Like a group of whiny, spoiled little brats in a shopping mall screaming at the top of their lungs until they get what they want (IE get their own way) so the endless saga continues for a small insignificant group of gay rights activists spewing their typical and very, VERY, predictable mantra of "Homophobia" (YAWN!)
Here we go once again. What, pray tell, is the issue this time? Actually it is nothing new. Our story begins with the Nova Scotia county of Pictou where gay lobbyists headed up by Ramona Westgate, an activist with the Pictou County Pride Group, were decrying the violations against them because town hall voted against flying their flag during Pride week. Awwwww, well, I guess that means they hate you then! Right Ramona? (BTW, I don't believe that for a minute) In fact, town council voted against flying "ANY" flags, making it an official policy, except for the Canadian, Provincial, County, and First Nations flags which represent EVERYBODY not a preferred sexual lifestyle choice. I find that far more tolerant then allowing just the gays to fly their flag as the national flags are all inclusive and encompassing. The Rainbow flag segregates a select group and THAT , my friends, is intolerant!
Responses have become so predictable for these lobbyists to start throwing out the garbage language, in typical over used and abused fashion, how they are being discriminated against and how "Homophobic" everyone else is who do not agree, support, or condone their sexuality. What they, and even bias media fail to look into, is the facts behind the decisions.
First off, is it necessary to fly their "sex preference" flag every year? Before one knows it every one will want to fly their flags at city hall and will simply apply the same "word offence" strategy that the gay lobbyists use by also whining how they are also being discriminated against and how oppressed they are.
Warden Allister MacDonald said it best in his response to the "homophobia" accusations :
"A hate group could come and ask for us to raise a flag, and we would be discriminating against that particular group (by not raising the flag),.....They could take us to a human rights court. This way we're trying to be proactive so that there would be no controversy down the road."
There you have it. Finally someone making a logical decision by not caving into the oppressive fear mongering tactics of the lobbyist. Either we fly for all groups or none. Since not all can be accommodated then no one get's a kick at the flag pole.
Naturally, and as is expected, that is just not enough for some. In that typical spoiled child like fashion, they simply will not take no for an answer. Councillor David Parker who voted against the new policy stated: "When we are able to fly that flag over our community, it will mean that we are at least beginning to confront our fears and our prejudices"
Oh do shut up Dave. Today those fears were confronted when your town council took a stand against the fear induced tactics that make it politically incorrect (let's not forget "hateful) to disagree with anything homosexual.
Here is a newsflash for Dave and Ramona. To disagree is a RIGHT in this country NOT HATE! Unless you can prove hate then stop abusing the terminology. You only make yourselves come across as ridiculous, ignorant, close minded, closed off, bigoted, forceful, and INTOLERANT!
Until next time...
24 comments:
TIO,
I guess you don't get it. Let me help...
Freedom of speech means it is ok to spew whatever you want and it is not wrong*.
Get it? So, shut up.
Q
* Unless it comes from a WASP, male, heterosexual. Then it is racist, sexist, and homophobic.
If all flags were banned then it is fair enough, if this particular flag was picked out to be excluded then they have every right to make as noise as possible about it. If the offical policy is to only fly those certain few flags (National, County etc) and they don't deviate from that, they have no case to answer.
Q,
Get it? So, shut up.
Tsk, Tsk! Not very tolerant of you now, is it? :)
Unless it comes from a WASP, male, heterosexual. Then it is racist, sexist, and homophobic.
I don't believe it! You have officially tongue tied me. I have no rebutt when that statement is, sadly, soooo true!
Lucy,
If all flags were banned then it is fair enough,
I do agree with you, however, in many cities (such as my hometown of Winnipeg) while the "Pride" flag is allowed to fly during "that" week many other's are denied simply because there are too many other's that our national flags would never get flown.
This has become a trend in many of our cities. (Rather selective and exclusive don't ya think?) One I would suggest has been a result of caving into the fear tactics within the gay activists when they have public tantrums.
