They are value judgements.

What is art? Who decides? Well, you do. Good, bad, ugly, beauty....those are all value judgements.

So what is and is not moral is an individual value judgement.

I have opinions. Men who engage in anal sex and Women who engage in what ever it is they do just do not have the same morals as people who don't.

Vices and virtues is what we are talking about.

Adultry is immoral in my opinion. I'm 47 years old and I am single. I have never helped a Woman cheat on her husband. Leads to broken homes and confrontations with disgruntled husbands. I have drawn a moral line.

Now if I think cheating is immoral, a sin, then you can pretty well tell that I would think the same thing of women on women sex. Got a little camera in Karla Homolka prison setting where she is making love with all her dyke jailhouse buddies....I don't want to see it. Sooner watch old reruns of Debbie does Dallas or Deepthroat.

Teens spitting inside the bus shacks is disgusting. Two women kissing in public, well, I don't need to see that. It disgusts me. I can barely stand seeing heterosexuals groping each other in public....like get a room.

What is a homophobe? Is the opposite a Heterophobe?

Because you are making it sound like I have a disease or something wrong with me when the vast majority of planet earth's heterophobes feel exactly like I do.


I don't deny there are 1 to 2 % of the population who are other than Heterosexual.

My argument is that there are shades of grey.

You along with all the other politcally correct offer two choice. Accpet homosexuality as normal or you are a homophobe.

So you see, there is a neutral position to be able to take.

I am a neutrophobe. Anybody can make up psychiatric sounding words to make it seem like you have something.

Politics and morality are in fact the only realms psychaitry deals in. There is nothing wrong with my morals.

To me, it's like dealing with devoutly religious people.

I have no Jehovah's witnesses on my social circle, no church goers whatsoever. Over time, I have surrounded myself with atheists. Those are the birds I flock with.

That does not mean I hate Jehovah's or any other religions. I just think the religiously inclined mis-guided. Just like I think man on man and women on women love is mis-guided. And lets not forget that homosexuality was not only a mental illness but a crime in 1973.

Intersting how it is that you would send me to see a psychiatrist to work these things out.

Isn't that the profession that claimed homosexauls were mentally ill not so long ago?

And you know what Chris, psychiatry works all sides of the street, latent homosexualilty is still a mental illness, just in case your not sure I suppose.


I'll put it to you this way Chris. When I heard "Church of the Universe." That was it that's all I needed to hear. Church of anything gives me the willies. I didn't know what the Church stood for and I still don't know and I don't want to know. People who go to church scare me.

Alas, I suffer from religiphobia too. I just decided when I was 14 that all religions were full of shit to put it bluntly and I have no respect for people who believe in god or gods or the supernatural in any form. Your a witch, that's nice, see you later.

The world is just too full of people just like me that I have no trouble finding to chum with.

I don't believe I'll be changing any time soon.

Once more, have a look at the letters I wrote on behalf of Andre Boisclair. I don't care what the mans sexuality is, he needed defending on his reasons for personal drug use. So I did my best to score him a point.

I don't think I have personally insulted anybody. I'm sure homosexuals are repulsed by things that go beyond their moral comfort level too.

So, like I said, I wouldn't turn anybody away from the compassion club just because they were gay. That is unimportant to me. But if you want to be my friend, get in close to discus, life, love, politics sex and religion like I say. I have a problem accepting that the individual I'm talking to relates to his boyfriend when I talking about women and the things I'd like to do with them in pprivate. There ain't going to be no two way street rapport. I want to hear about eating pussy from my close personal friends, I don't want to be hearing about sucking cock.

Now those are the kinds of things I talk about when I get together with my close personal friends.

Why should I or anybody not comfortable with listening to or watching homosexual acts want to put ourselves in a position where exactly that may occur? These girls who kiss each other at the Bar. I don't invite them in my life either. What the fuck would we have to talk about?

I don't want to have sex with women I know have sex with other women either. That is another moral line I draw.

I know everybody hates the word, but none of that seems normal to me. And I don't have to accept homosexuality as normal. Heterosexual is normal, homosexuals are the diviants. That's what the science books would say.

"Because you are making it sound like I have a disease or something wrong with me when the vast majority of planet earth's heterophobes feel exactly like I do.... Heterosexual is normal, homosexuals are the diviants."

Kook.

"Heterosexual is normal, homosexuals are the diviants. That's what the science books would say. "

Homosexual behavior is spread throughout the natural world, homosexuality is recorded cross culturaly and throughout history. for homosexuality to occur in any society is normal. You are a simpleton and a homophobe. You have only further discredited yourself.

"I'll put it to you this way Chris. When I heard "Church of the Universe." That was it that's all I needed to hear. Church of anything gives me the willies. I didn't know what the Church stood for and I still don't know and I don't want to know."

Glad to hear you put me in one of your pigeon holes as well. You are a ignorant biggot.

).( is about right.

Everybody is an ignorant bigot to the next guy over.


How many religions you figure there are? A couple of thousand?

