Canada's 9-11

Envoy Encore ^ | June 21, 2003 | Pete Vere

[Malsua]

Well, to completely go into the lunatic fringe, think how many more "couples" will share between themselves that marital asset called aids. This alone will probably cause more deaths than 9/11 far and away.

[VOA]

Have Alberta submit an (US) application for statehood.

I'll never forget the mayor of Calgary talking up his city (IIRC, during their
hosting of the Winter Olympics).

He said something like "if you look at the skyline of Calgary, you probably would
think you're looking at Dallas!"

I have relatives in Edmondton/Sherwood Park. They are proudly Canadians. While sympathetic
to US interests/intentions, they would probably need a few more pushes by the
real loonies in Ottowa/Quebec before they'd ask to be the 51st star.

But my gut tells me that long-shot is not a total impossibility.

[Theosis]

If your life is so disrupted by how other adults choose to live theirs, that you equate the shock you feel to the deaths of thousands, your need to control others is a pathology. You have my sympathies.

This isn't about how others live their lives, but rather about a tiny minority circumventing the democratic process and forcing an entire nation to redefine what is probably the oldest and most universally recognized social convention in human history. I believe we call this pathology narcissism.

[gcruse]

Uhm, if you are married and have syphilis, then only you and your wife will have it.

If you cannot get married and have syphilis, you polygamous love life will spread syphilis far and wide.

See why marriage might be better?

[gcruse]

Forcing a redefinition is nowhere similar to killing one single person, let alone thousands.

[saquin]

You do realize AIDS is not a "gay disease", don't you? There are more heterosexuals with AIDS in the world than homosexuals. Just because SARS first spread in Asia doesn't make it an "Asian disease". It can affect anyone. Just because AIDS first spread among the gay community (and stayed mainly within that community in the beginning because it is only contracted through close, physical contact rather than through the air, like influenza) doesn't make it an exclusively, or even predominately anymore, "gay disease".

And I fail to see how gay marriage would somehow spread AIDS and cause more deaths.

[AnnaZ]

Uhm, if you are married and have syphilis, then only you and your wife will have it.

If you cannot get married and have syphilis, you polygamous love life will spread syphilis far and wide.

See why marriage might be better?

"Married" homosexual couples, for the most part, still scoff at monogamy. I have seen this countless times in their own writings. Sorry, but that point is moot.

[Malsua]

>>You do realize AIDS is not a "gay disease", don't you? <<

In the USA it is. 70%+ of Aids infected people in the USA are gay males. Act-up and the the rainbow coalition don't want you to know that.

[saquin]

70% seems kind of high. The disease is becoming more and more heterosexual every year, But even if the 70% number is correct, so what?
In Africa, the overwhelming majority of cases are heterosexual. In the USA most cases are among gays. It depends on which category of people had the disease first in that country. It is a difficult disease to spread since it depends on the exchange of body fluids, therefore it is only logical that it would remain mainly among people of the same sexual orientation.

I still fail to see the logic of marriage causing MORE deaths from AIDS.

[gcruse]

Then you agree that marriage will make it worse? I'd really like to understand that.

[McGavin999]

Canada is going to split into two countries in the very near future. Nothing is going to be able to stop it now. The good people are going to merely gather in one section of the country and announce they've had it with the immoral, decadent section of the country that will not fight for what is right, allow gay marriage, and legalize dope.

[Theosis]

Forcing a redefinition is nowhere similar to killing one single person, let alone thousands.

Then why did America bother going to war in Afganistan or Iraq? Given America's current technological capabilities and her ability to keep these folks out of the country in the future, why risk more American lives and those of Afgani and Iraqi civillians? Are freedom and democracy worth the cost of human life?

Basically, as much as you are trying to reduce this to simply a consenting relationship between two adults, this isn't the issue. Otherwise, homosexuals would simply engage in these types of relationships without insisting that it be called marriage? Why not call it something else like they do in Vermont? Thus what is at issue here, and what you don't seem to want to address, is a historical and universal convention supported by the majority of a nation's citizens being overturned by judicial fiat through the political maneuvering of a tiny minority of activists intended to circumvent the democratic process. Nations survive the death of individuals, no matter how great the tragedy; however, they seldom survive the betrayal from within of their system of government without great loss of life.

[gcruse]

Canada is going to split into two countries in the very near future.

Care to put a date on that?  The next election will go Liberal,
the Alliance will pick up a few seats but nothing like a majority.
Canadians are  ruly, benevolent consumers of bureaucracy.
I predict....nothing will happen.

[gcruse]

No, what's at issue here is the social conservative's alarm at the failure of state power to dictate the private lives of consenting adults. Raising the clamor to the level of national disaster just indicates how embedded the desire to control others is in 'freedom' loving conservatism.

[ckilmer]

Then you agree that marriage will make it worse? I'd really like to understand that.
/////////
sophistry.

[AnnaZ]

Then you agree that marriage will make it worse? I'd really like to understand that.

 

I haven't commented on the "marriage" issue per se, just on the possibility of responsible behavior as a "benefit" of it. I do not believe that extending the now "idea" of "marriage" to homosexuals will change the destructive nature of the lifestyle, and this not by my own perhaps prejudicial presumptions, but by paying attention to their own words.

[longtermmemmory]

Big difference between your silent neigbor and the GLSEN's who are activly demanding children experiment with homosexual behavior. People have every right to see homsexual marriages as an attempt to directly attack their families and attack their children.

They are not equating the deaths, they are equating the shock value. Until you live in the enironment where this ill fringe group has unraveled your home with their in your face efforts, you have no monopoly on defending you home and children from threats foreign and domestic.

The canadian federation almost fell apart once before during our lifetimes. There is no reason to not believe this could be another push. (some french canadians can use this as their opportunity to fianally get what they want) Alberta has already signalled they will opt out of the homosexual marrage requirement. Canada has her own demons to fight, unfortunatly her demons are internal.

[longtermmemmory]

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org

[Calvin Locke]

Great line:

The answer lay in our beloved Maple Leaf, which now symbolizes Canada's
role as the red light district of the global village.

[gcruse]

Okay. I'll file it under 'anecdotal.'