Gay?

[Iccaro]

I was doing some research on your assertion that it was a gay agenda that lowered the age of consent in Canada, because as far as I knew you were 100% correct. I found some interesting information that I thought should be shared with all. Mainly that the age of consent was “lowered” in 1988 by a “conservative government” in an effort to clean up its legal code. I put lowered in quotes because it was apparently not truly lowered. Prior to this there was a tangle of conditions that “could” make intercourse with those under 18 and at times 21, especially females, illegal. The following are excerpts from the Library of the Parliament Website which can be viewed @ parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm :

“Only girls under 12 were absolutely unable to consent to sexual intercourse until 1890, when the age limit was raised to 14. With the advent of the Criminal Code in 1892, the strict prohibition against sexual intercourse was retained for girls under 14 (not married to the accused) and the law was strengthened to make an accused’s belief about the young woman’s age irrelevant. That age limit has not changed and remains in place today, with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age.”

“In summary then, except for the offences of buggery and gross indecency, the age of consent for sexual activity has at no time been set higher than 14 in Canada, although prior laws did make men vulnerable to prosecution for sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, 18, or even 21 in certain qualified circumstances. As noted above, the 1988 amendments to the Criminal Code repealing those provisions were contained in Bill C-15, which was introduced by the then Justice Minister, Ramon Hnatyshyn. Although a bill introduced in 1981 by previous Justice Minister Jean Chrétien had also proposed the repeal of the seduction offences, it would have retained a broader, gender-neutral version of the prohibition against sexual activity with a young person between 14 and 16. However, Bill C-53 was never passed and a later version, in the form of Bill C-127,(2) brought about significant changes to the criminal law in the area of sexual offences but did not specifically address the sexual exploitation of young persons." Continued next post…

 

[Iccaro]

From a second site:

“In 1995, the Ontario Court of Appeal, Madame Justice Barbara Reed heard a case involving an older adult man convicted of sodomy with 14 and 16 year old boys. The criminal code section 159 stated anal intercourse was an offence if the person was under 18. She ruled this law was discriminatory on the basis of age. Her judgement sets age 14 as the age of consent for all sexual activities with adults.”

The Library of the Parliament site states this section was also struck down in Quebec.

The page also shows the pros and cons of considering raising the age of consent to 16 as well as details how the 1988 change of the law seriously strengthened protections for those under 14 while un-complicating the application of the law which had been allowing many offenders to go free. All in all it is pretty informative and if you have children or are a kid in Canada I would think it an important read.

Now it seems, from an outsiders perspective (non-Canadian) that is, that while 14 does seem extremely low, the intent for the change was to sort out a morass of ambiguity in laws especially those pertaining to females and “chaste character.” This seems much more likely than the existence of some secret underground power network of homosexuals shaping the destiny of Canadian Law for the purpose of legally courting your country’s boys.

Tragic as it is to say, if this had happened in America I assure you there would be cries that the Catholic church was somehow behind it in an effort to lower its exposure to litigation and that they were in collusion with our politicians to avoid charges of impropriety with high school summer intern girls and pages. The only thing held more sacred than the institute of marriage in the U.S. (though this tends to be questionable and looks like lip service if you see programs like The Bachelor and Who wants to marry a millionaire?) is the absolute power of the Heterosexual White Male. Can anyone say Monday night football?

 

[Iccaro]

For those of you who are American, please in all of this discussion remember our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

I was raised to not wear my religion on my sleeve it belongs in my heart and mind, in my home and church. Too often religion is worn like a garment and as is often the case is just about skin deep. I was raised not to condemn others for their beliefs or lack of. I was raised with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus. I am a Portuguese -American Catholic. I am a Constitutionalist and a Conservative Libertarian as were the founding members of the American Government who were all deeply religious. I see as they saw, the need to protect one religion from another as well protect the believer and non believer from each other. The need to protect the minority from the majority must also be upheld. Until recently I was largely a Republican, that is until they brought religion to the table in attempt to dupe religious conservative voters who did not vote for them last time into buying into a platform of fear, nothing motivates a zealot like fear after all. What is the natural response to blind fear? Blind faith… “What I am going to die?”… “God will save me!” I can’t tell you how many times as I drove someone to jail I heard, “How can you do this to me, I am a Christian!” “Jesus will punish you!” After which the praying starts for Jesus to come save them from this fate. This of course all occurred after they were arrested for things like domestic violence to shoplifting. Perhaps one should look under the surface and see if there is something truly to be afraid of and then if you are going to pray, pray for courage and fortitude and help yourself. Continued next post

