Girlie-men

[Mark C.]

Hi David!

 (Yes indeed my last name is Campbell, like the soup .)

  I understand that my personal testimony can easily be dismissed as the psychological quirk that you see it to be, but I was using it to illustrate a rational point, that being the discussion of who God is.

  We all have experiences that we can claim "are from God", but in your response to my post you don't seem to understand the point that I was trying to make, or prefer to not understand.

  Your condescending and insulting advice to me "to get out and experience life" was not appreciated.  How do you know how I live my life?!  I said that I lived in a cave when I held similar spiritual beliefs to what yours are, but I have abandoned such head in the sand escapsim.

  You believe that "love" is the first prerequisite to understanding life.  Yet, you ridicule my disclosure of a very deep and personal moment  

  I understand respectful disagreement, and I have tried to treat you with polite responses, but your disingenuous responses are wearing my patience thin.

  The civil rights movement (abolition) began in the Bible believing church, and in America in the black churches ( as in the Rev, Martin L. King).

  Modernist religious thought (that rejects a literal view of the Bible) in Europe ushered in the wonderful moral relativism that created Nazi Germany and Communism!  Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot provide for those "who want to get out and look around a bit" a great testimony to how a world view that rejects the Bible (and indeed was directly hostile to it) ends up!!

  Yep, those great minds of social science, and rejectors of the Bible, managed to exterminate 9 million, 12 million, and over a million respectively, in less than a hundred years!!  Oh, can't forget our good God rejecting scientist, Mao Tse Tung:  I forget how many he slaughtered whom rejected his "progressive" views?  It doesn't matter; at least he wasn't a Bible thumper like Billy Graham!  

  Free thinking is a wonderful thing, unless it involves a belief that the Bible might be true.  At least that is what I understand your position to be.  A more honest "free thinking" expression would be to have a more humble view toward others views, and to engage in more honest conversation.

  I understand that you are reacting to your past experiences in the Assembly, but that is exactly what your responses become-- reactionary; without the love or logic that you say guides your new "progressive" view of things!

                               God Bless,  Mark C. (as in Campbell)

   

[David Mauldin]

Mark I always have had the highest regard for you. You were always an example of humility and grace to me. When trying to discuss Homosexuality it gets me upset that you posted an attack on my belief system. The Unitarians have always been at the forfront of civil liberties. Many "Christian" fundamentalist seem to forget the fundamentals.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  and in my response I seem to see Mr. Falwell instead of you. Mark, guys like you got it the worst in the assembly.  You were taken advatage of by Georges dominating spirit. I would think that after 20 years this would cause you to question a personal God who loves you and answers all your prayers.  but I want to stop this.  I would rather deal with the Gay issue.  Not me.  Please forgive me if i have offended you.

[Mark C.]

Hi David!

  I gladly receive your apology and would like to explain why your post was so offensive to me.  Pardon my impatience with your post, but I trust the following will help you understand how I received it.

  Your arguments were not against my position, but against a caricature of my beliefs.  It seemed you were consciously twisting my comments into a "I hate homosexuals" kind of position.  Though I believe it ridiculous to consider homosexuality an issue of "civil rights", I believe that God loves all sinners, including homosexuals.

  You may not understand the connection between "progressive" pseudo Christian movements that I made, and in which I place Unitarian beliefs.  It would take a large essay to make the connection between "modern" interpretations of the Bible, that reject it's authority, and how that prepared the way for Nazixm and communism.  Of course individual members can be very nice people, but it is the moral relativism, failure to recognize the distinction between good and evil, and the belief that eveyone is basically good that led to agressive evil in the 20th century, certainly not Bible believing Christians!

  The suggestion that I have my head in the sand and am some kind of unsophisticated lame brain for having faith in the Bible was the most offensive inuendo that you made.  Yes, I was snookered by GG at one time, but my present beliefs are clearly at odds with his views, as numerous posts on this BB should make evident.  The attempt to draw a comparison between myself and GG are clearly an attempt to attack me, vs. dealing with the point that I was making.

  Last, the idea that believing in the Bible is not "scientific", as you put it, was not offensive to me, just silly.  The Bible was never intended to be a scientific proof of God, though I believe it is accurate in it's record re. history and science.
  The bible is used as an archaelogical guide, due to it's proven reliability, in research.

