toronto Gay Pride Parade is the second largest in the world and the second largest (after Caribana - BTW, Caribana claims to pull in 1.1 million visitors: is that part of some agenda/propaganda? ) or maybe now even largest event in Toronto. It most certainly was in all of the Toronto papers, but I'm not surprised if it wasn't in every paper in the country, neither is Caribana or many other big annual Toronto events. Toronto isn't the centre of the universe you know.

As for traffic, you obviously didn't try to get around the city on Sunday! Most are here for the weekend and staying with friends, if they even go home - the parties last all night. Like I said above, it is an incredibly friendly event. It is also very concentrated in a downtown part of the city so few are driving around I bet, but walking and you can tell. Not everyone lives and dies in a car all the time. Look at any photo of the parade, especially from a helicopter, and tell me only 100,000 are watching the parade!!

Look, Robert/Lee, you can hate that homosexuals are accepted in our society or not, but don't convert your desire that they not be into a fabrication of news and facts.

Ted

In reference to the entry that bemoaned the fate of the word PRIDE in the future. I fully agree, but would like to add another word to the list. The complete subjication of the word "GAY". In my laketime it was a compliment to be called "A Gay Blade", mothers were hanging the name on their children, right Mrs Talese?, it was even used in Movie Titles, The Gay Divorcee, When hearts were young and Gay. Its kind of late to get it back now.

This is my first post here but I've been reading smalldeadanimals for a long time now. I saw it mentioned on CTV News once. I like the discussions here.

Just have a few comments on gay pride parades. First off, before anyone guesses I'm gay. I'm also a Tory and a solid right wing, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-free trade, end all subsidies, turf the CBC, kind of guy. Yet many of these comments about gays and lesbians and gay pride parades just irk me. They do because they draw out the most idiotic and hurtful comments. People say they don't hate gays but then say "deviant" "perverts" and the age old link and insinuation that gay = pedophile. If you've ever been to gay pride parades and I've been dragged to a couple you'd know the "freaks" as I call them are far and few. The vast, vast bulk of people are fully clothed, normal, etc etc etc.

All these kinds of really nasty comments accomplish one thing - they send gay moderates to the Liberals and god forbid the NDP.

That's what stupid, narrow minded comments do.

They feed the left wing.

I asked a friend of mine online how their parade gets organizations to participate. They send out emails, phone calls, etc and see if people and groups are interested. They contact Churches even along with gov't agencies and unions and local businesses. It is great advertising and a great way to get information out to people if you have a service to offer the public in particular.

As to how you get 1 million people in Toronto watching gay pride. Well its easy. People from as far away as Austrailia go to Toronto's parade because it is considered one of the best in the world. The business side of me says "wow" that's great for private business.

Any ways I hope people start thinking with their heads on this issue and show some respect for each other. We're all here to do one thing - keep the NDP and Liberals out and our taxes down!

We all know there is only one poll that will count and that will be the one in Parliament.

PMSH has promised a debate and a vote.

I think the Canadian public deserves to hear both sides as the stakes here are very very high and also because IMO changing the definition of marriage from being one man and one woman is not in the best interest of our children or of our nation.

I am not happy at the way gay marriage was shoved down our political throats and I hope the Liberals live to regret the way they changed their election promises (again) when one judge ruled Canadians must now abandon our traditions.

I also think there are a lot of Canadians who do not like being mocked and I am a little surprised that the left does not see this.

I hope PM Harper can deliver for Conservatives one more time and protect marriage between one man and one woman. I am pretty sure it will not be easy.

Johnny Cash said,

And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder: One of the four beasts saying: "Come and see." And I saw. And behold, a white horse.
There's a man goin' 'round takin' names. An' he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won't be treated all the same. There'll be a golden ladder reaching down. When the man comes around.

The hairs on your arm will stand up. At the terror in each sip and in each sup. For you partake of that last offered cup, Or disappear into the potter's ground. When the man comes around.

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marching to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom. Then the father hen will call his chickens home. The wise men will bow down before the throne. And at his feet they'll cast their golden crown. When the man comes around.

Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

Hear the trumpets,...

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree...
In measured hundredweight and penny pound. When the man comes around.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him.

I very much doubt that it was one million people! There's no way that that one street and its sidewalks could handle that many people. So, it's more likely 100,000.

As for dawg's assertion about polls showing support for gay marriage, a poll is meaningless unless one knows the questions that were asked, and the randomness and size of the sample.

I recall one survey done a few years back that was given massive publicity. It stated that 80% of women were 'date raped' on Canadian campuses. Then, someone got a copy of the questionnaires, which were NOT made public by the researchers. When we saw the questions, we knew it was a bogus survey. So, be careful about surveys and polls.

Except ET, the polls are all relatively consistent and show that support for equal marriage is ABOUT half the population. Very few polls have shown support to be much higher and only one or two polls have shown it to be much lower. Dawg was responding to the ridiculous proposition of General Lee that poll after poll shows a majority don't support equal marriage which, at the very best is highly misleading. Wikipedia has tabulated the polls and concludes:

"Public opinion polls in Canada have found more times than not, that the majority of Canadians back full marriage rights for same-sex couples. This can be seen as far back as 1996 when an Angus-Reid/Southam News poll reached the conclusion that 49% of Canadians favoured same-sex marriage, while 47% were opposed. In May of 1999, a Globe&Mail/CTV/Angus-Reid poll had public support at 53% for gay marriage, and 44% opposed.

Although these numbers have fluctuated, very few polls on the issue show oppostition to same-sex marriage receiving more support than the extension of marriage to same-sex couples."

Take a look at any aerial shot of the pride parade and tell me that there is only 100,000!! It runs along three streets by the way and there is most definitely more there than the average college football game!

And concrete: interesting how all these conservatives, after 1000s of hours of committee hearings, debates in Parliament, interviews with MPs, etc. want still MORE debate on this issue that will harm NO ONE and cost NOTHING and yet are completely happy with a no prior notice 6 hour debate on committing untold billions on an undefined military mission in a hostile foreign land. Not that I opposed the motion - just the partisan tactic - but the hypocrisy of the statement just compelled me to jump briefly off topic.

Ted

New Kid on The Block, quite the quote from Johnny Cash although the references to the four beasts is the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from the Book of Revelations in the Bible. Mr Cash was also a great gospel singer. (I am a great Eastwood fan, i.e. Pale rider)

Although I don't think Gay Pride parades signal the end, I do think that the agenda that "progressives" are pushing is inherently wrong in that you either have to be with them or against them and that is wrong. As I said before, legaly gays are getting all the perks of marriage as far as pensions, benefits and such so leave the definition of marriage alone. Call it something else.

I can be nailed to a cross if I make a disparaging remark about homosexuality but being heterosexual and believing in such seems to be fair game for criticism. In my opinion, anyway.

