NationStates Jolt Archive

I never said religions approved of gay marriage, but, from what I gathered, his implication was that religion is delusional. About as delusional as atheism though, IMO.
I never said it was ... I was not trying to imply that at all sorry if I was mistaken in some way.
I don't believe but again you have every right to

But I think that Canada's decision abides by equality when so far religion has failed to prove objectively a reason to disallow gay marriage

The took the line that without proof there is no reason to not treat people equally ... I agree with them

I can only hope we learn from them

The majority of people are of one religion or another.

Not all religions have a beef with gay marriage. Buddhism is cool with it right? I know from my Hindu friends that they absolutely despise it (at least their sect anyway). Orthodox Catholics are against it, but a lot of “progressive” parishes are in favor, unofficially. Protestants are split on the issue. Not sure about the Eastern Orthodox, but they have lost a lot of their influence anyway. Muslims are definitely opposed. Orthodox Jews are against it, but the reformists are, as a whole, in favor.

I never said religions approved of gay marriage, but, from what I gathered, his implication was that religion is delusional. About as delusional as atheism though, IMO.

You misunderstood. The religious are, by definition, delusional.

My my, you certainly are one for vilification aren't you? As an ex-Christian, you should know better than that ;)
Yes I should ... little leftover dislike for organized religion yet I apologize

Then if you find out you've been mislead, .. well, what then? Does your God really mislead all of these people? Because I know what your saviour taught humanity, and that was to be equal. So why is it that God and his son contradict each other? Oh, my bad, I said God when I should have said man's stories. Oops.



Actually, equal is a word never mentioned by Christ...egalitarianism is a nice virtue, but let's not make things up ;)

You misunderstood. The religious are, by definition, delusional.


For every effect, there must be a cause. Once you've come up with a logical theory on universal origins, then you can say we're delusional with a little less inherent hypocrisy ;)

Actually, equal is a word never mentioned by Christ...egalitarianism is a nice virtue, but let's not make things up ;)

Oh please, spare me your incompetence. You're Christian, you've read the Bible. At least take notice of the MORAL OF THE STORY when you read one.

The took the line that without proof there is no reason to not treat people equally ... I agree with them

Well, to be fair, by your reasoning, there is no reason to treat people equally either. You can’t prove a way of thinking. It is simply the accepted standard of the time.

Actually, equal is a word never mentioned by Christ...egalitarianism is a nice virtue, but let's not make things up ;)

Isn't it ironic... dontcha think? :D

Oh please, spare me your incompetence. You're Christian, you've read the Bible. At least take notice of the MORAL OF THE STORY when you read one.



The moral of the story: God loves everyone, but hates sin. A person in sin is out of the reach of God's love and within the grasp of Satan's hatred. You are either a servant of virtue or a servant of vice. I'd rather pick the one where I reject the pleasures of the world for eternal happiness :)

The moral of the story: God loves everyone, but hates sin. A person in sin is out of the reach of God's love and within the grasp of Satan's hatred. You are either a servant of virtue or a servant of vice. I'd rather pick the one where I reject the pleasures of the world for eternal happiness :)

If homosexuality IS a sin, then your job as a Christian should be to NOT BE homosexual, not discriminate against those who are, n'OR oppose them. That is what God is to do, not you.

For every effect, there must be a cause. Once you've come up with a logical theory on universal origins, then you can say we're delusional with a little less inherent hypocrisy ;)

The relationship between cause and effect applies only in the presence of time and within number of dimensions greater than zero. Simple physics.

BTW I'm still waiting for ANY religion to come up with a logical explanation of the origins of the universe.

Man. Corny, why is it that you seem to have this compulsive need to act like an ASSHOLE all the time?

Whoah, whoah. Take this to a private TG, please. I know I've been away from my keyboard for a while, but really.

Uncalled for. Really uncalled for.

If homosexuality IS a sin, then your job as a Christian should be to NOT BE homosexual, not discriminate against those who are, n'OR oppose them. That is what God is to do, not you.



*sigh* Yep...this thread is going the way of the last one....ok, my response:



Titus 2:11-15 11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

If homosexuality IS a sin, then your job as a Christian should be to NOT BE homosexual, not discriminate against those who are, n'OR oppose them. That is what God is to do, not you.

In the humble opinion of this Christian, you are correct.

The relationship between cause and effect applies only in the presence of time and within number of dimensions greater than zero. Simple physics.



But matter necessitates a minimum of one dimension.

*sigh* Yep...this thread is going the way of the last one....ok, my response:



Titus 2:11-15 11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.
Teach encourage and rebuke are ABSOLUTLY different then force and legislate

One is making sure people know gods laws
The other is forcing them to live by them

*sigh* Yep...this thread is going the way of the last one....ok, my response:



Titus 2:11-15 11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

You know what, I'm going to let you take this one away with you. There's no point anymore. All I have to say is that you hold your whole life on a book that says a lot of out dated things, so you'd better be damn sure about it.

Teach encourage and rebuke are ABSOLUTLY different then force and legislate

One is making sure people know gods laws
The other is forcing them to live by them



If God is opposed to homosexuality, then what would He think of endorsing pro-homosexual legislation? Necessary inference applies.

15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Homosexuality is sinful. There. Now where does it say I have to go force society to follow what I believe, even if I do believe it to be the truth. All it says is to proclaim the gospel, which is the message of Christ dieing for our sins, which I do regularly. If a homosexual converts, God will deal with them in his way, just as he deals with your sins Rogolia.

But matter necessitates a minimum of one dimension.

Does it? Are you so certain what is theorized as a basketball sized atom followed the rules laid down by the creation of the universe? Not even itty bitty post big bang/creation atoms do.

If God is opposed to homosexuality, then what would He think of endorsing pro-homosexual legislation? Necessary inference applies.
Then why bother using that quote when it did not support your belief of forcing others against their will to gods law
And Gods supposed to be an all loving being I would guess he understands that the government is supposed to be about equality for all

You "infer" on that quote according to your beliefs not nessisarily thoes of gods
you are falable ... your inferance could very well be too

Teach encourage and rebuke are ABSOLUTLY different then force and legislate

One is making sure people know gods laws
The other is forcing them to live by them

Amen.

Hello.

I'd just like you all to know, liberal, conservative, christian, secularist, or any other word ending in '-al', '-ive', '-ian', or '-ist', that no matter how you slice it, Gays are now legally entitled to enjoy the fruits of wedded bliss like everybody else.

And nothing bad could surely come of that. Think about it if you must. But it's nothing I have to think about - as far as I'm concerned, Bill C-38 was an absolute no-brainer.

If God is opposed to homosexuality, then what would He think of endorsing pro-homosexual legislation? Necessary inference applies.
And giving women the right to vote, to hold property, to SPEAK to men? Shame on YOU for violating THAT law.

Anything we do now is in violation, as has been pointed out numerous times and places and you keep ignoring or weakly pandering it off as being not nessicary.

If you insist that ALL laws be followed you better be following ALL laws.

Homosexuality is sinful. There. Now where does it say I have to go force society to follow what I believe, even if I do believe it to be the truth. All it says is to proclaim the gospel, which is the message of Christ dieing for our sins, which I do regularly. If a homosexual converts, God will deal with them in his way, just as he deals with your sins Rogolia



True, but, as a Christian, it is also our duty to oppose that contrary to God's will.

Hello.

I'd just like you all to know, liberal, conservative, christian, secularist, or any other word ending in '-al', '-ive', '-ian', or '-ist', that no matter how you slice it, Gays are now legally entitled to enjoy the fruits of wedded bliss like everybody else.

And nothing bad could surely come of that. Think about it if you must. But it's nothing I have to think about - as far as I'm concerned, Bill C-38 was an absolute no-brainer.
The joys pitfalls and all ... again they are abiding by equality in the face of discrimination ... I am proud of them

Does it? Are you so certain what is theorized as a basketball sized atom followed the rules laid down by the creation of the universe? Not even itty bitty post big bang/creation atoms do.



Throwing out the logic of the universe to determine its origins would make theoretical physics as speculative as theism.

True, but, as a Christian, it is also our duty to oppose that contrary to God's will.
No it is your duty to teach what is and is not gods law
Not force others against their will

And giving women the right to vote, to hold property, to SPEAK to men? Shame on YOU for violating THAT law.

Anything we do now is in violation, as has been pointed out numerous times and places and you keep ignoring or weakly pandering it off as being not nessicary.

If you insist that ALL laws be followed you better be following ALL laws.



