NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmmph, at least my intolerance of certain things is righteous, while your tolerance of certain things is wrong.

According to you. I disagree.

I know for a fact that Dakini is female. :)

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*
Why should anyone accuse you of what you have just patently proven to be true?

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

No. Not really.

It's my own opinon that homophobes and racists (especially of religious nature) are some of the most harmful people int eh world. There may be documented evidence to the contrary but I will not change that opinion :P

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

No. Not really.


Are you firmly intolerant of child molestation? If so, then you are bigoted towards child molesters. If not......wow.

Are you firmly intolerant of child molestation? If so, then you are bigoted towards child molesters. If not......wow.
I suppose I am. As Sumba the Wumba mentioned, we all have our biases. Some of us are not as intolerant as others, however...especially when the issue has to do with consenting adults, and not raping children.

Are you firmly intolerant of child molestation? If so, then you are bigoted towards child molesters. If not......wow.

Now you're just making strawman arguments here, we are talking about consenting adults. You just went from apples to oranges. Not even a good try! :rolleyes:

It's my own opinon that homophobes and racists (especially of religious nature) are some of the most harmful people int eh world. There may be documented evidence to the contrary but I will not change that opinion :P
BIGOT!

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*

Well, I'm not a Dem, I'm a Socialist, *teh oh noes!*, but I'm more than willing to accept you for who and what you are, warts and all. I agree. Some things ought not to be tolerated, really, but I just can't help myself.

Go in peace, or with God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus - the woman from the convenience store, your favourite author, your life-partner, your dog, cat, chiropractor or your silver-haired grandmother; but go.

Now you're just making strawman arguments here, we are talking about consenting adults. You just went from apples to oranges. Not even a good try! :rolleyes:



I'm not making a strawman, I would just proving the point that we're all bigoted to a certain degree under the definition previously posted.

Are you firmly intolerant of child molestation? If so, then you are bigoted towards child molesters. If not......wow.
Actually, no. Though I believe that sexual abuse is unacceptable and inexcusable, I also recognize that others may see it different, and allow for the possibility of a psychological, genetic, or otherwise biological problem within the predator to explain their actions. I don't believe my beliefs are the only "true" beliefs on any given issue.

Well, I'm not a Dem, I'm a Socialist, *teh oh noes!*, but I'm more than willing to accept you for who and what you are, warts and all. I agree. Some things ought not to be tolerated, really, but I just can't help myself.

Go in peace, or with God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus - the woman from the convenience store, your favourite author, your life-partner, your dog, cat, chiropractor or your silver-haired grandmother; but go.



I was quoting Dempublicents1,

Sumamba, did you get back to me about the bucket of lube? I'm waiting at the pharmacy checkout here, and there's some awfully disgruntled customers queuing behind me...

...good thing I'm in Canada where exceedingly few people are armed...

Guess what, it was! :rolleyes:

No darling, it wasn't. Try again.

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.

The only way that gay marriage could be forced upon the people would be to force everyone into a gay marriage. I don't see anyone trying that.

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.

You have the worst understanding of the law imaginable. Even a grade-school civics student knows better than that. You are horribly incorrect. It stands as precedent to a challenge on the same basis.

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.

What you fail to see, my dear, is that the Mass. law does not in any way override DOMA. Saying "The state of Mass. shall recognize gay marriage," does not state "The federal government shall recognize gay marriage." Federal law doesn't recognize common law marriages. However, some state laws do. This is perfectly legal.

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.

It is the law of the federal government, yes. The federal government shall only recognize that type of marriage.

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.

I believe that the courts use precedent. However, you are invoking it in a manner that no court ever has or will (if they want it to be upheld).

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.

Incorrect again. Massachusetts law does not state that the federal government has to recognize gay marriage. Thus, it is not in any way in violation of DOMA. Try again.

I'm not making a strawman, I would just proving the point that we're all bigoted to a certain degree under the definition previously posted.

It is not bigotted to protect the innocent, you know children! Who can't do it for themselves. What the hell does that have to do with telling or trying to push your beliefs on consenting adults? Of course it's a stawman argument.

BIGOT!


back scratcher!

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*

Why do I have to accuse you? You have already demonstrated it to be true.

If the accusation bothers you, STOP DOING IT. Your problem with this is akin to an admitted thief whining "Stop accusing me of stealing! I don't steal!"

Are you firmly intolerant of child molestation? If so, then you are bigoted towards child molesters. If not......wow.

Now you just stop that nonsense RIGHT NOW. Remain on topic, or remainder yourself.

Go in peace, or with God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus - the woman from the convenience store, your favourite author, your life-partner, your dog, cat, chiropractor or your silver-haired grandmother; but go.


lol

It is not bigotted to protect the innocent, you know children! Who can't do it for themselves. What the hell does that have to do with telling or trying to push your beliefs on consenting adults? Of course it's a stawman argument.



