Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[Vanni Fucci]

...and then there's this...

Bestiality
160. (1) Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Compelling the commission of bestiality
(2) Every person who compels another to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bestiality in presence of or by child
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), every person who, in the presence of a person under the age of fourteen years, commits bestiality or who incites a person under the age of fourteen years to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 160; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.

...so that should take care of the people wanting to marry their pets, as it would not be possible to legally consummate the marriage without breaking the law...

 

[tibear]

First Reverend, you claim that the difference between homosexuality and the other relationships is choice. That their sexual orientation is something that someone is born with rather than something they choose. There has been much research in the last 20-30 years with regard to this and there does seem to be evidence of that. However, after saying that is not paedophelia or even beastiality a type of sexual orientation.

You're going to tell me that paedophelia is more about control than sex and for some it is. However, for some they are simply attracted to teenagers. If your arguement to support homosexuals is that they are normal because they were born attracted to their same gender shouldn't you also also then say the paedophiles are also normal because they are born attracted to teenagers rather than adults??

I find it funny when people call paedophiles or people who are into beastiality as "sick individuals" or "not normal", isn't this what society said of homosexuals some 20-30 years ago??

Vanni, please don't start quoting the laws of the land because that is what the whole debate is about. Are the current laws valid?? SSM is still illegal in some provinces in this country and at the federal level, does this mean that the lower courts are wrong to strike them down?? Just as SSM was against the law in say BC and was struck down in the lower courts, couldn't polygamy also be struck down in those same lower courts if they are deemed as going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Or somehow because you deem polygamy or incest or paedophelia or beastiality as "sick and demented" that the courts don't have the right then to strike those laws down.

The whole debate is about whether SSM should be made legal AND what would be the ramifications as a result of the change in law.

 

[tibear]

First Reverend, you claim that the difference between homosexuality and the other relationships is choice. That their sexual orientation is something that someone is born with rather than something they choose. There has been much research in the last 20-30 years with regard to this and there does seem to be evidence of that. However, after saying that is not paedophelia or even beastiality a type of sexual orientation.

You're going to tell me that paedophelia is more about control than sex and for some it is. However, for some they are simply attracted to teenagers. If your arguement to support homosexuals is that they are normal because they were born attracted to their same gender shouldn't you also also then say the paedophiles are also normal because they are born attracted to teenagers rather than adults??

I find it funny when people call paedophiles or people who are into beastiality as "sick individuals" or "not normal", isn't this what society said of homosexuals some 20-30 years ago??

Vanni, please don't start quoting the laws of the land because that is what the whole debate is about. Are the current laws valid?? SSM is still illegal in some provinces in this country and at the federal level, does this mean that the lower courts are wrong to strike them down?? Just as SSM was against the law in say BC and was struck down in the lower courts, couldn't polygamy also be struck down in those same lower courts if they are deemed as going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Or somehow because you deem polygamy or incest or paedophelia or beastiality as "sick and demented" that the courts don't have the right then to strike those laws down.

The whole debate is about whether SSM should be made legal AND what would be the ramifications as a result of the change in law.

 

[tibear]

First Reverend, you claim that the difference between homosexuality and the other relationships is choice. That their sexual orientation is something that someone is born with rather than something they choose. There has been much research in the last 20-30 years with regard to this and there does seem to be evidence of that. However, after saying that is not paedophelia or even beastiality a type of sexual orientation.

You're going to tell me that paedophelia is more about control than sex and for some it is. However, for some they are simply attracted to teenagers. If your arguement to support homosexuals is that they are normal because they were born attracted to their same gender shouldn't you also also then say the paedophiles are also normal because they are born attracted to teenagers rather than adults??

I find it funny when people call paedophiles or people who are into beastiality as "sick individuals" or "not normal", isn't this what society said of homosexuals some 20-30 years ago??

