More gay tolerance :p

Isn't it just like the radical militants behind the homosexual agenda of "FORCED ACCEPTANCE" to continue, once again, making a clear display of their hypocritical tolerance? In the eye's of these self righteous sexual freedom fighters tolerance defined means:

"You accept my sexuality as normal or you will be labelled, targeted, smeared, and accused of fear mongering as well as instilling hate. We will outshout you and use words such as "homophobe" and "bigot" to guilt you into submission until you show us our version of tolerance."(In other words, you better dam well agree with them)

Ironically they would not grasp the meaning of tolerance if it slapped them up side their intolerant little heads. Tolerance is not neccessarily agreeing with one another. It means agreeing to disagree respectfully. For example I may say to a homosexual:

"I recognise you as my fellow human being and as a contributing member of society. I also recognise that what goes on behind closed doors is your business. However, since you insist on making your sexual prefrences public knowledge on a weekly basis thru your pity parades, protests, and shoveing it in my face thru media I will now exercise my fundmental right to freedom of moral conscience allowed to me under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to inform you that I do not recognise your sexual practices as normal, natural, or Godly. That is my entitled opinion and inherent right to freedom of expression. Would you now care to join me for a cup of coffee to talk about motorcycles and sports?"

As you can see by my response, I have exercised the true meaning of tolerance. I have freely expressd myself, my view, my opinions, and my values in a very non hateful, non fear mongering, and non threatening way. I have displayed my secureness in my sexuality and my willingness to co-exist with them in society. This is all possible without having to embrace their sexual lifestyle.

However I do not expect them to realise that. Why? Not because they can't but because they absolutlely refuse to. Yet another "choice" they make. They proved that once again this week when "TOLERANT" homosexuals and their supporters showed up at Ryerson University to protest the honorary doctorate being handed out to renowned ethicist Margaret Somerville.



What did she do that got the gay masses in a stir? Just what was her appalling, hateful, fearmongering, bigoted, and homophobic crime?

**DISCLAIMER** before I tell you I must warn you the answer is rather disturbing.

Well, she....oh I don't know if I can repeat it....but she....oh here it goes....she DISAGREED with same sex marriage!!!. There I said it. But can you believe it? She actually disagreed with homosexuals. HOW DARE SHE?

She is qouted as saying in her acceptance speech:

"I am pro-gay rights, but I am also pro-children's rights, and same-sex marriage is one of the very few areas where those rights are in conflict,"

"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."

Did you catch that venomous rant? What hate. What fearmongering. What homophobia. What bigotry. What intolerance! (I hope you all denoted my sarcasm)

Margaret, this is Canada, home of the disgustingly politically correct. You are not ALLOWED TO DISAGREE with the homosexual community. In fact you are not even allowed to have an opinion on the matter if it disagree's with the gay community. You are only allowed to freely express yourself if your opinions and view points line up with theirs. Otherwise they will show up to bully, ahem, I mean protest you into embrassment. This is how they practise TOLERANCE. The following is taken from the Canadian Press:

"Protesters from Ryerson's gay-rights support group, RyePride, joined a group of activists from the University of Toronto as they stood out front of the university's auditorium, some wearing Halloween masks as they brandished picket signs and waved rainbow flags.

As Somerville took the stage, several other members of the official party entered the auditorium wearing rainbow pins and necklaces, while others carried small rainbow flags.

When Somerville was summoned to receive her award, several academics on stage behind her silently hoisted banners and rainbow flags with slogans such as 'My Ryerson honours equal rights' and 'Equality.' The crowd stood and cheered in support of the display.

Several even turned their backs when Somerville was hooded."

There is never a reasonable or logical counterpoint to this ongoing heated debate. If there is then let's hear it without all the (Yawn) "homophobic" terms and endless harrassments they call protests. It is just getting so old and tired already. But, sadly, the term homophobe is the only weak argument they can come up with. Take our token protestor in the crowd with their typical "one line" response.

"Homophobia is not honorary," said one protester. "It shouldn't be celebrated by granting an honorary degree." (Erin Atack, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 19, 2006)

You catch that? No intellectual response just typical labelling terms. In other words, the strategy is:

"Let's just call them names until we get our way!"

Margaret Sommerville, I commend you for standing by your beliefs and your principles which you are entitled to in a free and democratic society without expeirencing your own fear of reprecussion from these bullying types (who are the fearmongerer's again?) who refuse to acknowledge their own intolerance towards those with a differing view.