The first statement is erroneous as silence was only commanded during church. The second and third were based upon it and therefore are null.

The moral of the story: God loves everyone, but...A person in sin is out of the reach of God's love...

*raspberry noise*

In addition to the absurd idea that God "hates", your statements contradict one another. If God loves everyone, and a person in sin is out of the reach of God's love, and there are none of us who do not sin (not even one), then God loves nobody. Foolishness. God loves all, hates nothing, and would forgive everything if indeed there were anything to forgive, which there is not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

marriage= 1 man + 1 woman
Well, in Canada it can now be 1 man + 1 woman 1 man + 1 man and even 1 woman + 1 woman isn't it grand?

*confetti*

Throwing out the logic of the universe to determine its origins would make theoretical physics as speculative as theism.

Actually it's quantum physics and it hasn't been discarded.

Well, in Canada it can now be 1 man + 1 woman 1 man + 1 man and even 1 woman + 1 woman isn't it grand?

*confetti*
*passes around a drink and starts randomly humming a tune trying to keep the confetti out of my drink*

No it is your duty to teach what is and is not gods law
Not force others against their will



1 Timothy 4:6-11 6If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. 7But reject profane and old wives' fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness. 8For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. 9This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach,[a] because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 11These things command and teach.

The first statement is erroneous as silence was only commanded during church. The second and third were based upon it and therefore are null.
But based upon that, according to a pastor of one of the churches in my hometown, women are therefore not allowed to inform or to teach men about God OR God's law.

And you DO keep the other laws right? No mixed theads, killing the right amount and types of animals, no shellfish, and of course, informing all and sundry that you have reached your monthly period and are therefore unclean?

Again, unless you keep ALL of the laws, what right have you to tell others to follow ALL the laws.

Actually it's quantum physics and it hasn't been discarded.


Actually, this is one of the areas in which quantum mechanics (an extension of quantum physics which currently attempts to explicate these issues) fails.

But based upon that, according to a pastor of one of the churches in my hometown, women are therefore not allowed to inform or to teach men about God OR God's law.


Your pastor is partially correct, but what he failed to mention was this only applies to church services. Which is why I retain the right to discuss it right now :)

Actually, this is one of the areas in which quantum mechanics (an extension of quantum physics which currently attempts to explicate these issues) fails.

Maybe, though Newtonian physics can't explain time dilation but would we ever contemplate that God was responsible and cling desperately to that thinking, or seek the truth? ;)

I could really care less.

and thateffects the homosexuals who can now get married how?

*crosses arms and sits back*

you're a killjoy! :mp5: :(

And you DO keep the other laws right? No mixed theads, killing the right amount and types of animals, no shellfish, and of course, informing all and sundry that you have reached your monthly period and are therefore unclean?

Again, unless you keep ALL of the laws, what right have you to tell others to follow ALL the laws.



You know the answer to this :)

Your pastor is partially correct, but what he failed to mention was this only applies to church services. Which is why I retain the right to discuss it right now :)*dryly* Nice try.

Maybe, though Newtonian physics can't explain time dilation but would we ever contemplate that God was responsible and cling desperately to that thinking, or seek the truth?




You shall seek the truth, and the truth is God. Won't it be a day when people acknowledge it :)

*dryly* Nice try.


It actually states that we are to pose questions and what-not outside of church services. Which would imply our right to speak to, teach, and reprove men and women ;)

You shall seek the truth, and the truth is God. Won't it be a day when people acknowledge it :)

Maybe but on the way I'll cut out the Bronze > Dark age mysticism.

You shall seek the truth, and the truth is God. Won't it be a day when people acknowledge it :)

Wow, lighten up there Padre. This here's a thread about Godly things, like connubial bliss. Love, in the sanctity of marriage, is a Godly thing; a thing to be proud of; a thing to be unashamed of.

Now what kind of drink can someone get you (and if you say 'holy water' I'll waggle my ignore cannon at you the rest of the night - dig?) - hmmm? Sangria?

Wow, lighten up there Padre. This here's a thread about Godly things, like connubial bliss. Love, in the sanctity of marriage, is a Godly thing; a thing to be proud of; a thing to be unashamed of.

Now what kind of drink can someone get you (and if you say 'holy water' I'll waggle my ignore cannon at you the rest of the night - dig?) - hmmm? Sangria?


Isn't Padre a male name? I'm not male :mad:

*sighs*

In a light-hearted spirit of playful banter, I was insinuating that you are deeply religious.

Nothing more.

It actually states that we are to pose questions and what-not outside of church services. Which would imply our right to speak to, teach, and reprove men and women ;)
And you accuse others of twisting biblical verse to their own wants and ends?

*heh* Oh well. We'd keep this up all night and never get anywhere. Truce?

Nonsense, Rogolia. On the internet, everyone is a twelve-year-old boy.

Since the US has a tad longer history than Canada as an independent nation, we have more accomplishments than Canada.

Like?

You shall seek the truth, and the truth is God. Won't it be a day when people acknowledge it :)

Hey, no one is denying God here, we're just denying the fact that all that is in the Bible is right, because some early Pope decided that one document and not the other should go in there. OH! And here's an interesting fact for you:

Papal Infallibility was established in 1870!

im pretty sure it should be recognized as a union.....like new zealand... cause like marriage is a man and a woman ... they should be allowed to get... well.. union-ed but not married.. .it would mess up the meaning of marriage as we know it..... :headbang:

*sighs*

In a light-hearted spirit of playful banter, I was insinuating that you are deeply religious.

Nothing more.


Sorry >.< I'm just a bit edgy after all of today's discussions :D

Hey, no one is denying God here, we're just denying the fact that all that is in the Bible is right, because some early Pope decided that one document and not the other should go in there. OH! And here's an interesting fact for you:

Papal Infallibility was established in 1870!


<.<



>.>



I'm not Catholic :p

im pretty sure it should be recognized as a union.....like new zealand... cause like marriage is a man and a woman ... they should be allowed to get... well.. union-ed but not married.. .it would mess up the meaning of marriage as we know it..... :headbang:
Go to dictionary.com.
Look up "marriage".
Note that a union between members of the same sex is already included in the definition.

Go to dictionary.com.
Look up "marriage".
Note that a union between members of the same sex is already included in the definition.



The world would be a much simpler place if not for the politicizing of words.

I'm not Catholic :p

So what's your defense on a man made Bible then?

The world would be a much simpler place if not for the politicizing of words.
Perhaps, but Middle English just sounds so silly.

So what's your defense on a man made Bible then?



That men wrote it under divine inspiration :) If not, how could we tell what was and wasn't a sham?

Anybody know the lyrics to 'In The Navy'?

Perhaps, but Middle English just sounds so silly.



C'mon, you know thee's and thou's are so cool :D

That men wrote it under divine inspiration :)

Are you sure it wasn't ergot poisoning, bad mushrooms maybe? Did they even take precautions with lead back then? :)

Are you sure it wasn't ergot poisoning, bad mushrooms maybe? Did they even take precautions with lead back then?



I think they would be too busy chasing all the pretty colours :D

C'mon, you know thee's and thou's are so cool :D
Naw, that's Elizebethian English! I'm talking Middle English, Chaucer you know:

Whanne that April with his shoures sote
The droughte of March hath perced to the rote. :D

Apparently not.

I think they would be too busy chasing all the pretty colours :D


Or scribbling mumbo jumbo with the new found technology of literacy. :D

Anybody know the lyrics to 'In The Navy'?
Where can you find pleasure
Search the world for treasure
Learn science technology
Where can you begin to make your dreams all come true
On the land or on the sea
Where can you learn to fly
Play in sports and skin dive
Study oceanography
Sign of for the big band
Or sit in the grandstand
When your team and others meet

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, fall in 'n' make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

If you like adventure
Don't you wait to enter
The recruiting office fast
Don't you hesitate
There is no need to wait
They're signing up new seamen fast
Maybe you are too young
To join up today
Bout don't you worry 'bout a thing
For I'm sure there will be
Always a good navy
Protecting the land and sea

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, fall in 'n' make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

Who me?

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

But, but but I'm afraid of water.
Hey, hey look
Man, I get seasick even watchin' it on TV!

They want you, they want you in the navy

Oh my goodness.
What am I gonna do in a submarine?

They want you, they want you in the navy

... But why do you ask?

Now that's more like it. My work here is done. Good night, all.

Welcome to the 21st Century!

