I opined some time ago, that those who were coming down on the pro side of same sex marriage hadn’t considered all the consequences – one being the newly elevated status of gay couples when petitioning courts for custody of children from one partner’s previous marriage. (Contrary to popular belief, homosexuals have always had the right to marry. My long list of divorced gay friends puts to the lie to that one.) I asked the hypothetical question: “How would a judge view a situation in which a former husband, who, after leaving his wife for a new lover turned spouse, petitions for primary custody of his young children, on the basis of higher income and more stable home life, complete with the ability of his new partner to be a “stay at home” parent? What of her concerns about her sons being raised by a gay man she barely knows – can she even give voice to those?”
Now, “Angry” has a not so hypothetical case regarding adoption.
Would he [an Ontario family law judge], once gay marriage was entrenched, and in keeping with our government’s current equity legislation in the workplace, feel obliged to fast-track gays’ access to available children to make up for “past injustices” and their “disability” on the procreative front? And what about a single mother willing to give up her child for adoption, provided the baby went to a heterosexual couple? Whose rights would be privileged, hers or those of gay adoptive applicants?
The judge paused, then said, “I haven’t ever really thought about it.” Eventually the judge opined that a gay married couple’s rights should trump a biological mother’s right to have her child raised in a normative family. And on further reflection, he decided, he would also be partial to equity adoption policies for gays.
Discuss. (Be sure to read his post and the comments, first)
And be civil, or you’ll be tossed.
I suppose any court with a humanitarian or civil conscience would want to satify the legal test for awarding custody of dependents…..is the domestic situation the child is placed in in his best interest?
I await the lengthy pretzel-logic explanation from the bench….and those who wish to launch a charter challenge against the bench usurping fundamental justice to pander to the SSM lobby should watch it as well.
There is no imperical research/data avilable for the bench to assuredly pronounce a SSM environment benificial to any child’s normal healthy development. There is NOTHING to recommend SSM as equal to or better than a stable hetero family environment for child rearing.
The courts award custody on a test of the stability of the adoptive /petitioning persons and as a well established legal axiom preference is given first to a stable hetero family or the child’s mother ( sorry repro-tech egg/sperm doners do not qualify as parents unless they have reared the child). To assume SSM represents the stability the courts have placed in their established preferences, without indisputable evidence, is a breach of charter guaranteed fundamental justice.
Recent practices in hiring have been openly discriminatory in favour of various groups in order to hold to the principle of redressing past injustices and discrimination.
If that principle is adhered to in court decisions regarding adoption, would that not provide gay couples with rights which would, “in practice”, ALWAYS trump the rights of a heterosexual couple when applying for adoption?
This as opposed to providing equal rights.
I raise this since the continuation of various groups’ “trumping rights” appears not to have been altered since it came into being some 15? years ago.
Think about the implications of this.
My logic may be flawed but it seems we may be heading down this path. The judge failed to fully address this part of the question.
I do not understand this country, Canada-Lite.
My attitude here is that this is extemely selfish of the gay couple to want children. These people clearly have very poor memories. (surely they do remember an unfortunate incident of two in their young lives) It takes very little for a school yard bully to single out one kid over another to pick on. SO yeah let the judges start giving gay couples kids and they may as well paint targets on the poor kids back before sending them off to school. Why should these children have to carry the baggage of their parent’s choices. I don’t care how financially seceure/stable the home life/relationship is – school yards have never been a fair playing field and these kids will be targets.
…..is the domestic situation the child is placed in in his best interest?
Much too often activist judges will not consider the best interests of the child. It is safe to assume that it is common practice for family courts to favor the mother over the father.
2000 years plus of history is enough emperical research/data avilable for the bench to assuredly pronounce a SSM environment benificial to any child’s normal healthy development.
Rewriting history and human nature does not make it so. it seems that no amount of accurate research would be enough to satisfy the believers of SSM.
The results of this legislation are just beginning to be exposed.
I just, a short while ago, commented on Angry’s site. See it there.