And to the supporters of the FORCED ACCEPTANCE AGENDA...



What can I say? Thanks for setting such a fine example for the youth of our future. By your bullying, fear mongering, labelling, and intolerant ways you continue to display that the best way to deal with an agenda is to bully the opposer's into submission. Clearly another fine example of your tolerance.

Until next time...

Way out in "LEFT" field

In retrospect of my previous but most recent entry regarding "Left" wing ideology and the implications of re-defining terminology, I must say that for the most part the response I recieved from the "Left" wing pundits was expected and predictable.

I will add, to be fair, that there were some who displayed respectable maturity in their responses regardless of their disagreemet of the said topic. To them, some of the following may (or may not) even apply. I was pleasantly surprised to see some of those on the "Left" eager to discuss and debate these hot button issue's without resorting to school level name calling and swearing tirades. They have earned my respect as an "Admirable Adversary".

To the rest of the "Left" wing band of screamin' banshee's who decided to join in to the arena of discussion and debate, thanks for contributing your rants that had absolutley nothing to do with the post. If it is one thing that I can always count on when it comes to the "Left" and debate and that is their predictability.

One does not need to be a prophet in order to accurately determine the outcome of any discussion with them. What it always boil's down to is this...

When the topic is irrefutable they resort to the only strategy they know, (which does not amount to much) that being:

First, attack with strong word's/names that will instill guilt into the "Righty" so that he/she feels shameful and terrible for having the capability to think for themselves and offer up an opposing view. A "Righty" should never be allowed to have a differing view from the "Left" without feeling like they are some religously, homophobic, bigoted, racist. Even if the "Righty" just happens to be a black, gay, atheist, conservative.

(For those who are still convinced that there are no gay conservatives you may want to "stop in and say hello to my fellow conservative comrade and blogger." It would be rather obvious on which areas we would disagree on but this may shed a little bit of light for the "Left's" delusion that ALL homosexuals hold to leftist views.) "There is even American organisations as well! Gasp!" Anyways, back to the list.

second, if this does not work, attempt to derail and divert the topic to something else that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. This way the "Lefty" can now control the debate and bring it down to a level that they can understand and provide something that, well sort of, almost sounds intelligent. If the "Righty" actually falls for this tactic but the "Lefty" now finds him/herself being defeated by their very own argument then they must resort to talking circles. Example: (Lefty speaking)

"Well, no, that was not exactly my point, my point is, and our polling numbers show, that...well...uhmmm....well you know exactly what I mean. You know what? YOUR JUST A BIG RACIST, INTOLERANT, DIGRESSING, BIGOTED, HOMOPHOBE!!!!"

Another term for this type of "Lefty" circle talk is called Liberalspeak!. When they have nothing better or intelligent to say they just say anything. Which essentially is nothing!

Thirdly, If both steps one and two fail, they resort to what "Lefty's" do best. Rant, rave, swear, and call the "Righty" a bunch of ugly names while mentioning how unintelligent he/she sounds. It's rather entertaining at this point as they do not even see the irony of their own behaviour.

Ahhhh yes and number four is a personal favourite of mine. A "left" strategy that can sometimes get me in stitches because they think this (ahem, cough, gag) tactic is somehow effective. That strategy is the ever famous "Let's attack their religious beliefs and tell them how intolerant they are!!!" Naturally, they once again fail to see the irony of their own intolerance.

The above was par for the course in my June 4th entry. I wrote about the dangers of re-defining terminology. Actually I wrote about it last year as well with a complete "forecast" on the serious implications that re-defining marriage would have. That of course being that once you accomodate one group for the sake of their "sexual freedoms and RIGHTS" that other's (read: pedophiles, polyigamists, beastalists, etc.) would use the same claim to their own sexual freedoms and rights. The proverbial pandora's box has been opened.

Naturally many from the "Left" could not absorb the content of the article because they are too quick to rant and too slow to think straight.

First I was accused of homophobia. (Big yawn) Yeah sorry guys...you know I have got to remember to tell my gay friends that I live in fear of them. Of course when this tactic did not work I was then accused of Linking homosexuality too pedophilia. Yet when I challenged the "commentor" to show me just one line in the article where I linked the two, well, lo and behold they just disappeared.