I'm a supporter for Civil Unions Dobbsworld. I am NOT a supporter of Gay Marriage. Give them some benefits but not all benefits that a normal married couple can have.

I'd say, give them the benefits. After all, they want their union, they can get their union, just as long as they don't screw over the sanctity of marriage, which has been, and damn well hopefully will forever be, the love between a man and a woman], as was intended by God (and 99.995% of all other religions), and not some sick-ass genetic defect, or whatever they're blaming this all-in-the-mind bullmanure on these days.

and not some sick-ass genetic defect, or whatever they're blaming this all-in-the-mind bullmanure on these days.

Oh I'm sorry? What are you proposing it is? Because people have been gay since.. well as long as I have heard of. Everything else is through the genes, but nurture seems to have little effect in this area.

After all, they want their union, they can get their union, just as long as they don't screw over the sanctity of marriage, which has been, and damn well hopefully will forever be, the love between a man and a woman], as was intended by God (and 99.995% of all other religions), and not some sick-ass genetic defect, or whatever they're blaming this all-in-the-mind bullmanure on these days.
Ooo! Ooo! Can we keep marriage as a man and multiple women like it has been for far longer than it was as just one on one?

Oh! A women as just property! Arranged marriages too! And I really miss the old notion of marriage as an aliance between two familes or countries so boys and girls were tradded.

And I miss the old days of huge doweries. Oh, and public deflowering, CAN'T forget the public deflowering! There's no point to the marriage if you can't prove to your wedding guests AT the wedding she's pure. And there's a lot more fun traditions of marriage, from around the world, that we can make sure to bring back as not to threaten the sancity of this institution that as, for thousands of years, been about money and power, and almost never about love.

Sigh... okies, a few things to say to other Christans and people against gay marriage.

1. Here's the dictionary's "view" on marriage.

Marriage n.
1.

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

So the dictionary says marriage means the legal union of a man and woman AND a same-sex marriage. I think you can work it out from there.

2. Why are you restricting another person's rights anyway? Just because they have a different sexual preference than you? If you answer yes to that question, think about the African Americans and women civil rights movements, and ask yourself, "How is this any different from those examples?"

3. Why is it any of your business? Why do YOU care what other people's sexual preferences are? I don't mind an occasional preach every now and then, but forcing other people to respect YOUR God's laws? That's where I draw the line.

4. I believe Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"(I may have paraphrased. Correct me if I'm wrong). Now who is your neighbor? Anyone that is not you. And do NOT give me the excuse that you're restricting these people their rights out of love(to the people who HATE gays). You're contradicting yourselves right there.

My two cents.

P.S. This statement has come from an American, Independent, Roman Catholic practicingr(though in reality I'm anagostic) 15 year old.

Marriage and the Christian faith.

In the Catholic church, marriage is considered a sacrament since 1184. Before that, only sexual relations and common life were codified. Unions were based on cultural beliefs and ceremonies, but one could ask a priest for a benediction.

Until the 13th century, nothing prevented marriages from being canceled. Divorce was a cultural choice. But marriage became "unbreakable" in the 13th century, thanks to a papal edict.

The modern notion of Christian marriage, between consenting adults and before God, has emerged in the 16th century.

Since 1614, any Christian (Catholic) marriage must be celebrated by a priest, in a codified ceremony.

As you can see, marriage is not such an old Christian institution, isn't it?




Marriage in North America.

Polygamous marriages: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS & Mormon church), first introduced the concept of polygyny -- one man married to multiple spiritual wives -- in the early 1840s.

African-American marriages: In the mid 19th century, African-American slaves were not free to marry as white couples were. "...marriage could only take place after obtaining permission from the owner. Southern state laws denied the slaves legal marriage contracts."

Inter-racial marriages: Until a few decades ago, inter-racial marriage was considered a criminal act in some U.S. states. In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a White man, had been legally married in the District of Columbia. When they returned to Virginia, they were arrested because their inter-racial marriage violated Virginia's miscegenation laws.

Same-sex marriages: Until 2003-JUN-10, same sex couples are not allowed to marry anywhere in North America. On that date, same-sex marriages became legal in Ontario, Canada.

So the dictionary says marriage means the legal union of a man and woman AND a same-sex marriage. I think you can work it out from there.

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd point out that the dictionary only documents how words are used, and does not consider the philosophy of whether a particular word should be used for a particular thing.

I'd say, give them the benefits. After all, they want their union, they can get their union, just as long as they don't screw over the sanctity of marriage, which has been, and damn well hopefully will forever be, the love between a man and a woman], as was intended by God (and 99.995% of all other religions), and not some sick-ass genetic defect, or whatever they're blaming this all-in-the-mind bullmanure on these days.

Too late! :D

That men wrote it under divine inspiration :) If not, how could we tell what was and wasn't a sham?
Exactly … now where is your proof of divine inspiration … without that proof how can we be sure its not a sham?

Go Canada Woot!

It feels so good this morning...

It feels so good this morning...
What being on a country that respects people and their rights to equality … I bet it does

Since the US has a tad longer history than Canada as an independent nation, we have more accomplishments than Canada.

This may be true, but you have to take your hat off to Canadians. This is one area that they are way ahead of the US on. Kudos to Canada, what a wonderful step in the right direction for Human rights!

Yay Canada! :)

Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
That men wrote it under divine inspiration If not, how could we tell what was and wasn't a sham?
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a sham.
But the whole Christian doctrine tells us that human beings are imperfect and suffer from the original sin. Even with divine inspiration, they can't do anything perfectly, because only Jesus could.
Anyway the choice of books in the Bible was done gradually, over the centuries, from various sources... some of them being in contradition or being available in a number of versions... And in the first centuries after Jesus, there wasn't any Bible to speak of, only various texts that were distributed/preached separately. I've read some of the "rejected" evangiles; some of them are quite good actually. Some of them are much more Christian (in spirit) than Saint John's Apocalypse, for example.
We're members of a religion that has SLOWLY evolved from oral tradition and minimal settings... to what we have today. For example, some of the first churches had no bell tower; they used gongs to call the prayer. The first Bibles were written in Aramaic/Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, as well as a dozen of other languages. In fact, the most reliable texts for Bible study are Aramaic and Armenian, because they're the oldest available translations of the WHOLE bible.

What does some mildewy old book have to do with anything?

Whoo!

Welcome to the 21st century Canada!

Screw you christianity!

This may be true, but you have to take your hat off to Canadians. This is one area that they are way ahead of the US on. Kudos to Canada, what a wonderful step in the right direction for Human rights!

Yay Canada! :)
Agreed … we should have been championing this movement with our claim as a country of “freedom”

Whoo!

Welcome to the 21st century Canada!

Screw you christianity!
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Agreed … we should have been championing this movement with our claim as a country of “freedom”

Well, hindsight has 20/20, as they say. Good luck with figuring out what overall direction America ought to be heading, btw.

However tough things have been here fostering positive change, it's nothing like the job you all have before you down there.

Well, hindsight has 20/20, as they say. Good luck with figuring out what overall direction America ought to be heading, btw.

However tough things have been here fostering positive change, it's nothing like the job you all have before you down there.
I refuse to give up because it is easy to do so … to give up and allow inequality and restrict freedoms beyond the necessary goes against my grain

I refuse to give up because it is easy to do so … to give up and allow inequality and restrict freedoms beyond the necessary goes against my grain

Good for you!

Good for you!
Amazing how moderate I used to be lol (now I am more libertarian … mostly… well at least leaning that way on the social side)

Being constantly bombarded from the religious (who tend to lean authoritative) has pushed me to be more vocally libertarian lol

I grabbed this off the net from a straight couples journal. This is what a straight couple had to say on this issue. From what I read, yesterday was their wedding anniversary!


Our government's anniversary gift to us.

I know they don't think it was for us, but it was.

It was the gift of letting us enjoy our marriage secure in the knowledge that it is something now to be shared by ALL pairs of consenting adults in Canada. By passing the legislation making gay marriages a Federally mandated reality, Canada returns itself to the forefront of the world in standing up for fairness, equality, compassion, and the dedication to human rights. A gift more to others than ourselves to be sure, but a gift to us as well.

Because how could I pride myself in my country if it were ruled by dogmatic bigotry? How could I not have a mental asterix besides my own mariage certificate knowing full well that this was something of an elitst document denied to others for specious reasons?