 

[Iccaro]

All of this is said for one reason. As Americans is there equality or not. This cannot be conditional. Is every American Citizen not included in the Declaration of Independence’s promise of equality in all things? Need there be any greater example of what happens when we allow the rights of any group of people diminished than the atrocities committed against our Jewish brothers and sisters? You may think this an extreme example but what do you think happens to gay people in America or in other portions of the world? Their behavior criminalized, people have spent over a decade in a prison for expressing their love for one they care about, people are killed every year by intolerance and hate, and these peoples lives are used as a bargaining chip in an election. What of their chilren? What if **Mindy Mae **as a child depended on not her biological mother but the her other mother for her health benefits that her company provided? Wake up! These are real people with real feelings and 3 whole passages in the bible wich by the way are not translated in a fashion consistant with their original meaning, even translated literaly and taking into account colloquioal word usage of the time there is still ZERO indication they referred to same sex relationships. These are real people you objectify to “Disordered” and argue about how morally licit their lives are. I seem to remember something about… not judging? Live your life as well and as orthodox as you have the strength and faith for and I will live mine as these people with live theirs. We all may be supprised where we all meet in THE END, then again we might not.

Just try to keep in mind when you vote this year what this country is about, Freedom. It is what we fight for daily. Your freedom is what I fought for as a police officer, what my father and brother, Uncles, Grandfathers fought for in the military thru WWII, Vietnam, and even the first Gulf War. All of this to make sure no one infringed on your personal freedoms. Where do gay people, gay marriages or unions or whatever you choose to call them infringe upon your freedoms? Thats the test folks. We need laws when your freedoms start to get stepped on. Everyone has an agenda and they all bump up against each other all the time. We dont need laws for bumps we need them for breaks.

 

[cestusdei]

Icc, a Canadian “conservative” is equivalent to a liberal democrat. As I see it you proved my point. However, I doubt the men who fought the Nazi’s in WWII did so in order that sodomy might be normalized. They are real people with a REAL problem. A mental and moral disorder. Like many people with such disorders they refuse to see the problem. Even more they want to make their problem “normal”. In NYC today as the gay demonstrators passed by they engaged in open sexual activity to great applause. These people are sick and need help. They don’t need us telling them they are okay when they are not. Contrary to your opinion the scripture and tradition of Christianity are unanimous on this issue. Notice how the Anglican’s are now basically giving up Christianity to follow the spirit of the age. Catholicism won’t do that. We hold to the apostolic faith. Our constitution says nothing about religious people having to shut up and say nothing. We can participate in government, at least for now. The fear is real. We see our culture being taken over and distorted by perverts. Of course we are going to fight back. Most of those vets you mentioned are on our side. I don’t know any vet who fought for homosexual marriage. There may be a few out there, but I don’t think it was on anyones mind after Pearl Harbor (or 911).

 

[Ken]

Any Canadians care to educate us on whether the Canadian Conservatives were equivalent to liberal democrats? If so, who are the Canadian Liberals?

 

[Jeffrey]

Well said cestusdei. Nothing but truth

cestusdei:

Icc, a Canadian “conservative” is equivalent to a liberal democrat. As I see it you proved my point. However, I doubt the men who fought the Nazi’s in WWII did so in order that sodomy might be normalized. They are real people with a REAL problem. A mental and moral disorder. Like many people with such disorders they refuse to see the problem. Even more they want to make their problem “normal”. In NYC today as the gay demonstrators passed by they engaged in open sexual activity to great applause. These people are sick and need help. They don’t need us telling them they are okay when they are not. Contrary to your opinion the scripture and tradition of Christianity are unanimous on this issue. Notice how the Anglican’s are now basically giving up Christianity to follow the spirit of the age. Catholicism won’t do that. We hold to the apostolic faith. Our constitution says nothing about religious people having to shut up and say nothing. We can participate in government, at least for now. The fear is real. We see our culture being taken over and distorted by perverts. Of course we are going to fight back. Most of those vets you mentioned are on our side. I don’t know any vet who fought for homosexual marriage. There may be a few out there, but I don’t think it was on anyones mind after Pearl Harbor (or 911).