  There is not space to go into the above issue now, but any elementary Christian apology book can handle supposed "contradictions", if one is interested.

  I would ask you David if it is not you that possibly are reacting against your Assembly time by making all of Christianity some kind of blind faith, or worse yet Elmer Gantryism!? (or a combination of the two.)  Who is the real Jesus?  Maybe you have never made this discovery?

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

[shinchy]

I fail to see how someone who restricts the marital choices of others are "good guys." I'm sure most of the posters on this BB would not see the leading brothers and GG's counsel to various members concerning whom to marry as something good. I'm sure this is seen as abusive, crossing boundaries, or better yet, a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights.

I do believe that restricting the rights of others does open it up to restrict "cherished" rights and freedoms. This is why I don't see this action as good.

Let's hear it for the good guys.  Apparently for the time being there still are sane people in government.

California high court voids same-sex marriages

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39941

Voting 5 to 2 they said the SF mayor overstepped his bounds in issuing the licenses.

No duh.

[shinchy]

Hi folks,

Here is a link to an article on the Exodus International website.  Of course, they are "one sided" in that they believe that people can have a degree of recovery from homosexuality.  

(If you disagree with certain folks, you are "one sided" and wrong.  If you agree, you are just right.)  

They do not claim that it is easy.  In fact, they acknowledge that it is very difficult.

They also believe that the degree of healing varies from individual.  Some make a complete recovery.  Others have periods of temptation. Some lapse, "fall off the wagon".

 To me, this sounds just about like the problems faced by people in all addictive behaviors.

But one thing is certain.  There are thousands of people who have rejected the homosexual life and have experienced substantial healing from its devastation.

Here's the link:

http://exodus.to/library_prevention_05.shtml


Thomas Maddux

Sorry if Exodus Int'l or other ex-gay groups have little credibility with me. Of course, there is the empirical information from various people who have been there done that. Doug Upchurch, who used to have the "Ex-Ex Gay website" was one such person.

Interestingly, the founders of Exodus Int'l did not "recover" from their homosexuality. Neither did the founder of Homosexuals Anonymous (maybe he's penitent now but his counseling practices, which often crossed the counselee's sexual boundaries, did more harm than good).

I've read this article. I've heard this type of rhetoric when I was in these groups before. Reading it now, I find it glib and chilling at the same time.

Heres' my favorite passage:

Disbelief effectively stops the change process and blocks the Holy Spirit when he attempts to reach us, to bring important life-changing messages. II Cor. 5:17 in the Amplified Bible reads, "Therefore, if any person is in Christ, the Messiah, he is a new creature altogether, a new creation; the old previous moral and spiritual condition has passed away. Behold, the fresh and new has come!"

Tell that to the guy who jumped off the Coronado bridge and whose body was found in the San Diego bay. This was someone from one of the groups I was in.

[M2]

Hi Shin,

Since you don't see homosexuality as a "moral" issue, then restricting the marital choices of gay couples can be viewed as a form of control, abusive, crossing boundaries, or a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights.  In Ottawa we had a similar issue regarding child pornography.  Someone felt that they should have the freedom and right to 'artistic expression' by producing movies and using government funds to do so (Hugh correct me on this).  I do not know what the outcome of that dilemna was, but I hope the government did the right thing they were elected to do, ie to protect and do what is best for the people.

There was a time, in the 'olden' days, when society knew that having affairs, homosexuality, and the likes is wrong.  It was usually under cover in those days.  Now-a-days everyone has the civil right to express themselves openly and freely.

It is a sad commentary indeed when the counsellors cannot effectively minister to the counsellees.  I know of a Christian couple who worked for years at a hospital and in their church counselling people on marriage issues.  Every evening they went home and could not do what they had told others to do.  They retired in their mid-60s and the wife suddenly decided that enough is enough and left her husband.  Does that invalidate their counselling??  Possibly it does, if it was 'theoretically speaking' type of counselling.  But if it was counselling from the heart and because they could relate to the dilemnas of the others, then possibly the counselling was good and could remain effective in those they counselled.