Dunkin’, pooling, svimming, lifegourds; holy walruses, atheltees feetsies; coming to a shcool, pool near your evertaxaching hearts coutreysy of C> BennetLibrano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Federal minister calls for school swim lessons
CTV – 3 hours ago
Swimming lessons should become part of every child’s education, says the federal minister of state responsible for public health. Carolyn Bennett is calling for swim lessons to be part of the school curriculum …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Minster of wealth and hellfare knows all about education; nothing about sex, AIDS and all that crapola. Moonbats in the pools. Where’s Assal Doseanjie?
Sheila got it right. Get to know anyone who professes to be “gay”, and you will find someone who for whatever reason is obsessed with getting and keeping attention for themselves, i.e. is hopelessly self-centered, aka selfish. Sometimes two (or more) of these sad cases get together and try to get and keep attention focussed on themselves as a “couple”. As a couple, they seem to become even more self-centered. I guess the solution to their “look at me!” fixation is to either have ignored them in the first place (too late) or get used to being flummoxxed by a minority glitch in the order of things for whatever is left of history.
People, consider this question:
There is a neighbor of mine whose brother was once married w/ children. He divorced to shack up with a younger dude.
Now the younger dude wants to have his wee-wee chopped off and become a chick.
If this comes to pass, will that mean they’re no longer gay?
Wait till the left and the Liberals have this kind of situation before them. What then?
Sheila:
Would you say the same thing about inter-racial couples? Their kids still get tormented in the school yard these days, but it was certainly worse in past decades, especially back when inter-racial marriages were illegal. Are those parents selfish? My mother used to tell me how in her small Maritime town the kids of inter-religious marriages – Protestant-Catholic or, excommunicateably worse, Christian-Jewish – had a really rough ride from other kids but worse from parents. Were they selfish? They certainly said so back then.
TB, what planet are you from?
Pilate was selfish (“what is truth?”) the Sophists were selfish.
What does that make YOU?
TB is an apples and oragnges equivilency tewister. Race has never been a factor in rearing a child…he still has hetero role models and the nurtuting strong identity imprint is there…what has race got to to do with SSM? Race and sexual identy are mutually exclusive factors in providing a secure environment to nurture a child in.
The Winnipeg zoo is looking at applying for extra government funding for it’s male chimpanzee exhibit now that they’ve discovered that the monkeys suffer from a procreative disability. Some brainiac suggested something about trading for a female chimpanzee or two.
They had to let her go because she didn’t understand the procreative disability concept.
The reprecussions of this law have not yet begun and it will be a few generations before we feel the effects.
Although, maybe adoption is only the tip of the iceberg. I was reading a piece by Margaret Sommerville (ethics professor at McGill) According to her, scientists are already working on creating human life from the joining of 2 eggs or two sperm.
No, seriously.
Canadianna, I have heard of that.
Hell, why not legalize cloning while they’re at it?
As the proponents of SSM have said: what’s wrong with it if it hurts no one?
Just to inject a little sarcasm into the issue.
I can see it now: the left eventually will see nothing wrong with human cloning. Then the courts will strike down anti-cloning laws. Then the taxpayers will be forced to pay for the procreation-disabled to have children via this mode, as is their choice…
After that, incestuous procreation being declared a human right???
I don’t mean to scare y’all, but how do we know where the state, under the Liberals, will draw the line?
I hope the reasonable person won’t think these questions are uncivil. Shouldn’t be considered as such. After all, stuff happening today would not long ago have been banned from public discussion by even the Liberals. They do ban many kinds of discussion, after all.
Sadly, race is still a major issue in adoption in this country. Just ask the thousands of aboriginal kids floating through foster care because non-abs are not able to adopt them. There have been some heart-wrenching stories here in BC about these kids. And in some cases, these kids are only half Aboriginal or less. It’s fine for non-Abs to foster them, but if there’s the slightest mention of adoption proper, the Aboriginal community gets very testy. They don’t mind if non-Abs assume responsibility for them, but don’t let them find a stable environment in a non-Ab home.