And dangling willies at kids or anyone in public is just plain wrong.

texas canuck: "When the Man Comes Around" is a song by Johnny Cash, and was on the last CD he made. You can listen to it by doing a search of lyrics for When the Man Comes Around.

'Not too many singers who could get a song like that included in a general release CD, but the guy was/is incredible. "The man in black," mourning, I believe he said, the state of things in the world today. His reference to the four beasts and the pale horse is, indeed, from Revelation.

Zog: So many more predators are Heterosexual than homosexuals, that its usually considered a given that most child predators are heterosexual... but, I'm not sure whether anyone has looked at it in terms of percentages, or rates, out of the total homosexual populations.

As far as abusers targeting either family or institutions like schools, there is no evidence that any particular location is prefered. Predators hunt constantly and they score where they feel the least at risk. That could be school, family, or the grocery store. In the end, your little girl has a much higher chance of becoming a victim than your little boy... but like you suggest, that may just be because there are so few homosexual males to start with.

David Brown an obvious gay troll

The top tourist attraction in the whole country is the gay parade week in Toronto, that say,s it all.The country is going to hell because we give this much power to small group of people

Lets have a national referrendum on "gay marriage" so that Canadians can decide on the outcome, that would truely be a representation of the "will of the Canadian people".

As an aside, whats wrong will calling it "civil union" (for man/woman, man/man, woman/woman unions) which would be the way the government handles the legality of the union, and leave it up to the churches (a non-government entity) if they want to "marry" [insert sexual preference here] or not? Should this not satisfy all parties involved if the one party wants the meaning of the word "marriage" protected and the other party simply wants a recognizable union in the eyes of the law/society? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not how "progressive societies" such as Sweden are doing things?

Canforce101....It is my opinion that gay activists are demanding their unions be called marriages because normalizing homosexuality in our society is their eventual goal!
Sadly,as they demand respect for their lifestyle from all Canadians,they show little in return to those who wish them happy lives together but want the traditional definition of marriage protected.It seems a fair compromise to many,even some gays,as they achieve ALL the rights and benefits of a married couple.Yet,they INSIST it be called marriage!...This ONE WORD is powerful enough to soon bring to bear the will of our parliament,and has the attention of a nation.

Sorry,the previous post was mine.Was having some fun on the previous'lonely'thread and missed the change...

Ted: "And p.s., please stop trying to force us into thinking about you in your skivvies, especially with all of your talk about hardcore and trying to turn people on. Kate runs a classier joint than that."

Yeah, but in the sidebar she talks about blogging naked while eating cherry ice cream, so... what's wrong with me blogging in my skivvies, drinking coffee?

Funny... for someone who thinks that those Foolish-Naked-and-Bumless-Chaps-Wearing-Clowns' parades are the cat's pajamas, you're inexplicably offended at the sight of a gone-soft hardcore bodybuilder in his gitchies sitting at a computer...

I don't get you, man. You're so inconsistent. It's ok for those very-special folks to walk around either naked or in outrageous getups without bum coverage and whatnot, but not straight folks like me and Kate here...

*Sigh*... Librano$$$, eh ;-)

Just back in the UK after a week in the homeland.

In honour of "Pride Day" or whatever it calls itself, I made a point of leaving Toronto to spend a relaxing, gag-free day at Niagara-on-the-Lake.

I paid my respects to Sir Isaac at Queenston Heights then settled in to a delightful lunch with family at the Peller Estates Winery.

At no time did we even broach the subject of "Gay Pride" - a complete non-issue of epic proportions (and thus ideal for intellectualizing navel-gazers and the blithering twits at rabble.ca).

Now back to the real world...

Ted, I believe that it should be allowable to have a "Family Pride Day" that is exclusively heterosexual, but invites gay folks to attend and show their support. Those who oppose the sanctity of traditional marriage and the traditional family don't have to be there, but they won't be "excluded". Otherwise, it wouldn't be a celebration of this very special and beneficial-to-society type of union/family.

There'd be no discrimination, as everyone'd be welcome to attend. It'd just be ABOUT something specific, the traditional marriage/family form. Nothing wrong with that.

Besides, the gay parades are specifically about the GLBT (and whatever) thing, not about heterosexuals. Yes, they were welcome to attend, but it was about the gayfolk, exclusively.

Therefore, it was absolutely wrong to forbid a straight-oriented parade just 'cause the gays find it offensive 'cause they wouldn't be able to hijack it and make it about them.

Let's have a straights' parade. Invite everyone. But make it about straights, please, as it is our right! Yes, our RIGHT! We're special and deserve a special parade, just like the gays get! Give us equality!

Gays have their special parades, ABOUT them and not straights. Therefore to say we cannot have special parades ABOUT just straights is discrimination and is evidence of the radical, oppressive agenda of the left and the gay political powers...

Ok, call me nuts. I don't care. I just want to be treated equally and have my equal rights!!!!!

Jeez! How come the Free World has become so obsessed with sex, particularly the less-common forms of, um, ah, "expression"?

I could swear that there are issues far, far more critically important than constantly reminding people of what they already know: that there are guys who like guys, girls who like girls, guys who are girls, girls who are guys and on and on...

Why can't we all focus on critical issues like national security, the threats posed by the Axis Power Group, health care, the economy of the Atlantic Region of Canada, etc.?

Much of the Free World's priorities are out of order.

ET flounders through the fog yet again. My references to polls were to counter the assertion that polls allegedly show Canadians to be opposed to gat marriage. My second reference actually contains many of the polling questions in numerous polls on the subject.

Instead, with the pomposity that is becoming this poseur's trademark, he lectures me about poll questions and how misleading polls can be. Go tell that to "Gen. Lee Right," who brought the poll issue up in the first place, falsely claiming that "poll after poll" shows a majority of Canadians are opposed to SSM. They do not.

Rico said, "David Brown an obvious gay troll."

'could be some truth in that. His posts about kids and schools have a bottled quality to them, lacking in authenticity...hmmmm...

No dawg, you frist site didn't provide the question, and the answer was not 'considerable support' but 'equally divided'.

"The poll found more than 60 per cent of the respondents younger than 35 support same-sex marriages. An equal percentage of seniors oppose it.

Canadians as a whole remain almost evenly divided on the issue.

The second poll showed the same - division. AND, was concerned about the question, which was ambiguous. The second analysis was concerned that citizens are possibly confused because the poll only referred to 'marriage' as a term and left out the term 'civil union'. A second question referring to marriage as man/woman, with civil union defined as homosexual/lesbian, would have been a more reliable indictator. The second analysis also provided:

"45% would approve allowing same-sex couples to marry.
47% would oppose SSM "

Therefore, dawg, there is not considerable support.

dawg, my longer comment got lost in the filter, but your two references don't show considerable support for gay marriage.

The first doesn't provide the questions and its stats show the opposite, stating that support is evenly divided.