We didn't have to get married. We chose to. Our lives together would not be one iota different had we decided to remain a common-law couple. But we made a decision that our relationship, in our minds, deserved a legally binding pledge of fidelity, with all of the rights, benefits, and obligations that such a contract bestows. It was not a pledge to God, but a pledge to each other. And the idea that some people were deemed incapable of making a similar pledge simply due to their sexuality was an afront to decency, and to common sense. Because marriages are not about sex, and marriages are not about children. My feeling on this are crystal clear.


Simply defined, marriages are partnerships in life - whatever life it is that you both choose to share together.




Long may EVERY couple enjoy their lives together in joy and happiness, should they choose to enter the contract of marriage or not.

So Paul, Gilles, and Jack: Thank you.
Stephen: Kiss my ass.

I thought it was great to see straight and gay people in almost everything I have read today mostly taking this stance. I myself am straight as well, and I agree with them! Now to kick the USA's butt into a little freedom for everyone too!

I grabbed this off the net from a straight couples journal. This is what a straight couple had to say on this issue. From what I read, yesterday was their wedding anniversary!




I thought it was great to see straight and gay people in almost everything I have read today mostly taking this stance. I myself am straight as well, and I agree with them! Now to kick the USA's butt into a little freedom for everyone too!
Yes please do some kicking …we don’t seem to have the internal strength of fairness to complete the task

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Free gay love for the minnesotans :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

A few peole were discussing this last night...now that gay marriage is a Canadian reality, certain branches of the US gov will have to acknowledge the legitimacy of those marriages in a bilateral context... border crossings the most obvious, perhaps.

Are there any other bilateral relationships that will require updating on the part of our neighbours to the south?

Free gay love for the minnesotans :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Damn strait ... we are on the canadian border ... maybe we can import some :p :fluffle:

A few peole were discussing this last night...now that gay marriage is a Canadian reality, certain branches of the US gov will have to acknowledge the legitimacy of those marriages in a bilateral context... border crossings the most obvious, perhaps.

You are asking to much. Since Gay Marriage is still illegal in this country, we don't have to recognize it.

Are there any other bilateral relationships that will require updating on the part of our neighbours to the south?

Don't know.

Well, in certain cases...emergency healthcare, for example - a married couple is a married couple is a married couple. Or if a couple split up and one parent took their children away with them over the border. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about - not 'recognition' in the sense of allowing Americans to have gay marriages, just the workaday nuts and bolts of recognizing Canadian married couples as being exactly that, Canadian married couples.

Canada, you have renewed my hope that there can be more acceptance and love for all people in the world (Well at least we'll get more acceptance and love from Canadians).

You are asking to much. Since Gay Marriage is still illegal in this country, we don't have to recognize it.

No, it's legal in parts of the country. You know that... as much as you may disagree with it, it's still legal.

You are asking to much. Since Gay Marriage is still illegal in this country, we don't have to recognize it.



Don't know.
Hopefully that will change

Canada, you have renewed my hope that there can be more acceptance and love for all people in the world (Well at least we'll get more acceptance and love from Canadians).
I was on a high too, after the vote, but ugly, bigoted reality accosted me in my workplace today when people started saying, "Now people will be marrying their cats! I'm so scared about what will happen when my children grow up!"

*sigh* Yeah...they might be able to marry whomever they love. How horrible. :(

Hopefully that will change


I know, since when was it a good thing when one group of people imposed their religious beliefs on everyone?

There's a lyric from an old Rush song that seems pertinent:

'...he knows change isn't permanent -

but change is'

Yeesh. From deep in the depths of my life as a grade nine student, that was.

I was on a high too, after the vote, but ugly, bigoted reality accosted me in my workplace today when people started saying, "Now people will be marrying their cats! I'm so scared about what will happen when my children grow up!"

*sigh* Yeah...they might be able to marry whomever they love. How horrible. :(


Yeah well I'm sure it's hard to let go of old prejudices and I feel sorry for the people that are so tormented by the fact that people they hate, or are disgusted by because they dont conform to their own personal religious beliefs, now have one of the same basic freedoms that they do. Maybe it makes them feel less superior to these hethans now and that is what their mental anguish arises from.

Damn liberal politicians. Not like we should keep church and state seperate.

I am horrified at this bullshit.

I'm not. And I am a Canadian Conservative living in the heart of liberalism in Canada (ontario).

I don't really care that it passed. In fact, I'm glad it passed so everyone can shut the hell up about it now.

Now can we get into a real issue, like our fucked up healthcare?

Canada City']Now can we get into a real issue, like our fucked up healthcare?

We sure can!

Here's mud in your eye!

*drinks more coffee*

Canada City']I'm not. And I am a Canadian Conservative living in the heart of liberalism in Canada (ontario).

I don't really care that it passed. In fact, I'm glad it passed so everyone can shut the hell up about it now.

Now can we get into a real issue, like our fucked up healthcare?
I wish we could...but Harper has already promised to make it an election issue. Again.

I wish we could...but Harper has already promised to make it an election issue. Again.

that's okay, Sinu - we can promise ourselves to not make Stephen Harper an issue in the next election. By voting for someone else.

I wish we could...but Harper has already promised to make it an election issue. Again.

No duh. Have you looked at the recent popular issues in Canada?

Healthcare is highest, along with the Sponsership Scandal.

I guarantee you that if we ran an election soon and Harper played his cards right using Healthcare and the Scandal, he could actually win the election and get Ontario to convert.

Canada City']No duh. Have you looked at the recent popular issues in Canada?

Healthcare is highest, along with the Sponsership Scandal.

I guarantee you that if we ran an election soon and Harper played his cards right using Healthcare and the Scandal, he could actually win the election and get Ontario to convert.

Let me paraphrase Corneliu (of all people): FAT CHANCE.

Harper & co. have fumbled the ball so many times this year, on and off the Hill, the chances of them forming the next Federal gov are as remote as Baffin Island.

Let me paraphrase Corneliu (of all people): FAT CHANCE.

Harper & co. have fumbled the ball so many times this year, on and off the Hill, the chances of them forming the next Federal gov are as remote as Baffin Island.

I know Canada has a shitty education so I will point out something in my post that you obviously did not get.

"if we ran an election soon and Harper played his cards right using Healthcare and the Scandal, he could actually win the election and get Ontario to convert."

I didn't say it would be simple. The majority of Ontario citizens rely heavily into healthcare, however, and guess what? Our healthcare sucks. If Harper can present the issue in a respectable manner (ha), and show a good solution, Ontario would belong to the conversatives.

Canada City']I didn't say it would be simple. The majority of Ontario citizens rely heavily into healthcare, however, and guess what? Our healthcare sucks. If Harper can present the issue in a respectable manner (ha), and show a good solution, Ontario would belong to the conversatives.

Look, Steve Harper made a deal with the Bloc to further his goal of installing himself in the PMO in an election bid the majority of Canadians most emphatically did not want to see happen, and instead of doing the job he was mandated to do, i.e. work with the minority gov to build consensus among Canadians, instead chose to do everything in his power to derail the work of the Commons. Never mind that he personally got into bed with the Seps in order to bring down the gov, those same Seps aren't apparently legitimately seated in the Commons, according to ol' Stevie.

He's destroyed whatever efforts went into courting the Quebec vote last year, he's managed to piss off, alienate or downright frighten most Ontarians, and is widely known for calling Atlantic Canadians 'lazy' and worse. Gays won't be voting for him and his paleolithic cronies, neither will the center, the left, women, aboriginals, and the list goes on.

Who will vote for him? Republicans in Tory clothing. That's who. Those who would seek to turn back the hands of time. those who are ready to rise up and meet the challenges facing Canada in this brave new world of 1905. Sorry, 1805.

1705?

1605?

Erm..........



I thought that Canada has a hell of a lot better healthcare system that the US does?

I thought that Canada has a hell of a lot better healthcare system that the US does?

Not according to our resident Republican-party-in-training, it's not. Apparently we'll all be better served by adopting YOUR system...

LOL

Then damn...i need to redo my research on that then....haha

Then damn...i need to redo my research on that then....haha

Best wait 'til after the election this winter. There's a damn good chance they'll be licking their wounds back in Red Deer, Alberta.

Originally Posted by Shazbotdom
I thought that Canada has a hell of a lot better healthcare system that the US does?
Yes and no.
Everybody, even the poorer, get access to the best hospitals available in Canada.
But the problem is... all hospitals are at the same level (more or less).
So if we compare the best canadian hospitals with the best american hospitals, the american hospitals win without a doubt.
But overall, the Canadian population is generally more healthy, even if health care can be crappy sometimes. A lot of data shows that we're doing well; our lifespan is longer by a nice margin, too.