I am in a gay marriage. We have a 15 year old daughter. Our daughter was 6 when I moved in. She has always been open about having lesbian mothers and has never had a problem on the playground or in high school over the issue.
She was very concerned when she was 7 that if her friends saw her father, they’d make fun of her. Her father is a 6’3″ straight, black man with a shaved head and gold hoop earrings. He likes to wear colourful silk suits. My daughter has light skin and beautiful dark curly hair and blue eyes.
She was extremely worried about the potential teasing at the sight of her father picking her up from school. When I pressed her for a reason, she said, “If they see him, they’ll know. My Dad, he’s b…, he’s b…, he’s BALD!
I personally will never reproduce, because I refuse to pass on my (heterosexual) parent’s genetic potential.
It�s really quite striking, the similarities between the angry right and the angry left. They see someone they suppose/assume/conclude is on the other side and, wow, the hunt is on. Every villainous viewpoint of the other side is ascribed to that someone and pilloried. My, my, but they must have a lot of anger built up. Only they usually forget a little something along the way. Like reading the comment. I guess that interferes with the rant.
Folks, you might want to scroll back up a bit and re-read my comment. Maybe a little more slowly this time. Our friend Sheila had fired off this little missive about how selfish gays were because of the problems their kids would have on the playgrounds. So, in my response, I asked a basic question of whether � directed to her specifically: scroll up and you�ll see I don�t lie � if she thought inter-racial or inter-religious couples were equally selfish. You see, it was a simple question really. Nothing much about whether gays are good parents or worse parents, more capable or less, more moral or less.
Clearly, you oppose SSM. Clearly, many � but certainly not all, not using any broad paintbrushes here – of you also oppose homosexuality altogether. I can accept that as much as I disagree with it and think the idea is just� well, better if I just leave that comment out of this response. And who is surprised that you oppose married gay couples adopting or maintaining custody over kids. Who is surprised that you’ll think up every kind of bad parental trait and ascribe it to gays. Someone over at Angry in the GWN implied that gays would adopt kids to satisfy their natural pedophiliac tendencies. That, I think, even most of Kate’s readers would think is a little beyond the pale. But if you are going to come up with angry ranting reasons to oppose gays and their desire to have families like you and me, then why attack it on the periphery? Focusing on kids in the playground as our friend Sheila does, or instinctive ego-centricity of the gay person as Kakola does or the horrible and imminent dilemma faced by the world of a separated gay father’s spouse maybe deciding to undergo an operation to remove his penis and become a woman – this is all a little silly if this issue and debate is as monumental a values and morality debate as claimed.
I don’t know if, after years in the political and media wilderness (as seems to be consistently claimed) has led you to believe that adopting the tactics of angry socialists is the way to go, but it ain’t workin’ for them either.
Carry on, now. Never mind me. Apologies for making you read such a long post. As you were.
The “Frankenfamily” is just the logical extension of the acceptence of the concept of gay “marriage”. If you accept that marriage has both affective and procreative elements any judge will simply have no choice but to appove s15 equality rights procreative elements.
This is the whole “Jug of Kool Aid” for SSM advocates; as a many leading the movement have argued for. The Marriage Reference was conveniently silent on this issue. Expect more litigation on this front as taxpayer funded procreative services will be the next gay rights lobby siren song. This is a logical no brainer.
Lay you money down on genetic manipulation stocks now. Your tax dollars will be “hard at work” in the the “bedrooms of the nation”.
I’m very pleased that Kayla has decided not to reproduce. Her values die with her.
I will remain civil in this matter, but I will also put my own life in harms way before I allow anyone of a devient nature (and YES I mean gays) to even talk to my son let alone raise him as a parent or a guardian. The only way this could happen would be AFTER my funeral.
Lester B Pearson said
“If you cant censor the truth,
you shoot the messenger.
Failing that you label him inept,
Failing that you commence to make up stories.
All in a days work for a SOCIALIST”
“Get to know anyone who professes to be “gay”, and you will find someone who for whatever reason is obsessed with getting and keeping attention for themselves, i.e. is hopelessly self-centered, aka selfish.”