According to that definition, it IS bigoted to do so.

I'm not making a strawman, I would just proving the point that we're all bigoted to a certain degree under the definition previously posted.

No darling, it is a strawman.

Child molestation can be shown objectively to harm a child. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.

Why do I have to accuse you? You have already demonstrated it to be true.

If the accusation bothers you, STOP DOING IT. Your problem with this is akin to an admitted thief whining "Stop accusing me of stealing! I don't steal!"



Look, if my opinion correlates with Scripture, then it is not arrogance. When will you learn to accept that? Everytime you condemn me, you condemn the Savior you profess to follow.

Sumamba, did you get back to me about the bucket of lube? I'm waiting at the pharmacy checkout here, and there's some awfully disgruntled customers queuing behind me...

...good thing I'm in Canada where exceedingly few people are armed...

get in back of you with a bucket of lube? but we just met :D

. okay no really - did you ask me something earlier that I missed or what? .

I've never before heard this term 'straw man' before today. Now it's cropping up everywhere, it seems.

*sighs*

I give up. I assume it involves some form of strategy in a debate? I'm guessing not a well-received strategy, though. Like I really care, one way or another.

How about that lube?

No darling, it is a strawman.

Child molestation can be shown objectively to harm a child. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.


And homosexuality is refered to as an abomination before God. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.

Look, if my opinion correlates with Scripture, then it is not arrogance. When will you learn to accept that? Everytime you condemn me, you condemn the Savior you profess to follow.

My opinion correlates with Scripture just as closely as yours. However, in your arrogance, you refuse to even admit that possibility.

Meanwhile, I have yet to condemn you. You are the only one supplying condemnation around here.

Look, if my opinion correlates with Scripture, then it is not arrogance. When will you learn to accept that? Everytime you condemn me, you condemn the Savior you profess to follow.

But the saviour doesn't figure into any of this. The duly-elected Canadian government does.

Look, if my opinion correlates with Scripture, then it is not arrogance. When will you learn to accept that? Everytime you condemn me, you condemn the Savior you profess to follow.
Nope we just think you are mistaken in your interpretation

And homosexuality is refered to as an abomination before God.

Not objectively.

You have faith that homosexuality is referred to as an abomination before God. Faith is not objective.

Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.

Yes, it is. You are claiming that your faith is objective, which is an impossibility. If it were objective, you could demonstrate it without religion coming into it at all.

But the saviour doesn't figure into any of this. The duly-elected Canadian government does.
Yup and their responsibility to respect peoples rights

get in back of you with a bucket of lube? but we just met :D

. okay no really - did you ask me something earlier that I missed or what? .

Playing hard-to-get... I like.

.Yeah, but it's of no great consequence. Never mind, I'll stop asking about the lube.

Yup and their responsibility to respect peoples rights

Yup. And those of religious groups. They did a great job.

And homosexuality is refered to as an abomination before God. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.
On behalf of the original poster, who has also asked you to desist, I am going to remind you once more that straying too far from the topic is called hijacking, and is prohibited by NS General rules. This thread is not a debate about homosexuality. Other threads exist for you to explore this topic. Since I've seen you in these threads before, I know you are aware of them. Unless you want to deal specifically with the law that has been passed in Canada, stop posting in this thread.

And everyone else...please. Let's get back on track.

And homosexuality is refered to as an abomination before God. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.
Actually, it is. It is referred to as an abomination before God by SOME, not even all, Christians. That is how SOME Christians choose to interpret their religious book. It is a common opinion and predjudice, but it is not one that can be proven objectively.

And homosexuality is refered to as an abomination before God. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.

Seems more like a form of mania...

Everytime you condemn me, you condemn the Savior you profess to follow.

Does it make the baby Jesus cry, too, or is that just a myth?

Unless you want to deal specifically with the law that has been passed in Canada, stop posting in this thread.

And everyone else...please. Let's get back on track.

Well, Sinu's of course, right. My bad. Please excuse my last taunt.

Playing hard-to-get... I like.

.Yeah, but it's of no great consequence. Never mind, I'll stop asking about the lube.


you said "hard" teehee - I'll give you the lube alright

. now I gotta know because this will bug me forever - was it in this thread? .

My opinion correlates with Scripture just as closely as yours. However, in your arrogance, you refuse to even admit that possibility.

Meanwhile, I have yet to condemn you. You are the only one supplying condemnation around here.



The first sentence is false, as I demonstrated in the other thread many times...also, you condemned me several times in the other thread. At least, it was either you or Lyric who condemned me several times for supposedly "judging" others.....and that is judgement of me is it not?

you said "hard" teehee - I'll give you the lube alright

. now I gotta know because this will bug me forever - was it in this thread? .