 

[Lisa_N]

Shohana I’m respononding to a post from a while ago where you said your brother had a “homosexual” dog and another where you said that higher animal forms exhibit homosexuality. I think you need to distinguish between what might appear to be homosexual behavior and “being” a homosexual.

IOW as I posted on another board, receptive females of certain species may appear to be engaging in homosexual activities such as with a group of cows. This is EXTREMELY common behavior but it doesn’t mean the cow is homosexual, that she won’t accept a bull or that she’s in love with Madam Moo. As soon as Mr Bull comes along, she forgets her female friends. This is not a homosexual animal, but she exhibits some behaviors that might lead one to believe it.

Stressed and overcrowded male animals will also engage in homosexual activity but when put in smaller groups or with females they are perfectly happy to act like normal males. Sometimes males will engage in what looks like homosexual behavior but it is a dominance thing, such as a male duck trying to get rid of a rival by literally assaulting him. As soon as the rival is vanquished he leaves with the female. Again, there is a behavior but it’s not permanent nor is it hardwired in. If not for the specific circumstance it would not occur.

OTOH my understanding of a human homosexual is that it is not a matter of circumstance, that when given the opportunity to have a normal male/female relationship, the homosexual will reject it whereas you do not see that in the animal kingdom.

I do believe there is a biological component to homosexuality because as a dear friend told me, NO ONE WOULD CHOOSE THIS. OTOH I suspect it is more like the tendency to other conditions instead of a specific homosexual gene. Also the idea that it has something to do with the gestational period makes sense. Just as another one of those farm examples, if a cow conceives two calves, one female and one male, the female is always sterile and does not act like a cow. IOW she’s not interested in bulls. There is as someone thought, the idea that hormones during gestation have an impact and in the case of these cows, they apparently get a dose of testosterone. It doesn’t change their outward appearance and it doesn’t change their chromosomes. But they do not act like normal cows and it’s there from day one. So I don’t think we have the answers yet.

FWIW

Lisa N

 

[Iccaro]

cestusdei:

In fact in the show Queer as Folk a 15 year old boy is seduced by an older homosexual man. Homosexuals all thought this was wonderful. I didn’t read one, not one, review by a homosexual group that said “hey wait a minute…”. Sure you may find a few, a minority of, individual homosexuals who would disapprove. But they sure are quiet. Not a peep out of them.

15 sounds a bit young even for showtime…

A quick search of character descriptions … thanks to google… and I found a quote on a website that had a full interview with a producer of the show on Larry King Live. When asked about the age of the character being reffered to above he replied;

“RON: When we started the show, Justin was about 17 and a half going on 18. He’s a high school senior. I think we all know that a lot of high school seniors are sexually active. Realistically, a lot of gay men have sex for the first time with older men. It happens. Our job to portray – is to portray this world realistically. We’re not making judgments here, but it does happen.”

This is not in defense of any of this just a correction of a “Fact” stated. My only comment on it is that as a former 17 year old male, , I can confirm a lot of 17 year old males are sexually active and having captured the intrest of an older woman right after I turned 18 I can say at least in that situation, it was a growth experience that I count myself lucky on having experienced.

 

[cestusdei]

Icc, the show was originally done in the UK. There the boy was 15. In the US they upped the age to 17. They want to introduce us to “intergenerational intimacy” slowly so we won’t object so much. They don’t want guys like me pointing out these things. But 17 is still illegal in most states. As it should be.

Ken, I still am waiting for you to provide the evidence I asked for.