Sounds like most straight couples I’ve known as well. The ones living in urban centres, at least.
“what has race got to to do with SSM?”
Maybe because Chinese people, Black people, and gay people were all born that way?
Sean, if gay people are born that way, then why have gay pride parades? If there is no choice involved in the matter, then what is there to be proud of?
See you at the next white-pride parade.
Sure, because everyone knows there’s no ethnic pride involved in St. Patty’s Day or Columbus Day parades.
“”Get to know anyone who professes to be “gay”, and you will find someone who for whatever reason is obsessed with getting and keeping attention for themselves, i.e. is hopelessly self-centered, aka selfish.”
Sounds like most straight couples I’ve known as well. The ones living in urban centres, at least.
“what has race got to to do with SSM?”
Maybe because Chinese people, Black people, and gay people were all””
Well according to a prominent? gay journalist writing in the Georgia Strait,
“The only people who think all homosexuals were born that way are liberal minded heterosexuals”
If even the gay don’t think they were all born that way, why would you?
A little bit of brainwashing me thinks
If it wasn’t for gay people the society would indeed be less colour coordinated. I mean to say ban beige for sure.
Pros and cons of one side or another be what they may, but it’s THIS that got to me:
“The judge paused, then said, ‘I haven’t ever really thought about it.'”
Oh, for fuck’s sake. This from our blackrobed would-be philospher-king overlords? As they say, what do you call the person who graduated last in their class from medical school? “Doctor.” And what do you call the person who graduated last in their class from law school? “Your honor.” Yet polls always show people willing to defer to judges in a way they never would to (other) politicians. The mind boggles.
Yes, awarding custody of a child to a step parent of questionable virtue is a difficult thing. However, this situation has hardly been created by same sex marriage. Thousands upon thousands of children have abusive step fathers or step mothers. This sucks, but it’s not created by gay marriage.
And any semi-sane gay couple would do a much better job of raising a child than any opposite sex couple using crystal meth or drinking themselves into a coma every night.
If you take any situation – in this case we happen to be talking about same sex marriage, but it could be anything – and then spend all your time dwelling on the worst conceivable outcomes, of course you’re going to have reservations about it. Take the automobile – if we allow people to have cars, then any old pervert could just race his car around the schoolyard running down little kids and cute bunnies. We simple have to stop these dreadful automobiles. Bring back the horse.
“Sure, because everyone knows there’s no ethnic pride involved in St. Patty’s Day or Columbus Day parades.”
Columbus day? What is that? We don’t have that in Canada. Certainly no parades.
St. Patty’s Day parades? Never seen one in Canada either. Lots of green beer though. And as a celebration of getting drunk, that day pales in comparasin to the Calgary Stampede.
What skook said.
First, Sean, there has never been, nor will there ever be, any evidence supporting the “born gay” meme. Which is why calling homosexuals a “minority” in the same line with blacks, Jews, hispanics, etc., ought to really piss off the true minorities. Homosexuals haven’t lived under any burden that they haven’t brought upon themselves. What they do in the bedroom is their business, and as long as it stays there, nobody would really care all that much. When they force it into public policy and into the public eye, any repercussions are earned.
There have been several very thoughtful comments (and a few bone-headed ones, too) on this thread, but there’s one point that hasn’t been addressed.
The homosexual community, in its quest for acceptance by mainstream society, has had one pivotal target audience for the past couple of decades: children. Damn those bigoted biological facts, but homosexuals just can’t reproduce. In order for the homosexual population to grow, others have to be recruited. In that light, there is no segment of society that is more open to new, radically different ideas than children. This is why “civil unions” aren’t considered enough by the homosexual rights activists. Adoption rights wouldn’t be included in those unions.