Canada City']I know Canada has a shitty education so I will point out something in my post that you obviously did not get.

"if we ran an election soon and Harper played his cards right using Healthcare and the Scandal, he could actually win the election and get Ontario to convert."

I didn't say it would be simple. The majority of Ontario citizens rely heavily into healthcare, however, and guess what? Our healthcare sucks. If Harper can present the issue in a respectable manner (ha), and show a good solution, Ontario would belong to the conversatives.

Hahahaha! Harper turning Ontario conservative! Let me guess, are you a comic trying out new material on us?

Hahahaha! Harper turning Ontario conservative! Let me guess, are you a comic trying out new material on us?

The sheer optimism boggles the mind at this late date. I guess someone's been studiously avoiding reading the morning papers this spring.

Canada City']I know Canada has a shitty education so I will point out something in my post that you obviously did not get.

"if we ran an election soon and Harper played his cards right using Healthcare and the Scandal, he could actually win the election and get Ontario to convert."

I didn't say it would be simple. The majority of Ontario citizens rely heavily into healthcare, however, and guess what? Our healthcare sucks. If Harper can present the issue in a respectable manner (ha), and show a good solution, Ontario would belong to the conversatives.

<_<

Yes and no.
Everybody, even the poorer, get access to the best hospitals available in Canada.
But the problem is... all hospitals are at the same level (more or less).
So if we compare the best canadian hospitals with the best american hospitals, the american hospitals win without a doubt.
But overall, the Canadian population is generally more healthy, even if health care can be crappy sometimes. A lot of data shows that we're doing well; our lifespan is longer by a nice margin, too.

I like this guy, want to know why? He explains himself, and quite nicely too. The problem with a lot of politicians, and a lot of ... PEOPLE, is that they just throw general statements out trying to win out over other people. That's just silly. ;)

Naw, that's Elizebethian English! I'm talking Middle English, Chaucer you know:

Whanne that April with his shoures sote
The droughte of March hath perced to the rote.


I still have that and the Modern English version memorized :D

Canada City']I know Canada has a shitty education so I will point out something in my post that you obviously did not get.
What shitty education? I know the whole new curriculum kidan fucked things up in Ontario, it really should have been started with the newer kindargarden kids instead of having kids jump right in midway through their scholastic careers. But the education I've received thus far has been superb.

"if we ran an election soon and Harper played his cards right using Healthcare and the Scandal, he could actually win the election and get Ontario to convert."

I didn't say it would be simple. The majority of Ontario citizens rely heavily into healthcare, however, and guess what? Our healthcare sucks. If Harper can present the issue in a respectable manner (ha), and show a good solution, Ontario would belong to the conversatives.
Again, what shitty health care? The longest I've ever had to wait to see a doctor in a drop in sort of setting was my one emergency room visit for something that wasn't an emergency (I would have gone to a walk-in clinic if they were open at 4 am, but they aren't) which was 4 hours. Otherwise it's been half an hour tops to see a doctor without an appointment. It only takes a week's notice (often less) to make an appointment too. I really don't see this whole crappy healthcare shit you're talking about.

And also, Harper's behaviour lately has been chidlish at best. Hardly befitting the leader of the opposition party, let alone a potential prime minister.

Apparently some people would prefer to go see their MDs in luxury hotel suites rather than a neighbourhood clinic. With optional gold-plated tongue depressors and vanity syringes...

I bet the conservatives in Canada are feeling similar to the liberals in the US. Frustrated at the route our countries leadership is taking us and not seeing any good candidates on our own side that have a chance at taking the lead on anything.

It is unfortunate that the US and Canada don't have an actual treaty for recognizing marriages performed in the other country. Of course, I still think it will be rather funny when a gay Canadian couple decides to move the US and can't get their marriage recognized. Then Canada will stop recognizing US marriages, and things will get ugly.

Although in the US at least I think a lot of conservatives often oppose our so-called conserevative leadership, while I don't see the same for the liberals in Canada as much.

Originally Posted by [NS]Canada City
I know Canada has a shitty education so I will point out something in my post that you obviously did not get.
We're second in the world after Japan in maths and science.
Each year there is some kind of international evaluation of education quality.
So statistics DO exist, and they prove you wrong.

Cheers for the inspiration, Dobbsworld. "Marry Me Gay, I'm Canadian" would make a great song title. :cool:

Welcome Canada to a select club of enlightened countries: you are proud third member of the entire world: you, Holland and us, Belgium.

Congrats on making the right (and only) decision

Gay couples everywhere (limited to the three), unite!

Well i have to say that im dissapointed in my nations politicians, Im not one to support this action. Although i would of found more common ground if insted they gave some type of Civil union, thats alright. But don't call it marriage. we already have a definition for marriage. One promary reason why we should give a civil union insted of allowing then to "marry" is to water down the entire situation. Many people are only upset with it because they feel that for religious reasons gays should not be married. So, alright then, givem the next best thing. givem the benifits of the marriage, that way alot fewer people will have something to complain about. Our nation is divided on to many things as it is, this is just one thing that we could meet half way at so at the end of the day we're not all calling each other "Fag lovers" or "Bible Thumpers".

No, it's legal in parts of the country. You know that... as much as you may disagree with it, it's still legal.

Only in ONE, repeat ONE, state is it legal. That state is Massachuttess and that was done by State Courts. Many more states have banned Gay marriage outright.

The States of VT and CT recognize only civil unions and not gay marriage. That's it people. And under DOMA, which inreality OVERRIDES the state supreme court of Massachuttess, marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Welcome Canada to a select club of enlightened countries: you are proud third member of the entire world: you, Holland and us, Belgium.

Congrats on making the right (and only) decision

Gay couples everywhere (limited to the three), unite!

Hello, Sprouts! Glad to be here.

Cheers for the inspiration, Dobbsworld. "Marry Me Gay, I'm Canadian" would make a great song title. :cool:

Heh. Would at that-!

The States of VT and CT recognize only civil unions and not gay marriage. That's it people. And under DOMA, which inreality OVERRIDES the state supreme court of Massachuttess, marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Your flawed understanding of the law never ceases to amaze me.

No, a federal law about what the federal government recognizes does not in any way overried a state law about what that state does. Sorry.

Secondly, DOMA is very clearly in contradiction to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Thus, if challenged on this basis, it will fall.

Welcome Canada to a select club of enlightened countries: you are proud third member of the entire world: you, Holland and us, Belgium.

Congrats on making the right (and only) decision

Gay couples everywhere (limited to the three), unite!



If immorality is enlightenment, then I'd hate to see what barbarism was :eek:

Your flawed understanding of the law never ceases to amaze me.

No, a federal law about what the federal government recognizes does not in any way overried a state law about what that state does. Sorry.

Secondly, DOMA is very clearly in contradiction to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Thus, if challenged on this basis, it will fall.

That calls for one big push of the Marriage Amendment then :D

Well i have to say that im dissapointed in my nations politicians, Im not one to support this action. Although i would of found more common ground if insted they gave some type of Civil union, thats alright. But don't call it marriage. we already have a definition for marriage. One promary reason why we should give a civil union insted of allowing then to "marry" is to water down the entire situation. Many people are only upset with it because they feel that for religious reasons gays should not be married. So, alright then, givem the next best thing. givem the benifits of the marriage, that way alot fewer people will have something to complain about. Our nation is divided on to many things as it is, this is just one thing that we could meet half way at so at the end of the day we're not all calling each other "Fag lovers" or "Bible Thumpers".


Why should a secular country care what religious people think about gay marriage though? Why should religious people care if gay people that don't belong to their faith get married? Marriage is not strctly a religious institution and many marriages are done without religion involved at all. Why can't churches that are opposed to gay marriage, just deny gay people the right to marry in their church?

Secondly, DOMA is very clearly in contradiction to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Thus, if challenged on this basis, it will fall.

I do know that DOMA was challenged in a Federal Court in the state of Washington. Guess what? D.O.M.A. was UPHELD!

As for your other assertions, no state law can override federal law. We saw that with the marijuana decision (correct one in my mind by SCOTUS). They stated that Federal Law overrides state law in the case. Therefore, medical marijuana cannot be used.

Here, DOMA is the federal law the recognizes marriage as One man and one woman. If we use precendent set by SCOTUS, the Massachuttess decision gets overriden by DOMA since the Mass decision violates Federal Law. By Precident, DOMA is still in affect regardless of what the Massachuttess Supreme Court ruled.