Ironically enough, Winnipeg decided to fly the "pride" flag when they were under the leadership of gay mayor, Glenn Murray. I might suggest that he publicly excercised his own personal bias?
The bottom line is, regardless of what city/town, the flags should only represent the governing body. NOT a sexual preference. That is ridiculous. There is simply no need to fly it except to pacify a group of obnoxious cry baby's (By that I am not inferring every gay person on the planet, just the minority "screamers")
If the offical policy is to only fly those certain few flags (National, County etc) and they don't deviate from that, they have no case to answer.
It is offcial policy (did you click on the link (in purple) to read the whole story?) and yet they were still up in arms because they felt they should have been consulted on the matter first. A rather arrogant attitude as far as I am concerned.
I agree with you on Glenn Murray showing his own personal bias and the local government standing by its policy of only flying a select few flags. I know my local council here flies all the flags of the Commonwealth outisde its main building and has attached the gay pride flag to a flag pole but haven't heard any comments on it one way or another.
TIO,
It is kinda of fun in a sick way.
All you have to do is say something and watch this bunch of loons (that think they are smarter than 4000 years of societal development) go ballistic!
It is so easy to find their fuse, ignite their fuse (and what a short fuse it is). He he he he he he he he... I laugh so hard it hurts... ha ha ha ha ha... tears stream down my face.
They think they are way smarter than they are - worse for them is they highly under estimate the people that disagree with them.
Frankly, all the stuff they try to do to make society "fair" and "unbiased" blah blah blah blah just makes it easier and easier for me (and luckily for my childern) to increase my wealth.
Is that a fuse I hear burning?... get ready to laugh!!!
Q
You would rather society was unfair and biased Q???
Lucy,
Yes. Only one change in the U.S. since 1960 is defendable. Civil rights for Blacks.
Q
If I may interject here, I think I can see where Q is going (Correct me Q if I am missing the mark) and I would also tend to be in agreement with him.
The first thing to consider, and as ridiculous as it may sound to some now, is too consider the whole slipperly slope cliche'.
There are pedophiles out there who consider their sexual preference to be "just how God made" them. Should they create a flag and want city hall to fly it then the arguement could be made that they are being dicriminated against if refused.
Keep in mind that these perverts are actually fighting for their "rights" and coming dangerously close to recieving them in other countries such as the Netherlands.
We could keep going. What about those who practice beastality? Or what about the rapist who feels he is "naturally" acting out his primal instinct to simply whack the female of choice over the head and mate with her like in the caveman days? If (in their mind) that is in fact how it took place 10,000 years then the question asked by them is "Why is it so wrong today then?"
A civilized society fast begins to lose it's civility when it becomes more concerned about the "rights" of everyone's sexual antics behind closed doors and their supposed inherit "right" to publicly proclaim them.
Like the flag debacle, if we are told(forced) to accept one then eventually we will be told that ALL are acceptable. Homosexuality within medical science (speaking from a physical standpoint) is a perversion/deviation from the natural design and fit of man and woman.
If we now promote this one sexual preference by hanging their flag (keeping in mind we have never hung one for the hetrosexual) how long before "others" feel their "sexual "rights" are being oppressed and we paint ourselves into the corner of accomodating them or fear being accused of that big old evil word "Discrimination"?
From this standpoint I agree with Q that there are simply times where we do need to excercise bias or else chaos will reign. It's begun in Canada. We have already bent over backwards for the gay community by hanging their flags and allowing them to marry.
Now your 65 year old grandpa can come to our wonderful land and legally have sex with our 14 year old daughters. The slope has begun.
You are talking extremes TIO and we are never going to agree on gay rights because of your religous and my non religious beliefs. Personally i find it abhorrent that a person is wilfully victimised because of their choice of partner. Right there is your slippery slope and back we go to the last century where people were victimised because they were black, jewish, disabled or homosexual.
Q doesn't want to see a society that is fair and unbiased except for his narrow demographic and the blacks (who are not gay that is)so
is it safe to assume that he doesn't see anyone else as an equal who deserves the same rights as himself?