I have no interest in learning about any of them.

All I need to know is that repeal was the agenda.

I can't read anything by Chris Buors that is prejudicial. Its ok if other people's lifestyle 'disgusts' a person. You're allowed to be disgusted. repulsed even. We all are at various things.

Chris Buors wouldn't legislate based on his favour or disgust though. That is the 100% litmus test of values.

Is Chris reasonable in his dealing with others? Can he advocate legitimately for others in the cannabis culture while being repulsed at 'homosexuality' as a concept? Of course he can.

There are many people I believe must be idiots to be believers in religion, but in no way reflects a prejudice towards them. When confronted with their ideas, I am often repulsed, but I do not seek to circumscribe the religious. I want to alternation imposed on their lifestyle. I believe they must be afforded the same options, tolerance and freedoms as all. But this doesn't indicate that because someone's autonomy ought to be protected, you can condone all sorts of weird-ass behaviours.

I can't figure out why Chris Buors gets this scrutiny (although I think Chris B likes it...)

No one who is as bigoted as Chris Buors will ever represent me. Ever.
How can you state that he would advocate legitimately when he has clearly stated in other threads that he discriminated in his distribution methods to innocent cannabis users based on his immoral beliefs.

Thanks Marc.


You didn't need to weigh in. But I appreciate it.


I will not be poltiically correct just to please others.


I have a moral code. It belongs to me. No one else has to live it.


I think a lot of my critics are lying to themselves if they think they are prejudice free or somehow better persons than I am.

I didn't see one single letter to the Editor from anybody on this Forum that went to bat for Andre Boisclair.

In fact, Me, the homophobe, the bigot, I was the only one that I can see wrote a letter to the Editor of every papaer that chastised Mr. Boisclair.

Action speak louder than words so my armchair critics can fuck right off.

What the homosexual lovers here fail to understand is that all the same pressure that the so called activist here are applying to me to shut up were applied to to people who wanted to speak up for drug use too.

There was a time not so long ago that you could not say anything good about drug use in polite society. Even if you had the nerve the newspapers would not publish.

I want you guys to think Loretta Nall.....writes letter gets swooped by Helicopters forwhat?

Essentially doing what I am doing, saying something politcally incorrect. There are lot's of people who will never vote for Loretta either, basically for the same reasons Wodan said he would never vote for me.


First of all Wodan, your an American if your from Minnesota so you won't be voting for me no matter what.

And I discriminate against the so-called "mentally-ill" and not those with pathological-illnesses.

And I'm the one who does the time so I'll pick and choose who I do business with.

Anybody who wants to can come to Winnipeg and open up a compassion club tommorrow and you would have no competition.

So Wodan. The people here need you bad are you going to step up to the plate and run the compassion club and put your ass on the line? If not then fuck off.

Same with anybody who wants to can step up to the plate and be the leader of the Manitoba Marijuana Party step right on up or fuck right off too.

See Wodan, Jean Chretien was a devout Catholic. Went to Church every week. The anti-abortion crowd did their best to shame Mr. Chretien into helping their cause as a good Christian. Jean Chretien maintained that he was personally against abortion, but that he was not in power to give weight of law to his personal views.

So one can hold personal views and politcal views at the same time.

See, I'm not the narrow mined one here.

According to the brainiacs who measured in I either accept homosexuality as a scientifically proven natural lifestyle or I am a homophobe.

Bullshit I say. All that so-called scientific proof is abouit as reliable as a cannabis study from NIDA.

And the pro-crowd did a pretty good job of shutting everybody up over the issue. Can't say anything even neutral about homosexuals or one is branded a homophobe.

Weell, being branded the drug guy has hardened me to the point that I don't care what others think of me anymore. I can live with my views quite comfortably.

And I also know that I don't hate homosexuals. I just don't like their behaviors and choose to avoid them, just like I avoid church goers and the Hells Angels too. I discriminate. We all do, only I got the nerve to say so.

So like I said, if you called me a homophobe and you did nothing to help Boiscliar, it should be you looking in the mirror not me.

Slainte

Give your head a shake.

I don't represent you anymore than you represent me.


I "represent" the Classic Liberal political position of a free-market in all drugs.

I "represent" liberty. The right to live life coercion free.

I clairfy that because a lot of cannabis activist want the law to find other scapegoats like "hard" drug users.

Even though, I personally disapprove of needle users, I still advocte for the right for them to destroy their own lives. To me, the site of people shoving misery into their arms is not pleasant, it's disgusting. I don't want to see it and I don't want to associate with crackheads either.

There is another prejudice I have. I'm bigoted against crack heads, though I know the "non-prejudicial, non-judgement" have crack heads over to their homes all the time. I'll work on accepting crackheads and needle users in my home, then maybe work up to others I have been accused of being prejudice against. Next time the Jehovah's show up, I'll invite them in, instead of politly shooing them away.

And next time I see the Hell's Angel's go by, I smile and give them the big thumbs up and do my best to incorporate them into my circle of friends too.