I have observed two distinct mindsets among homosexual people. I’ll illustrate it (for brevity’s sake) in the context of lesbianism. One woman I know is very, very happy being a woman. She has been with men and with women. She has a conscious preference for women. Another woman I know believes that it was a genetic mistake for her to be a woman. She hates everything that makes her female. She has girlfriends, because, in her words, she feels “gay” thinking of being with a man. Whereas I have no problem accepting woman one’s choice, I feel deep pity for woman two, because she will never be happy with herself, yet for fear of fostering “homophobia,” she will never be treated for a potentially life-threatening mental disorder.
BTW, the first woman I described could care less about marriage, the second is a very outspoken advocate.
Finally, the deciding factor in any custody battle should be the welfare of the child, but in the political climate of today, does anyone think an agency would deny a homosexual couple an adoption, regardless how imbalanced they seem, out of fear of the expense of a discrimination suit?
I believe gay and lesbians can already adopt. Probably what is being referred to is the ability of gay and lesbian *couples* to adopt. The question of orientation is not legally allowed to be asked when questioning a potential adopter. Same with foster parents, same with any professional or volunteer position: that is the consequence of having ‘sexual orientation’ read into the charter.
Many good thinking people actually believe the (judicial) system cares about ‘the best environment for children’ – but it is clear, after 30-50 years of no-divorce that the children’s interests are quite secondary.
If the interest of children were a priority, we would not allow half of what we do: children are not adults, and need to learn freedom gradually as they learn responsibility. Because our society gives (imposes) freedom on everyone as soon as possible, we end up with a society of adult-children, none of whom know what responsibility is. That is the definition of selfish. That is what ‘rights’ are all about.
“Sean, if gay people are born that way, then why have gay pride parades? If there is no choice involved in the matter, then what is there to be proud of?”
The novelty of being able to flaunt it in public without people trying to kill them hasn’t worn off yet. Give it time.
“See you at the next white-pride parade.”
You belong to the Klan? I’m told they have all sorts of white pride events. (You mebbe could have picked a better example here…)
“If even the gay don’t think they were all born that way, why would you?”
Um, lessee, maybe because I can’t ever recall having had a hankering for hairy male ass. That sort of thing has never floated my boat. Perhaps it used to float your boat and you made a concious decision to repress those sinful(!) and deviant(!) thoughts you had each time you looked at a guy (hey, you’re the one claiming it’s a choice). Bully for you. All the gay people I know — and I know many by virtue of moving in artsy circles — profess to having been born gay.
“A little bit of brainwashing me thinks.”
At least my knowledge of gays comes from talking with them, not just reading articles about them. Brainwashing, indeed.
There is a full page display effort on page A-15, July 16/05 National Post. It is very well designed and expertly written.
The story is that 66% of Canadians agree that mariage must remain a union of one man and one woman.
You are encouraged to ask your MP and or Senator to vote against Paul Martin’s *Anti-marriage bill*.
The page has four sponsors including The Catholic Civil Rights League.
Their interesting website is http://www.DefendMarriage.ca 73s TG
Kyla said:
“I personally will never reproduce, because I refuse to pass on my (heterosexual) parent’s genetic potential.”
Kyla, I am NOT being antagonistic below. Just a rational, logical, perfectly legitimate question.
I hope you were simply being ironic. Otherwise, you should be hauled before the Human Rights Commission for a hate crime against a group based on its sexual orientation. Such heterophobia! Hope you recognize the ironic humor here 🙂
While I accept that you have a right to BELIEVE that you were genetically predetermined to be as you are wrt the sexual thing, I also wish to, here and now, express, as is my equal right, MY belief that it is not a genetically predetermined thing, but rather a choice. I don’t mind your personal choice here, ok. But I cannot see the required logic of genetic predetermination. If, hypothetically, you were born as such, then think of this: both your parents are straight, correct? Go further back as well: if you cannot for sure find a single biological procreator ancestor who went your way, then by what I understand of how genetics work, if there ever had been a genetic imperative leading to your lifestyle, wouldn’t it have been almost or completely wiped out by all the generations of heterosexual genetic furtherance?
