First Comes Gay Marriage then Comes Bestiality in Massachusetts

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Gnosis:
Actually, thats not true at all. I live in Canada, and plenty of people say that homosexuality is a sin and is disordered…and they don’t get arrested.

However, what is illegal is the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of people. For example, if you are making statements that imply one should act out in violence against a group, then that is considered hate speech.

So you are allowed express your disagreement with homosexuality, just not in means that promotes hatred against them. I think this makes sense. In any country where a minority has been persecuted, even in places like Rwanda where genocide has occured, it always begins with a dehumanization of that people through propaganda. Canada is ensuring that we have the right to disagree, but that we don’t promote a hateful, irrational agenda against a minority.

So you can publically state that “homosexuality is a sin”

But you can not say that “Homosexuals should be removed from society”
Click to expand...
Thankyou for clearing that up. I had read an article, which was basically a play on the phrase “I’m moving to Canada” said by Americans unhappy with the government etc. It was in the Boston Globe and it said a few reasons why Canada isnt a fantasti alternative to the US…that was one of them. I meant no disrespect towards Canadians. Are you allowed to speak out against the government…I had read that a website was shut down because of its anti-Canadian government msesage?
 
Guar Fan:
Could you point me to the bill(s) which would do this?
Click to expand...
I don’t remember which bill it was in but just past in November. It was hidden in a highway bill or a budget bill. It wasn’t a bill on its own. I heard it on the radio news.
 
Siamesecat*Thankyou for clearing that up. I had read an article, which was basically a play on the phrase “I’m moving to Canada” said by Americans unhappy with the government etc. It was in the Boston Globe and it said a few reasons why Canada isnt a fantasti alternative to the US…that was one of them. I meant no disrespect towards Canadians. Are you allowed to speak out against the government…I had read that a website was shut down because of its anti-Canadian government msesage? *

In Canada we have what is called: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under Section Two of the Charter this is guaranteed:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

However, Section 1 of the Charter states this: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This is the “reasonable limits” clause. Our rights in Canada can be suspended, so long as that suspension can pass the Proportionality Test:
  1. It must be reasonable and demonstratably justified in a free and democratic society
  2. The right in question must be suspended to the most minimal extent possible
  3. The issue must be of pressing concern in society
    *Of course there are certain sections that can not be touched by this clause, which would include for example, one’s democratic rights.
Basically, certain aspects of our individual rights are not absolute, and the safety and security of society is more important. If someone’s freedom of expression can be shown to be having effects dangerous enough on society as to merit that right being limited, then the state will do so.

Another example is this, in the city where I live there is a problem with drunk drivers, particulalry in the downtown area. So if you are driving downtown you may be checked by the police to see if you are intoxicated. Under the Charter, this is not permissable as “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. The police have no reason to suspect you are intoxicated, so the seacrh is “unreasonable”. However, it has been determined that this is a reasonable violation of your rights, as you are stopped for several minutes at the most, and secondly, the deaths caused by drunk driving are “an immediate and pressing concern” in Canadian society. While your rights have technically been infringed, they were so only to a minimal extent and to the benefit of society.

I havent heard of a website being shut down for being anti-government, and if this is so it would be a violation of their right to freedom of expression including the press and other media of communication. It all depends on what that site was saying. If it was, for example, instigating violence against the government then it is possible that this right would be suspended. I would need more information.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
You’re honestly telling me that you think a person who engages in beastiality is SUCH A THREAT to society that they should be placed in prison for twenty years? Do you think 20 years in a prison cell is really going to be beneficial to their mental health?
Click to expand...
I think their mental health is already compromised, thus why they are engaging in beastiality. Prison is a tough place, no rational person thinks otherwise, but we have to weigh the safety of the general public first. This is a deviant behavior that shows risk to the general public. If they are so callous to the needs of animals, it’s not a stretch to say they may also feel the same about humans. After all, one of the first things most serial killers do is harm animals.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
What I’m asking is how one LED to the other.

For example, you can find homosexuals who do believe abortion is morally wrong, as do I. They are in no way inherently linked, and one does not cause the other. They are entirely separate issues.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we’re talking causation, at least I’m not, but they are most certainly linked in what we call the “Culture of Death”.

The practice of homosexuality, like the practice of contraception, etc. leads one (and ultimately society) to a warped understanding of human sexuality, where we are only objects of lust to each other, useful only for our sexual gratification. That idea bleeds into the rest of human interaction where now humans are only valued by their usefulness, a society where children testing positive for Down Syndrome are killed in utero to avoid the responsibility of raising them, where persons with terminal illness and the “right” to assisted suicide aren’t given proper medical care because they refuse to kill themselves. This is happening and it should be frightening. I hope I’m clearly stating the realtionship, it’s very simple but also complex. There are numerous threads here about “Culture of Death” that maybe are better than what I’m providing!! 🙂

One point of clarification is that while the Church does believe homosexuality is inherently disordered, we don’t believe the person struggling with homosexuality is evil or “bad”, they have a heavy cross to bear almost like every other person struggling with sins of a sexual nature, which seems to becoming more pervasive.
 