Do you know that I'm against medical cannabis Slainte?

I written lots of letters opossing the idea as the "Fatal Compromise." Medical cannabis has and will delay repealing prohibition just as the history books say compromise to bad laws always do. Yet, I ran the Manitoba Compassion club.

I put aside my politcal views to impliment my personal views that people who suffer ought not be denied cannabis as medicine.

And have I got some good news for you Slainte.

Rather than oppose gay marriage, I support repealing the Marriage Act and the Divorce Act too.

What has the state got to do with you vowing eternal love for whomever?

The state ought to get out of the marriage business just like ancient Rome did when they were plagued with this type of moralizing religiosity.

Marriage is an institution of the Church not the state.

And even better, Slainte, I would repeal the Mental Health Act too, so that nobody could ever say that homosexuals were mentally ill and needed help going straight again.

The addictions people would pretty well be put out of business too. That would be the end of "soul doctoring" by the state.

But anyway, I like to answer my critics and yank your chains for you. I do my best writing when someone or something pisses me off.

Slainte, now that you know for sure where I stand on the issues, my disgust for the charlatans of psychiatry front and center and the driving force behind my activism, let me ask you a question.

Let me premise this with a little bit of history because everybody here seems to have forgotton or they never knew.

Before Pierre Trudeau came along, Homosexuality was a crime in Canada, just like drug use is today.

The activist in the homesexual community did the smartest thing they ever could have done. They went to war with psychiatry. It took them over ten years to have homosexuality removed from the DSM version .IV. That event occured in 1973 and the homosexuals have never looked back.

There will be no turning back the clock. Homosexuals are no longer considered mentally ill (unless they are "latent" or not sure) or criminals and now they are fighting for the right to get married. That's a lot of progress.


Compare that to the "activists" here. I should get professional help chirped in Chris Bennett a pillar of the activist community.

Then there is the clamoring for "addictions treatment," four pillars and harm reduction.

In other words, 99% of the activists here are too stupid to see that psychaitry is your worst enemy not your little helper in this struggle for liberty.

The homosexuals were smart enough to understand that the psychiatric stigmatizations had to go to be accepted into the mainstream. They did not want to be percieved as sick.


So, I learned from the homosexuals, that the first thing activist ought to working towards is destroying the addictions theory that underlies all the psychiatric authority behind state interventions.

Well, not too many people here will join me in my quest to separate medicine and state. Most activist want to play right into the hands of psychiatry.

And you Slainte, by branding me as a homophobe, play right into the hands of psychiatry too. Your a believer.

Well, I am not a believer in the secular state religion of psychiatry.

Homophobe is a made up stigmatizing word. Homophobia is now the politcally correct psychaitric stigmatizing label that is assigned to anybody who does not buy into the junk science forwarded to prove homosexuality is natural.

So, to the four pillars, harm reducing, medical marijuana , treatment instead of jail crowd....yeah I don't represent any of you at all.

I know better than to stigmatize people with psychiatric labels and then pretending those so stigmatized are actually ill. My disdain and disgust for those who do use psychiatric stigmatizing terms knows no bounds.

By extension, supporters of psychaitric stigmatizations support all the evil psychiatry has inflicted on humanity including what psychaitry did to homosexuals, which was not very nice.

So, like I said, I am not the narrow minded person in any of this.

I seem to be the only person wise enought to understand, like the homosexuals understood, that the psychiatric stigmatizations have to go before any real progress will be made.

And so like I said, I could care less what others think of me. esspecially the psychiatric stigmatizations. If that is the best the activists can do, the movement is indeed in big trouble and I had better get down to writng more Letters to the editor that destroy the theroy of addiction, medical marijuana and harm reduction.

Liberty is the highest ideal, and that's what I fight for.

And I don't care who's feelings get hurt or who likes me or soesn't like me.

I have an agenda and that is to separate medicine and state.

Repealing prohibition of all drugs is but a small part of it.

Wresting power from psychiatry is not such an easy thing to do. At least the homosexual activists of the 60's and 70's were smart enough to understand who the real enemy was.

Seems to me too many so-called activists want to work with our worst enemies; psychiatry and its collories, the treatment industry.

So there you have it.

I know I am off in my own little world fighting the powers of the state and the more concealed powers of medicine that rule our world. But I like it just fine so I think I will carry right on.

How about them apples eh!

I am no friend of central state authority. I'm more like Loretta Nall, only I would be running on "provinces rights" instead of state rights in my campaign.

I understand that there is only one tool to battle the central authority and that is to separate. That's what the Civil War in America was all about. The right of a people to choose their own form of government and who they want to associate with too.

I understand the Quebec position and why they are angry at Canada and why they want to leave. I don't blame them. The Central authority has grown too strong in Canada.

Canada destroyed my life and Canada is a very socialist country. I could care less if Canada was destroyed. Whatever arose from the ashes would be better.

It couldn't possibly be any worse. Perhaps liberty will reign in any new countries that would form.