Outlining Bill C-24

The chief concern regarding this bill is with the limitations that will be imposed against religious groups, and those who sponsor "reasonable debate" over the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Many Christian groups have been vocal, saying that this legislation will ban them from teaching the bible. Others say that they will no longer be able to warn children against the dangers of homosexuality. Some have even claimed that this will protect pedophiles and sexual offenders. As it stands, sexual education courses across the country currently warn against the dangers of sexual intercourse. Particular attention is given to the subject of unprotected sex and anal intercourse. Regardless of legislation, these lessons will invariably be taught in the same way. The dangers of sex as faced the homosexual community are not exclusive in any way. The fact remains that the sexual risks that we guard against will never be shot down, as they pertain to all sexually active individuals, and are not limited to any given community. As for religious limitations - these concerns are unfounded. The bible is not by nature a homophobic text. Groups like the Unitarians already accept the homosexual community into its fold and manage to teach from the same book. The Canadian Unitarian Council issued a letter in support of bill C-250. The same-sex marriage issue has been closely linked to this bill. Should any limitations emerge out of this bill in regards to freedom of speech, they would be quite unable to exceed the others already in place. For example, it is considered wrong to advocate for racially pure marriages, and opposing the union of couples from different ethnic origins. In this respect, the bill could only go so far as to grant homosexual partners the same rights as other minorities. To argue against this would, in fact, be an argument against equal rights. It remains the prerogative of a minister whether or not they chose to perform a marriage. No church shall be forced to marry any couple against its will. As for the subject of sexual offenders, it is impossible for them to be granted any additional rights under the bill. A pedophile would still be charged under the same sections as before. This bill would not supercede existing legislation in that respect. Invariably, one must ask what this bill will, in fact, be preventing. Under current law it is quite illegal for anyone to promote racist doctrine. The elimination of any race or religion is quite illegal, as is the advocacy for such actions. Under the current law it is illegal for there to be "reasonable discussion" over the issue of racial, ethnic, and religious concerns. It would be quite wrong for anyone to argue against an ethnicity due to "moral conflict." This bill would simply see an extension of these same rights. Sexual preference would no longer be grounds for legitimate discrimination.