The second provides the stats that show that support is also evenly divided and furthermore, the analysts state that the question is possibly misleading. They suggest a second question clarifying the difference between marriage and a civil union and confining the first two heterosexual unions.

So, your selective data doesn't provide any proof for your claim of 'considerable support'.

CS,

If you're going to have a straight parade make sure the theo-cons don't hijack it and turn it into an anti-gay, anti-SSM and anti-abortion fiasco.

As I mentioned in a previous post an SDA theme could be interesting.

Generally speaking...

Let me clarify my liberal position on some issues.

I am against SSM, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The gay pride parade in theory is an interesting concept but in practice borders on lunacy.

new kid on the block,

Don't give up your day job.

Please give all of us some examples of your 'authenticity'. We're all very interested to find out what makes 'new kid on the block' so genuine.

Simply put, db, you sound like a b***s******

I can't make myself any clearer than that.

A parade to bring awareness (as if we needed more) to gays as well as celebrating their sexuality and sexual preference (some which people find aberrant). Much like the non-smoking ads or drinking and driving ads. We know it's bad..we don't need to be lectured to.

When is the Beastiality Pride Day? Groupsex Pride Day? Older Men and Young Girls Pride Day? Anal Sex Pride Day (which, much like gay sex, has the absolute zero chance of procreation). After all, these are sexual preferences as well.

What I find more interesting, is there are those that will fight for the FREEDOM for gays to get married and hang their dinkies out in public, but will not support people in other countries having BASIC freedoms....or even being able to hang their dinkies out in public for fear of execution.

Regarding support for/against gay marriage:

«RONALD BROWNSTEIN:
WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
Gay Marriage Vote Serves Only to Divide Nation
June 4, 2006
In the latest Gallup Poll, 50% said they supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage; 47% opposed it.»

«More musings on science and surveys
06:43 PM CDT on Thursday, June 15, 2006
Jeffrey Weiss (The Dallas Morning News)

“Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has pointed out how very different the polls are from the actual votes. Here are some typical cases showing what the polls said about protecting marriage in various states prior to the votes and how the citizens of those states actually voted. Arkansas: 64.8% (75%); Georgia: 69% (76%); Kansas: 56% (79%); Kentucky: 71.6% (75%); Louisiana: 62% (78%); Michigan: 52% (59%); Montana: 61% (67%); Nevada: 43% (67%); North Dakota: 53% (73%); Ohio: 48% (62%); Oklahoma: 59% (76%); and Oregon: 50% (57%).”
In each case, as you can see, the votes in favor of an anti-gay-marriage referendum were larger than the polls predicted. Perkins goes on to explain the differences:
“Having been in politics for a while I've seen how polling questions can be constructed to obtain the desired outcome. The slanted poll questions no doubt account for some of the difference. Secondly, and probably more prominent, is the intimidation factor….Some people are fearful of being labeled a homophobe or bigot so they keep their opinions to themselves until they are in the privacy of the voting booth and then on average over 70% defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”»

«NJ Majority Support For Gay Marriage Remains Strong
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Trenton, New Jersey
A new poll shows that support for same-sex marriage remains high in the state. The survey by Rutgers-Eagleton shows 50 percent of voters approve of gay marriage with 44 percent opposed.»

Notice the headline in the last one: Support remains high ... yet later the survey shows only 50% approve of gay marriage versus 44%.

Considering the source (365Gay.com Newscenter Staff) it is not inconceivable that people did not respond truthfully , as stated in the previous article I quoted above.

If the gay lobby is so convinced that the majority supports gay marriage, why have they opposed and continue to oppose a referendum on it?

David Brown:

How about your analysis on why SSM "makes no sense to me whatsoever". And while you're at it, how about explaining how that is a "liberal" position and the difference between that enlightened "liberal" position and the "constricted" "conservative" position which I believe you earlier blamed for gay militancy.

new kid on the block,

Well I guess you should know sounds, afterall you were 1 of the best boy bands of the 80s.

Late at night you probably put on an old 8 track or vinyl record of New Kids On The Block and imagine yourself as lead singer with young girls throwing their underwear at you.

The second provides the stats that show that support is also evenly divided and furthermore, the analysts state that the question is possibly misleading. They suggest a second question clarifying the difference between marriage and a civil union and confining the first two heterosexual unions.

I hope readers go to this site for themselves, and follow the link to a second one, with more polls. Most of the polling questions and sample sizes are provided.

The word "misleading" applied to two polls, one from "Focus on the Family," which showed, in spite of the built-in bias against SSM, a plurality in favour of SSM. FOTF, needless to say, was none too happy about that result.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word "considerable," but the polls do tend to show the opposite of what "Gen. Lee Right" originally asserted here. All of ET's obfuscations aside, that remains the case.

Dr.Dawg and ET: If Kate were monitoring this thread and at least one other recent thread, she'd ask you two to move your personal debate to e-mail...not here. Perhaps an e-mail apology to Kate for dominating threads with a personal debate would be a nice idea.

By the way Dr.Dawg, ET is of the feminine persuasion.

CanForce 101 said: As an aside, whats wrong will calling it "civil union" (for man/woman, man/man, woman/woman unions) which would be the way the government handles the legality of the union, and leave it up to the churches (a non-government entity) if they want to "marry" [insert sexual preference here] or not? Should this not satisfy all parties involved if the one party wants the meaning of the word "marriage" protected and the other party simply wants a recognizable union in the eyes of the law/society? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not how "progressive societies" such as Sweden are doing things?

This has been exactly my argument all along. One of my favourite ploys is to refer to the anti-Christ's famous message: "The State has no business in the bedroom of the nation". To wit,the state should have removed itself from the "marriage business" and become completely value neutral, i.e., supporting neither "family values" (real marriage) nor "same sex marriage" a conceptual monstrosity. Remove all instiutional biases (most of which has already been done), including irritants such as hospital visitation rights, etc. The state should have become a simple registry (like a wills registry) containing evidence of contractual personal arrangements between any of the combinations you site and even for asexual relationships, like say, two sisters living together. This registry would then be used as a basis for enforcing contracts that may include the division of property, etc.

All the noise about "same sex marriage" (about which I suspect even most gays are indifferent) for maybe 2% of the population, and the indifference to proposals to remove every single institutional obstacle to a happy and unemcumbered "gay" life, proves to me that, as suggested further up the thread, the issue isn't about rights, rather, about destoying, root-and-branch, the foundations of Western Civilization.

Gay militants want "society" to provide them with perfect self esteem and acknowlegement that their sexual ethos is IDENTICAL to that of heterosexuality which simple common sense tells you cannot be. They are NOT the same which hitherto language itself has evidenced. Destroy language and you're lost.

Finally, as you point out, in re-defining "marriage" to include homosexual relationships, the state transgresses the vital principle of the separation of church and state, and offends a large constituency for which the word "marriage" is a important religious principle and not mere semantics.

