There are few spectacles quite as rivetting and pitiable as a revved-up public pursuing a false idea in the name of equality. One gets the sense that the snake has charmed the charmer. One of the Canadian Public’s pet snakes is the idea of homosexual rights, and "All shall be the same in this society," is the tune that charms.
     I would argue, rather, that unless we maintain our historical distinction between individual rights, and social rights, there will be no society left. Every citizen of Canada, including all homosexuals, already has the same, exactly equal, individual rights (freedom of speech, right to trial, and so on). But not everyone has, nor ought to have, the same social rights. Simply being a citizen is sufficient to get all individual rights. But in a normal society, a citizen must qualify for specified social rights and benefits, and society has the prerogative of stipulating exactly how, rigorously excluding - that is, discriminating against - unqualified individuals.
     For example, you cannot have a Canada Pension until you reach a certain age (unless you are an M.P. - then age doesn't matter!). Nor can you have Social Assistance unless you demonstrate difficult circumstances. Nor can you qualify for veteran payments unless you have fought for Canada in a war. Nor are you a legal adult until a specified age. AND, most importantly - you can't have the legal or tax benefits of a spouse unless you marry someone of the opposite sex.
     But increasingly, people are believing the egalitarian idea that qualification for social rights is unnecessary. Increasingly, we have been subjected to a damnable new Charter argument designed to get social rights for homosexuals.
     Most people have insisted the Charter should only protect against discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as colour, ethnicity, and gender, but never behaviour. But the new argument says: How about religion? Religion is protected, and that's not immutable! Unfair!
     But there is an unbridgeable gap between these two.
     For starters, religion underpins Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Preamble of which specifically states: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God." Homosexuality is not mentioned as a principle upon which Canada is founded (yet). A Charter would be Orwellian if it did not protect from discrimination those who believe in its own founding principle.
     Religion is universal. It infuses all societies, and directly or indirectly shapes their collective identity. But homosexuality is the opposite. It is a widely spurned behaviour, even a counter-identity, practiced by only 1.5 to 2 per cent of the population in most nations.
     Religion, though fallible like all things human, at least promotes moral behaviour through the worship of God, the highest Good. Homosexuality is the opposite. If not outlawed by most countries, it is deemed morally wrong, or sinful, by overwhelming majorities of normal people - even by those who defend the legal right to practice it privately. Charters and human rights codes should not be used to protect behaviours universally deemed bad.
     Religion promotes procreation, is supportive of society, traditional family, and the continuation of both. Homosexuality is the opposite. Two homosexuals cannot procreate with each other. A fully homosexual society would self-destruct. Charters should protect procreation and pass over in silence other choices made by free individuals.
     Religion is healthy, too. Societies that stress sincere religious beliefs tend to be the lowest in sociopathology, alcohol abuse, and crime. Homosexuality is the opposite. It is unhealthy, even dangerous behaviour. Homosexuals die younger, and have vastly more social, psychological, sexual, alcohol/drug problems than any other group. About 85% of all AIDS deaths in Canada and the U.S.A. are male homosexuals.
     Religion is culturally inherited. The vast majority of the world's children are inducted into their religion before adulthood, and never change. In this sense, religion is in theory mutable, but in practice is only quasi-mutable.
     Homosexuality is the opposite. No one, no parent, no community leader, no one except another (usually older) homosexual, would ever voluntarily induct a child into homosexuality. About half of all homosexuals themselves even say they would "become upset" if a child of theirs became homosexual (Bell and Weinberg). And in no sense is homosexual behaviour immutable, as is skin colour, or ethnicity. Respected sexologists Masters and Johnson have repeatedly shown recovery rates of 70 per cent for homosexuals.
     Religion is necessarily based on spiritual belief, but not necessarily on behaviour. Homosexuality is the opposite. No beliefs are required. What is required to identify and define homosexuality, is an act. Without homosexual behaviour, there is no homosexuality to worry about, and this fact alone is sufficient grounds to deny protection.
     Charters should not protect or promote the mere appetites or behaviours of any individual or group.