A ST-Voyager analogy.  You've probably seen the episode aired 12/2/1998 Nothing Human  -- A moral dilemma arises when the Doctor is forced to consult the specialized medical database of a Cardassian war criminal in order to save Torres' life. http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-5/voy-5idx.html
Even society recognises that they have to face 'moral' dilemnas.  Of course it is likely that the author of that episode was a narrow-minded right-wing Christian Republican.  

Marcia

[al Hartman]

     We will not reason our way to a meeting of the minds here.  Just as the continental divide splits the land in two (rain falls from heaven, and that which falls east of the divide flows east, while rain falling west of it flows west), so Jesus Christ divides the directions in which reason takes us.  The bible declares that natural man (who hasn't been born from above & therefore has not the spirit of Christ within) cannot receive or know the things of God (cannot correctly discern spiritual matters or values).

     For men loved darkness rather than light, we are told, because their deeds were evil.  This speaks not just of specific "sins," but of all their deeds, because they are performed from a sinful (rebellious against the authority of God) nature.  It is impossible for such a nature to produce anything that will please God or satisfy the requirements to enter into His presence.  Not just difficult, or nearly impossible, but utterly impossible.

     There is a great gulf fixed between righteousness & holiness (God) and unrighteousness & unholiness (man), and that monstrous chasm cannot be spanned from man's side.  God, in his great mercy and love for us, has bridged that gap by sending His only Son from His side to ours, where He took upon His own pure person all the filth and corruption that makes us odious to God, and with it the guilty verdict and death sentence that is justly ours.  Never has anyone suffered as He did, for He bore not just one man's sin, but the sin of us all.

     The natural tactic of man is to look around for someone worse than himself, so that he may say, "I'm not as bad as some people."  But God has said that all are included as being guilty under sin, and has given us His law to show what He requires of us if we are to fulfill our destiny; the purpose for which we are designed.  We were created to show forth the glory of the Lord, and therefore are required to be perfect even as God is perfect.  Who then can possibly be saved?  With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.  The law of God (His demands) was given us to demonstrate that we have not the wherewithal to fulfill it-- a schoolmaster, as it were, to show us our need of a Mediator.  That is why He placed upon Christ the uncleanness of us all, so that it could be removed from us forever and we could walk before Him in newness of life, unencumbered by our former burdens and curse.  To everyone who has received this gift of life, God has given the authority, His authority, to become the sons of God.

     It is reason that blocks our approach to Him (not that His plan is unreasonable, but that we misapply the God-given facility of reason).  How can these things be, we ask.  A dehydrated man, lost in the vastness of a desert, will not analyze the reasonableness of a cool drink offered him, but he will simply partake of it.  Because he understands the desperateness of his situation and the lifesaving value of the solution being presented to him.  But if the severity of his environment has corrupted his mind, he may turn away from his deliverer and hasten away into the very thing that is killing him.

     So it is with man apart from God:  There is no question that he is lost and perishing, except in his own mind.  For if he has bought into the lies of the spirit of this world, he will deny his peril and turn away from his Deliverer, looking instead to that which is destroying him for his "reason."  

     It is "natural" for the creature who has never experienced the divine cleansing to seek solutions in life that are "comfortable," for comfort is his most effective distraction from his doubts, fears, and the convictions of his conscience.  To admit to his needy state seems utterly uncomfortable, therefore he avoids that course.  The way of comfort is broader, offering so many more opportunities for him to interpret his situation.  The way of humility (the way of God) is so very narrow and unbending.  Ah, if only he could see through the veil of mist at the ends of those paths, for the broad way leads to a place of terrible destruction, while the narrow pathway leads to complete and glorious freedom.  But he cannot see these until it is too late to turn back.  He has only the voices in which to trust: the soft gentle one that urges the narrow way, or the loud raucous one that calls him to the broad path.