Also, do you realize that if I was like the leftists, I would have automatically come to the belief that you had uttered an expression of hate against straight people? I wouldn’t say that, but the left wouldn’t be so reasonable if I were to say something like that about alleged gay genes. Just food for thought, my good woman.
Besides, I find it offensive that you would allow your daughter, if yours originally, or your main squeeze if hers, to have these fears and self-consciousnesses about her father who was different ethnically. Shouldn’t you program relentlessly into a child that it’s nothing to be ashamed of, rather to be proud of? Just like I’m sure it has been programmed into your daughter that she should be real damn proud of having two mamas? Just a question.
Lots of good argument and points made.
Regardless, my stomach still wretches when I see two men mugging. It’s an automatic response. I don’t actually care, if that’s what they want to do. I just have an automatic repulse action to seeing it.
Is it okay if have my human nature? I was born that way.
I also feel badly for the people in our culture who are not allowed to maintain marriage as a union exclusively between two separate gendres.
I mean, wheres the harm? They were born that way.
Gays are definately different than hetros in soem fundamental ways, so why can’t they have something different around their unions? Why poke other people in the eye for really no good reason. They already got the money thing from the government.
“because they’re born that way” would be easier to believe if it weren’t for all the Lugs out there… http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/
And someone should let Anne in on the “truth”….. http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/060305heche.htm
TB
Sorry I didn’t get back earlier – I see I created a problem. No I don’t think inter-racial couples of earlier generations were selfish – they did not need the courts to grant them children. Homosexual couples by definition cannot produce children of their own – they must rely on the courts for this. I don’t belive it’s fair to do this to a child. It’s not an issue about how effective their parenting skills are – it’s about the life they are imposing on the kids. The selfishness is in believing that their lifestyle model is better for raising kids than the hetrosexual model. Why should a child be forced to answer for his/her parents life choices. It’s not fair to put that baggage on a child.
The inter-racial couple of the 60 and 70 put up with the problems and they likely knew that their kids would be targets – but their kids were not placed in their homes by some willing judge who wanted to be politically correct. More importantly, these parents are not forcing their children to confront sexuality issues at an age where they barely understand the concept. Forcing a child to defend his life (because that a child’s natural instinct) forces them to deal with issues that they can’t even begin to understand. Sexuality and race are not the same thing and it’s only because the Lib Left have defined SSM as a right that sexuality and racism are now seen to be equivalent.
One study i would like to see is the percentage of gays that were sexually abused as a child. Sexual abuse of children is such a life changing event. Everyone reacts differently to this tramatic event. Some people seem to be imprinted to act out sexually via promiscuity. Others reject and blame the sexuality of the offender.
While childrens sense of self and discovery of what constitutes sexuality is forming, i believe this tragic abuse distorts it.
On the whole, i do not find gay people to be very happy. I do not feel it is fair to blame discrimination for this unhappiness, but rather self loathing for events beyond their control at a young age.
enough — Did you just pick out of the air the idea that gay people are more likely to be sexually abused as children? I’m not going to bother to look for any studies on the net, since it appears you didn’t. But anecdotally, I can tell you that several gay people I know very well have not been abused as children.
Sometimes I wonder if maybe people being sexually abused as children make them extreme right-wing conservatives. I mean, is it just the feeling of self-loathing for events that happened as children that make them want to impose their morality on others?
For an interesting read on “legal fictions” I submit the following link.
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/maine/anclaw/index.html
The proponents of legal fictions like SSM and parental rights obviously haven’t read this.
Further to “enough”‘s comments, I’d like to see study results on how many gays came from broken homes or single parent upbringings.
Of the few gay people I know personally, they all have some major upheaval or parenting imbalance in their early background. Kyla’s comment above clearly points to something in her background.
How many of us are tired of seeing the disintegration of the nuclear family caused by organizations that have single minded agendas and governments that ignore the natural intrinsic value of traditional family units?
We hear all the time about how society is wrong in marginalizing gay behaviour. What about hearing from those same sources about why it’s right to marginalize the traditional family and it’s associated values? I’d be willing to wager that the gay community would be far more able to describe disfunctional childhood environments far better than functioning traditional family units.
