Outrageous! Teacher fired....

[Fallen]TSB · Post by **[Fallen]TSB** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:43 am

see sure I could send my kid to a Catholic school, or a Christian school but the way things are going if they dont teach that stuff then they might be in over there heads with people getting mad.. you have one gay student or mother or father that wants "Gay" in the class room.. school says no then they are doing a hate crime against gays..

Even the Catholic schools can't stop gay students from going there because if they said no it would be a hate crime... in fact it is that way for a lot of places... Catholic school can't do much of anything to stop this and if they try it just gets worse for them.......

example

Ontario- Sept 25/03 an early prom was held this year for the in lew of one supposed to be last June. St. Clair Catholic school board has been FORCED to rehold a prom for the 3 homosexuals in the school even though the Catholic Church is admament against homosexuality.

see there was gay students at this catholic school and they even got their own prom...

even the church and schools are not safe with this one...

and for the record I to think that gay people are not bad people I am just a little worried about all of this...

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:53 am

...see sure I could send my kid to a Catholic school, or a Christian school but the way things are going if they dont teach that stuff then they might be in over there heads with people getting mad...

...see there was gay students at this catholic school and they even got their own prom...

I'm not saying that the system as it is now is perfect, I'm saying how I think it should be.
I said myself that this prom thing was a load of BS, the govenment should
have no right to interfere with this school at this level. Also, the article was pretty vague on how exactly they were forced (maybe someone could link to the whole thing). Now if it was some gay kids catholic parents (or the kids themselves) who asked the school for this prom and the school agreed, then that's the schools problem. They should have dealt with the situation better if they didn't want it to happen. If a govenment official stepped in and made them do it, then there is a problem.

On the other hand, there is a good argument for why it would be ok for the government to interfere here, and that's because the catholic schools take money from the government. If they don't want to be told what to do, they shouldn't take the money.

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:05 am

Just incase you were wondering...

Who can be convicted under Section 319? (Note. Sect 319 is the part of the criminal code which bill C-250 will modify)
If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.
If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted.
However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity.
A person could not be convicted if:

The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

If the person can establish that the statements made are true.

If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would exempt clergypersons from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid...

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:12 am

1. I totally agree with John and everyone else about the prom thing: it was ridiculous, but the government can do so because the Catholic school system does take money from the government. You may not like it, but thats the fact.

2. Yes, there are absolutes in this world. I think that morals are one of those major absolutes. That does not mean that religion is automatically associated with said morals. Religion is commonly associated with morality because it has been a major propenent of morals (in one form or another) through the years. That does not mean that morals cant exist without religion. Take me for example. I am not religious at all. I have no use for religion (a discussion for another time), but Im still a moral person. You can argue that I got my morals from my church going years, but If thats the case, why do I still follow them now? I certainly dont go to church, or think much of it? The fact of the matter is that morals and church are separate ideas, which leads into the next point.

3. The justice system is designed to ensure that morals, the collective morality of the society, is upheld. Nowhere is religion involved.

I could make a few more points but Im tired as shit. I'll fix this schpiel up tommorow after class, until then dont base too many counter-arguments off of this, since it WILL be changed to be more coherent and concise.

Its 2 AM, im running off an hours sleep, goodnight.

[Fallen]Thanatos · Post by **[Fallen]Thanatos** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 4:47 am

OK. so if this goes through, does a Paster still have the right to choose if he/she is going to wed the two people..

What im saying is that as of now a Paster can refuse to wed two people. Now it this law comes into affect does that mean the the Paster has no choice in the matter and is forced by the government to wed the tow people under god?

If this is true i could see a major problem accering.

My oppinion is that, whatever way you wana swing its up to you. Just done through it in my face and make a big deal about it. Now whats happening with the whole prom thing is totaly rediculis. They are herting themselfs more then helping by making this such a big thing. They dont want to be singled out but then they make the school hold a only gay prom?

Now this "second" gay prom is being descrimatoy against "straight" people. I see a long and wided debate on this.

This whole story reminds me of that female golfer that wanted to play on the mens pro tour. She got her wish when she put it throught the corts and said that it was sexsest that she was not alowed on the mens pro tour.

Now, if she is alowd to play on the mens pro tour why is it that a man is still not alowed to play on the female pro tour. Hell if a man is not good anuff to play on the mens pro tour, then why not just try out for the womans pro tour?

Guys this is all crap!! i tell ya the worst type of persion to be nowadays ia a "White male cocasion" we get the shaft in everything!.

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:30 am

I believe the "man playing the women's tour" golf thing is a matter of pride.

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:36 pm

OK. so if this goes through, does a Paster still have the right to choose if he/she is going to wed the two people..

What im saying is that as of now a Paster can refuse to wed two people. Now it this law comes into affect does that mean the the Paster has no choice in the matter and is forced by the government to wed the tow people under god?

I don't think that is in question, a Pastor always has the right to refuse to perform a wedding, even if it is two heterosexual people. Even if Gay marriage becomes legal that still dosen't mean that any church has to perform the service, it just means that if they do perform said service the government will recognise the union (and all that comes with that, ie. tax breaks and the like).

