"If there were any ioata of "hatred" displayed the moderator would have shut the debate down a long time ago."

- i'm considering that possibility...there is a big difference between saying you don't like to hang out with homosexuals and expressing your opinion that all homosexuals are immoral



"Am I not entitled to exercize moral judgements of my own on what kind of people I want to hang out with?"

- of course you are entitled to exercise your moral judgement in choosing your company but IMO this site is not the right place to promote your view that there is something inherently immoral about homosexuality in general...i understand and support your choice not to hang out with queers or wife swappers just as i'm sure you support my choice to avoid those extreme sports fanatics



"I have drawn moral analogy to S and M practices and scatology too. Why do you gloss over those as examples of chosen sexual behavior, just like homosexuality is?"

- are you suggesting that S&M and scatology are immoral, "just like homosexuality is"? unlike S&M, homosexuality is a natural drive in some people and courts across north america and the world are reading homosexual rights into human rights law...this is not a human rights tribunal and i am not a judge but i don't think its a good idea to promote your prejudice on a pot activism site...since you are a respected activist/politician/spokesperson of the cannabis community, maybe you should keep your homophobic opinion to yourself before the national post lifts a few juicy quotes from this thread to insinuate that emery is an enemy of human rights

I can't believe the regimented thought I am encountering here.

Geroge W, Bush has been very effective in creating a "you are with us or your against us" world.

Accept that homosexuality is "normal' or you are a homophobe, those are the opitions.

Well, no, those are not the options.

One can be a skeptic. One can question the evidence on which the all or nothing premise is laid.

There is always a price to be paid for being a skeptic and I am willing to pay that price because I know my own heart better than anybody else I suppose. There is no hatred in my heart for homosexuals. Live and let live, I have said over and over.

Do you not understand the ugliness of the parameters of the you accept this or you are one of those stigmatizations is.

I don't accept any of that.

I think it is possible to make the case that hetrosexual are not sick or "lesser thans" because they reject the parameters of accept us or you are against us.

The third way...I'm neither for nor against them.

"Accept that homosexuality is "normal' or you are a homophobe, those are the opitions."

- maybe it feels like george bush's false dilemma fallacy to you because there was only one option: if you think homosexuality is "immoral", then you are a homophobe


"I'm neither for nor against them."

- thats a big improvement over your previous platform on homosexuals (ie: homosexuals do not measure up to your moral code)

Neither for or against homosexuality or any other voluntary activity that I don't persoally approve of as a purpose for use of the law.

If you think homosexuality is immoral you are still within the realm of "normal" because I suggest the vast majority of hetrosexuals hold the opinion though they remain silent for fear of being stigmatized with as having abnoraml fears, which is what a phobia is.

Deciding that scat, s and m and homosexuality is immoral does not mean that I have an abnormal fear of those sexual situations, It means I find them vulgar and don't want to participate and no...none of that is "normal."

What is normal is man and women....complimentary and not opposite sexes which is another viewpoint the regimented are unlikely to comprehend.

homo-sexuals are normal....they have always been....
its not a new thing that just sprung up.and scat and s&m
have nothing to do with the homosexual picture alone..there lifestyles that both can do.

moral and abnormal are not exclusive terms...using your definition of normal, its abnormal to be a libertarian and its normal to support throwing pot growers in prison but we both know that its moral to be a libertarian and immoral to throw potgrowers in prison


saying that certain group of people are vulgar is a LOT different than saying that certain group of people are immoral...professional wrestlers and circus geeks are vulgar but that doesn't make them immoral (even though they chose to be vulgar)


Definitions of vulgar on the Web:

* coarse: lacking refinement or cultivation or taste; "he had coarse manners but a first-rate mind"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "an untutored and uncouth human being"; "an uncouth soldier--a real tough guy"; "appealing to the vulgar taste for violence"; "the vulgar display of the newly rich"
* common: of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses"


Definitions of immoral on the Web:

* deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
* base: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"
* morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior"
* bad: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life"

good southpark you can download
http://www.torrentspy.com/directory.asp?mode=torrentdetails&id=453422


follow that egg
Mrs. Garrison realizes he still has feelings for Mr. Slave. But, Mr. Slave has moved on. He plans to marry his new love as soon as the Governor signs the same-sex marriage bill. Mrs. Garrison leads the charge against gay marriage.

skellington.


70% of Americans think taking illegal drugs is immoral.

That is their value judgement. I do not agree.

And I do not wish to change their thinking to accept me into their homes and have them light my joints because I don't think there is anything wrong with smoking cannabis.

I'll be happy for them to quit persecuting drug users.

The people who believe illegal drug use is immoral are not suffering any phobias. Essentially they have the morals the government wants them to have.

All human behavior can and is judged by wo/men as moral actors.

I have never thought of Ric Flair as a "vulgar person" and circus freaks could be the nicest people too. I have never though of them as vulgar.

Punks who spit inside the bus shack are the only vulgar peesons I have bumped into as of late.

Now look at the definition of immoral.

90 to 99% of the people accept that "moral" sex is between a man an a woman. Anything else "diliberatly" violates the accepted principles of right or wrong.

To me homosexuality meets the definition of immoral because having sex with people of the same sex violates MY standard of "accepted principles of right or wrong." I think it's wrong for one man to have sex with another and I won't do it. I have exercized a moral judgement. Any man who wants sex with me will have to violently rape me. I am against the idea. The idea is so sickening to me that I would prefer to fight for my life should the occasion arise. Those are pretty strong feeling of what is right and wrong for me.