Now in CT and VT, they are allowing civil unions, which isn't barred by DOMA and the Federal Marriage Protection Act.

If immorality is enlightenment, then I'd hate to see what barbarism was :eek:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

If immorality is enlightenment, then I'd hate to see what barbarism was :eek:
It isn't immoral for two people in love to register the fact that they love each other and want to grow old together with the government. That simply doesn't make sense, really. They aren't hurting anybody.

If immorality is enlightenment, then I'd hate to see what barbarism was :eek:

Well, following your statement, morality, obviously.

Why should a secular country care what religious people think about gay marriage though? Why should religious people care if gay people that don't belong to their faith get married? Marriage is not strctly a religious institution and many marriages are done without religion involved at all. Why can't churches that are opposed to gay marriage, just deny gay people the right to marry in their church?


Because we believe it to be immoral, and we live in this country and have the right to shape its policies as much as they do.

It isn't immoral for two people in love to register the fact that they love each other and want to grow old together with the government. That simply doesn't make sense, really. They aren't hurting anybody.



It is when they are of the same sex and sexual relations are involved :)

Because we believe it to be immoral, and we live in this country and have the right to shape its policies as much as they do.

So then you think it's okay for someone to force their beliefs on someone else?

Because we believe it to be immoral, and we live in this country and have the right to shape its policies as much as they do.

Not according to Prime minister Paul Martin, who said yesterday, "The vote is about the Charter of Rights. We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."

It is when they are of the same sex and sexual relations are involved :)
How so? You haven't really explained this at all.

It is when they are of the same sex and sexual relations are involved :)
How so? You haven't really explained this at all.

So then you think it's okay for someone to force their beliefs on someone else?

He can think whatever he wants, Sumamba. He just can't do it, not here, anyway.

LOL

Score another victory for everybody!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Because we believe it to be immoral, and we live in this country and have the right to shape its policies as much as they do.

If I formed a religion, converted a bunch of people, and said that marriage can ONLY be between people of the same sex, how would you feel?

Because we believe it to be immoral, and we live in this country and have the right to shape its policies as much as they do.
Yeah, and you also don't have to recognize the unions as valid. The government will, that's all this says.

Not according to Prime minister Paul Martin, who said yesterday, "The vote is about the Charter of Rights. We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."



But this is America, not Canada ;)

It is when they are of the same sex and sexual relations are involved :)

No, not anymore. Not in Canada, anyway. Sorry, you'll have to tell other peole how to live their lives. We're not buying into it up here. Not any bloody more.

But this is America, not Canada ;)

Uhh, I beg to differ. THIS is Canada.

But this is America, not Canada ;)

Read the topic title.

No, not anymore. Not in Canada, anyway. Sorry, you'll have to tell other peole how to live their lives. We're not buying into it up here. Not any bloody more.
Again I said it before but I hope we learn from your good example

Yeah, and you also don't have to recognize the unions as valid. The government will, that's all this says.



My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights. They're supporting secularism over Christianity when they do that, therefore I will oppose any such attempt in the US.

He can think whatever he wants, Sumamba. He just can't do it, not here, anyway.

LOL

Score another victory for everybody!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!


Yayyyyyyyyyy they lose we win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He can think whatever he wants and live whereever he wants. Lucky for him here in the US we allow people to believe what they wish but I think that since he wants to live in a theocracy and wishes to infringe upon the rights of others that he should move to one.

Read the topic title.



I know, but this ruling also affects the US as its neighbors are subtly pressuring us to accept homosexuality with that ruling. Gay marriage being accepted in Canada is a concern for us all.

My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights. They're supporting secularism over Christianity when they do that, therefore I will oppose any such attempt in the US.

Wait wait wait, the United States isn't supposed to be a secular country now??? When the fuck was this memo handed out?

My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights.

No it's not. Wherever did you get that idea? Nowhere in your charter of rights does it say that you have the right to have the government agree with you on every issue.

My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights. They're supporting secularism over Christianity when they do that, therefore I will oppose any such attempt in the US.


Luckily on the whole we are too advanced as a nation to be anything but secular.

He can think whatever he wants, Sumamba. He just can't do it, not here, anyway.

LOL

Score another victory for everybody!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!



Why do so many people have a rough time understanding this concept: I AM NOT A HE!!!!

I know, but this ruling also affects the US as its neighbors are subtly pressuring us to accept homosexuality with that ruling. Gay marriage being accepted in Canada is a concern for us all.
Why? Are you planning to be married to a gay person? No? Then mind your own business.

My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights. They're supporting secularism over Christianity when they do that, therefore I will oppose any such attempt in the US.

Yeah, well governments (democratic governments at any rate) aren't actually supposed to be in the business of supporting religious beliefs in any way, shape, or form.

I know, but this ruling also affects the US as its neighbors are subtly pressuring us to accept homosexuality with that ruling. Gay marriage being accepted in Canada is a concern for us all.
I know isn’t it great the more pressure the better if it gets us to do the right thing
They are within their right to live up to their countries ideals … and if by doing so it makes us think about us not living up to ours I am all for it.

Why do so many people have a rough time understanding this concept: I AM NOT A HE!!!!
How would we know your gender? Put it in your location if you get sick of people mixing it up. That's why I'm from FEMALE:)

Luckily on the whole we are too advanced as a nation to be anything but secular.


Secular =/= advanced. Secular = spiritually devoid. Terrible times these are. Any progress made by Christianity is quickly being reversed it seems. Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:

My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights. They're supporting secularism over Christianity when they do that, therefore I will oppose any such attempt in the US.

Since when did America become a theocracy? Did I miss a news report on this? Separation of church & state! There is no reason why gay marriage should not be legal in the US too. Other than bigots who hate anyone who don't agree with them. The government is suppose to be secular, unless you want to move to Iran!

No it's not. Wherever did you get that idea? Nowhere in your charter of rights does it say that you have the right to have the government agree with you on every issue.

lol I'd like to see that right as well. But I know that will never be produced. Neo, I'm sorry you are so tormented that our country is not a religious theocracy that forces people to live by the bible. But you knwo what? HARD CHEESE ON YOU CUZ IT NEVER WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!! *points and laughs*

Secular =/= advanced. Secular =/= spiritually devoid. Terrible times these are. Any progress made by Christianity is quickly being reversed it seems. Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:
You see it as regression we see it as progression

No it's not. Wherever did you get that idea? Nowhere in your charter of rights does it say that you have the right to have the government agree with you on every issue.

Nonsense! It's every Christian's God given duty to decide what others can and cannot do and denying them that is persecution, bigotry and intolerance.

Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:

Couldn't have said it better myself. LONG LIVE CIVIL RIGHTS!

Nonsense! It's every Christian's God given duty to decide what others can and cannot do and denying them that is persecution, bigotry and intolerance.
Exactly that’s the side of Christianity I love … the one that sticks up for the little guy and makes things fair.

Secular =/= advanced. Secular =/= spiritually devoid. Terrible times these are. Any progress made by Christianity is quickly being reversed it seems. Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:
What progress? :p

How would we know your gender? Put it in your location if you get sick of people mixing it up. That's why I'm from FEMALE:)



Yeah, I've said I was female in about 7 threads by now but I guess it would be better to put it in my location :D

lol I'd like to see that right as well. But I know that will never be produced. Neo, I'm sorry you are so tormented that our country is not a religious theocracy that forces people to live by the bible. But you knwo what? HARD CHEESE ON YOU CUZ IT NEVER WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!! *points and laughs*



We'll see about that ;)

Yeah, I've said I was female in about 7 threads by now but I guess it would be better to put it in my location :D
It's 'cuz female gamers are a minority, y'know. Plus, there is that stereotype that all truly conservative Christians are straight white males.

Secular =/= advanced. Secular =/= spiritually devoid. Terrible times these are. Any progress made by Christianity is quickly being reversed it seems. Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:

Sorry I thought you were a guy. normally I find men to be the fanatics and the women to be more level headed so I assumed wrong. apologies.

lack of religion does =/= spiritually devoid. abundance of religion =/= presence of spirituality.

Yeah, I've said I was female in about 7 threads by now but I guess it would be better to put it in my location :D
I often forget, if I haven't debated with a poster a lot. Plus, I make the mistake of assuming names ending in 'a' are female, and those ending in 'o' or a consonant are male. Blame it on Spanish. But yours confused this lameass method of mine, because you have an 'o' and an 'a':)

It's 'cuz female gamers are a minority, y'know. Plus, there is that stereotype that all truly conservative Christians are straight white males.