Vanni, please don't start quoting the laws of the land because that is what the whole debate is about. Are the current laws valid?? SSM is still illegal in some provinces in this country and at the federal level, does this mean that the lower courts are wrong to strike them down?? Just as SSM was against the law in say BC and was struck down in the lower courts, couldn't polygamy also be struck down in those same lower courts if they are deemed as going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Or somehow because you deem polygamy or incest or paedophelia or beastiality as "sick and demented" that the courts don't have the right then to strike those laws down.

The whole debate is about whether SSM should be made legal AND what would be the ramifications as a result of the change in law.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity.

Are you 100% sure on this?

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity.

Are you 100% sure on this?

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity.

Are you 100% sure on this?

 

[Reverend Blair]

However, after saying that is not paedophelia or even beastiality a type of sexual orientation.

No. All of the credible scientific evidence shows that people are not born paedophiles. It is a learned behaviour, often because the paedophile has been abused themselves. The prevalence of what you are calling "teen paedophilia" (not a scientific term, btw) has some very strong connections to societal norms. We advertise the perfect woman as being young, extremely thin etc. The attributes that advertisers push as the ideal are actually the hallmarks of a girl just entering puberty.

 

[Reverend Blair]

However, after saying that is not paedophelia or even beastiality a type of sexual orientation.

No. All of the credible scientific evidence shows that people are not born paedophiles. It is a learned behaviour, often because the paedophile has been abused themselves. The prevalence of what you are calling "teen paedophilia" (not a scientific term, btw) has some very strong connections to societal norms. We advertise the perfect woman as being young, extremely thin etc. The attributes that advertisers push as the ideal are actually the hallmarks of a girl just entering puberty.

 

[Reverend Blair]

However, after saying that is not paedophelia or even beastiality a type of sexual orientation.

No. All of the credible scientific evidence shows that people are not born paedophiles. It is a learned behaviour, often because the paedophile has been abused themselves. The prevalence of what you are calling "teen paedophilia" (not a scientific term, btw) has some very strong connections to societal norms. We advertise the perfect woman as being young, extremely thin etc. The attributes that advertisers push as the ideal are actually the hallmarks of a girl just entering puberty.

 

[peapod]

"they are born attracted to teenagers rather than adults?? "

Why do you keep saying that?? Where do you get the information that paedophiles are only attracted to "teenagers" I bet that most of the victims are not teenagers.

Why do you keep stringing homosexualilty with paedophiles and incest. Thats a little bit if a "national enquirier" tactic is it not??

 

[peapod]

"they are born attracted to teenagers rather than adults?? "

Why do you keep saying that?? Where do you get the information that paedophiles are only attracted to "teenagers" I bet that most of the victims are not teenagers.

Why do you keep stringing homosexualilty with paedophiles and incest. Thats a little bit if a "national enquirier" tactic is it not??

 

[peapod]

"they are born attracted to teenagers rather than adults?? "

Why do you keep saying that?? Where do you get the information that paedophiles are only attracted to "teenagers" I bet that most of the victims are not teenagers.

Why do you keep stringing homosexualilty with paedophiles and incest. Thats a little bit if a "national enquirier" tactic is it not??

 

[tibear]

peapod,

I never said that all paedophiles are attracted only to teenagers. I use the term "teenage paedophiles" to differentiate between those who are attracted to young children and those who are attracted to older children.(Those where there may debate as to whether they could give consent to the relationship.)

Just as SSM proponents equate heterosexuals and homosexuals, I've taken the discussion to the next level and included all the various sexual orientations(paedophile, beastiality(although not a valid point in this discussion)) and included other relationships (incest and polygamy) because the SSM is being debated on a human rights standpoint and virtually every legal mind agrees that the reason polygamy is not being prosecuted in this country is because it wouldn't stand up to a Charter challenge.

Former BC attorney-general Geoff Plant, gave some thought to prosecuting polygamy cases in 1992 when police recommended that two Bountiful men be charged with polygamy. But the crown attorney's office declined to do so, following legal advice that conviction was impossible because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms renders the law against polygamy unconstitutional.