Number two tactic then kicked in where another "one time comment wonder" stopped in to throw a bone at evolution. Huh? Your mad at the topic, you have no rebuttal, so let's talk about a myth so full of hole's it makes a fishing net look like a solid substance. This, of course, was not allowed to go nowhere so we then proceeded to step three....

Name calling. The "Left" could not successfully rebutt said topic sooooo....now they were so mad that by calling me a few harsh names this was somehow going to bring me to the point of saying "Uncle". Rrrriiiiiigggghhhhhtttt!

In fact I even recieved an e-mail thru my "Profile" contact link from someone blabbering on about how proud they were of Canada's mosiac culture (I have no idea what this had to do with the article but for sake of arguement I would respond that this is the reason we also have no national identity), that I was a racist??? (Even though there is not one mention of anything "racial" in the article. This "white trash" better also remember to tell his first nation's aboriginal wife and kids that he is a racist as well as a homophobe now.) and to finish it all off I was called an ignorant SOB. Siigggghhhhh...another angry rant that successfully managed to address nothing.

And then finally, my moral view was called into question because my faith in God was the underlying foundation to my social views. Duh! Apparently moral views are not allowed to apply where one has a belief in a deity. My goodness, how tolerant of the "Left". What was really bizarre about it all is the "Left" will often command that one leave their faith out of a debate. Which to my own credit I actually did. Nowhere in the article was my faith or any religion once brought into the entry. It was clearly targeted at political ideology and the train wreck of over used and abused cliches like the term "Rights".

So what did the "Left" do? The one thing they often tell me not to do. They brought my faith into the subject. (See, I told you they cannot make up their minds) What they forget in all of this is that they too hold moral values and social views and those values and views were influenced by something or someone as well. But in their cess pool of arrogance they feel their "beliefs" are the moral highground. Funny, that is the very self righteousness that they accuse the "Right" of.

As I pondered the past few weeks of the entry/comments and questioned why the discussion went everywhere except where it should have gone, that being, some acknowledgement from the "Left" that re-defining marraige is already turning out to be a bad idea with some very negative social implications, it was the words of Jack Nicholson that came to mind as I envisioned him bellowing out at the "Left"...

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


Your RIGHT Jack, they can't.

Until next time...

The sick mind of the "Progressive" left >:(

**DISCLAIMER**This is not meant to be taken personal by my "lefty" friends and fellow bloggers. This entry is aimed at a very dangerous ideology that stem's from the left wing think tanks world wide.

If it is one of the most frustrating things I have never been able to comprehend from those on the "Left", is why and how, on God's great and green earth they are absolutley incapable of learning from other's grievious mistakes. How utterly stupid, ridiculous, and redundant is implementing that which has already proven itself to be a dismal failure and a contributing factor to moral decay and societal justice breakdown in a civilisation.

Yet such is par for the course when we discuss the insanity of the "Left". These are the people who make the self righteous, and I might I add, very humble claims of their "Forward thinking" ways which somehow make them the great purveyors of the "Progressive" movement in the further evolvement of their world of delusional Utopia.

When we discuss the moral politics of any nation the "Left" proclaims that issues such as "reproductive freedom" and "gay marriage" are just yet another advancement of their forward thinking policies to complete acceptance of diversity. Including different morality and value issues. After all, they argue, it is about human rights! The "Right" is often accused of being stuck in the stone ages. Unwilling to come out of their rut's. The "Right" is quite often labelled as bigoted (and my personal favourite) intolerant!

Often the "Left" will point out how abortions and gay marriage will not have any detrimental effect on society and that things will continue on as they always have once people become accustomed to it. As "Progressively forward thinking" and left leaning Sun media columnist Lyn Cockburn points out in a recent article she did about Canada's first two same sex RCMP couple "tying the knot" (Oh yay :p):



"Their nuptials will constitute the first ever same-sex marriage in RCMP history."

"As much as there is an ongoing controversy about same-sex marriage, this is also a matter of firsts"

"In every case (regarding first's), there was an outcry, a sense of outrage, however muffled, however loud."

"The firsts go on and on, dragging prejudice, controversy and condescension with them.

Until, that is, we get bored with them. We are no longer surprised or even interested that the cop is a woman (for example)...."

First (no pun intended) off, who cares what their occupation is? The men in question are not the first gay couple to marry. Secondly, Canada is not the first country to introduce this unneccessary insult to human rational by re-defining marriage. The continued mantra chant of the "Left" is that morality issue's such as abortion and same sex marriage are basic human rights.

