Canada's 9-11

Envoy Encore ^ | June 21, 2003 | Pete Vere

[Theosis]

I was two-hundred miles from New York City when the terrorists struck the World Trade Center. I never thought I would live throught another event that would so affect the psyche of a nation. And yet, for our American readership, this is exactly what has happened this week as Canada legalizes homosexual marriages.

I spent a good part of the evening talking to various friends from back home – friends from among the Church hierarchy as well as those within the Catholic apologetics and pro-life community. The legalization of so-called homosexual marriages is the only topic on our mind right now. For those who keep tabs on such things, you have probably noticed the personality change among all the Canadians who hang around Envoy Encore. As the shock sets in, we've transformed from our usual laid-back and fun-loving selves into a group of angry and bitter people.

Thus calling this Canada’s Moral September 11th is not melodramatic on my part. I cannot begin to explain the effect this is having on our national psyche. Unlike America which is still fighting the culture war, Canada has now crossed the Tiber back into pagan lands.

[Theosis]

"Canadians are ruly, benevolent consumers of bureaucracy. I predict....nothing will happen."

I remember my view of Americans on September 10th, 2001. I found them a warm, hospitable and friendly people, however, when it came to foreign policy they feared bloodshed and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into any global conflict. Thus their response to attacks against their interest abroad was generally to pack-up and go away. No wonder Osama bin Looney thought nothing would happen as a result of 9-11.

[longtermmemmory]

I do have knowledge and ONLY vermont has created a VERMONT ONLY fiction of domestic partners. It is NOT recognized by any other states. Specifically Connecticut and Georgia have refused to recognize it in their courts. The homosexuals tried to use the "full faith and credit" clause to FORCE other states to recognize homosexual "relations" as normal.

In summary there are NO states which recognize homosexual marriage. There are a MAJORITY of states which specificall define marriage as ONE man and ONE woman. There is a pending constitutional ammendment which will FEDERALIZE the definition.

Massachusets supreme court is trying to legalize homosexual marriage by REMOVING children from the institution of marriage. Thus marriage would be for sex and companionship not protecting children. IRONICALLY the Massachusettes legislature is going to pass a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA: a law which establishes marrige is ONE man and ONE woman) this would trump the generally leftist wacko massachusetts supreme court. (and they wonder why judges are ridiculed and held is such disregard)

The homosexual nazi's are using one of hitler's methods. Repeat a lie and they will eventually believe it. Hold enough fake marriages and the ignorant will eventually believe them.

[decimon]

As I see it, marriage has two forms; religious union and right of particular contract.

Religious denominations should be left to condone what marriages they will.

Marriage is otherwise a contract that must be sanctioned by the state. Maybe the best solution for all is to get government out of the picture to allow for more private contract.

[Grig]

In Canada, there are large blocks of voters who don't inform themselves one tiny bit about any issue. They just line up and vote the way they always voted, the way their parents voted before them etc. etc.

This, and other things happening up here have tossed a bucket of cold water those voters and woken them up to the fact that not only are the traditional parites committed to destroying society as we know it, but that self rule in Canada is largly an illusion. I think that change is in the air.

[longtermmemmory]

You are right AIDS is not a "gay" disease. The fact that 94% (per CDC) of all new cases are in homoseuxals makes it a predominantly homosexual disease. WHATEVER the reason, the VAST MAJORITY of cases have fallen into the homosexual population. Per the CDC, AIDS has only grown within those having contact with homosexual sex. (partners, needlsharinging with homosexuals,needlesharing, etc)

[weegee]

Canada's Gay Muslims Unite

[Theosis]

BIG PING!

[longtermmemmory]

94% of all new AIDS cases are in the homosexual population. The 70% number is actually low, it should be higher.

(it has become harder to coalate numbers because the cause of death is not listed on all state death certificates in order to be able to "hide" those that died from aids or aids related diseases.)

[weegee]

The public didn't even get to vote on this issue.

[gcruse]

Once again, you grossly overestimate the effect of the marriage ruling on the country. Not everyone has your beliefs.

[longtermmemmory]

No just the opposite State power HAS forced beyond toleance it has IMPOSSED ACCEPTANCE by fiat. There was no consent of the rulled only a edict passed by the unelected and unaccountable. In case you missed it, in 1776 there was the same clamor to the immoral edicts of another monarchy.

[fr_freak]

70% seems kind of high. The disease is becoming more and more heterosexual every year, But even if the 70% number is correct, so what?
In Africa, the overwhelming majority of cases are heterosexual. In the USA most cases are among gays. It depends on which category of people had the disease first in that country.

You seem to be suggesting that it was purely random chance that homosexuals in the US became the main carriers of AIDS in the US, and that if heterosexuals had gotten it first, they would be the main infected group, as in Africa. However, it seems to me that it is the behaviors in these groups that are the root cause of their infection rates rather than pure chance. US homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous, as are the heterosexuals in Africa. If they would curtail this behavior, AIDS would not spread so wildly. So, it is very important that we protect moral values as a society to prevent what is happening in places like Africa from happening here, and trashing one of the most important institutions in our society certainly isn't going to help that effort.

[ckilmer]

most of the great changes in society since WWII were wrought by judicial fiat.

[gcruse]

Paying taxes was an immoral edict? Please elaborate.

[longtermmemmory]

No, they were done by legislature which had to repair the mess made by the courts. (brown vs boad of education cause problems rather than repair.) The civil rights movement was to enforce laws NOT create them. Judiacial fiat is a new phenomenon. next time go to law school.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Uhm, if you are married and have syphilis, then only you and your wife will have it.

Dreamer. That presumes that all married people are totally faithful to each other. We all know that is not true and have no reason to believe that homosexuals will be any more faithful than heterosexuals.

In fact, I assume they will be less so because many homosexuals have made it a practice to be promiscuous with the laws as they are now. Because there is no danger of unfaithfulness being exposed through the DNA of potential offspring, there is even less restriction on the homosexual couple.

[Malsua]

>>70% seems kind of high. The disease is becoming more and more heterosexual every year, But even if the 70% number is correct, so what? <<

70% is a conservative number. It's actually a bit higher than that. Hetero infections have been decling in the past 10 years. Aids is primarily a gay male disease in the USA.

The gay agenda is to suggest that aids infects everyone so as to make funds available because everyone fears it. If the real numbers were published above the fold of the NYT, funding would plummet. This would be the worst nightmare of the aids activists.

While I'm for efforts to research a cure for aids, I hold in mind that hetero male/female marriages have nearly zero occurances of aids infections. Can you say that of gay male/male marriages? Certainly not. In fact, many gay males with aids seek marriage because one tends to have med coverage and the other seeks it.

I tend to disfavor socialist medical care for behavior induced disease. The same goes for risk takers. Do you think premiums for sky divers should be the same as non sky divers? If not why do you think medical coverage for people who engage in risky activities(Gay Males and Anal Sex) should not have the same premium.

[gcruse]

So being married is more likely to act unmarried than being unmarried. Okey, dokey.

[Mark17]

How long before it is a "hate crime" for a church to refuse to "marry" a same-sex "couple?"

I don't know, next week maybe? I have a feeling it is coming here too. Get ready for it. Not.

[supercat]

I have relatives in Edmondton/Sherwood Park. They are proudly Canadians. While sympathetic to US interests/intentions, they would probably need a few more pushes by the real loonies in Ottowa/Quebec before they'd ask to be the 51st star.

Maybe if we could give California to Mexico, the U.S. might become more attractive to Alberta and they might become our second Fiftieth Star.