I believe the "man playing the women's tour" golf thing is a matter of pride.

Yah, I don't think that anyone would want to be the one guy playing with the girls. (Well, unless...you know...

)

[Fallen]Thanatos · Post by **[Fallen]Thanatos** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 4:13 pm

Ya but if ya think about it, if the guys all tryed out for the womans tour then there would be no women left in it. There would be two mens tours.

I hate to say it girls but the guys are better at golf.

Tempus · Post by **Tempus** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:50 pm

alright obviously you guys are uninformed on the paster thing let me fill you in

My uncle is a paster for the Presbiterian church (sp?) HE IS BEING SUED FOR NOT MARRYING 2 GAY PEOPLE. This is my uncle here people, living in montreal (leave it to the french people... dont get me started....)

NOT only are they suing him personally but the church as well for discrimination. There has been NO hoop-la over this because the gov't is PRO gay and thus the press follows the govt. I mean did any of you guys hear about this case? I didnt until last time he visited.

This sets up very dangerous presendent (sp?) because that means that Raven, TSB and myself could be charged for discrimination right now because we are EXPRESSING our own opinion. (note: NONE of us are bashing the people... Like Raven said sin is sin...)

and for another thing who else in this country is able to say "i am inclined this way and you hate me if you dont agree" case in point anyone with religious leanings!

we cannot say that we disapprove of homosexuality because we are religiously inclined.... no of course not! we are haters and bashers then
heaven forbid that anyone with a religious bent (of any kind) would be able to express what was writen and has founded many countries (the Bible).

On that note did you know that.... if the gays were to walk into a church on sunday that they were preaching from leviticus 18:23 "a man must NEVER practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." that they are haters? Right NOW IN CANADA you can be jailed for this. I kid you not and the reason as follows. A lower court has ruled that this 'hate' crime warrents jail time. Although it is a lower court and the appeal is pending, the presedent is there folks. I dont know how familiar you are wiht the justice system in canada but once something falls in the gray area like this it is punishable until the ruling is overturned. You can spend years in jail for something they later deem as acceptable. Welcome to Canadian law....

YET we are not haters when we say do not lie, do not cheat on your wife (when was the last time you were called a common-law basher?????)
(note my favorite uncle is gay... doesnt mean that i dont like the people... hell a lot of them have better taste in fashion then i do... i just dont like what they do... very similiar to anyone who does drugs or has premartial sex [matt :-)

] yet why is it that gays have the right to persecute us for our own thoughts?)

You who think that what i talk about wont happen to the church, OPEN YOUR EYES your blind if you dont see this one comming. The homosexual agenda hates the church and when (not IF but WHEN) it gets a legal leg up the surpression of the church begins. This is scary thing here folks... it doesnt take long at that rate before people all over are being surpressed

and on the note of democracy... since when was it a rule by the few? majority shows that they are not in favor of many things. But yet 'democracy' votes in favor of the lesser represented groups (like Affirmative action) while not all of these are a bad thing, it opens the flood gates for the majority (which for the most part seems to be the SILENT majority in canada) to be steam rolled.

Food for thought, as a history/poly sci major I have come across some vrey interesting info (as any of you would in your respective majors) ... did you know that EVERY civiliation with OUT FAIL that has adopted homosexuality into main stream has either been OBLITERATED or is so far down the line (in terms of world standing) that they arent even considdered anymore...
just some food for thought

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:25 pm

While I sympathize with you and your uncle, I still stand in favour of this bill. I agree that its ludicrous that he and the church are getting sued, it was his choice not to wed them, I imagine it will get thrown out of court. However, you keep coming back to the religious aspect of this debate, which shouldnt be involved at all. CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE!

This bill is not about religious beliefs, its about descrimination. You can argue that this debate is all about religion, but I disagree, since thats just opening a whole other can of worms.

In regards to this:

On that note did you know that.... if the gays were to walk into a church on sunday that they were preaching from leviticus 18:23 "a man must NEVER practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." that they are haters? Right NOW IN CANADA you can be jailed for this.

Thats well and good, but its wrong. Under the law:

A person could not be convicted if: ...

If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would exempt clergypersons from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example. If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

So no, a minister or pastor or priest could not be convicted for reading that particular bible verse during a sermon.

Finally, for all those siding with religion, rember this. Judge not lest ye be judged.

I think the ten commandments hold a bit more sway than leviticus

As for the civilizations that dissappeared once they accepted homosexuality... Well, if we dont accept it, we reject it, and thus will begin to suppress it. Do you know what has happened to every civilization so far that has subjugated minorities? They dissappeared too. As has every other civilization before now. No civilization lasts forever, regardless of their treatment of Homosexuality.

[PX] Nebuchadnezzar · Post by **[PX] Nebuchadnezzar** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:04 pm

wow, conversation... um, wow. That was a good read.