That, or when in doubt, it's easier to type he than she.

Sorry I thought you were a guy. normally I find men to be the fanatics and the women to be more level headed so I assumed wrong. apologies. As the resident feminazi, I take offense to that! :D

I often forget, if I haven't debated with a poster a lot. Plus, I make the mistake of assuming names ending in 'a' are female, and those ending in 'o' or a consonant are male. Blame it on Spanish. But yours confused this lameass method of mine, because you have an 'o' and an 'a':)
you notice that too!!!! I thought I was the only one ... overall I knotice it to be fairly stisticaly true ... the females on the board usualy end with an A or E and the guys O

Not always but I usualy get that feeling

Since when did America become a theocracy? Did I miss a news report on this? Separation of church & state! There is no reason why gay marriage should not be legal in the US too. Other than bigots who hate anyone who don't agree with them. The government is suppose to be secular, unless you want to move to Iran!



Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?

Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:

Good times...

...actually sounds kinda Pagan. Lemme get a ruling on that

*goes to consult Pagan life-mate*

Ahh. The Pagan saying goes, "As it harm none, do as thou wilt".

Close enough for jazz.

Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?
Um, reread that quote. She isn't calling Christians bigots. She's calling people who hate everyone who doesn't agree with them, bigots. Some of these bigots are non-religious...or of other faiths.

But you knwo what? HARD CHEESE ON YOU CUZ IT NEVER WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!! *points and laughs*

Yuck. I prefer a soft cheese...

Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?
Fag-lover wouldn't offend me at all. I think it's cute. And hey, I don't always call Christians bigots, just the ones who are (1) anti-gay, (2) racist, and/or (3) anti-feminist. So, that's the vast majority, sure, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?

My post wasn't aimed at Christians it was aimed at bigots who believe that gay's should not have the exact same rights as everyone else.

you notice that too!!!! I thought I was the only one ... overall I knotice it to be fairly stisticaly true ... the females on the board usualy end with an A or E and the guys O

Not always but I usualy get that feeling
Which is why I thought Santa Barbara was a tall, aristocratic woman with very straight, long brown hair and a strident tone of voice:)

As the resident feminazi, I take offense to that! :D

Yes, I should always use you as an example of how women can also be cookoo nana so I don't make such generalizations.

Yes, I should always use you as an example of how women can also be cookoo nana so I don't make such generalizations.
Hehehehhee. Well, me and Bottle:) And the other wacko chicks around here.

Which is why I thought Santa Barbara was a tall, aristocratic woman with very straight, long brown hair and a strident tone of voice:)

I'm a female and my nick ends in a "Z"

Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?


Call me a fag-lover all you want. I take no offense to that because yes I do love fags as much as I love anybody else. Some of my favorite friends and co-workers have been "fags".

Hehehehhee. Well, me and Bottle:) And the other wacko chicks around here.
*Giggles hysterically and burns own arm off*

Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?

Oh, that cheeky little Rabbi Jesus. What a nice guy he was. Too bad he got done in like that.

Still and all, it's not like he's been forgotten. Turn them cheeks!

Yuck. I prefer a soft cheese...


Ok you get the Bree (sp?)

I'm a female and my nick ends in a "Z"
Yeah, that's a dificult one. Very masculine name.

My post wasn't aimed at Christians it was aimed at bigots who believe that gay's should not have the exact same rights as everyone else.

Feh, I wouldn't worry about the bigots, Xanaz. It's a done deal.

I'm a female and my nick ends in a "Z"
Yeah, you just screwed me all up. You see, my 'method' is based on Spanish, and my own poster-name doesn't even fit it. It's a silly little prejudice I have when judging gender of people I can't see. So for the longest time, I thought you were male:)

Don't worry about it though...I assumed Occidio Multus was a white guy!

Yeah, that's a dificult one. Very masculine name.

Ya think? Xana is masculine? I only added the "z" to be different.

Ok you get the Bree (sp?)

Brie.

Like I said, close enough for jazz.

*Giggles hysterically and burns own arm off*
Another female I presume?

I bet the conservatives in Canada are feeling similar to the liberals in the US. Frustrated at the route our countries leadership is taking us and not seeing any good candidates on our own side that have a chance at taking the lead on anything.

Somewhat.

Gay marriage is omething I don't care about. It isn't a big concern with me.

High taxes, poor education, and healthcare are a little more importent then two guys who want to get married.

Hehehehhee. Well, me and Bottle:) And the other wacko chicks around here.


Feminazis aren't allowed to use the word "chicks". But yeah Cookoo nana chicks are hot.

What with all the heated comments that were going on in this thread, I thought this video might be appropriate: (Specifically the discussing politics bit)

http://www.spikedhumor.com/media/47/reallifevsinternet[1].wmv

Also, Canada, on behalf of Australia: top shelf chaps, (and chapettes) keep up the good work!

Another female I presume?
With a slight case of pyromania.

Ya think? Xana is masculine? I only added the "z" to be different.


I thought so too. I thought it was a reference to an anti-depressant or something. Helloooo nurse!

Brie.

Like I said, close enough for jazz.


ty

now you get some good crackers to go with it

Erm..........



I thought that Canada has a hell of a lot better healthcare system that the US does?

Shortage of doctors, long wait times, not enough hospitals.

There is a lot of people who would like the two-tier system. If I want to fork up cash so I can get a better healthcare than a medicore free one, I SHOULD BECAUSE IT IS MY RIGHT AND MY MONEY.

It isn't illegal to have private clinics. Quebec and BC has had the Two-tier health system for years. Guess what? They are doing just fine.

Yeah, you just screwed me all up. You see, my 'method' is based on Spanish, and my own poster-name doesn't even fit it. It's a silly little prejudice I have when judging gender of people I can't see. So for the longest time, I thought you were male:)

Don't worry about it though...I assumed Occidio Multus was a white guy!


and she had fantasies about me being a big black guy with shamanic powers and .... well we'll stop there.

Okay, on the actual topic, I think it's great that Canadia has taken this step and I hope that soon my own country will follow suit.

ty

now you get some good crackers to go with it

Freeloader. What are you planning to bring, apart from your wit and charming personality?

I do know that DOMA was challenged in a Federal Court in the state of Washington. Guess what? D.O.M.A. was UPHELD!

Guess what? DOMA was not challenged on the basis of the full faith and credit clause!

In fact, those bringing the challenge were former Canadian citizens who had moved to this country. As we only observe the tradition of recognizing marriages from Canada, but do not have a treaty with them mandating it, full faith and credit had nothing to do with them!

Do you ever actually bother to read up on a court decision before erroneously invoking it?

As for your other assertions, no state law can override federal law. We saw that with the marijuana decision (correct one in my mind by SCOTUS). They stated that Federal Law overrides state law in the case. Therefore, medical marijuana cannot be used.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this law.

DOMA does not say "No state shall recognize homosexual marriage." It very clearly says "The federal government shall view marriage as a union between a man and a woman." Thus, the state can recognize it differnently.

Here, DOMA is the federal law the recognizes marriage as One man and one woman. If we use precendent set by SCOTUS, the Massachuttess decision gets overriden by DOMA since the Mass decision violates Federal Law. By Precident, DOMA is still in affect regardless of what the Massachuttess Supreme Court ruled.

Guess what darling? You once again display complete and total ignorance of the law. The ruling in Massachusetts had nothing at all to do with DOMA. It was not a challenge to DOMA. It challenged a law specific to Mass. that violated the Constitution of Mass. Thus, you are full of shit.

Now in CT and VT, they are allowing civil unions, which isn't barred by DOMA and the Federal Marriage Protection Act.

Darling, gay marriage isn't barred by DOMA either. DOMA just states that the federal government won't recognize said unions.

Canada City']Somewhat.

Gay marriage is omething I don't care about. It isn't a big concern with me.

High taxes, poor education, and healthcare are a little more importent then two guys who want to get married.

I wasn't speaking about gay marriage per se with that comment. I just meant generally.

Canada City']Shortage of doctors, long wait times, not enough hospitals.

There is a lot of people who would like the two-tier system. If I want to fork up cash so I can get a better healthcare then a free, I SHOULD BECAUSE IT IS MY RIGHT AND MY MONEY.

We aren't given that option. Instead, we have to use the same healthcare system that a homeless person could use.