     We all hear the blaring voice of this world telling us how smart we are; how wise and clever and beautiful, when we reason our own way; when we choose the path of convenience and comfort.  But there will come a day when we will be reminded that the gentle voice was also once audible to us, saying "Come unto me and I will give you rest... learn of me... and you will find rest for your soul."  Those who have responded to that sweet voice will then be resting and rejoicing, but those who spurned it will regret having done so forever.  Call upon Him while you may...

al Hartman

[shinchy]

Hi Marcia,
I have seen the Voyager episode. I have always wondered how the war criminal program slid by with the Federation experts who programmed Voyager's database. It probabably was a very banal and bureaucratic decision. However, I can't imagine the Daystrom Institute and Starfleet Academy ignoring any rumors they heard about this doctor. Especially if there was intelligence on the doctor, which Voyager conveniently had handy (even if they were were boring order records from his hospital).

I know posts on this board have used the Nazi's as a condemnation of "moral relevance" or "non-Christian morality," however, the US more or less shook hands with these people before their involvment in WWII and they more or less stood by and did nothing while Germany annexed their neighbors and committed atrocities. How many Jewish refugees were turned back to Germany prior to the US involvment in the war?

It's easy to condemn the Germany of that era now but how many oppressive regimes have the US supported and we look the other way. Many Chileans have spoken of Pinochet as if he was a war criminal yet he was in office thanks to US help, courtesy of Kissinger. And Saddam Hussein was so convenient for the US until he became a problem.

I am failing to equate the Voyager analogy and even real world examples relevant to it with the subject of homosexuality. There were some tones of "moral outrage" inherent in the Nazi's, as it was often used as a justification to condemn "degenerate art" and they systematically threw people they found sexually offensice into concentrations camps. Many of the prisoners were released by the US and allies from those camps except for homosexuals.

The doctor was operating from a medical ethic, based largely on the Hippocratic oath and ethics developed since then. His Cardassian counterpart had no regard for them.

There was a Next Generation episode, "The Outcast," where the Enterprise interacts with the J'Naii, an androgynous, genderless people. One of these people identifies "herself" as female and "she" keeps it a secret from her fellow J'Naii. "She" is outed when her flirtations with Commander Riker becomes obvious and then she is put through a hearing where her "nature" is condemned as a perversion and "she" reprogrammed at the end, having no feelings for Riker in the end. It's implications are very clear concerning the treatment of gays with how the situation is reversed. The androgynous society, strangely enough, is quite conservative and devoid of sensuality.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68540.html

Voyager never seemed to have anything touching the issue of homosexuality. DS9 had the awkward "Rejoined" in which Jadzia Dax was reuinited with a spouse from another life, Lenara Kahn. In this life, they're both women, though in the previous live, Dax was the husband and Kahn was the wife. The taboo concerning them re-establishing a relationship was called "reassociation" and it supposedly wasn't about homosexuality but joined Trills not letting go of previous relationships. The episode seemed to imply it only concerned past spouses, but it left some wondering if Trills maintaining other types of past relationships would be considered inappropritate. For example, Jadzia Dax and later Ezri Dax, maintained a friendship with Captain Sisko and she also kept in touch with Curzon Dax's Klingon buddies. The only other manifestation of homosexuality (in recurring episodes) was the Intendant Kira's (from the parallel universe) unrequited love for Colonel Kira.

"Rejoined"
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/DS9/episode/68238.html

[shinchy]

Hi Marcia,
I do think restricting the marital choices of gay couple is "a form of control, abusive, crossing boundaries, or a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights." Often gays have been condemned for their inability to commit to relationships by people on the right in this country yet when they seek to commit, we take the tools for them to do that away from them. Maybe not every gay man or lesbian wants to have a committed relationship but they should have that option.

Our country and this glorious state of California wants to insist on some arcane notion about marriage. Of course, marriage for many millenia wasn't about love at all. The real tradition of marriage has been the consolidation of power and resources/property. Yet marriage now isn't ideally about that even though the consolidation of property still exists. If gay men want to merge their resources through the medium or marriage, why not. It's easier than the endless consultations some go through with their lawyers when they partner and not everyone can afford lawyers.

Hi Shin,

Since you don't see homosexuality as a "moral" issue, then restricting the marital choices of gay couples can be viewed as a form of control, abusive, crossing boundaries, or a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights.  In Ottawa we had a similar issue regarding child pornography.  Someone felt that they should have the freedom and right to 'artistic expression' by producing movies and using government funds to do so (Hugh correct me on this).  I do not know what the outcome of that dilemna was, but I hope the government did the right thing they were elected to do, ie to protect and do what is best for the people.