Lucy,
Please tell us what it is for something to be fair. Can you do it? Please enlighten us.
You can't do it without being biased. You can't determine fair without imposing your beliefs on us. Who made you right (oops)... correct.
The U.S. has more social problems than ever and I can make a strong argument that it is due to a bunch of clueless people trying to make things fair. They went through a few trillion dollars and 50 years and the results are:
- Black families destroyed
- Divorce over 50%
- Hispanic families falling apart
- 50% high school drop out rate in the 50 largest U.S. cities
- Teenage, unmarried pregancy out of control
- drugs worse than ever imagined
- alcoholism out of control
- obessity out of control
- millions dead from AIDS
Thanks for seeking fairness.
Is it fair that I'm bald? No. How are you going to make it fair? Is it fair that I had cancer? I don't think so. How are you going to make it fair?
TIO nailed my point. 9 years olds and liberals are obsessed with "fair". Ok, I was being redundant... bygones.
Q
PS - My "narrow demographic". What is my demographic Lucy?
PSS - The fuse is short indeed. So little tolerance for ideals other than liberal ideals...
Lucy,
You are talking extremes TIO
They said that 20 years ago when we said that extending spousal benefits to homosexuals would lead to the re-definition of marriage. Turns out we were, once again, Right!
I must also ask what extremes you are referring to? The Netherlands is nothing to dismiss. Neither are the claims of "other" sexual predators. Many rapists feel it is theri inherent "right" to engage in sex as they deem suitable to them. For their minds it is only natural. To use a liberal cliche', "Just who are you Lucy to tell them otherwise?" Afterall, that would be imposing your morality on others.
Get my point? The more rights given the more that will be expected for all. Canada is no joke either. Sexual predators no longer have to travel to Thailand when they come on up to the good old Great White North because liberals made it legal for them to do so.
Right now our Conservative's have a crie bill in the Senate to raise the age of consent. Naturally it is being stalled by the unelected liberal dominated senate. Only theblind will refuse too see the obvious end result. Must history repeat itself once again?
we are never going to agree on gay rights because of your religous and my non religious beliefs.
Might I suggest that this is actually a very narrow minded statement? You forget that their are many socially conservative atheists and many liberal minded religions (United and Anglican factions of the church)
As someone (myself I refer too) who came from a non believing, liberal family I still held many of these convictions. Not only does "religion" not play a factor in this particular thread but I never even brought it up in the article. We are discussing a social ideology and policy.
It's odd how I often discuss these issues (including evolutionary theory) and it's always the atheists who tend to bring God in to the equation. If you would like to dismiss my views then please do so by addressing the arguement of social policy and ideological views. I find you to be taking the easy way out because you have not offered anything that would be convincing or tangible otherwise. (That is said with a sincerity and not a shot BTW)
What I am getting at here Lucy, is that it seems simply to easy to be stating "extreme" views and atrributing religious conviction as a means to dismissing what very well could be a valid arguement.
-Medically neccessary abortions became what "we" said along. Convience. (98% of abortions peformed in Canada are NOT medically neccessary according to StatsCan.)
-Common law marriage became many homes without father's who left for greener pastures to mate with another. A legal loophole form of polygamy. Again "we" said this would be the end result.
-Gay marriage will set the stage for "other" sexual lifestyles appealing to the government left for their rights to also be recognised in law. See polygamists in Alberta Canada who took their case to the Human rights commissions and the court of Queens bench.
That is not extremism Lucy. It is reality!
Lots of things to respond to so i will try and pick my way through them.
Q, being fair is treating everyone as your equal and who would not like to see that? The world would be a much nicer place if we all did it but unfortunately some don't hence we have racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, wars and a multitude of other nasties inflicted upon society because some people don't want to see a fair and unbiased society. It is not about being right, it is about treating our fellows as equals regardless of our personal beliefs. Haven't we had enough wars, riots and killings to prove that your idea of an unbiased society is wrong on every level?
