Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't always see blind either. If a blind person doesn't have their cane with them and doesn't wear sunglasses, there is nothing that necessarily clues people in. And the same analogy can be made with deafness, which is often invisible.
I can attest to the deafness issue. My eldest son is completely deaf in one ear and nearly deaf in the other. If he's not looking directly at you, he doesn't know you're talking to him. We had an issue with that recently when a neighbor complained he didn't reply when she asked a question about our dog. I had to send an email to the entire neighborhood explaining that, if anyone wants to talk to him, they have to get his attention first and then speak clearly and loudly.
Um, you do know the meaning of marriage has changed countless times throughout history right?
And where did you get the definition of marriage only being one man and one woman? Who has the authority to define words and ban their change?
In this particular case, with Congress having no authority to act, the authority to give legal specificity to the definition of "marriage" is reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the individual states and the people.
I couldn't get past page six with all the stupid hateful babble being thrown about. The anti-gay side often brings flack that they deserve. Not as a whole group, of course, but you posters know who you are. Must be great to live in ignorance using it to treat others like dirt. Wonder how much embarrassment God feels by how these posters speak and act?
(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.
Willful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
Good and decent people in Canada and elsewhere are dragged into court for expressing disapproval of homosexuality. There, they have to prove themselves innocent of not crossing a highly subjective and poorly defined line between protected religious or private speech and publicly promoting hate (whatever that means) of an identifiable group.
"Homosexuality IS normal for some, and we are not wrong. Nobody is going to change YOUR definition of marriage and family...It will have no effect whatsoever on you or your family."
What is normal cannot be one thing for one group and something else for another unless the word has no meaning. You also cannot change the meaning of the word marriage which is currently defined as a union between one man and one woman to include same sex unions without changing the meaning of that word. Taking the meaning away from the word "normal" and redefining "marriage" is the means by which gays hope to co-opt the normalcy and respectability provided by marriage to the detriment of those who have built their lives and most treasured personal relationships around the institution which is defined by that word.
Nice cherry picking...You missed a bit regarding the Canadian hate crime laws...
Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to that list.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.
From one of your other links...
CALGARY — Darren Lund was shocked when he first read a letter five years ago in an Alberta newspaper written by a local pastor who urged people to “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness” of the “homosexual machine.”
Two weeks later, the former Red Deer high-school teacher and now university professor was devastated to hear the news: A 17-year-old local gay youth was followed home and asked, “You’re a ******, right?” before allegedly being beaten by another young man.
I totally agree with Canada's hate crime laws....There is no legitimate place for hate in a modern society...Or for bigots either.
Who is "our"? The majority of the civilized 1st world is far ahead of the United States on this front, so I'm assuming our = the US?
44 years ago the US considered interracial marriage immoral and indecent (in fact, according to latest polls in Mississippi, many people still do).
Do you have the polling data from forty-four years ago, or do you simply make up "facts" as needed to support your argument?
The latest poll conducted in Mississippi was done by a leftist hack (Tom Jensen at PPP) and asked questions about conservative political figures to establish conservative credentials then asked only one other question. Yep, you guessed it.
The intent to paint conservatives as racist isn't new and is obvious in this case. I give Tom a B+ for creativity.
With Bush out of the picture, I guess racism will be the big issue for liberals in 2012 since they can't mention continuing/expanded/new/illegal/unconstitutional wars, GITMO, Patriot Act, rendition, housing market, trade deficits, deficit spending, employment, illegal immigration, nuclear Iran, foreign oil dependency, $4/gal gasoline or the skyrocketing cost of basic living expenses. In fact, without the racist/sexist/homophobic strawman to run against, I can't think of a single issue that would be safe for liberals to discuss. Can you?
As for the rest of the civilized world being ahead of us on gay marriage, that doesn't mean they're correct or that we will ultimately follow them. They're also ahead of us on deficit spending and pending insolvency. So what? Should we continue unwise policies because Europe does it? If Britain and France jumped off a cliff, should America follow?
Do you have the polling data from forty-four years ago, or do you simply make up "facts" as needed to support your argument?
The latest poll conducted in Mississippi was done by a leftist hack (Tom Jensen at PPP) and asked questions about conservative political figures to establish conservative credentials then asked only one other question. Yep, you guessed it.
The intent to paint conservatives as racist isn't new and is obvious in this case. I give Tom a B+ for creativity.
With Bush out of the picture, I guess racism will be the big issue for liberals in 2012 since they can't mention continuing/expanded/new/illegal/unconstitutional wars, GITMO, Patriot Act, rendition, housing market, trade deficits, deficit spending, employment, illegal immigration, nuclear Iran, foreign oil dependency, $4/gal gasoline or the skyrocketing cost of basic living expenses. In fact, without the racist/sexist/homophobic strawman to run against, I can't think of a single issue that would be safe for liberals to discuss. Can you?
As for the rest of the civilized world being ahead of us on gay marriage, that doesn't mean they're correct or that we will ultimately follow them. They're also ahead of us on deficit spending and pending insolvency. So what? Should we continue unwise policies because Europe does it? If Britain and France jumped off a cliff, should America follow?
There is absolutely nothing unwise about allowing gay marriage.
Nice cherry picking...You missed a bit regarding the Canadian hate crime laws...
Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to that list.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.
From one of your other links...
CALGARY — Darren Lund was shocked when he first read a letter five years ago in an Alberta newspaper written by a local pastor who urged people to “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness” of the “homosexual machine.”
Two weeks later, the former Red Deer high-school teacher and now university professor was devastated to hear the news: A 17-year-old local gay youth was followed home and asked, “You’re a ******, right?” before allegedly being beaten by another young man.
I totally agree with Canada's hate crime laws....There is no legitimate place for hate in a modern society...Or for bigots either.
True according to whom?
In good faith by what standard?
Thought police are fine for the sheep up in Canada, but here in the US, most people insist Big Brother not watch them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
