377A

Put aside the debate about whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong", of whether or not is is "unnatural". Should the government really have jurisdiction of what happens between 2 consenting adults?

This shouldn't be about whether or not we are "too conservative" to endorse homosexuality. I'm pretty sure in our "conservative society" adultery is frowned upon, and yet that isn't illegal is it? Or what of premarital sex? That's morally wrong too isn't it? Does our "conservative majority" disapprove? Probably. Is it illegal? No.

So just because extra-marital and premarital sex are legal, does it mean that we're somehow approving such behaviour? If we are, then shouldn't those laws be changed to reflect societal norms?

Maybe it is a lifestyle choice. Maybe its inborn. But that's besides the point. The state shouldn't be dictating what goes on between 2 adults. It's that simple. Repealing 377A is not going to rip apart the fabric of our society. It's probably already happening regardless of what the law says. And it's probably not very enforceable anyway. Unless the police are spying on every single gay couple in the country and monitoring their every move. So repealing it isn't going to suddenly encourage hordes of gay people to start having sex in public.

And don't bring religion into it. We're supposed to be a secular country, so I don't see why religious views should be taken into account when the state is making decisions.

The bottom line is that the state has no business denying 2 consenting individuals their rights when no one gets hurt.

A la fin

When things have fallen apart, all that is left to do is to pick up the pieces and move on.

NB

To the bus driver who flipped me off today, even after I made it to the second bus stop before your bloody bus did, despite your best efforts, and after you refused to stop at the first stop:

I HOPE YOU GET STRUCK BY LIGHTNING TOMORROW AND GO TO BUS-DRIVER HELL.

Failing which, I hope you get sacked. If you don't want to pick people up, don't be a f^&king bus driver. Worse than that, you and your unions are f^&king lazy - demanding 2% pay increases every year despite already earning $21 an hour, or about $50k per year.

If you people bloody did your job, maybe I would be just a tad sympathetic, but when you are lazy, inefficient, and already ridiculously well paid, go fly kite understand?. Preferably a big, big kite that will lift you into the sky and then send you crashing back to earth so that you can go to bus-driver hell.

Yes, I'm pissed. But not stopping for me twice, and then flipping me off, on a day when I have to get to school for a test does not exactly put me in the best of moods.

To the above mentioned driver: I sincerely hope one day you will find your ass so firmly glued to your driver's seat that you will have no choice but to become part of the bus.

In the meantime, I hope that your right to strike gets revoked because you are providing an essential service, and while you sit on your well paid fat asses, the poorer people among us have to suffer the consequences of your greed. First by spending more on transport because you're too lazy to do your job, and secondly because my f^&king fares are going to increase again to pay for your already over-sized pay checks. I don't see why millions of people should have to bear the costs of the greed of the few thousand of you.

So f^&k you and your unions.

I'm glad I walk to McGill every day during the regular semesters instead of paying for your disgusting greed.