There was a time, in the 'olden' days, when society knew that having affairs, homosexuality, and the likes is wrong.  It was usually under cover in those days.  Now-a-days everyone has the civil right to express themselves openly and freely.

It is a sad commentary indeed when the counsellors cannot effectively minister to the counsellees.  I know of a Christian couple who worked for years at a hospital and in their church counselling people on marriage issues.  Every evening they went home and could not do what they had told others to do.  They retired in their mid-60s and the wife suddenly decided that enough is enough and left her husband.  Does that invalidate their counselling??  Possibly it does, if it was 'theoretically speaking' type of counselling.  But if it was counselling from the heart and because they could relate to the dilemnas of the others, then possibly the counselling was good and could remain effective in those they counselled.

A ST-Voyager analogy.  You've probably seen the episode aired 12/2/1998 Nothing Human  -- A moral dilemma arises when the Doctor is forced to consult the specialized medical database of a Cardassian war criminal in order to save Torres' life. http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-5/voy-5idx.html
Even society recognises that they have to face 'moral' dilemnas.  Of course it is likely that the author of that episode was a narrow-minded right-wing Christian Republican.  

Marcia

[M2]

Hi Shin,

The main point I was attempting to make was that homosexuality is a "moral" issue.  Child pornography is a "moral" issue no matter how much some individual would like to express their "artistic creativity" in that area.  ST-Voyager Doctor had to make a 'moral' choice regarding the Cardassian doctor and his research.

I remember the DS9 episode and, no offense to you, but I did find it "embarassing" when Jadsia Dax and Lenara Kahn carried on the way they did in the episode.

Re. marriage and commitment, I see your point.  You said, "Of course, marriage for many millenia wasn't about love at all. The real tradition of marriage has been the consolidation of power and resources/property".  Interesting observation and sometimes true.  At least male/female marriages, if not for love, have the outcome of keeping the human race going.  Even the animals know about male/female partnership among their own kind....  It is only the educated human being that enters into same sex relationships.

IMO and generally speaking, people get entangled into same sex relationships because a person of the same sex was there to meet some 'need' at a crucial point in their lives.  All girls or all boys boarding schools have a problem with this.  Circumstances lead to choices.  Choices lead to habits.  Habits lead to lifestyles.  etc...

Lord bless,
Marcia

[shinchy]

Hi Marcia,
Marriages over the millenia have had the benefit of keeping the human race going but they have also been useful in maintaining kingdoms, alliances, trades, and even economic benefits for people of various stations. Bastards*, too, are a result of heterosexuality as well. However, these people do not enjoy the benefits people from married parents have enjoyed traditionally such as inheritance, privilege, and status. The exclusion of these people is unjust even if they have been stigmatized as "illegitimate." Yet it has been practiced for quite a long time and it has been useful in maintaining order and people's estates.

I believe gays have been similarly excluded. Wealthy women routinely enjoy the right to seek healthy alimony settlements if they get divorced (whether they rate that or not) and it is an abuse of maritial rights and responsibilities. Gays don't even have the same opportunities for abuses like that. I'm not saying anyone should but if people worry that they will frivolously use their rights and priveleges, then we need to look no further. Lionel Ritchie's ex-wife can be set for life but Rosie O'Donnel can't even legally be comitted to the one she loves.

I have heard homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom. I don't understand all the reasons for it. I found an article/book review in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

*used in the more traditional meaning of the word, not the pejorative sense.

[Mark C.]

Hi Shin  ,

  I hope that you don't mind my jumping into the discussion here with some short comments.

  Christians often make big mistakes when they try to counsel folks struggling with one issue or another.

  We say un-helpful things (I say we, because I have been guilty of this too.) like: " the reason you are not 'getting the victory' over your sin is because of some spiritual/excercise of faith/yielded heart, etc. issue!"

  All this does is further convince the one needing help that they must really be defective, or missing some crucial spiritual component in their lives.  "If only I could learn the special way to see things, or take hold, I could change my heart." And," Oh God break me and give me a pure heart!" was how I spent many years in the Assembly.  