TIO, we have debated the subject of your beliefs and your stance agaubnst homosexuality before. I recall a conversation we had about you refusing to marry homosexual couples so that was my reason for bringing it into the conversation. To me, that was your vantage point when you wrote this post but if you have had a change of heart since, i will gladly adjust the starting point i placed you at.
The extremes i talk about are the paedophiles and those practising beastiality you mention which are a fraction of a fraction of society
thankfully. You could say that by granting rights to any group of people you get on a slippery slope towards the frayed edges of society but before you get to those groups, you have to deny rights to millions and millions of others and all you will be left with is those who resemble those who make the decisions being the only people with any rights.
Lucy,
That is weak. It is not about the person. It is about behaviour. Nobody gets to pick who they are. People do get to pick how they behave (with the exception of those people inslaved, or those with mental disabilities or illness).
Not are behaviours are equal. Some are detrimental to self. Some are detrimental other individuals. Some are detrimental to society.
Just because a person decides to behave a certain way does not mean they can do so, without consequence. There are, and should be, consequences for all behaviours. In certain cases societal response (accept or reject) should be included in the consequences.
I'm still willing to use force to change the behaviours that affect me in a way I dislike if no other options are available.
I have no problem with other religions - any of them. I also do not care about a person's gender, age, nationality, or race.
I do have a problem with ganster rap music being played on public air waves. I have a problem with abortion unless the mother's life is threatened. I have a problem with people that steal. I have a problem with people that rape. I have a problem with pornography (not nudity). I have a problem with societal acceptance of same sex marriage (I don't have a problem tolerating that some people prefer to have homosexual relationships).
Q
Wanting to treat everyone the same is a weak argument? Either we are getting our wires seriously crossed here or you are in a very tiny minority with some not very nice people. Hopefully it is the former.
Lucy,
we have debated the subject of your beliefs and your stance agaubnst homosexuality before
Indeed we have. However, my beliefs were not the context of the post. It was addressing a policy issue and how a "group" was imposing their sexuality upon it.
I am not sure how or why you would equate the two. I never did say "It is wrong of them because I personally disagree with homosexuality" I am capable of being objective.
If the "group" was a loud obnoxious bunch of Christians demanding their flag with a cross be flown from the flag pole I assure you my sentiments would be the same. The only difference is I would tend to be embarassed by their actions.
I recall a conversation we had about you refusing to marry homosexual couples
Actually I was being "forced" to marry them (which obviously I did not) but this is Canada where my religious "rights" are only recognised on a piece of paper knowns as the Charter of human rights and freedoms. Thanks to human rights commissions one's "rights" are not actually applicable UNLESS you are gay.
To me, that was your vantage point when you wrote this post but if you have had a change of heart since,
No change but as I stated earlier I do not see what my persoanl; view has to do with how silly they looked? Unless, as a journalist yourself, you are coming "out of the proverbial closet" and acknowledging that there is no such thing as "objective" reporting as every writer is a human being with their own opinions and views and are only able to write from such vantage points? :)
The extremes i talk about are the paedophiles and those practising beastiality you mention which are a fraction of a fraction of society
thankfully.
You have completely avoided the reality that it is in fact already going on. My good Lord Lucy we just had a Winnipeg pedophile released last year (I could kick myself for not remembering his name) who gladly gave the local media an interview stating that , for him, children are sexual beings too and that he does not see why it is so wrong.
Now according to your own theology regarding your suggestion of "Wanting to treat everyone the same" then this man should be "entitled" (another fave liberal word) to his rights and his persnal sexual preferences. Otherwise we discriminate aganst him.
You have also dodged the "fact" that I stated in my other comment, it is perfectly legal for grandfathers to engage in sexual intercourse with girls, NOT women, as young as 14 years of age. Liberals told us it was because the girls "had the right" to engage. Not because these 50 year old perv's were sick pigs. How's that for turning the tables and now putting the onus, on what used to be called rape, in to the hands of the child?
Lucy,
I asked what fair and equal mean. You didn't address that. And that is okay because I think it is a fools errand.
