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