 

[Iccaro]

cestusdei:

Icc, …A mental and moral disorder. Like many people with such disorders they refuse to see the problem. Even more they want to make their problem “normal”. In NYC today as the gay demonstrators passed by they engaged in open sexual activity to great applause. These people are sick and need help. They don’t need us telling them they are okay when they are not. Contrary to your opinion the scripture and tradition of Christianity are unanimous on this issue. Notice how the Anglican’s are now basically giving up Christianity to follow the spirit of the age. Catholicism won’t do that. We hold to the apostolic faith. Our constitution says nothing about religious people having to shut up and say nothing. We can participate in government, at least for now. The fear is real. We see our culture being taken over and distorted by perverts. Of course we are going to fight back. Most of those vets you mentioned are on our side. I don’t know any vet who fought for homosexual marriage. There may be a few out there, but I don’t think it was on anyone’s mind after

Pearl Harbor (or 911).

I stipulate to your authority to say that these people have a moral disorder as it is your vocation to uphold an orthodox position that I believe that you represent from your heart and soul, however I challenge your authority to say these people have a mental disorder, this is not in agreement with the psychiatric profession’s assessment of these people. I am not sure they are asking to be told they are ok either, I think they just want to be left alone to their own pursuits including their grail of legal equality.

It was not my intent to say you should not participate in government, certainly you should champion your beliefs by any means legal, nor was it my intent to say that anyone fought specifically for homosexual marriage. What was my intent was to convey that they fought for freedom and equality and that as soon as you open the door to defining portions of the population and abridging their liberties for any reason, especially religious in nature, all persons and all rights and freedoms are open season.

Where does it stop? Will you next insist that Contraception be criminalized? Should those who do not believe as the church does be forced to live their lives by its tenet’s? Should Pentecostals dictate that no women shall cut her hair and must wear a skirt/dress? Should Southern Baptists be allowed to dictate to all that no dancing be allowed anywhere but church? I live in Oklahoma and we have a Muslim little girl in a legal battle to allow her to wear her head scarf to school.

 

[Iccaro]

With abortion at least we have legal ground to “impose” our religious view on another, provided the fetus can be defined legally as a life. Arguing it from a religious standpoint is, I believe, a mistake, when dealing with any government. Better to argue that the fetus is a citizen or a natural resource as a child, as to me, they are our most valuable natural resource. I still do not see how a state can charge a drunk driver of two counts of vehicular homicide when a woman was riding in a car on her way to get an abortion. I am not saying that has happened but it actually could. I guess life begins at conception if you want the baby and in the third trimester or birth if you don’t??? and the laws reflect this attitude.

For once I imagine I am preaching to the choir on this one.

 

[buffalo]

Iccaro:

I stipulate to your authority to say that these people have a moral disorder as it is your vocation to uphold an orthodox position that I believe that you represent from your heart and soul, however I challenge your authority to say these people have a mental disorder, this is not in agreement with the psychiatric profession’s assessment of these people.

It used to be classed as a disorder. Check out the circumstances around the change by the psychiatric community.

 

[cestusdei]

Icc, it is interesting that psychiatrists began discussing the removal of pedophilia from the DSM IV. The outrage put a stop to it, for now. Homosexuality should never have been removed. There was no scientific reason to do so. Only political pressure.

We do have dress codes. You can’t run around naked. In school you have to obey some restrictions. But those customs are not on the same level. You admit abortion is an exception. Well marriage is rather important. Contraception was illegal at one time. Making it legal began the process towards legal abortion. No contraception is being enforced in China, India, Latin American, without the informed consent of the woman. Even in the US courts have ordered mandatory contraception against the womans will. Gee, how far we have come.

 

[rjmporter]

Ken:

Social acceptance of behavior can certainly lead to social consequences. No argument there.

But the process of instilling a moral code as the socially accepted code still proceeds from the private to the public. Social acceptance is never realized unless there are a sufficient number of people who privately embrace a particular code.

Sorry to jump in so late, Ken. But I would like to comment on this. The problem is not that the private moral codes of Americans or that the Christian moral code is no longer held by a majority of Americans (IMHO).

While I believe your position holds true in a historical anthropology, it does not take into account the effect that mass media can have on culture. A small group of individuals who can gain the sympathies of and/or control over the mass media can enshrine a particual social code that is contrary to the majority moral code. By creating a perseption that the majority moral code is outside and/or not the social code. In effect creating a taboo of the moral code of the majority. Some facinating anthropological studies from WWII Italy, Germany and Vichy France seem to support this. I will have to look up the titles and report back as I am at work right now.