Homosexuality falls into the same "accepted principles" of right or wrong as does S and M. scatology and having sex with animals. None of those practices are "accepted principles" od mine.


Hell, we see what kind of emotional outrage takes over people when same sex marriage is the issue.

The courts had to force governments to accept it and we know where Stephen Harper and the people he represents fall on the moral scale on that one. Lots of people still tink gay marriage is immoral. They are entittled to their views too.
They would use the "degrading way of life" part of the immoral definition I'm sure.

So we all have morals. No one's morals "are superior" than anybody elses. Morality is a measure of individual actions.


To me and apparently only to me and I can live with that, men kissing men is immoral. The action goes beyond my acceptable limits.

Just because that kind of stuff makes me uncomfortable does not me I will be clamoring for a law. Two men kissing in public to me is no different than the punk spitting in the bus shack. They are both vulgar. I would prefer to witness neither.

So I did not invite the spitting punk into my life and home. Two menkissing in public, well I don't wnat to see it in public why would I invite that into my home?

To show the world what an "open minded" guy I am? I don't think so.

I have always thought the same thing about two women kissing. Supposedly, men are supposed to get off watching lesbians make out. What a waste of good woman hood are the only thoughts that go through my mind when I see that.

The last thing in the world I would want to do is jump in there. That is not to say that I would pass by an opportunity to jump in bed with two hetrosexual women. I have fantasys too. But if the women were to start fondling each other and the like...well, the blood would rush back to my brain I suppose and I would leave. I don't want to see women kissing and eating each other out any more than I need to see 2 guys doing a sixty-nine. It makes my skin crawl.

What is phobic about any of that? I am not any less of a person for not accepting homosexualty as "normal." I can't think of any argument that would go against those ingrained ideals of mine.

I think music may serve a useful comparison.

There's harmony and then there's discord. Only certain, specific vibrations can combine with other specific vibrations that produce the spectrum of harmonic and discordant reverberations known as chords, syncopated knots of sounds or not, points and counterpoints, make the journey on a carousel spinning, black, white, voodoo taboo, infinite colours burning bright, slight of hand, might of land, diverse as the ocean's grains of sand.

There are absolutes (rules?) in musical combination that are purely, mathematically derived, i.e. that are predicated upon an underlying (golden mean ratios?) arithmetical form.

The chromatic scale (8 whole and 5 half tones) is precisely chromatic because a scale represents degrees of discrimination between the "shifting" TONES, moods of mendacity between the sounds of silence, right or wrong.

It takes so many steps to reach an harmonic interval; Opperknockity only tunes once. ;->

It isn't a SUBJECTIVE judgment, as a matter of TASTE, is it?

Anchovies and blue cheese dressing are subsets of CHOICES.

Harmony is mathematical; it's DETERMINED by VOICES.

Discord is too; without CHARITY, sounding brass and tinkering cymbols.

Perhaps sexuality is like a musical instrument tuned by the scale of pleasures one's LIFE is coloured by?

Life is surely a point of TRAUMATIC enterance from BIRTH unto a counterpoint of TRAUMATIC exit uno DEATH; it has a definitive beginning and an ending.

LIVING is the CHROMA in the TRAUMA of that syncopated score.

One can project, if not interpolate that the human form is itself combinations of voices, musical incantations, the erotic timbre of the woody nymph soul.

What is LOVE but the symphony of harmony in question.

What is HATE but the cacophony of discord answered.

(1) The quintessence of the world is humanity.

(2) The quintessence of humanity is religion.

(3) The quintessence of religion is prayer.

(4) The quintessence of prayer is invocation.

(5) The quintessence of invocation is Divinity.

(6) The quintessence of Divinity is Perfection.

(7) The quintessence of Perfection is Beauty.

(8) The quintessence of Beauty is Tone.

Do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti, do!

Which brings us back to do!

The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity. ~Thomas Szasz

I am glad that StrngrInParadise started this topic to gauge the interest of the CC community in the development of Wikipedia, especially as it pertains to cannabis-related material and our involvement.

I see Wikipedia as a natural extension of the collaborative nature of the Internet, and I feel that it is a good tool to help people manage the considerable about of information and mis/information out there.

However, it now seems that this thread has turned into a platform for Chris Buors to promote his hatred of gays because he objected to a Wiki-page bio of him that referenced his negative public comments on gays.

My view is that,
* if the Wiki-page was intended to provide accurate knowledge about cannabis and about the evolution of the cannabis culture in Canada, then reference to Chris Buors' homophobic hatred of gays is completely irrelevant; however,
* if the Wiki-page was intended to provide accurate information about Chris Buors, then all his public positions are fair game for possible inclusion in the Wiki-page. Let the reader decide on their own what they think of such hatred and the man.

If people want to learn more about his public positions then they could check out his web page, which can be accessed as an External Link from the Wiki-page (as is now the situation).

On a personal note, and as a gay male that has been involved with the struggle for gay rights since the sixties, I am appalled that this thread has been permitted to become what amounts to a platform for Chris Buors' promotion of hatred against gays. Would people be as tolerant of the continuation of this thread if the target of Chris Buors' hatred was, for example, black people, or those of the Jewish faith, or other identifiable minorities?

I hope all comments responding to StrngrInParadise's original post have satisfied the initial inquiry.