Discrimination

To try and make us accept them, but we still don't want to. They are too weird

We gay people have gay pride parades to foster solidarity, increase our visibility and show our numbers and political power. Before we had parades, gay people lived quiet, secretive lives, desperately trying to hide their sexuality and believing the homophobic rhetoric that they were taught by their own parents. Since they were perceived as push-overs, they were often the targets of violence, both from criminals and the police, they were arrested, fired, declared insane and sent to hospitals for treatment, denounced as subversives or exposed as being sinful.

Every Gay Pride Parade is a commemoration of the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots of June 1969, one of the first times that gay people demanded their rights and fought against police harassment. Since that time, we have achieved anti-discrimination laws in many states and countries, struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity, overturned policies meant to exclude us from military service and legalized same-sex marriage in many places.

We need to continue to have these parades to fight against both individual and institutional homophobia. If our existence or our hard-earned equality cause you distress, then you'd better fasten your seatbelt, because the bumpiest part of the ride is yet to come.

Many humanists argue that the burqa is a deeply religious sign of Islam, which should not be banned due to it being a breach of human rights for Muslim women. This view is shared by most British politicians, which makes a ban at present look far from likely.

On the other hand, however, the debate continues. It is the view of just as many humanitarians and human rights activists that the burqa is a distinctly sexist and derogatory symbol of how Islam women often appear to be treated with fewer rights than their male counterparts. In fact, a number of Muslim leaders in the UK believe that the recent ban in France by President Sarkozy was justified. "The French president should be applauded for initiating this debate," said one commentator, Dr Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, in June 2009. Dr Hargey describes the growing belief that Muslim women should cover their head, face and hands as "doctrinaire brain-washing".

Furthermore, there is no text in the Koran that suggests women should wear the burqa or any other form of facial covering; it simply calls for 'modesty'. The call to cover up comes from the hadith -- interpretations of the Koran written many years after the death of the Prophet, and largely dictated by prevailing Middle Eastern custom.

Many commentators also insist that, contrary to the burqa allegedly 'doing society no harm', a cover-up of identity leads too far into a segregation from society. The Muslim community, particularly with controversy over terrorism, in many ways is trying to integrate more with society in modern Britain. Too many public figures believe that the burqa is a repetitive symbol of how Muslim women are inherently cut off from modern society. Douglas Murray, director of the think tank The Centre for Social Cohesion, argues that "people shouldn't have the right to hide themselves away in society. Cutting yourself off from society is threatening when we have known terrorists to try to escape wearing a burka."

The debate over whether or not the burqa should be banned in Britain is very likely to become a part of civil rights debate immediately after the next general election. Under a new government in the UK, controversy is very likely to ensue, and calls for a total ban on wearing the burqa in public will undoubtedly become increasingly dominant in British politics in the near future.

The word "gay" as it's used today has gone through quite a transition from its original definition and use.

"Anti-gay slurs" and discrimination is foolishness. Because ALL MEN ARE HEADED TO JUDGMENT for the works they have done in this life; this first taste of existence that we've never done before. The Righteous and the Wicked will all be Judged in their own proper time... and no man has any right, before God, to condemn another:

"...Let the one who is doing wrong continue to do wrong; the one who is vile, continue to be vile; the one who is good, continue to do good; the one who is holy, continue in holiness. See, I AM coming soon, and My Reward is with Me, to repay ALL according to their deeds." (Rev.22:11-12 NLT)

According to the Bible... no man has any real business wrongfully discriminating or uttering slurs against any other man. Ideally, mankind's business should be the business of "fearing God and keeping and obeying His Ten Commandments" -- [Eccle.12:13-14]. Genuinely caring about one another. Helping and edifying one another in the ways of our Creator... the ways of LOVE... the One who died to save us from the Second Death, which takes place at the time of the coming Judgment [Rev.20:13-15 NLT)

The "Eternal Life" God is offering mankind in the Bible is a long time to live for people who don't learn about His Everlasting Kindness and Love. Nor will it be given to those who discriminate against others... and who utter slurs against others... and who refuse to repent of it.

The Indian Act is a legal document and a set of laws that was first passed by the Canadian Government in 1876 and is still enforced today. This set of laws gave the government complete control over the lives of Aboriginal peoples. Historically, control over Aboriginals had been a British responsibility, which was then passed to Canada. Once the fur trade ended, Aboriginal peoples had no role to play, and they became a barrier to government plans for the settlement of western Canada. The Government called it the Indian problem. The government responded to this "problem" by creating the Indian Act which had to objectives: 1. Control over Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal peoples couldn't leave reserves, own land, or do business without permission. 2. Assimilation. Eventually Aboriginal peoples were to enfranchise and receive all the benefits of any other Canadian).

The Indian Act:

• placed complete control over Aboriginal politics, culture, education, and personal lives in the hands of the federal government
• established rules that dictated who was Indian and who was not (status/non-status)
• located all financial control of Aboriginal peoples with the federal government
• did not allow Aboriginal people to own land
• forced a new form of education on Aboriginal peoples
• did not allow aboriginal people to vote in a federal election until 1960

Some Pro's

The Indian Act is the only government document to recognize Aboriginal peoples. Without it, aboriginal peoples would not have any special status. It allows for certain rights including health services, education, subsidized housing and exemption from certain taxes but all in exchange for land and other rights. Some amendments have been made to the Indian Act including lifting of the ban on ceremonies and fundraising, permission to vote, Bill C-31 to re-establish some Aboriginal peoples' status.