  I want to say, that though I say the above I am not against a devotional life with God, only against defining holiness as an inner perfection created via the same.; or even holding out the carrot that such perfection is possible in this life.  I know that there are verses that some will want to bring in here to contradict my opinion, and I am aware of them, but I will wait until that is done to respond to them.

  No wonder so many, having tried and failed at changing their hearts (and see tragic results like the suicide you mentioned) just decided to accept/ reject themselves the way that they are.

  Homosexuality obviously is a very strong desire, as heterosexuality is with males.  The lack of sexual desire, the bible tells us, is a special gift.  The fact of sexual desire can not be erradicated by acts of faith, prayer, bible devotions, quoting scriptures, taking the place of victory, special moments of insight, etc.

  My point in saying all this is to say: though we can not change our desires and erradicate sin in our hearts (this goes for all sexual sins) we can control our behavior; and indeed this is all the bible asks Christians to do.  An immense pressure is put on an individual if they are told they must subdue all sinful tendencies in their hearts, when it is impossible to do so.

  As Christians we often are not honest about our struggles, and think more highly of ourselves then we should.  This leads to the kind of counsel that discourages, vs. really helps.

  Jesus has died for all of our sins, but sin in our lives' will not be gone until we receive new bodies.  We are still commanded to vigourously resist yielding to sinful behaviors in this life, for these hurt others, as well as ourselves.  It is never good to be a slave to any passion, even necessary ones like eating, and as such we have to control our appetites.

  I would like to respond more re. the topic above and to the "gay marriage" issue as well, but I promised to keep it short ---- well, it is short for one of my post's!

                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

 

[shinchy]

The main point I was attempting to make was that homosexuality is a "moral" issue.  Child pornography is a "moral" issue no matter how much some individual would like to express their "artistic creativity" in that area.  ST-Voyager Doctor had to make a 'moral' choice regarding the Cardassian doctor and his research.

I remember the DS9 episode and, no offense to you, but I did find it "embarassing" when Jadsia Dax and Lenara Kahn carried on the way they did in the episode.

Hi Marcia,  
I definitely am in agreement about child pornography being wrong. It is the product of a voiceless group of people being exploited and doesn't really have any artistic merit. I don't know if there is much merit to a lot of the "legit" pornography but there has been interesting art that has used the language of pornagraphy. Enough said about that for right now.

The Cardassian doctor is a very interesting case. He has very little regards for ethics because he feels they are an obstruction to scientific discovery. I remember Dr. Crusher and a visiting neurosurgeon had a similar discussion in TNG's "Ethics" where other doctor has no problems using risky, experimental methods without regard for "human" life. Dr. Crusher's point at the end was that discovery does take place within an ethical framework and it may take a long time in the context of real, painstaking research.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68538.html

These two "visiting" doctors in Star Trek episodes are interesting examples for ethically suspect people but I don't think it really relates to sex and morality.

The one time where sex was a big issue in Voyager was when Harry Kim meets a really cute girl from the generational ship and he experiences the biological consequences of their sexual relationship("The Disease"). Then we learn from Janeway that one needed medical clearance and permission from the captain for a crew member to have intimate relations with an alien species. Apparently Kirk must have had captain's privilege because he as a much worse offender than Harry.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/documentaries/article/4955.html

On a different note, here is a Startrek.com article on the imperfect assimilations of the Borg, such as the ex-Borg like Seven, Picard/Locutus, and even the Borg Queen, which is more a list than anything els.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/documentaries/article/4955.html

[Recovering Saint]

Hi Shin,

Since you don't see homosexuality as a "moral" issue, then restricting the marital choices of gay couples can be viewed as a form of control, abusive, crossing boundaries, or a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights.  In Ottawa we had a similar issue regarding child pornography.  Someone felt that they should have the freedom and right to 'artistic expression' by producing movies and using government funds to do so (Hugh correct me on this).  I do not know what the outcome of that dilemna was, but I hope the government did the right thing they were elected to do, ie to protect and do what is best for the people.

...

Marcia

Here is a link from the stories back to 2001 that I found. The then Canadian Alliance party now merged as the Conservative Party were standing against it and some in the Liberal party were content with a partial victory saying they closed most of the loopholes.