Me No Dhimmi,

What I find at this blog is that posters here are really fond of labelling and do so in an undefined black and white manner. Left this, right that, liberal, socialist, conservative, statist. All labels that are essentially confusing because there is no universal political manual that defines them exactly so that we are all on the same page. Just everybody's own little mind conveniently placing people in a column so they can try to win a debate.

They don't seem to realize that a liberal like myself can be against SSM but are baffled because it doesn't fit into their label profile. BTW, SSM makes no sense to me because marriage is for a man and a woman who want to or do have children. Other than that 2 people can live together as partners if they wish legal status. Partners is what gays and lesbians call themselves in a relationship anyways, so it is consistent.

I made no mention of gay militancy, you must be thinking of someone else.

Perhaps an e-mail apology to Kate for dominating threads with a personal debate would be a nice idea.

Nonsense. I've been completely on-topic here, and apologized to all and sundry on the other thread for allowing myself to be provoked. Having been prompted to re-read Kate's Commenting Rules, I have done so,and I can't see that I've broken any of them. Perhaps, however, she might wish to correct me.

ET is of the feminine persuasion.

Information received. But am I supposed to apologize? :)

"Late at night you probably put on an old 8 track or vinyl record of New Kids On The Block and imagine yourself as lead singer with young girls throwing their underwear at you," courtesy of David Brown.

Being the mother of two university-aged daughters, there was a time in my life when young girls' dirty underwear was, in a manner of speaking, thrown at me.

Forget the 8-track or vinyl. Singing along with Ella or Van, not the melody line but harmony, I just shoved them in the washer and dryer and threw them back.

new kid on the block,

Next time try the melody line...it is the purpose of the song.

As a partner in a recording studio I've had the opportunity to listen to harmony lines totally on their own with nothing else, it's a very strange aural experience.

Years ago I cut ties with a female singer who was harmony mad. Listening to playback the songs were just lost and floating.

Oh.

It amazing to me how many lefty's prefer to be here rather than on one of their own sites. It seems the left is losing the blogging war and probably the internet as a medium for preaching their factless and fraudulent ideology.

David Brown sez,

"What I find at this blog is that posters here are really fond of labelling...they don't seem to realize that a liberal like myself..."

"New kid on the block,...well I guess you should know sounds, afterall you were 1 of the best boy bands of the 80's" (btw, I think new kid is a female, no? Watch out for the low hanging branches there David)

"...make sure the theo-cons don't hijack it."

"...conservatives are stuffy and constricting."

David, does the Brown part of your name refer to the soft stuff inside your skull?

Gabby in QC thanks for your post comparing polls/voting and the reasons for the gap.

Dawg, your intelligence is questionable based on your spite. And by the way - who are you talking to and attempting to win over?

Ted,

Nothing I've written in this thread indicates a hatred of acceptance.

Shame on you for inferring such.

There is a difference between acceptance and normalizaton.

And between normalization and the bullying and near crimilization of viewpoints that don't support homosexuality. (apparently even rejecting part of the agenda earns you a viscious smearing)

Sommerville/Ryerson being a recent example.

Mississauga Matt:

I still don't see any evidence for the "gays are pedophiles" charge. I'm sure you'll make it up.

Don't have to, MM. It's all right here. E.g.:

All that's apparently missing is a float from NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. That's the organization of homosexual pedophiles that has a goal of getting adult male to boy sex made legal.

Yeah, that's how far homosexuality has come in degeneration.

Now, Daisy, that's spite.

Kate's filter is getting clogged. Here's a short reply to Irwin Daisy's very apt questions:

We leftists don't like talking to ourselves all the time. Echo-chambers just aren't our thing. We like discussion, not a forest of nodding heads.

I do not personally expect to win over the hard-core types who visit this blog. My pitch is to the audience. My recently unfiltered post here about "Straight Pride Day" is such an attempt, if the pure hatred of homosexuals expressed in this thread weren't convincing enough to those with doubts about "social conservatives."

hard-core types who visit this blog

Sorry, that should be who post on this blog.

"A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." --Winston Churchill

Dawg,

I don't believe anybody has expressed or harbours "pure hatred of homosexuals" as you stated. The topic is about a bullying leftist agenda which includes gay radicalism as one of its many faces. It's also about obvious pandering to the gay agenda by certain public servants and government organisations.

This is a blatant example of government support of these types of spectacles and by extension the gay agenda, without consent from the taxpayers.

Sorry guys, but call me heterosexual as I'd rather imagine Kate nekkid eating icecream than any male in his BVDs.

As to the topic at hand, what I stated before still stands and nothing in the comments since then has changed my mind. People who want to be treated as equals and respected don't accomplish that by parading around in leather chaps, bare assed and waggling their willies at the public. Legally, gays are given all the rights and freedoms of anyone else so for crying out loud, leave the definition of marriage alone. Enough is enough.

As an aside, I once covered the parade in Calgary as a photojournalist and it was pretty brash but not over the top like TO. Joe Who was the marshal of the parade and honestly looked like he was victim of a cruel prank gone bad. As a former Prime Minister, he was an embarassment to the Canadian people.

I don't believe anybody has expressed or harbours "pure hatred of homosexuals" as you stated.

So linking them with pedophiles isn't hatred? Or:

It is time to put sodomy back on the books as a crime. You used to get 14 years for it, now you dance in the streets to flaunt it to all the "breeders". Time to send these sickos back to where they belong.

Your definition of "hatred" obviously differs from mine.

Dawg barks about us conservatives being "hard-core types".

Funny, but he fails to see the irony in that, for he himself is quite the hardcore leftist!

And how is it "hardcore" to criticize hardcore leftist gay folks who dare to run around naked in front of children brought to see it all by irresponsible parents?

Physician Dawg, heel thyself! I said heel! Sit! Good boy!

And I see the Dawg once again wishes to unilaterally deem the definitions of words. Now he wants to, like a god, define what is "hatred".

Dawg just might actually be a cat! The arrogance!

Canadian Observer:

Thanks for your reply to my comment; mine I believe helps prove your point as well as I see all who are in support of "gay marriage" in this thread have ignored it.

Dawg just might actually be a cat!

Sentinel, that really crosses the line. Apologize! :)

Dr Dawg quoted another poster:
It is time to put sodomy back on the books as a crime.

This is a unequivocally ugly and hateful sentiment and I'm sure 99.99999% of posters here agree with me.

You can see the leftie technique here. Find a isloated hate speech quote and attempt to discredit this site and conservatism in general for "hatred".

PLEASE DON'T GIVE DR. DAWG A BONE. Don't let him get up on his phoney moral high horse. Have no illusions: while they sometimes talk pretty there's no moral high ground anywhere on the left.

