December 1, 1986 (33rd Parliament, 2nd Session)


John B. Stewart


Mr. Stewart:

Madam Speaker, I just referred to subparagraph (1). I am putting my case forward that it does have special rights. Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby actually talking of his own sexual ideas or does he espouse the complete doctrine of the New Democratic Party, or both? It would be interesting to know.
Sexual orientation, which this is all about, or in my view sexual deviation, is learned. It is a learned response. The toleration of the so-called gay lifestyle by some people in Canada is being advanced in our public schools, through movies and TV. Is that really what we want? Do we really want an amendment such as this to give special rights to that form of lifestyle?
Equality Rights
I know first hand only too cruelly of a case in my own riding of a school teacher who took his sexual deviation, his sexual orientation, and foisted it upon many members of his class. In my view, our children must be protected.
The New Democratic Party is calling for the elimination of smoking but it champions homosexual acts by this very amendment. You cannot get around that. It makes about as much sense as taking us out of NATO.
As I mentioned, homosexualism is anti-biological. It is committing biological suicide. It is anti-medical, it is hygienic insanity. It is a crime against humanity whether medical or moral. All of us know what is happening with AIDS, that dread disease, for which there is no cure. How is it spread? AIDS is overwhelmingly a homosexual disease in every western country in which AIDS has been reported. Gays are the first persons to be stricken. In time others become infected. AIDS is thought to have started in the U.S., and U.S. homosexuals account for 73 per cent of all AIDS victims. I could go on and on with the statistics of what we are opening up with this bombshell of so-called human rights. It is human suicide.
Disease is disproportionately experienced by homosexuals. They are 14 times more apt to have had syphilis, three times more apt to have had gonorrhea and eight times more apt to have had hepatitis. Think of all the needles of the drug users and what is happening with this scourge of AIDS. Homosexuals are five times more apt to have had scabies. With lesbians they are 19 times more apt to have had syphilis and 29 times more apt to have had an oral infection. Are these the rights that we as Canadians want? Does this go by our religious teachings?
There is a group called ISIS operated by members of the medical, business, theological and legal professions. It is chaired by Paul Cameron, Ph.D. I wish I had the time to read this paper in full because it is very enlightening. It is something that every person in the world should read. It goes on about the abnormality of homosexualism and lesbianism. If we are to have human rights, we must have human protection. Man, if he were a rational animal, would not need laws and I would not need to be standing on my feet today. Unfortunately, we are not. Homosexualism is a sickness that should not be in our society. Let me read a bit of the ISIS position paper until my time runs out:
Viable societies are organized to sustain themselves by producing and educating succeeding generations. Each child is expected to repay society for all he has inherited by creating and nurturing a new generation.
Let me emphasize "a new generation". How does that happen in the homosexual community?
Western society, workers generally receive sufficient income to both sustain themselves and raise a family. Parents partially satisfy their debt by teaching their children that soon it will be their turn to repay.
Homosexuals renounce their social obligation and slavishly devote themselves to self-aggrandizement. They rob society to pleasure themselves. Money remaining after their basic requirements are met is regarded as additional opportunity for personal pleasure rather than a loan to be put into the service of

December 1, 1986
Equality Rights
societal betterment. Getting more by doing less, homosexuals soon come to regard special treatment as their inherent right.
That is what the paragraph in the motion says. It is special treatment by mentioning homosexuals and not the word sex:
Those who are rewarded for leeching soon come to regard society with contempt, deserving destruction.
Homosexuals often spend their "extra" disposable income roaming the world in search of sexual adventure.
I might add that according to statistics it is estimated that a homosexual has from 20 to 106 partners per year. Think of that in terms of AIDS alone, Madam Speaker:
Because of their promiscuity and incredible unsanitary sexual practices-
I have reams and reams of documented medical evidence here of how terrible that is:
-pathogens once localized in a given geographic region are rapidly being spread throughout the world. AIDS is a first fruit of this process and many more plagues stemming from homosexual behaviour are bound to occur. Homosexuals have already compromised the nation's blood supply and are straining the resources of the medical community.

Full View