Gnosis said:
Siamesecat*
In Canada we have what is called: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under Section Two of the Charter this is guaranteed:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

However, Section 1 of the Charter states this: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.*

I don’t think it’s so much what is written now, but the possibility these seemingly subjective laws hold for the future. There are many people in Canada who post here that feel things are very dire.

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071906.html
"…CBC Radio has aired a commentary by a retired professor from the Royal Military College calling for state control over religion, specifically Catholicism. While parliamentarians dismissed warnings by numerous religious leaders and experts that such laws would lead to religious persecution, former professor Bob Ferguson has called for “legislation to regulate the practice of religion.” "

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4137
“Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said last week that he cannot guarantee full protection to religious organizations that refuse to marry homosexuals under the Liberal government’s same-sex marriage legislation, reported the Canadian Press.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072808.html
“Very soon,” said the Cardinal in a chilling prophesy that is already coming to fulfillment in many Western nations, including Canada, “it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence.”
Click to expand...
 
I have to say, Canada is a very good nation to live in freedom wise. All these “doom prophecies” and “1984” scenarios are just plain hysteria.

I dont think it is likely that there will be state control over religion in Canada, in fact, its very much against the Charter. People can advocate that, but as long as they do it in a civil manner, its also their right. I went to a Catholic highschool that was publically funded, in Canada Catholic schools still recieve funding by the state!!! So traces of a bias for Catholicism are still around.

In Canada, the same sex marriage bill has passed, and it does protect the Churches. Every Church has the right to marry who they want, this is explicit in the legislation.

Again we are not losing our freedom of speech. But when our freedom of expression infringes on the rights of others, then it can be legally limited.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Again we are not losing our freedom of speech. But when our freedom of expression infringes on the rights of others, then it can be legally limited.
Click to expand...
Well I guess it’s obvious I disagree - from what I’ve heard the climate in Canada is very cold towards the rights of Christians to state their beliefs. Very recently pro-life activists, under threat of violence, had their conference cancelled due to the threats. Another church gave them an area to meet. As a student of history, it seems eerily similar to the start of Nazi persecution. Hysterical? I guess it depends on your POV, I hope for everyone’s sake I’m wrong.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080
"Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court. "
 
worldnetdaily.com/news/a…RTICLE_ID=31080
"Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court. "

Lets examine the article in question: It states that a man submitted a newspaper add that included passages from the Bible, stating that homosexuality is a sin. But he further quoted Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, which state that the punishment for homosexuality should be death by stoning. This add further decpicted two men holding hands overlaid with the universal nulification symbol.

What would you suggest is the over all message here? A quote that homosexuals should be killed, then placing a giant X across two gay guys.

As I stated before, here in Canada we feel that it is not within our rights to promote an irrational and hateful message against an identifiable group of people. **Especially when the message is that these people should be killed or removed from society, ** Which is exactly what these Biblical quotes are suggesting when paired with an icon that is basically saying “We don’t want gays”.

It is certainly within your rights to express your disagreement with same-sex marriage and to say that it is an immoral lifestyle. **But you can not suggest violence against them, even if you support your arguement with the Bible. **

You think this is reminiscent of Nazism? Wow. I think subtly, or perhaps even overtly suggesting that society should be purged of a specific minority is much more reminiscent of the Nazi party. But that could just be me.
 
Gnosis said:
worldnetdaily.com/news/a…RTICLE_ID=31080
"Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court. "

Lets examine the article in question: It states that a man submitted a newspaper add that included passages from the Bible, stating that homosexuality is a sin. But he further quoted Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, which state that the punishment for homosexuality should be death by stoning. This add further decpicted two men holding hands overlaid with the universal nulification symbol.

What would you suggest is the over all message here? A quote that homosexuals should be killed, then placing a giant X across two gay guys.
Click to expand...

Yes - I think the bill that was passed (C-250) is indeed reminiscient of fascism. It’s policing of thought and speech, it is intolerable, and while religious persecution hasn’t happened yet (although evidence suggests it is starting) this is indeed how it begins. In any case, it’s bad law that is setting dangerous precedents.
Why add this language into the bill if libel, assault, attempted murder, murder, etc. are already punishable by law?
 
Well obviosuly libel is something that can only be applied against specfic person, not a group. Clearly one can not be sued for libel for making general and harmful statements about a minority. We have noticed that, throughout history, there is tendency for certain minorities to be persecuted, and that the hysteria of the masses can often contribute to violent crimes against them. Think of the Jews in Germany and the Night of Shattered Glass.