By any chance are you living in a very rual area? Because you're the only Canadian I've ever seen complain about their healthcare. And what do you have against homeless people? Are you some how better than them?

Canada City']Instead, we have to use the same healthcare system that a homeless person could use.

Shocking. Maybe Doctors should come dressed in disposable, paper clothes "for your personal hygiene", like drinking straws at an American drive-through window...

But this is America, not Canada ;)
Note the thread title. Not everything revolves around the U.S.

By any chance are you living in a very rual area? Because you're the only Canadian I've ever seen complain about their healthcare. And what do you have against homeless people? Are you some how better than them?

I'm not leeching off the government or taxpayers, so yes...I am better than them.

Freeloader. What are you planning to bring, apart from your wit and charming personality?

I thought I was bringing brie and crackers :confused:


and flattery will get you everywhere :fluffle:

Note the thread title. Not everything revolves around the U.S.
F'real, 'specially on the internet.

Canada City']I'm not leeching off the government or taxpayers, so yes...I am better than them.

O0o0o0o0o0o0o0o. I don't think I like you. Seriously. Wouldn't a homeless person imply that they are in fact leeching off of no one? If they were on government help, wouldn't they have a place to live? I think so. And in fact, I don't think you're better than them, not one bit.

Canada City']I'm not leeching off the government or taxpayers, so yes...I am better than them.
So people that pay more then you in taxes are better then you?

My point exactly, the government recognizing something I believe is wrong is a violation of my rights. They're supporting secularism over Christianity when they do that, therefore I will oppose any such attempt in the US.
What?

So a white supremacist who doesn't recognize blacks as people is having his rights violated because the government reognizes black people as people?

Your argument is simply put, stupid and nonsense.

And this thread has fuck-all to do with the U.S., this is about the celebration of the fact that our politicians in Canada have deceided to move forward in human rights issues.

Seriously, can we go ONE thread without calling Christians bigots? It's not like I use some offensive name like "fag-lover" for you all...perhaps you could follow the example?

First off, the post you replied to did not call Christians bigots. It called a subset of people who happen to be Christians and also display bigotry bigots.

Second:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Where in that definition does it say that you have to use offensive language to be a bigot?

Note the thread title. Not everything revolves around the U.S.


I know, but it's a US issue as well.

I thought I was bringing brie and crackers :confused:


and flattery will get you everywhere :fluffle:

Ah, I thought I was bringing the delectables. Well, you brink those, I'll bring the maple-smoked salmon, the fresh strawberries, and the bucket of lube.

Deal?

Secular =/= advanced. Secular = spiritually devoid. Terrible times these are. Any progress made by Christianity is quickly being reversed it seems. Oh well, back to the times where "every man did that which was right in his own heart" :rolleyes:
And what do you know, the men and women in same sex relationships are doing what they feel right in their own hearts. Stop using your religion as an excuse for bigotry and crying persecution.

Don't worry about it though...I assumed Occidio Multus was a white guy!

He isn't???

hehe

First off, the post you replied to did not call Christians bigots. It called a subset of people who happen to be Christians and also display bigotry bigots.

Second:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Where in that definition does it say that you have to use offensive language to be a bigot?



Following that definition, everyone would be a bigot in one way or another :eek:

I know, but it's a US issue as well.
No, it isn't. This thread is about the canadian parliment passing a bill that allows same sex marriage.

If you want to discuss same sex marriage in general, go to one of the 50 million other threads on the subject. Now, how about you let your neighbours to the north have the spotlight for a moment, alright?

By any chance are you living in a very rual area? Because you're the only Canadian I've ever seen complain about their healthcare.
Side note on that topic...in rural areas where healthcare actually is available (because in some isolated places, or really small villages there might not be), I find it to often be of better quality than urban heathcare.

I know, but it's a US issue as well.
Yeah one so far we have screwed up

Following that definition, everyone would be a bigot in one way or another :eek:

Perhaps, but some people meet it better than others.

Not all of us can be as obstinant and intolerant of others' beliefs as you.

Canada City']I'm not leeching off the government or taxpayers, so yes...I am better than them.
Wow. You show an incredible lack of compassion and knowledge with that comment. May you one day walk a mile in their shoes.

"I was complaining one day about having no shoes, until I met a man with no feet".

Following that definition, everyone would be a bigot in one way or another :eek:


yes - so don't take so much offense - we're all bigoted to some degree.

Yeah one so far we have screwed up



Especially in Massachusetts ;)

Following that definition, everyone would be a bigot in one way or another :eek:
Actually, no. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean you can't consider and respect someone else's beliefs on the same matter, even and especially if they oppose your own.

I often forget, if I haven't debated with a poster a lot. Plus, I make the mistake of assuming names ending in 'a' are female, and those ending in 'o' or a consonant are male. Blame it on Spanish. But yours confused this lameass method of mine, because you have an 'o' and an 'a':)
What about names ending in "i"?

Following that definition, everyone would be a bigot in one way or another :eek:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

No. Not really.

Wow. You show an incredible lack of compassion and knowledge with that comment. May you one day walk a mile in their shoes.

"I was complaining one day about having no shoes, until I met a man with no feet".


Maybe that's why he claims that Canada has such a poor educational system, because he has a hard time learning.

What about names ending in "i"?
Well, your the "kini" in your name sounds feminine to me.
Barfonukini-Still sounds feminine.
Drakini-Still sounds feminine.
I'madudekini-Still sounds feminine.

Guess what? DOMA was not challenged on the basis of the full faith and credit clause!

Guess what, it was! :rolleyes:

In fact, those bringing the challenge were former Canadian citizens who had moved to this country.

Oh goodie for them. I guess they found out that Gay marriage is illegal in this country. It'll be a cold day in Hell I let a court decide what is right and proper. I have lost most of my faith in the judicial system. If Gay Marriage is forced upon the people, the people will revolt.

As we only observe the tradition of recognizing marriages from Canada, but do not have a treaty with them mandating it, full faith and credit had nothing to do with them!

AMEN!

Do you ever actually bother to read up on a court decision before erroneously invoking it?

Doesn't matter since it was challenged and upheld. It doesn't matter on what grounds DOMA was brought up on. Since it was upheld once, there is now precedence.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this law.

Actually it does because it set a precendent that no state law can override a federal one. DOMA is the federal law of the land and therefor, no state can override it.

DOMA does not say "No state shall recognize homosexual marriage." It very clearly says "The federal government shall view marriage as a union between a man and a woman." Thus, the state can recognize it differnently.

No it doesn't. Your right about that. But guess what. It states that it recognizes marriage as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN! Therefor, that is the law of the land regardless of what states say and do.

Guess what darling? You once again display complete and total ignorance of the law. The ruling in Massachusetts had nothing at all to do with DOMA. It was not a challenge to DOMA. It challenged a law specific to Mass. that violated the Constitution of Mass. Thus, you are full of shit.

Insults get you nowhere. I have an annoying habit of tossing insults back. I'll be nice since obviously you believe in presendence for one thing and not another.

Darling, gay marriage isn't barred by DOMA either. DOMA just states that the federal government won't recognize said unions.

Stop calling me darling. I am not your darling clear? It states that it won't recognize gay marriage thus Massachuttess is in violation of DOMA. VT and CT are not since they recognize civil unions which is NOT covered by DOMA.

No, it isn't. This thread is about the canadian parliment passing a bill that allows same sex marriage.

If you want to discuss same sex marriage in general, go to one of the 50 million other threads on the subject. Now, how about you let your neighbours to the north have the spotlight for a moment, alright?
And isn't it the USians who are always complaining we do nothing but talk about the US? Yet they invade all the threads saying, "Look at us! I mean US!" :D

Perhaps, but some people meet it better than others.

Not all of us can be as obstinant and intolerant of others' beliefs as you.



Hmmph, at least my intolerance of certain things is righteous, while your tolerance of certain things is wrong. Some things just shouldn't be tolerated. *patiently waits for Dem to accuse me of arrogance and a holier-than-thou attitude again*

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

No. Not really.
agreed I am willing to live and let live as long as they accord me the same

What about names ending in "i"?


Hermaphrodites

Hmmph, at least my intolerance of certain things is righteous, while your tolerance of certain things is wrong. Some things just shouldn't be tolerated. *patiently waits for Dem to accuse me of arrogance and a holier-than-thou attitude again*
If the shoe fits ...

What about names ending in "i"?
I assume male. Don't ask me why. This isn't a rational thing.