As far as other references to the homosexuality-pedophilia nexus, that is of a different order: simple ignorance not hatred, which hopefully has been corrected by sincere, well-informed and experienced poster here.

"I don't believe anybody has expressed or harbours 'pure hatred of homosexuals' as you [Dr. Dawg] stated."

Well said, Irwin Daisy.

To say that all the posters on a thread agree with a comment like "Time to send these sickos back to where they belong," as alleged by Dr. Dawg, is hyperbole and simply provocative. I wouldn't use the term "sicko" but I do believe that the person who used it has a right to do so. The fact that posters didn't take this person to task is no proof of "pure hatred of homosexuals." PLEASE.

My family and I have a number of friends who are gay, people whom we love and support, just as we love and support our many friends who are not gay. My problem is not with the sexual orientation of an individual, my problem is with the GAY AGENDA which, as Irwin Daisy has pointed out, is a "bullying leftist agenda which includes gay radicalism as one of its many faces."

Most of the gay individuals I know are not "radical," and as far as I know none of them has ludely paraded naked on downtown Toronto streets. A number of homosexuals, themselves, do not support the "gay agenda." It's a very small but very vocal and powerful minority of activists who push it and, most of them not having children added to their having lots of finances (because of their success in business and often in the form of government grants) means that they have a great deal of both time and resources to expend on ramming their views and demands down the throats of the rest of us.

They actually enjoy the discomfort of many of us, and are not genuinely interested in "equality" but rather supremacy. That's their agenda around same-sex marriage, as well. Most of the radicals have no intention of getting married, and are openly contemptuous of this heterosexual convention. Their intent in pushing same-sex marriage is to use it as a battering ram against the institution of the Christian Church. The agenda is narcissism in action: “We will have what we want, when we want, and no one had better stand in our way, because if you do, we’ll be in your face: We’re here. We’re queer. And you’d better get used to us.”

The radical, leftist, gay agenda has been remarkably successful in getting its demands listened to and realized. They have had a lot of support in the form of pro-gay propaganda in the MSM and in the government. Heck, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, our AC-DC Prime Minister, who precisely brought the government INTO the bedrooms of the nation, despite his protestations to the contrary. Under him, the Liberals became a powerful cheerleader of same-sex emancipation, a role they continue to play.

Essentially my point, Me No Dhimmi, in my most recent post now in the filter.

One or two comments in a thread of almost 200 posts does not make us all haters of homosexuals. But this is the tactic of the left, over and over again. Erect a straw wo/man to knock over. 'No way to win an argument.

The dishonesty here is staggering. "Me no dhimmi" talks of "isolated quotes," when I was asked to furnish precisely those by someone who disingenuously claimed that there was no hatred here at all.

Here's another one, already noted but noted again for MND:

All that's apparently missing is a float from NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. That's the organization of homosexual pedophiles that has a goal of getting adult male to boy sex made legal.

Yeah, that's how far homosexuality has come in degeneration.

Sorry, but there's more than simple ignorance being expressed here. There are many other such comments here, as I suspect MND knows very well. Words like "sick" and "puke" are sprinkled here and there, for example.

*Sigh*... now the Dawg wants me to apologize for accusing him of being a feline impersonating a canine.

Geez... them leftists never stop with their weird, freaky stuff, do they? If one is a pussy, there's nothing wrong with that. But to be too chicken to admit to being a pussy... well, that just ain't the cat's meow.

Hey Cat... er, Dawg... mee-yow! Now excuse me; I must visit the sandbox... commenting with leftists makes my bowels grumble... :)

MEOW!

Actually, new kid on the block/Me No Dhimmi, it would seem to me that you are displaying the typical tactic of the right: take a quotation out of context and make it seem as though it was applied generally.

Dr. Dawg's comment was very precise: it was a response to a comment by someone else saying that there was no - NO - hatred of gays displayed here. He simply (and very quickly and easily I might add) pointed out two quotations of what HE thought were clear examples of hatred. He didn't in any way say or even imply every conservative here was hateful of gays. He simply corrected an obvious and deliberate lie.

And I say it is a typical conservative tactic because we've seen no less than 3 classic examples right here:

1. your claim that he said that of all conservatives.

2. Sentinel's claim that he is "wishes to unilaterally deem the definitions of words. Now he wants to, like a god, define what is "hatred"." when in fact what he said was simply "Your definition of "hatred" obviously differs from mine."

3. ET's attempt to distort what he said about polls, which was clearly simply an attempt at dispelling General Lee Wright's deliberate lie that poll after poll shows no support for equal marriage. Dawg pointed out a number of polls that showed different to dispell this and ET goes off on her rant that polls are lies.

Dr. Dawg, I am sure, would be one of the first to concede that not all conservatives are homophobes and that not all liberals or leftists are gay-friendly.

But don't let a little splash of reality douse your fired up YOUR straw man.

Ted

Ted: As one of my daughters is fond of asking, "WHAT are you talking about?"

Here's what Irwin Daisy said at 01:59 on June 27:

"Dawg, your intelligence is questionable based on your spite. And by the way - who are you talking to and attempting to win over?"

This, then, is Dr. Dawg's reply to, as he put it, her "very apt question" at 2:53 p.m. on June 27:

"We leftists don't like talking to ourselves all the time. Echo-chambers just aren't our thing. We like discussion, not a forest of nodding heads.

"I do not personally expect to win over the hard-core types who visit this blog. My pitch is to the audience. My recently unfiltered post here about "Straight Pride Day" is such an attempt, if the pure hatred of homosexuals expressed in this thread weren't convincing enough to those with doubts about 'social conservatives.'"

Let me lift a direct quote from Dawg's answer:
"...the pure hatred of homosexuals expressed in this thread..."

To your rejoinder that "He simply...pointed out two quotations of what HE thought were clear examples of hatred," I say SHOW ME.

Where are the two quotes? I don't see them in his post.

You continue: "He didn't in any way say or even imply every conservative here was hateful of gays. He simply corrected an obvious and deliberate lie."

He didn't? He did?

I don't know what you're talking about. If Dawg had said "...the pure hatred of homosexuals expressed in this thread" BY SOME PEOPLE, I could accept your defence, but as it is, you haven't convinced me.

I still see straw people being knocked down.

MEOW!
Posted by: Dr.Cat at June 28, 2006 08:38 AM

ROTFLMAO!

Where are the two quotes? I don't see them in his post.

Aw, come on. I posted three of them during this discussion. Go back and look for them, including the one that states that "sodomites" should all be jailed, and the NAMBLA one.

Was pure hatred of homosexuals expressed in this thread or not? That's plain English, and the answer is obviously Yes. But as Ted points out, that doesn't mean that every single person posting in the thread has expressed such hatred. If that were the case, logically I'd have to be included, and Ted as well, as gay-haters.

Surely the least I can ask in this sort of discussion is that people actually read through the thread. I don't like having to repeat myself.