The German study also works on a hypothesis that concern for material comforts will cause the majority of individuals (in the German culture, at least) to suppress and or change their moral code and adopt the social code. In other (more famous) words . . . “It’s the economy, stupid”

Again, I do not have the reference in front of me, but will be glad to post them when I get home tonight.

A facinating discussion.

 

[Ken]

rjmporter:

Sorry to jump in so late, Ken. But I would like to comment on this. The problem is not that the private moral codes of Americans or that the Christian moral code is no longer held by a majority of Americans (IMHO).

While I believe your position holds true in a historical anthropology, it does not take into account the effect that mass media can have on culture. A small group of individuals who can gain the sympathies of and/or control over the mass media can enshrine a particual social code that is contrary to the majority moral code. By creating a perseption that the majority moral code is outside and/or not the social code. In effect creating a taboo of the moral code of the majority. Some facinating anthropological studies from WWII Italy, Germany and Vichy France seem to support this. I will have to look up the titles and report back as I am at work right now.

The German study also works on a hypothesis that concern for material comforts will cause the majority of individuals (in the German culture, at least) to suppress and or change their moral code and adopt the social code. In other (more famous) words . . . “It’s the economy, stupid”

Again, I do not have the reference in front of me, but will be glad to post them when I get home tonight.

A facinating discussion.

Good point. I certainly accept the presence and power of the media.

But, isn’t what you describe actually the influencing and changing of the moral code of individuals by folks who use the media? Or does the individual’s moral code remain intact, but since the individual thinks he is a tiny minority, he just goes along?

 

[cestusdei]

rjm, it isn’t really a discussion. That takes two. Don’t bother to do the research. Ken will ignore it, say it’s wrong, and offer no proof or counter evidence. He just asks questions to keep you working till you get tired. Then he thinks he has “won”.

Ken, how about you provide that evidence I have been asking for instead of playing your trick on the unsuspecting? I have been waiting for days. You can of course simply admit I am correct and that you cannot refute what I have proven.

 

[burnside]

I might as well put in my tuppenceworth.I haven’t read all the posts in detail,i came in a bit late,but i don’t think anyone has mentioned this.
We get a lot of complaints about gay bashing,much more than
about the harassment of homeless people or the disabled.In addition,if i were a racist,which i’m not,i can tell someone is a different race by their colour or by their accent.Unless gays indulge in gay sexual behaviour in public,i have no way of knowing what their sexual orientation is.
No doubt Ken will say,if it is ok for heterosexuals to do their thing in public,then it is ok for gays to indulge in their brand of sex in public.No,actually i do object to a heterosexual couple
having a few drinks then slopping all over each other in a bus queue,especially when there is an embarrassed father with a young girl standing right next to them.
I never know whether to laugh or cry when i see TV Programmes
showing stuff which is euphemistically called soft porn and then
a short scene,while it is not right,is cut to suit the politically correct brigade.

 

[PLAL]

Alan Keyes Teaches Sex Education Lesson to Homosexual Interviewer

keyes2004.com/news/040907mostert.php

Click on "HERE" to Listen to the entire interview!!!

Editor’s note: An MP3 audio of Alan’s comments is available here.**

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

cestusdei:

rjm, it isn’t really a discussion. That takes two. Don’t bother to do the research. Ken will ignore it, say it’s wrong, and offer no proof or counter evidence. He just asks questions to keep you working till you get tired. Then he thinks he has “won”.

Ken, how about you provide that evidence I have been asking for instead of playing your trick on the unsuspecting? I have been waiting for days. You can of course simply admit I am correct and that you cannot refute what I have proven.

Ces, I started a thread on just this kind of issue. I go to the Hannity forums and debate pro-life issues and there is a large homosexual base there, and one person is advertising their church:nope: Anyway here is the thread I started on how to debate this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80713
I do not think I will debate it I do not know where to start and some of this is so out there But I thought you might want to see what they are doing as far as scripture twisting to push this