But, for the record... NO, I don't treat everyone equally:
1. I don't treat kids like I treat adults
2. I don't treat my mother like I treat my father
3. I don't treat law abiding citizens like I treat criminals
4. I don't treat my wife like I treat other women and more importantlty vice-versa!
5. I don't treat friends like I treat strangers
6. I only flirt with women, not men
7. When I vote, I vote for some people at the exclusion of others
8. I don't tip just based on service - I give more to apparent college students, apparent working mom's, and people that look like they could use a little extra
9. I have more sympathy for the elderly and children than I do for young and middle aged adults
10. I don't give money to people on corners that appear to be wealthy, I only give it to people that appear to be homeless
11. I treat people that are in our military, or that served in our military, with more respect than I do others
12. I say "yes sir" to men and "yes mam" to women
13. I don't speak in Hindi to anyone except people that appear to be Indian - pheer melangay
14. I use IT terminology when talking to IT geeks, I don't when speaking to IT novices
15. I'm more cautious with interacting with someone that is carrying a weapon
16. I'm expect more from store managers than from their clerks
17. I'm more impressed with people that fail than with people that never try
18. I only give money to charities that support children, students, mothers, the chronically ill, and the elderly... ooooops and to the surviving families of fire fighters, police, and military
Just a few examples of how condenscending, arrogant, and not nice I can really be...
Q
PS - Being nice is not worthy ambition in life. Lot's of "nice" people do stupid things that affect a lot of people negatively. "Tough love" is a lot better than being "nice".
Q first..there we see where we have our wires crossed. I have stepped back further than you and do not see individuals but social groups. You say how you treat your wife and mother where i am saying how women are treated. In terms of object orientation, i am pitching my argument a few movement above yours.
TIO, I am afraid that 'the religious one' is your definition. I place everything you say from the starting point of you being religious as people place everything i say from the starting point of being a left wing liberal.
I can't just forget everything else you have said regarding a subject such as homosexuals when it crops up again as much as you cannot start me off on a clean plate when the subject of whatever you use to define me with crops up.
If i said there was such a thing as "objective" reporting i would be lying. If you read or watch any reporter on a major story, they will edge things towards there own way of thinking but some are better than others and do it more subtly.
Some of course are 'directed' towards a certain viewpoint by those that pay their wages though of course.
Lucy,
If i said there was such a thing as "objective" reporting i would be lying. If you read or watch any reporter on a major story, they will edge things towards there own way of thinking but some are better than others and do it more subtly.
:) Thanks Lucy. That's actually all I have ever wanted you to concede. LOL
Now Please, STOP refering to me as religious.This term can apply to just about anyone including evolutionists. I understand you equate the term with anyone who believes in a deity but to the Bible believing Christian it is all about "relatinship" (with Christ) not religion.
I know your not familiar with the scriptures but Christ did in fact often challenge the "religious" establish ment.
One last thing I need to address:
I place everything you say from the starting point of you being religious as people place everything i say from the starting point of being a left wing liberal.
Since you seem to recall many of our past discussions (good on you girl)then you must recall that I was not always a Christian. Yet my views regarding homosexuality were the same. It was counter too the "natural" order. (Natural law)
What would you say about the post if I was a left leaning atheist such as yourself?
Q,
Loved the list. Your point on fair and equal treatment is well made.
Lucy,
Right, and you still avoid addressing what is "equal" or "fair" even though that is the foundation of your logic.
Whatever. You seem to base your position on "what the person is" (groups) while I base my position on how each person "behaves".
Here is a more abstract description of your argument: You base your judgements of fairness (whatever that is) by grouping people (by gender or race) then determing if the collective is getting a fair shake - AKA profiling.
It has this affect:
Example 1 - If a person acts like an ass, but is of a certain group that you deem to be treated unfairly (whatever that is), you look for a societal flaw in another group that justifies the assanine behaviour. And, you don't consider the person just might be an ass.
Example 2 - If I say someone is an dumb, like Al Sharpton, you look at his race and if it is different than mine you conclude that I called him an ass because of his race. Then you determine that I'm a racist and that I'm not treating him or any other person of his race equally (whatever that is). Then you project my behaviour onto every person in my group as an argument for inequality.