Now see here, Cat, er, Dawg... we conservatives aren't even as mean as leftists. You leftist folks just like to tell each other that we are in order to feel better about yourselves. Boy, talk about false self-image amongst leftist pets...

Yes, leftist "pets"... Ann Coulter said that... go check NealeNews.com for the interview link... if it weren't for leftists, she wouldn't sell so many books. The more they crap on her lawn, the more we buy her books.

Teddy Boy: That is boyish, adolescent tripe.

Lefties -- envious, resentful, failed (or sheltered in the bureaucracy/academy) slithering snakes they are -- usually don't SAY stuff outright because they'll be found out and quickly exposed for their abject error and silliness. They don't have a single viable programme as history has definitively proven. Therefore only oh so "clever" (in their delusional self perception) and snide criticism. Only critique, no programme (think of Gore and his movie). As von Mises pointed out, "very good critics, poor theorists".

It is outright laughable your suggestion than Dr German Shepherd has anything but the most pernicious intentions with these isolated quotes. You don't have to tell me what he didn't say. I know what he didn't say. I get the schtik Teddy Boy.

"They don't have a single viable programme as history has definitively proven"

Hmmm. What was that you said about "boyish, adolescent tripe" again?

Dawg: I have read the WHOLE thread.

BTW, NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is an unabashed booster of sexual relationships between men and boys, long before these boys have reached "the age of consent." If I was the mother of boys, I'd be watching the NAMBLA agenda very carefully and monitoring its appearance in the MSM and in my children's schools. The public system is becoming a champion of GLTB "rights."

What rights would these be?

What about kids' rights to a NAMBLA- and GLTB-free education? What about parents' rights to a real education for their children, not an education laced with socially engineered lifestyles which, BTW, could be injurious to their health, not to mention their life span?

NAMBLA's Web page has a photo of Dr. "Frits Bernard (1920 - 2006)...the esteemed Dutch clinical psychologist, died May 23, 1998 [?????], in his 86th year. He was a courageous activist in the cause of personal liberation and respect for the rights of homosexuals, gays and lesbians, boy-lovers and other oppressed sexual minorities."

I don't know who's more "oppressed": the adult gay, transexual, bisexual males or the boys they want to "love"?

RE Ted posts: "And concrete: interesting how all these conservatives, after 1000s of hours of committee hearings, debates in Parliament, interviews with MPs, etc. want still MORE debate on this issue that will harm NO ONE and cost NOTHING"

The average lifespan for homosexual men is decades shorter than that of heterosexual men.

In case the Liberals have not noticed, many Canadians are no longer buying what the Liberals are selling.

We are sick of paying for endless committees and studies and push polls on subjects like homosexuality that the majority of Canadians has NO interest in.

And wake up BC because many many parents are going to take their children out of a public school system that includes teaching about homosexuality to grade school kids.

Dawg: I have read the WHOLE thread.

Obviously without sufficient comprehension. You don't have to tell me what NAMBLA is. It is precisely the fact that NAMBLA, a pedophile organization, is here being linked to homosexuality that is an instance of ignorance/hatred. I believe that the words "homosexual degeneration" were used in that same post.

NAMBLA would not be welcome in any Pride parade that I'm aware of.

Me No Dhimmi - Do you think that referring to someone who goes by the name "Ted" as "Teddy Boy" is not adolescent? I have a daughter who is 12 who wouldn't bother with that. Use your words.

Thanks Grasshopper. I'm ok with with the light and friendly ribbing. It's the substance of his argument that I think is adolescent!

Ted

Right on, concrete: Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone?

Aside from HIV/AIDS, there are over 50 other opportunistic diseases suffered by those engaged in an actively homosexual lifestyle. There are thousands of gay men who are ill with either HIV, AIDs or one of these other diseases. An issue that seems to be taboo is how much this is costing the Canadian health care system--which is why, on an earlier post, I suggested that some of the millions of $$$ coming into Toronto as proceeds of Gay Pride Week (I just heard on Shelley Solmes Gay Tribute on the CBC that we are now celebrating Gay Pride MONTH) go immediately into our health care system.

Gay-related diseases are crippling our health care system, but the MSM and just about everyone else is totally quiet on this issue. The average cost for the treatment of one person with HIV/AIDs is $100,000 from diagnosis to death. The average life span of a Canadian male who is not engaged in a homosexual lifestyle is 76; for males who are actively homosexual, the life span is 49.

It IS an issue and, Ted, you'd have to convince me with concrete (no pun intended) examples that the gay lifestyle, actively engaged in, is not harmful. Stats also make it clear that the gay lifestyle is more-often-than-the-average violent, and that both alcohol and drug abuse are rampant.

This is not hateful speech on my part. I have done my homework, because as the mother of young people I want to know what the reality of the "sexual climate" is out there. I can't rely on public health nurses in the public school system for the real goods on the risks of hetero-and homosexual sex or on the "investigative" reporting skills of the members of the MSM.

I read medical reports, magazines, and now the 'net for information.

Right on, concrete: Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone?

Aside from HIV/AIDS, there are over 50 other opportunistic diseases suffered by those engaged in an actively homosexual lifestyle. There are thousands of gay men who are ill with either HIV, AIDs or one of these other diseases. An issue that seems to be taboo is how much this is costing the Canadian health care system--which is why, on an earlier post, I suggested that some of the millions of $$$ coming into Toronto as proceeds of Gay Pride Week (I just heard on Shelley Solmes Gay Tribute on the CBC that we are now celebrating Gay Pride MONTH) go immediately into our health care system.

Gay-related diseases are crippling our health care system, but the MSM and just about everyone else is totally quiet on this issue. The average cost for the treatment of one person with HIV/AIDs is $100,000 from diagnosis to death. The average life span of a Canadian male who is not engaged in a homosexual lifestyle is 76; for males who are actively homosexual, the life span is 49.

It IS an issue and, Ted, you'd have to convince me with concrete (no pun intended) examples that the gay lifestyle, actively engaged in, is not harmful. Stats also make it clear that the gay lifestyle is more-often-than-the-average violent, and that both alcohol and drug abuse are rampant.

This is not hateful speech on my part. I have done my homework, because as the mother of young people I want to know what the reality of the "sexual climate" is out there. I can't rely on public health nurses in the public school system for the real goods on the risks of hetero-and homosexual sex or on the "investigative" reporting skills of the members of the MSM.

I read medical reports, magazines, and now the 'net for information.

Excuse me, Dawg: You wrote: "You don't have to tell me what NAMBLA is. It is precisely the fact that NAMBLA, a pedophile organization, is here being linked to homosexuality that is an instance of ignorance/hatred."

First, I'm not telling you what NAMBLA is, I want to alert others on this thread to what it is, seeing as you said that a comment made about it earlier was "hateful."