In fact, the best evidence that SSM may lead to polygamy is the fact that the government is currently investigating the whole polygamy issue. If the Liberal government didn't think the polygamists would be using the SSM to strengthen their case they wouldn't be looking the matter.

 

[tibear]

peapod,

I never said that all paedophiles are attracted only to teenagers. I use the term "teenage paedophiles" to differentiate between those who are attracted to young children and those who are attracted to older children.(Those where there may debate as to whether they could give consent to the relationship.)

Just as SSM proponents equate heterosexuals and homosexuals, I've taken the discussion to the next level and included all the various sexual orientations(paedophile, beastiality(although not a valid point in this discussion)) and included other relationships (incest and polygamy) because the SSM is being debated on a human rights standpoint and virtually every legal mind agrees that the reason polygamy is not being prosecuted in this country is because it wouldn't stand up to a Charter challenge.

Former BC attorney-general Geoff Plant, gave some thought to prosecuting polygamy cases in 1992 when police recommended that two Bountiful men be charged with polygamy. But the crown attorney's office declined to do so, following legal advice that conviction was impossible because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms renders the law against polygamy unconstitutional.

In fact, the best evidence that SSM may lead to polygamy is the fact that the government is currently investigating the whole polygamy issue. If the Liberal government didn't think the polygamists would be using the SSM to strengthen their case they wouldn't be looking the matter.

 

[tibear]

peapod,

I never said that all paedophiles are attracted only to teenagers. I use the term "teenage paedophiles" to differentiate between those who are attracted to young children and those who are attracted to older children.(Those where there may debate as to whether they could give consent to the relationship.)

Just as SSM proponents equate heterosexuals and homosexuals, I've taken the discussion to the next level and included all the various sexual orientations(paedophile, beastiality(although not a valid point in this discussion)) and included other relationships (incest and polygamy) because the SSM is being debated on a human rights standpoint and virtually every legal mind agrees that the reason polygamy is not being prosecuted in this country is because it wouldn't stand up to a Charter challenge.

Former BC attorney-general Geoff Plant, gave some thought to prosecuting polygamy cases in 1992 when police recommended that two Bountiful men be charged with polygamy. But the crown attorney's office declined to do so, following legal advice that conviction was impossible because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms renders the law against polygamy unconstitutional.

In fact, the best evidence that SSM may lead to polygamy is the fact that the government is currently investigating the whole polygamy issue. If the Liberal government didn't think the polygamists would be using the SSM to strengthen their case they wouldn't be looking the matter.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

You aren;t taking it to the next level, tibear. You are muddying the issue by bringing in unrelated subjects. The only relationship same sex marriage has to polygamy or paedophilia is the ties opponents of same-sex marriage try to draw between them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

You aren;t taking it to the next level, tibear. You are muddying the issue by bringing in unrelated subjects. The only relationship same sex marriage has to polygamy or paedophilia is the ties opponents of same-sex marriage try to draw between them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

You aren;t taking it to the next level, tibear. You are muddying the issue by bringing in unrelated subjects. The only relationship same sex marriage has to polygamy or paedophilia is the ties opponents of same-sex marriage try to draw between them.

 

[tibear]

I thought the whole debate regarding SSM had to do with the fact that consenting people could do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt others. SSM proponents claim they have been denied equal rights because their relationships are not equal to heterosexual couples. I'm simply making the exact same arguement for these other relationships.

Are they are a different moral level than SSM, our society seems to be in agreement that they are. However, how does take away from the human rights arguement??

Again, I've been asked the question, "How does a SSM affect your marriage or your life in general?" To those people that ask this question I ask, "How does an adult polygamous or incestuous marriage affect your marriage or your life in general??"

I'll give the same answer that you give to my question.

I'm putting forward the question are these not all human rights issues??? If they aren't please show me the fault in my logic. Remember can't say the others are illegal because legality is not the question. All of these relationships weren't legal in Canada.