Loney says camp closing because of his homosexuality

CBC News (Toronto) ^ | June 20 2006 | CBC News

[DBeers]

Loney says camp closing because of his homosexuality

Former hostage James Loney is accusing an Ontario Catholic camp he once worked for of closing its doors because of his homosexuality.

James Loney alleged that a youth camp closed its doors in an act of discrimination.

The closure of the Ontario Catholic Youth Leadership Camp by the Knights of Columbus Ontario State Council, which finances the camp, was an act of discrimination, Loney told a news conference Tuesday.

Loney said he and his supporters struggled with the decision to go public with the allegations, but finally decided to come forward.

"We are doing this because we care about the church, we care about young people and we care about the kind of church they are coming into," he said.

But he added, "We can't prove this. This is a concern that we have based on the sequence of events."

Loney claims the council's chairman said during a phone call on March 31, 2006, that concerns had been raised that the camp was promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and made specific reference to Loney. Shortly after, the camp closed.

The phone call apparently happened a week after Loney made national headlines when he revealed his sexual orientation and introduced his partner, Dan Hunt, on television.

Family kept ex-hostage's sexual orientation secret

Loney's family and Hunt had decided against publicizing the couple's relationship while Loney was being held hostage in Iraq, fearing it could jeopardize his life.

In a written statement, the Knights of Columbus denied Loney's sexual orientation was a factor in their decision to pull funding.

The organization said the camp closed for a review of its mission, vision and administration, and it may reopen next summer.

About 2,200 children typically attend the one-week camp every summer. It began in 1991.

Loney, partner to be honoured

Loney's allegations come the same day he and his partner are to receive the "Fearless" award during a gala ceremony marking Pride Week 2006 in Toronto.

The award, which is also the theme of this year's pride festivities, is for their perseverance during the four-month hostage ordeal.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty will present the award.

[GMMAC]

"Mr Brison stood for election to be the head of the conservative party."

To be accurate, Scott Brison stood for the leadership of the former Progressive Conservative Party which, by then, was a small political rump (ironically?) left being after its authentic conservative wing had departed for the Reform and later Canadian Alliance Parties.

Brison immediately bolted to the Liberal Party - quite rightly stating he felt "unwelcome" - once the new united Conservative Party of Canada was formed in 2003.

Given that the "Log Cabin" element remains active within the GOP, you can draw your own conclusions as to the respective sizes of the Republican & CPC's 'welcome mats'.

[little jeremiah]

If a person lives without using his God-given power of discrimination, he doesn't live long.

[CaptainCanada]

It is also clear that Canada and the US are much more different than what the casual observer like myself might think.

Ummmmm, that comment makes no sense in light of your many posts in
this thread. Your hypothesis is that there is a major difference between
the U.S. and Canada on this issue and you cite questionable data to support it
and then you conclude that therefore Canada and the US "are much more
different than what the casual observer like myself might think.
But you are thinking it enough to argue that there is a difference.
You may want to reboot your brain cells...

[TheRightGuy]

maybe the Islamists would treat a sodomite differently.

adds a whole new perspective to the definition of "beheading".

[Candor7]

Thus, it would be just as morally wrong to hate all Muslims as it would be to hate all Jews.

Of course it would be morally wrong. It was morally wrong to hate Germans and Japanese during WWII because of the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists.

Nations survive by doing what is morally wrong. Those who do not act immorally, disappear. Case in point: Tibet, which no longer exists. There are a lot of morally correct Tibetans who live in Daramsala but the vast majority of Tibetans have been assimilated, killed or live a constant life of fear and flight.Tibet, alas is no more, but the Dalai Lama and his Regents point to themselves as morally right "Buddhists", of which I am one by the way. I entertain no illusions about where the morality of not hating and fighting leads: To the greater morality of genocide and the defeat of nations wholesale.

Therefor I incite the principle of protection, not hate. There is nothing wrong with a nation acting to protect itself, and for those who accuse those who protect as inferior, it is untrue as the world stage has demonstrated over and over.

And if it takes hate to protect our society from sodomites entering politics, banding together , to control the majority of Canadians and thrust upon them a culture Canadians reject, I will pay the price of hating without apology.Protecting is hardly immoral.We do it all the time, but it is politically incorrect to do it together in groups?

Like all things, hate in the world has a purpose, even though we do not like it as decent men and women. That is our saving grace.Hate, but hate mindfully for the purpose of protection, abandoning it when it is no longer necessary. Burn but be not consumed, for that IS what it will take.

[spatso]

"That "whole bunch of people" would include all practicing Catholics since "hate the sin but, love the sinner" is essentially the position of our Church when it comes to dealing with individuals engaged in deviant & sinful sexual practices.

Ergo, Christians who hate individuals, as opposed to hating their actions, are the ones compromising and/or being unrealistic about their own moral agendas."

That is pretty good. I think you may have effectively boxed my argument out. But, let me try one small variation. Allow me one assumption; as catholics, we believe the sin is with the sinner including those who benefit from the wages of sin. The pimp may be a greater sinner than the prostitute. So, if a conservative government chooses not to vigorously oppose gay tourism or gay marriages that are promoted purely for economic gain are they not also guilty of a sin?

[spatso]

"Your hypothesis is that there is a major difference between the U.S. and Canada on this issue and you cite questionable data to support it and then you conclude that therefore Canada and the US "are much more different than what the casual observer like myself might think...
You may want to reboot your brain cells."