I didn't link NAMBLA to homosexuality. They do themselves. Read the quote I posted or go to the NAMBLA site yourself.

Stop twisitn my words. The comment about NAMBLA was hateful, not because slagging NAMBLA is off-limits (the reverse is true), but because their parasitizing off early Pride parades and opportunistically "identifying" with the gay movement has providing the slim abili for certain people to link homosexuality with pedophilia.

Maybe you should check out the Rene Guyon Society. Does that outfit reflect badly on straight people?

new kid on the block. Very good stuff, thanks.

Dr Bow-Wow: no one's twisting your weasel words. You're playing snide word games here. You are NOT sincere.

We get your schtik. It's marginally more clever, but there it is. You're a academician aren't ya?

As far as I'm concerned, NAMBLA should be banned as an organization promoting a terrible, criminal thing: sexual molestation of children.

I think that our society is too soft these days to muster the properly righteous courage to take an unequivocal stand against this sort of thing.

What if there were organizations promoting other kinds of crimes and abuse? Would we similarly tolerate their existence and allow them to promote such abhorrence? (I think Hells Angels might fall under this umbrella)...

I'm for banning NAMBLA in the same way we ban terrorist groups. We must protect our children from violence!

Betcha the leftists will denounce me as "extremist" or "hateful" for saying this. Betcha they'll say that the members of that organization aren't hurting anyone and that they're just "enjoying their human rights" or something equally nonsensical and inane... let 'em.

Just criminalize NAMBLA! For the kids' sake! For society's sake!

Betcha the leftists will denounce me as "extremist" or "hateful" for saying this.

Bullsh-t. Lock'em up.

I'm game with that.

You're still an extremist and hateful, though, Sentinel. But you know that, don't you.

;-)

I'm game with that, too.

So, how do we begin?

Who, me? But you're the leftist Librano. You guys are nothing if not extremely hateful, right? ;-)

Well, you started it, the silly namecalling, so don't get whiny...

Yeah, well, I'm... extremely hateful of... hateful extremists!

(You're carrying on in this silly way just to get up to 300 comments, right?)

And don't call me a leftist. I'm a centrist through and through.

A "centrist" is actually a leftist in denial... or someone too afraid to take a strong position on issues... much like the Liberals.

But that's ok, Teddy... whatever you wish to label yourself is fine with me.

Myself, I cannot imagine why you'd think I'm a "hateful extremist". I suspect it's standard leftist/Liberal reaction to that which they don't understand and that which is different from their own dogmatic worldview.

Well, perhaps I do hate sometimes, like when I hate people who cut off peoples' heads or blow themselves up in shopping malls or on school buses, etc... and if you think it's "extreme" to give more choices to Canadians when it's what they're demanding... ok, then, I'm "extremist".

Also "extremist" is the undemocratic forcing of SSM upon Canada, something the Liberals had previously ruled out but flip-flopped on. Now, THAT'S extreme, my good chap!

And puh-leez quit trying to tell me what's right and what's wrong... I mean, a LIBERAL lecturing on right and wrong...?! LOL ;-)

Sigh... poor Teddy Bear...

Canadian Sentinel:

If a majority federal government "forces" same sex marriage in Canada, would that be undemocratic?

If a majority government in Canada abolishes unions, or completely privatizes health care, would that be undemocratic?

new kid on the block: Still thinking about those very interesting homosexual health stats. I believe we are both firmly against sexual politics in the schools; but if the GLBT agenda succeeds in politicizing the classroom with "queer history" filters and the like, do you think the stats you've cited above would find their way into the syllabus? Rhetorical question, obviously.

Canadian sentinel: normally your spelling is top-drawer, but there was one boner in a recent post: that should have been "dawgmatic" right?

The stats and facts I've given here, MND, will never make it into the syllabus, as it is, or if the "GLBT agenda succeeds in politicizing the classroom with "queer history."

You have to read medical magazines and other sources to find out what's actually going on. For some very strange reason, gay politics and the gay community have been completely wrapped in cotton batten, even though their activities create untold problems not only in their own communities but in society at large.

Methinks there are quite a few homosexuals in high places, which would partially explain the gay community's exemption from the standards others are held to.

This is a scary thread. IMO, it is better to have those who are gay OUT and being gay, being accepted as gay, and carrying on their lives paying taxes, working, living and loving like any other Canadian.
What scares me the most is the idea that putting gays back in the closet is that we will be left with the (mostly) men who are gay hiding their true feelings and acting like any other human under seige by being sneaky, attacking that which strikes fear in their heart (being found out), and taking our country and our people back to the 40's. Aren't we tired of people acting out of character? Do we want to see the backlash of someone who is a closet gay terrified of being found out who takes his fear and uses it as a bludgeon to go after that which he is in his heart, like that maniac from the States who wore dresses in private and dealt death to people like himself in public?
Why shouldn't the RCMP be there at the parade? They are upholders of the law of Canada which accepts gay people, and SSM.
I'd rather have 1,000,000 openly gay people, than one stunted closeted gay man faking a family, wreaking havoc in a system that he knows abhors him and which he means to make pay for this loathing, all the while knowing in his heart that he is doing the wrong thing for himself and all gay people.
Also, food for thought: conservative white men of middle age tend to be the most perverted: serial killers, pedophiles, porn addicts, polygamists, bigamists and double-lifers.

Grasshopper asks: "If a majority federal government "forces" same sex marriage in Canada, would that be undemocratic?"

Grasshopper, the Liberals had a minority when they did that. And even when they did have majorities, they never won them on any promise to implement SSM.

They didn't have an electoral mandate to impose SSM.

Therefore, for it to have been democratic, they should either have called a national referendum on the question of SSM implementation, or they should have called an election on the issue. Plus, they ran in the last election defending their imposition of SSM... and lost. There's no democratic consent, therefore, for SSM to be a reality in this nation.

Further, SSM is such an extraordinary thing, involving deep, serious splits amongst Canadians. To simply have a Parliamentary vote to impose it... and with just a simple majority carrying the bill... is just wrong.

No one's suggesting a return to the '40s (????) or to the closet for homosexuals.

Most other countries that are tolerant of homosexuality (as you know, there are still many that are not, including all Muslim countries) have worked out laws and benefits for homosexual partnerships, which Canada has also done. There has not been a lot of opposition to same-sex partnerships.

The problem of same-sex partnerships became acute, however, when activist gays began agitating for same-sex marriage, and in a few short months had been successful in ramming it through Parliament. A number of MPs who had originally told their constituents that they would be voting against it, turned coat and sided with the Liberal government's position. In addition, Liberal Cabinet members were forced to vote the Party line. As the vote won by only a hair, it cannot be said that it reflected the will of the Canadian people. There needs to be a referendum on this issue and if, as gay activists’ allege, they are concerned about “human rights,” they should not fear this issue going to the people.