[Fallen]Thanatos · Post by **[Fallen]Thanatos** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:00 pm

i just dont like what they do... very similiar to anyone who does drugs or has premartial sex [matt ]

hehe nice lol

While I sympathize with you and your uncle, I still stand in favour of this bill. I agree that its ludicrous that he and the church are getting sued, it was his choice not to wed them, I imagine it will get thrown out of court. However, you keep coming back to the religious aspect of this debate, which shouldnt be involved at all. CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE!

I agree that the church and the stare are separate ghost.

Everyone has there own opinion on Religion and I dont think of anyone different if there opinion on life and Religion differ from mine. Just as i beleave that you opinion does not differ aswell. Religion is in every country in the world, there are many different religions and all have there own "Rules" to follow. Im not saying that im the great christion but i beleave myself to be a christion. I disoby many of the "rules" in Religion but i do beleave in god.
Now what is starting to upset me the most about this whole thing is that the "gay" comunity want to be marryed in the eyes of the loard.
Now, just by being "gay" they are disobaying a direct comand form the big buy himself and liveing in sin. Now if they are marryed by a Prest, Paster, Revrend or any other figur of god then that would be considered a sin for the figur of god.
The figur of god would say that it is "OK" for theys two people to get married and that they have his/her blessing.
I beleave that this is the big reasion that many of the "figurs of god" do not want to preform this action.
I think it is ludicris that the Government is trying to make "figurs of god" marrie two "gay" people. It goes against all of what they beleave and that by doing so they would be commiting sin.

If two "gay" people want to get married, all the power to them but it would be better if they got married by a judge not a "figure of god". If they can find a "figur of god" that will marrie them then thats good for them. Forcing someone to marrie you is totaly wrong. No one in this world should be forced to do anything that goes agains there belefs.

This "gay cople that is sueing the Paster for not weding them is ludicris. It is a vilation of that pasters rites and beleafe. A paster has the rite to refuse anyone he/she beleaves is not worthy to be married in the eyes of god.

I say vote NO for this. Religin is a major part of this, even if you dont beleave in a higher power, many people do and our entire sociity is based on Religion. Many of our laws are even based on religion.

"Gays" should have rights, but not more rights the the rest of us. "Gays" should not have the right to prosicute someone for what there vews are and what they beleave. They should not have the right to force someone to do there bidding.

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:34 pm

Well Matt, I dont know where to begin with your comment. I'll start here.

Now what is starting to upset me the most about this whole thing is that the "gay" comunity want to be marryed in the eyes of the loard.

Well the first problem is that this bill has nothing to do with the legalizing of homosexual marriages. Secondly, homesexuals arent trying to get "the big guy" to OK their marriage, they want the state to recognize them. It has to do with discrimination. Also, the institution of marriage has nothing to do with god (unless your catholic). It simply creates a legal bond between two people. Don't believe me? Look up the definition of marriage according to the law. Also, if you want to get into the semantics of the bible we can do that, but I dont think you do.

Next:

"Gays" should have rights, but not more rights the the rest of us. "Gays" should not have the right to prosicute someone for what there vews are and what they beleave. They should not have the right to force someone to do there bidding.

This bill will not give homosexuals the right to force someone to do their bidding anymore than it will give Jews or Catholics to do their bidding. It merely prevents people from treating people that are openly gay in an inferior manner.

This "gay cople that is sueing the Paster for not weding them is ludicris. It is a vilation of that pasters rites and beleafe. A paster has the rite to refuse anyone he/she beleaves is not worthy to be married in the eyes of god.

I agree that a pastor can refuse to wed anyone that he or she wishes, regardless of their reasons, and Im quite sure that the judge realizes this as well. On top of that, this isnt really an issues since he is protected under the law in this bill.

If anything, most of you should be agreeing to this bill since it would protect pastors against the very thing that you are claiming will occur if it does go through. I agree that some things that have occured around this are ridiculous, but things like this occur all the time, we just never hear about it until the issue becomes of more interest to the public.

[Fallen]TSB · Post by **[Fallen]TSB** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:55 pm

CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE!

yes that is true but it is also true that they can effect each other.... so thus you have to look at the big picture not just one section..

it's like looking just out of the back car window while driving and not using the other windows and the mirrors.. when you run into someone else you cant be like oops never saw it comming...

lol not my best story. and dont use the story against me lol I just wanted something to do.....

the story is about:
you have to see everything that this will do. Even if you don't like the church it will effect the church.. and other things..

ps sorry this is a little late.. this is to ghosts post....

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:04 pm

Sure, you have to look at the big picture, but the religious beliefs of you and I have nothing to do with law (yes I realize that many of our laws are drawn from religion, just bear with me). If that were so, there would be alot of problems in the world. Laws would no longer be for the good of everyone, they would serve the largest religious group, whether it be catholic or protestant or Jewish. The last time the church had direct influence in the law-making process people such as Galileo, who contributed much to the modern way of thinking, were jailed and considered heretics. Remembe, church and state are separate for a reason. As pretty as it may be, religion has MANY MANY flaws which are an entirely different debate. The bottom line is this: Laws are for everyone, not just those who are religious. If we were to make and repeal laws based on our religious beliefs we would have an unjust society controlled by the church. I'd rather not go back to the middle ages thank you very much.