Example 3 - If a group has less of a tangible item (like say wealth) than another group, you determine that it is due to the system being unfair (whatever that is) or unequal (whatever that is). You disregard individuals from that group that succeed (it ruins your fairness argument), and you disregard any self-imposed flaws in the minority group that might contribute to their circumstance. You then expect the majority or controlling group to adjust to the minority, even if it requires unequal treatment (like quotas or lower standards) toward the majority (easy to do since equal or fair is whatever you want it to be).
Its the groups, not the people. Did I get it?
What rubish. Earlier I said the only defendable change since 1960 was civil rights for Blacks (I should have included Hispanics as well). I stand by that. There are plenty of individuals from any group you can conjure up (women, gays, Blacks, Hispanics, red heads, left handed people, short people, bald people, etc.) that are successful by any definition you conjure up. For example - No Blacks were protected by the law in the U.S. in 1960. No Black person had a chance to succeed in legitimate business or politics. Our criminal and civil laws were not specific to race, but were administered differently according to race. That was not right (I don't know about equal or fair). Today a Black person might have to move from their current locale due to local discrimination (there are always asses) but in the vast majority of American communities a person can pursue any path in life, within the law, and succeed of fail based on his or her own behaviour.
I suspect one of your passions is "gay marriage". I'm against it because "marriage" means a man and a woman. Has for 4000 years. I think that any two adults (very narrow minded of me... why shouldn't it be 3 or more?) should be able to designate any other person(s) as special and have that person accepted by all institutions (hospitals, tax office, banks, doctors, bill collectors, library, etc.) as readily as a spouse is accepted. I will vote to support that becoming a law in the U.S., but homosexuals have to come up with their own word for it. They can't bastardize marriage the way gay was bastardized and get my support. That seems pretty fair. Meet me in the middle. Come up with your own unused word like "gayus" (gay and nexus combined) and they will have my vote.
Q
Ye,
Why can't we all just cut the difference and say "the government ain't got no business in my bedroom". It'll solve the whole dispute. I'll be a good Protestant and realize that those whacked out Unitarians don't really have God's sanction to marry anyone, and they'll be happy (at least until judgment day) that they got what they wanted.
If two men went around saying they were married then, I could just say to them or know humbly to myself "they aren't married because only God can sanction real marriage".
And this will all work out so long as the government does not actively interfere with wills and other private arrangements that a man (or woman) could just as easily do for his (her) brother (sister) as for his (you get the point) lover.
As for those who just really really see the government as a legitimizing factor in marriage, I suppose they'll have to lose out.
Nog
Lucy,
I like blogging because it enables interaction with people that otherwise wouldn't occur.
I dislike blogging because the same discourse that takes days on a blog would be 20 mins over a cup of coffee.
I dislike blogging because there is no body language, limited inflection, no eye contact, limited tone, etc.
As usual my written words look more harsh than they would sound when softened by inflection, grins, hand movement, posture, etc. (I'm actually an accomplished public speaker - motivational speaker if you can believe that).
As usual it seems we have come to a dead end:
You seem to be seeking ideals (to me, by default, ideals are humanly unachievable). Things that I think are too complex for us to understand much less manage. Things that require sweeping changes to all apsects of societies.
While I'm seeking to prevent sweeping changes that I consider to be misguided experiments, tha will not only with my life, but the lives of my children and grand children.
As usual, I completely disagree with you views, assessments, logic, and ambitions. While, I admire your motivation and rigor.
Best Regards,
Q
I am always happy to agree to disagree Q and i do actively seek out those with an an opposing view to me, not to try and convert them but to try and see the logic in their arguments. We have both failed to see each others logic as we have done before and there is nothing wrong with that. No harm can be done by us failing to agree
and we will both go away believeing that the other one was completely wrong on everything they said.
I do think that for most of the above debate we had our eyes on different things though. I was looking at a wider angle than you who was looking more individually which in a way sums up the difference between the left and the right perfectly.
Post a Comment