Here is what the "Left" ignores, turns a blind eye towards, and a deaf ear. Many of these social issue's have already been tried by other nations and are going exactly the direction that us "stone age" conservatives said they would go.

Let's just observe the trend here in Canada and where we are heading. When Liberals introduced the legalisation of abortion decades ago they came in on the platform that this procedure was only going to be legal in cases where the patient's and/or babies life was at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Conservative thinker's said that this would lead to de-valuing human life and eventually this procedure would be treated as just another form of convienient birth control. Liberals in their grand foresight of utopia said that would never happen.

So let's see just how far we have come under these "Progressive" thinkers.

Last year in Canada over 400,000 women became pregnant. Of those 400,000 plus women who were impregnated, over 106,000 of those babies lost their live's in the abortion mills of our "Progressive" nation. All in the name of "reproductive freedom" and the "Right" to choose. Of those 106,000 lives that were snuffed out, an astounding 103,880 WERE NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY! What a "Forward thinking" way to build a nation with a future. Conservative forecast was bang on!

Of course we are now dealing with same sex marriage and where it will lead our nation in the future. Liberals see this as a "progressive" move in our country like they are the first ones to ever come up with the idea. They stubbornly refuse to look at other nations who have implemented these policies and are paying a heavy price "All in the name of human rights". Conservatives, including myself, have said that re-defineing marriage will open up Pandora's box to many different groups wanting to redefine marriage to suit their sexual preference's and lifestyle. This would include polygamist's, pedophiles, incestous relationships, and even those who practice beastiality.

Just to further back my point, in the comments section of my October 15, 2005 entry titled "I am not an animal", I respond to a fellow blogger regarding same sex marriage with the following qoute:

" allowing legislation to reflect what some may consider the norm is just another part of the slippery slope. Many sexual practises will start lining up at Parliaments gates such as the polyigamists, incestous parents, and pedophiles. They will eventually use the same argument about how natural it is for them. I know that may sound far fetched but don't forget that 12 short years ago when homosexuals were fighting for same sex benefits the very same Liberals in power today were the ones who said yesterday that those benefits would not lead to redefining marriage. I am quite convinced that polygamy will be the next thing on the Liberals agenda of forced acceptance of unnatural sexual lifestyles. (Should they remain in power)"

Sound far fetched to you? Think it would never happen here...or any where for that matter. For the record, polygamist's are now starting to line up in Alberta for their "right" to be married to more then one woman. But it goes even further then that. The "progresive forward thinking" nations of our ever expanding world of Tolerance, Acceptance, and Diversity" head down an even darker path that is so twisted and sick.

One of the most "Progressive and Forward thinking" Nations in the world today is the Netherlands. So progressive are they that prostitution, marijuanna, abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are ALL legal. Once again all in the name of human "Rights". So what is the next step for such a progressive nation to lead us into the future by setting their fine example of human dignity and morality?

How about what I and every other "Stone age" conservative have already forecast. A new political party has emerged known as the Charity Freedom and Diversity Party. Their platform? Quite straight forward. (qoutes taken from every blinking newsite off the web)



"The NVD is Europe's first political party dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia."

My, how Progressive. Let me guess, because it is about the "RIGHTS" of the children. Am I far off?

" The newly formed Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party of the Netherlands has introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights and has vowed, "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

Yep, I was right. Good to see they put the children first by looking out for their "Rights". So what exactly are these perveted pigs looking for in their agenda of children's human rights? Well keep on reading:

" a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals" (They eventually would like to see consensual age done away with completely)

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper." He goes on to say "We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion,"

"The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed"

" It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening."

"Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal" (I was unaware an animal could even consent to sex in the first place!)

"The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

This, my FORWARD THINKING AND PROGRESSIVE LEFTWING NUT friends is what happens when marriage has no direct reference or definition. It is the end result when sexual "Rights" trump everything that is common sense and dencency. Just ask Belgian child rapist, Marc Dutroux, who I am sure will be one of the NVD's biggest party supporter's.



We "Stone age" Right wing Conservatives have said for decades that this is the dark path liberalism would lead us down but apparently we were just too narrow minded and intolerant in our views. It can and will happen over here if forward thinking liberals continue to allow countries like the Netherlands to be their example.

And the final question...will the Charity Freedom and Diversity party get their official party status? YES!!! Of course they will. They have RIGHTS you know.

Until next time...