But activist gays are in-your-face and blatantly out to ensure that same-sex marriage remains in Canadian law, despite widespread opposition to it. Those who are against same-sex marriage are called every name in the book, when all they are doing is defending a millennia-old institution which, by any definition up to now, involves one man and one woman.

The fact that most gays don't want to be married—and have not got married, even though they legally can—is proof that the activists' only purpose in pushing SSM is to be purposely provocative. Their agenda in this instance serves absolutely no useful purpose and is not about "human rights," contrary to what they say. "Human rights" is a nice cover for "up yours, traditionalists and church goers."

That's the problem many of us have with the homosexual agenda. Far from being "the love that dare not speak its name" it's become, as someone put it, "the love that won't shut up," and, I would add, "the love that appears in public as lewd, crude, and in your face."

Every one is entitled to human rights and respect, but it's a two-way street. Frankly, activist gays under the banner of their "rainbow agenda" have shown little respect for others, and especially for the long-held beliefs and institutions of those who are not gay.

the retrovirus doesnt give a tinkers hoot and never will about 'gender issues' 'rights' 'politics' 'privacy' 'glbt' or ANYTHING ELSE except ways to propagate into new individuals. it has for example, some time in the 50s or 60s leaped from simians to humans.

gays are a rich ground for the virus because of
a) their promiscuity and
b) all the chaffing (use your imagination) and minute tearing of tissue surfaces creating the avenue of transmission for the virus.

it is a weak virus; doesnt survive in the environment, killed by disinfectant, requires multiple exposure on avg to infect, but makes up for this by its lethality and long period of infectiousness.

all this of course is utterly ignored my MSM.

Canadian Sentinel:

A very cogent and tightly argued response. I would add that there was NO real debate and the vote was whipped. It was a rail-roaded issue: merely another "progressive file" the Liberals can never resist. What I have never been able to understand is how the "diversity" and "inclusiveness" mongers just can't seem to empathize with the very large constituency whose religious and moral standards are deeply offended by this monstrosity. As I've opined elsewhere (above?) the proper course of action for government on this was to simply exit the "marriage business", reframe it as a separation of church and state matter, and attend to creating a simple registry of civil unions or personal partnerships for the purpose of contract enforcement. In the contemporary vernacular, "to not go THERE."

And you are absolutely right in pointing out that this is not a simple 50.1% majority issue.

We definitely need some kind of referendum apparatus in Canada.

new kid on the block said:
The fact that most gays don't want to be married—and have not got married, even though they legally can—is proof that the activists' only purpose in pushing SSM is to be purposely provocative.

EXACTLY. A few years ago, I attemped to coin a phrase for this phenomenon. I referred to it as "advocacy muscle flexing". I'm more convinced than ever.

It would a very good research project to trace the development of this monstrosity. I once read that it was really headed up by a handfull of activist gay lawyers. I don't think SSM marriage was ever that important to most gays who were probably just watching, bewildered, from the sidelines.

I guess this topic has probably been exhausted - maybe the participants too - but consider this quote (written before the passage of Bill C-38, the SSM legislation):

«Members of Parliament: consider this my impassioned - almost desperate - eleventh hour appeal to put an end to this April Fool's joke called same-sex marriage, which falsely claims dignity and legitimacy by attaching itself to the worthy principles of compassion, equality and justice....
Centuries ago, Plato cautioned that democracy would crumble and pave the way to dictatorship, because a foolish majority would turn liberty into license...»

Was that written by an anti-gay fundamentalist?

No. Its author is a gay person opposed to SSM. I learned of John McKellar's position through an article of his which appeared 3 years ago in the newspaper Le Devoir, in which he articulated his opposition to SSM.

If you wish to read more, google John McKellar or taxtyranny.ca. I do not know much else about Mr. McKellar, but I admire his courage in standing up to the militant stridency of some SSM activists.

Something else which was alluded to, the Liberals' manipulation in passing SSM into law. The Liberal government had reaffirmed that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman (in 1999, I believe). A. McLennan, P. Martin and J. Chretien all voted for that motion. Then came the BC and the Ontario court decisions. When the Liberal government committee was studying the question of whether to appeal the Ontario court's pro-SSM ruling, there were some manipulative shenanigans.

I remember watching the proceedings on Newsworld (in 2003). Just as the vote was scheduled to take place, two Liberal members who were expected to vote FOR appealing the Ontario ruling were suddenly called out of the room (MP Derek Lee was one of them, I don't remember the other one).

Two other Liberal MPs who were NOT members of the committee and who had NOT participated in the commitee's deliberations then stepped in to vote AGAINST appealing the Ontario ruling. Former Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, who eventually became an independent because of his party's stand on SSM, was the committee chair and would have plenty to say on that bit of manipulation, I'm sure.

"Also, food for thought: conservative white men of middle age tend to be the most perverted: serial killers, pedophiles, porn addicts, polygamists, bigamists and double-lifers."

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at June 28, 2006 07:43 PM

---Oh, really? Got any valid statistics to back this up? Or is it just mere prejudice?

And how dare you imply such a racist/sexist/ageist/anti-conservative thing? Without backing?

Imagine that: conservatism being a cause of abhorrent perversion and whatnot. First I've ever heard of it... but of course, just a leftist opinionation. Of course!

I can imagine what Ann Coulter might say about what you just said... oh, boy... it'd be a winner and get some more attention, helping her sell her latest book. Folks like you are the reason why her books are bestsellers. She says what needs to be said about stupid people that most are too shy to say out loud.

You must be some kind of leftist to say such ridiculous nonsense.

Michael Leschner, gay activist lawyer and one of the first homosexual men to marry his partner, Mikey, comes to mind, Me No Dhimmi, when you mention "a handful of activist gay lawyers." His activities over the years would provide an interesting snapshot, if not full-length video, of what's been going on with the Rainbow Agenda.

If you Google www.equalmarriage.ca, you're faced with a phalynx of lawyers. It seems that SSM is another mother lode fro which lawyers to get rich. Does this legal meddling never end?

new kid: special interest advocacy is murdering decmocracy. We will not hold our breath waiting for that "full-length video" from the Central Broadcasting Committee.

Have they taken the rainbow too?

No doubt you've heard about that gay couple in BC who leveraged the BC Human Rights Commission OVER 10 YEARS to insert themselves as curriculum consultants in BC. This was not the intended function of a HRC (mission creep as always!).

Another key corruption is the modern trend toward giving persons not directly related to a case standing before the Supreme Court of Canada. This has proven to be a disaster.

MND: Correct on all counts!

Now, what to do?

treatments fulfilling,Rheims Ludmilla petulant Toland determines,... Thanks!!!

spotless dialects boatyards,animating?eavesdrop:carnivore warbled

disclaimer.Toyota:Baileys can?pamphlets!raptures:wrest Vergil landers.

eventful revisionary!intimacy informing Hager:scruple!steamships!...