April 6th, 2002
I would like to comment on the boy who was not allowed to bring his homosexual friend to a Catholic School prom.
Not because this issue is so important, but because it is typical of homosexual activist's twisted thinking.
I will not argue the moral aspects of this, as they are pretty obvious to any person who does not subscribe to relative morality.
I will reflect instead on the comment by Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton purely from the logical point of view.
The fact that Norton, an openly active homosexual has been appointed by the PC government as the head of a commission in charge of judging people's behaviour is itself revealing of the biased times we live in.
The fact that Norton, head of the commission, would pronounce himself publicly on a case likely to be presented in front of this commission denotes the lack of sensibility and even arrogance of homosexual activists, who can afford to be irreverent of the legal process and the basic concepts of justice.
Let me quote what Norton told the Toronto Sun: it "might be difficult for faith-based schools to argue religious freedom as a reason to discriminate against someone simply because they're openly gay. An individual may well be able to invoke the protection of the human rights legislation."
The word "discrimination" has been deceitfully used by homosexuals to attract support to their cause. This case is no exception.
If a boy who is homosexual were not allowed to participate in a prom, with or without his girlfriend, he may have a legal case (in a public school).
If a girl, because she is a lesbian, were not allowed to participate in the prom, with or without her boyfriend, she may have a legal case (in a public school).
If there were specific rules barring homosexuals or lesbians from public events in a public school, they might have a legal case.
The fact is that there are no discriminating rules between heterosexual kids and homosexual ones. Not even in a Catholic school! Anybody can go with or without a partner of the opposite sex.
What they call discrimination is the lack of special privileges. The privilege, for a person who decides to live differently (immorally in the traditional opinion) to have special rules, that allow them to behave in ways not allowed (up to now) to anyone.
If I lived with four companions, it would not be a right for me to bring them all to the prom. It would be a privilege.
If I loved bestiality, it would not be a right for me to bring my sheep or my dog to the prom. It would be a privilege.
The sad thing is that Norton, to be consistent, would probably support that privilege. And so society degrades to the lowest possible moral and intellectual pit.
The homosexual argument is not anymore AGAINST discrimination, bur FOR it.
Discrimination and bias was displayed by the PCs, in appointing Norton.
Discrimination and bias has consistently been displayed by Norton and the so-called Ontario Human Rights Commission against Christians and for homosexuals.
It was also discrimination to allow homosexuals to be singled out in law by defining and supporting "homosexual couples" in taxation, family benefits, family law, etc.
Homosexuals achieved mere equality years ago. The image of the teenager with homosexual tendencies being ostracized or beaten has long been discarded.
Now they are fighting for special privileges and society is bending forward to avoid a conflict with them and their supporting government and media friends.
It is time to stop bending. Homosexuals must know that they have every right to do what they want in private (although many of us do not approve of it), but they have no right to impose their sad lifestyles on the rest of us.