The lack of political will to understand and protect what works in the traditional family unit will be to the detriment to us and our children. It makes disfunctionality an acceptable societal norm.
In answer to part of “bodiddy”‘s comment on discrimination against gay adoptions (that no organization would dare discriminate)…there’s one organization I know of: CCAA
Martin — once again, you’re just expecting something based on your prejudices. What makes you think that there are more dysfunctional childhood environments for gay people other than you just personally not agreeing with homosexuality? Methinks you are just reading in what you want to, just like enough.
Todd,
You disagree and rather vehemently with my comments and Martin’s. To question thoughtfully is not predjudice. This is typical of the left to attack when questioned. Sure, you know people that were not abused and are gay. It is valid to question. And yes, there probably are some gay conservatives.
To shut such discussion down does no one any good.
The question was not are gay people more likely to be victimized by a sexual predator. That would imply it was their fault somehow. The question is are victims of sexual abuse more likely to be gay? The same goes for parental situation. That was what struck me about kyla’s comments.
enough —
You said that gay people, as a whole, weren’t very happy and that you think it’s because of self-loathing for events beyond their control at a young age.
You just pulled this out of the air.
I’m not shuttind down debate — I’m saying you have no justification for saying this. You are just picking something out of the air and saying that you think this is the reason that people are gay.
As a whole, from some comments I see on Kate’s page, I’d guess that conservatives, as a whole, aren’t a very happy bunch either. But why that is, I truly don’t know.
According to you, all discussion would be out of thin air. My justification comes from people and events i have seen. Destructive lifestyles such as the still overwhelming preponderandce of aids being a gay related disease is one that is statistically true.
Yes, conservatives are not happy. Not happy with Canada taken over by the left. Not happy with the further erosion of families. Not happy with the destruction of the military. Not happy with excessive taxation. Not happy with being shut out of participation. Not happy with the current state of affairs.
The percentage of women that have AIDS is 51% worldwide. AIDS is not a gay disease.
Not happy that the gays and the commies are taking over and not allowing ANY argument against theere sick and twisted ideas.
Not happy that freedom is being taken from us and then the left lies to us and tells us it isnt so.
Lester B Pearson said
“If you cant censor the truth,
you shoot the messenger.
Failing that you label him inept,
Failing that you commence to make up stories.
All in a days work for a SOCIALIST.”
My previous comment isn’t based on prejudice just observations. I would like to know if there are studies out there that support what I’ve seen. Sorry Todd if you tend to color people with different beliefs than you as prejudiced.
I think there’s something to “enough”‘s comments. How many people are screwed up by childhood abuse, divorce, single parenthood, extreme poverty or some other factor that affected their upbringing? What percentage of the gay population fall into that catagory vs. the overall population? If it’s a large difference wouldn’t that be worth discussing and have a benefit towards the raising of future generations? Isn’t that important or should we just ignore it because those results don’t fit the agenda?
Am I guilty of reading into my observations according to my experience and beliefs? Probably…but nobody is totally objective.
Todd,
AIDs in North America and Europe have different infection vectors than in Africa. In Africa promiscuity and high percentage of prostitution use has been the primary reason for AIDS continuing progression. Ignorance mainly.
In North America it IS a gay disease. Twist it however you want. We know how AIDS is transmitted and yet it continues. I, most likely like you live in North America. We were not discussing Africa.
For it not to be a gay disease, what percentage would it be? 50%, 75%? Once again the politically correct tend to skew the numbers. Stdies and such questions are routinely discouraged by gay activists and organizations. In BC, when AIDS was put on the list of reportable diseases there was quite an uproar. What groups were protesting the inclusion of AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease such as herpes gonorrhea? I saw one British study that traced 90% of AIDS infections to gay men. That included bisexual infections of heterosexual partners and blood transfusions to heterosexuals.
It is not an attack. I believe that gay people want it to be claimed as genetic. I think environment such as abuse and homelife play the greatest role. What is wrong in discovering answers such as this?