Fair points including the necessary rebooting. GWB was elected as a social and fiscal conservative. But GOP spending is at record highs, they talk of cutting costs but they never do. The mantra is we would like to cut budgets but cannot at this time. But they still keep pretending they are fiscal conservatives but they don't govern as conservatives (no child left behind).
In Canada, it appears they talk like social conservatives but, as was discussed on an earlier thread, the prime minister appears to have no real desire or expectation of reversing existing social policy on gay marriage. Do Canadian conservatives merely pay lip service to a framework for a social conservative agenda?

[GMMAC]

I believe we're actually on the same page of the Hymnal:

Following your WW2-era example, I have no problem with the German 'Commissar Order' which directed summary execution of all captured Red Army Political Officers. Nor do I have one with any Allied troops who dispensed similar rough justice, and/or turned an intentionally blind eye when same was meted out by newly liberated civilians, with respect to captured, caught-in-the-act death camp personnel.

In both instances, those so dispatched were, by definition, plainly engaged in overall criminal conspiracies to commit wholesale crimes against humanity.

However, any members of any military force who commit indiscriminate atrocities against civilians under any circumstances are clearly on a moral par with the 9/11 terrorist murderers.

[GMMAC]

"If a person lives without using his God-given power of discrimination, he doesn't live long."

Agreed but, 'power of discernment' might well be a better choice of theologically appropriate words.

[Candor7]

However, any members of any military force who commit indiscriminate atrocities against civilians under any circumstances are clearly on a moral par with the 9/11 terrorist murderers.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree , but the difference is that they are on our side, and I do not say that tongue in cheek.

The greatest travesty of war is that it makes good men immoral.It is unavoidable.I hate it but it is perhaps the greatest sacrifice many of our soldiers have to make, and when they return their humanity is often difficult to recover in many.

Yes we are on the same page.

[Snardius]

The organization said the camp closed for a review of its mission, vision and administration, and it may reopen next summer...

...as Camp Fudgepacker.

[GMMAC]

"So, if a conservative government chooses not to vigorously oppose gay tourism or gay marriages that are promoted purely for economic gain are they not also guilty of a sin?"

Aside from the CPC minority government being accordingly limited in its political options in all areas, you plainly don't comprehend how our system differs/works.

As you should know, I'm a huge admirer of America's magnificent Constitution but, here's a good example of Stephen Harper moving this very day in an area where President Bush would be Constitutionally prohibited from so acting on a national basis:
Tories to raise age of sexual consent

As we both well know the principle sexual demographic of those openly advocating such relations with children, we can reasonably conclude it's a primary target of this legislation.

The Harper government is also continuing to quietly reduce and/or cut-off entirely public funding to one radical special interest group after another whenever doing so doesn't require majority Parliamentary approval.

Thus, 'General Stephen' is hardly a 'sinner' merely because he's electing to pick & win his battles based upon his own overall war strategy rather than yours.

[spatso]

"The legislation includes a so-called near-age exemption of five years so that, for example, a 14-year-old could still have a sexual partner aged up to 19, and a 15-year-old could have a partner aged up to 20.

The aim is to avoid criminalizing sexual experimentation by teens with their peers, but provide a way to prosecute older adults who target youngsters."

This is very good, I am impressed. It certainly heads in the right direction, However, if they can deal with changing the minority age of consent you would think they could at least provide notice that they intend to reverse the Canadian posture in respect of encouraging gay marriage.

One has to believe if they are merely saying we will have a vote on the matter some point in the future they clearly have no intention of reversing the situation. Indeed, it sounds like they are just trying to keep the base quiet.

[GMMAC]

You're really grasping at straws now.

A small number of militant gay activists self-servingly manipulating the Liberal-left-behind status quo & like pronouncements by obscure, quasi-official (at best!) entities hardly amount to any sort of all-encompassing "... Canadian posture in respect of encouraging gay marriage".

There's little of nothing left of your original position based upon your own numerous logically compelled concessions on this thread alone.
All that remains is mere armchair quarterbacking & disloyal doubting (from a conservative standpoint) with respect to Stephen Harper's overall long range strategies coupled with a dismal lack of understanding when it comes to both Parliamentary systems of government in general & Canadian federalism in particular.

In short, you now sound exactly like a Democrat busily fault-finding & spewing defeatism with regard to America's policies in Iraq.

Canadians on FreeRepublic trust President Bush as the leader of the free world in the international war on terrorism together with Secretary Rumsfeld and all of his other duly appointed Officials to competently & conscientiously execute his overall battle plans.

You (and any other U.S. based FReepers so inclined) should rightly knock off what is plainly just counter-productive carping & nitpicking & similarly trust & support Stephen Harper & his government to advance the conservative cause in Canada.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Another favorite Simpsons quote: "Once something's been approved by the government, its no longer immoral!" - Rev. Lovejoy

LOL!! I remember that one!!

[Irish_Thatcherite]

He likes 'research'....

[spatso]

"A small number of militant gay activists self-servingly manipulating the Liberal-left-behind status quo & like pronouncements by obscure, quasi-official (at best!) entities hardly amount to any sort of all-encompassing "... Canadian posture in respect of encouraging gay marriage".

Okay, I accept your perseverance and the faith you have articulated in respect of your newly elected conservative government. I hope they live up to the trust you have placed in them.

[fanfan]

Seven brides for seven druthers
Women plan to wed themselves in group wedding near Jericho Beach, Vancouver, Canada

Link

[GMMAC]

Try new! improved! extra empowering! feminism ultra:

"the sexism you depend on ...
... the narcissism you crave!"

(batteries not included)

[fanfan]

LOL!