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.
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.
đ
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? đ
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 đ
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 activistsâ allege, they are concerned about âhuman rights,â 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 marriedâand have not got married, even though they legally canâis 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 marriedâand have not got married, even though they legally canâis 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 http://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!…