Hate crime legislation is aimed at preventing this kind of maddness before it begins. Freedom of expression is, no doubt, an essential right in a free and democratic country. But we can not decieve ourseleves; indivualization to such a total extreme is toxic to society. Or rights are absolute only so far as they do not harm society as a whole. We can not ignore the reality that we live in a society, in a community. We do not have the capacity to live completely on our own, independent of society, where we would exist in TOTAL freedom. In partaking in society, we must be willing to limit some of our natural freedoms and rights for the sake of all.
Do you really think that freedom of expression, as extended as far as promoting violence, is *that * essential of a human right? Are we to prize ourselves to such an extent over others? Is this not a right that we can limit for the sake of society as whole?

We must ask ourselves: Is that limitation to be rendered so serious and unreasonable as to permit limitless expression? Or is giving people the ability and the means to to promote something that could realistically lead to violence and discrimination against others an unreasonable and perhaps even dangerous extension to the right of freedom of expression?
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Well obviosuly libel is something that can only be applied against specfic person, not a group. Clearly one can not be sued for libel for making general and harmful statements about a minority. We have noticed that, throughout history, there is tendency for certain minorities to be persecuted, and that the hysteria of the masses can often contribute to violent crimes against them. Think of the Jews in Germany and the Night of Shattered Glass.

Hate crime legislation is aimed at preventing this kind of maddness before it begins. Freedom of expression is, no doubt, an essential right in a free and democratic country. But we can not decieve ourseleves; indivualization to such a total extreme is toxic to society. Or rights are absolute only so far as they do not harm society as a whole. We can not ignore the reality that we live in a society, in a community. We do not have the capacity to live completely on our own, independent of society, where we would exist in TOTAL freedom. In partaking in society, we must be willing to limit some of our natural freedoms and rights for the sake of all.
Do you really think that freedom of expression, as extended as far as promoting violence, is *that *essential of a human right? Are we to prize ourselves to such an extent over others? Is this not a right that we can limit for the sake of society as whole?

We must ask ourselves: Is that limitation to be rendered so serious and unreasonable as to permit limitless expression? Or is giving people the ability and the means to to promote something that could realistically lead to violence and discrimination against others an unreasonable and perhaps even dangerous extension to the right of freedom of expression?
Click to expand...
I think by limiting our ability to express disagreement with sexual perversions you’ll create anti-Christian backlash which will lead to further persecutions of us in this country. We are already being driven underground. Sorry. If we can’t be the thought police, you can’t either, Gnosis. Furthermore, it’s absolutely ridiculous for you to advocate that position. The KKK has a right to hold their rallies and we all know of the violent and bloody history of that organization in RECENT history. It’s reprehensible that you wish to take away the rights of Christians before you’d limit hate groups. This is why it’s laughable that the secular world promotes themselves as “tolerant”. You are. Of people who share your beliefs and depraved lifestyles.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Two consenting adults in love…beastiality…they are hardly connected. I am so sick of people saying that same-sex marriage is going to lead to people having sexual relations with their dog. It just shows that people will stop at nothing to induce fear and uphold a long standing and dangerous prejudice.

Did anyone actually read the article? The measures being taken are actually rather reasonable. It is reducing the penalty of beastiality to a fine or 18 months. Before that they could recieve up to 20 years! People who rape human beings don’t even get sentenced that much time! And don’t you think its time adultery and fornication be decriminalized?

People who engage in beastiality need mental help…not two generations in a prison cell. The fact that this article tries to mislead the reader into thinking that gay marriage is leading to the acceptance of beastiality just shows how desperate and outright cruel people can be.
Click to expand...
Nope, I don’t think it’s time that adultery and fornication be decriminalized.
 
Gnosis-
This is definately an issue that can be debated ad nauseum, but I think I want to just point out a few parting comments I guess.
What makes you (just as an example) think that even extra laws will make “hate” go away or make anyone safer? Current laws aren’t enforced like they should, what will adding new words do to make us more “tolerant”?
Racism, all the “isms” will still be present, but instead of being in the open where public dialog and conversation can truly change hearts, people will be too intimidated to speak but will still act with the same malice in private because no one will check their behavior or belief.
Where does one draw the line on what constitutes “hate”? It is completely subjective.
I guess one needs to be careful, as the “persecuted”, that they don’t become “persecutor”.
 
I don’t think anyone is foolish enought to think that hate crime legislation will actually eliminate hatred. But it does push approval of those attitudes to the very fringes of society. Secondly, it prevents that hatred from being fuled into dangerous propaganda that can stir people into mass hysteria.

I would think it would be within an African American’s rights not to have to open up the newspaper and see an add that says “African Americans should be stoned to death” coupled by a giant X over the image of a black person. As a homosexual I am asking the same.
 
Thanks Gnosis. Everyone is entitled to basic respect as fellow humans. Too many times in the last century, we saw what happened when groups of people were put outside the bounds of their societies.
 
Well, which one do you believe? Do gay men have any rights a devout Christian is bound to respect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top