NOTE: The links with cgi? don't seem to work right. If you copy them in the Address bar of a new window and hit enter they should work. Sorry about that.

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/26/child_porn_rule010126

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/01/18/porn2000118

This is what got the whole debate going see the article below.

B.C. court strikes down child porn possession

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/1999/01/15/porn990115

[quote from article]
Justice Duncan Shaw agreed. He ruled that possessing child pornography for private use and not for distribution was constitutional. Shaw said the charges represented a threat to privacy and freedom of expression.
[end quote]

A christian group from the US with people in Canada called Focus on the Family of Dr. James Dobson fame have an article here.

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/news/032602.html

[quote from article]

MARCH 26, 2002
 
LATEST CHILD PORN RULING AN "OUTRAGE," SAYS REID

VANCOUVER, B.C. - Focus on the Family Canada president Dr. Darrel Reid says the verdict on child pornography handed down today by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Duncan Shaw is an "outrage."

............

[end quote]
 

And very recently we have this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childporn/

[quote from article]

INDEPTH: CHILD PORN
The Supreme Court and child porn
CBC News Online | June 22, 2004

Saving children or thought control?

.............

But the bill to amend the definition of child porn died on the ledger when the 2004 election was called. During that election, Michael Briere, the killer of 10-year-old Holly Jones, admitted that his fantasies about children were fuelled by internet child porn, leading to a public outcry on the issue.

..........

[end quote]

And here we have it in Canada the current law as it now stands. The new amendment see article for details and quote below was struck down before the election was called this June 2004.

[quoting again from previous article]

Enacted July 23, 2002, Bill C-15A brought into force child exploitation laws dealing with two main issues:

1. Child pornography on the internet
Under the Criminal Code, the following are offences, and carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail:
Transmit, or send, child pornography from one person to another.
Post child pornography on a website, or link to child pornography on a website.
Export child pornography.
Possess child pornography for the purpose of exporting, making available or transmitting.

2. Using the internet to lure children

It is illegal to use the internet to communicate with a child for the purposes of committing a sexual act. This offence carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.

This legislation, in part, satisfies Canada’s commitments to a UN protocol on the rights of the child. Ratified by 192 countries (the only holdouts being the United States and Somalia), the document is known as the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

A strength of the protocol is that it prescribes consistent law to deal with child pornography across borders. This is especially important where the internet is concerned, and international boundaries become blurred.

[end quote]

Hope this clarifies things.

Hugh

[David Mauldin]

Hi Mark,  I  would like to respond to this.

 Your arguments were not against my position, but against a caricature of my beliefs.  It seemed you were consciously twisting my comments into a "I hate homosexuals" kind of position.  Though I believe it ridiculous to consider homosexuality an issue of "civil rights", I believe that God loves all sinners, including homosexuals

O.K. I know that you do not percieve your views of Homosexuals as an typical "Archie Bunker" view. Your view, of your view, is that the homosexual is a sinner, who is giving place to his sin.  Just as an alcoholic who drinks is a sinner who is giving place to his sin.   O.K. Mark I know you as a nice, fair man.  But I don't see it that way I see it as a civil rights issue.  Mark, fifty years ago an open conversation about blacks in a public place might be,  "Are blacks really human?"  Today this is absurd, yet it still goes on! Maby now it is private but it still happens.  Mark if someone were to approach you today and seriously strike up a conversation with you on the subject "are blacks really human?"  You would find it offensive.  Why because you know blacks are just like anyone else and they deserve the respect and dignity just like anyone else.  The current views about gays are no different.  Why do I feel this way so strongly.  Mark I have been a Christian.  I know what a Christian is!  A Christian is like anyone else No different! I know people who are decent and are Gay.  They deserve respect and to deny them equal status is a terrible injustice.  I believe that you are a good man and wouldn't knowingly try to hurt anyone.  I believe that fifty years from now people will look back on how Gays were treated and they will say "Man what were they thinking?"  Mark I don't want to offend you and I guess there must be a way that I can respect your views and still disagree with them. But Mark  What is it about Gays that you find threatening?  I want to know?  What?