I hope that's not all I'll be getting... yeah, I said 'hard'. Heh heh heh heh...

*stops before I creep myself out*

. yeah. hey this is neat, it's like a hidden conversation...

Anyways lets get back on topic ... I refuse to let myself get destracted with Neo Rogolia's hijacking (as such I have just added my first user ever to my ignore lists ... took a year but finaly found one where I just can not get along with)

Now what is this law based on(such as in the united states seperation of church and state along with a few other things give it a "base" to go off of) ? anyone have a copy or a link to the actual law

Not objectively.

You have faith that homosexuality is referred to as an abomination before God. Faith is not objective.



Yes, it is. You are claiming that your faith is objective, which is an impossibility. If it were objective, you could demonstrate it without religion coming into it at all.



Faith requires speculation without enough evidence to form a conclusion. I can read where it says in Leviticus that "man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman. It is an abomination." That does not require faith, that requires eyesight and literacy.



Edit: That being said, I will drop the topic in this thread as Sinuhue requested. Post your response in the world's longest thread :D

The first sentence is false, as I demonstrated in the other thread many times...also, you condemned me several times in the other thread. At least, it was either you or Lyric who condemned me several times for supposedly "judging" others.....and that is judgement of me is it not?

Kindly take this discussion to another thread, another forum, or to a private TG. You're not making very many friends by persisting with poor etiquette, madame.

I hope that's not all I'll be getting... yeah, I said 'hard'. Heh heh heh heh...

*stops before I creep myself out*

. yeah. hey this is neat, it's like a hidden conversation...
Reminds me of bevis and butthead

Seeing how this thread needs to get a bit back on track, do any of you think that people will try and repeal/find way to get rid off said law, or that people will just accept it and move on with thier lives?

Anyways lets get back on topic ... I refuse to let myself get destracted with Neo Rogolia's hijacking (as such I have just added my first user ever to my ignore lists ... took a year but finaly found one where I just can not get along with)

Now what is this law based on(such as in the united states seperation of church and state along with a few other things give it a "base" to go off of) ? anyone have a copy or a link to the actual law

Ahhh, no? No, I don't.

Anyone else?

Reminds me of bevis and butthead

Precisely why I stopped.

Faith requires speculation without enough evidence to form a conclusion. I can read where it says in Leviticus that "man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman. It is an abomination." That does not require faith, that requires eyesight and literacy.

Now using your eyesight and literacy show us where it says before God. You are referring to prehistoric tribal purity laws.

Seeing how this thread needs to get a bit back on track, do any of you think that people will try and repeal/find way to get rid off said law, or that people will just accept it and move on with thier lives?
while I hope move on I doubt it ... not right away anyways

I hope that's not all I'll be getting... yeah, I said 'hard'. Heh heh heh heh...

*stops before I creep myself out*

. yeah. hey this is neat, it's like a hidden conversation...

Okay I'll look for it and yes it is neat (it's like highjacking without all the highjacking)

. yeah you'll get whats coming to you at the big meet (Family Guy reference). I felt that this needed to be the hidden conversation now - lol

Seeing how this thread needs to get a bit back on track, do any of you think that people will try and repeal/find way to get rid off said law, or that people will just accept it and move on with thier lives?

It's already been threatened but I don't think it's something that can be repealed. The courts are in our favour.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=38&Ses=1&ls=c38

Go Canada!

and btw I read that at last Swedish lesbians are now allowed to get children with the help of insemination!!

party party! :fluffle: :p

Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, or the Civil Marriage Act, received first reading in the House of Commons on 1 February 2005. The bill will, for the first time, codify a definition of marriage in Canadian law, expanding on the traditional common-law understanding of civil marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Bill C-38 defines civil marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,” thus extending civil marriage to conjugal couples of the same sex.

So...people saying, "Oh now we will have polygamy" are wrong.

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
No religious institution HAS to marry a gay couple.

Anyways lets get back on topic ... I refuse to let myself get destracted with Neo Rogolia's hijacking (as such I have just added my first user ever to my ignore lists ... took a year but finaly found one where I just can not get along with)

Now what is this law based on(such as in the united states seperation of church and state along with a few other things give it a "base" to go off of) ? anyone have a copy or a link to the actual law
It's based on court rulings in many provinces and in our Supreme Court that said that Gays have the same rights to marry than heterosexual couples. The supreme court told the government to fix their laws to remove that discrimination.

The decision is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/) who is basically the part of the constitution of Canada. Specifically, the Charter says that every citizen has the freedom of association and also that every citizen should not be victim of discrimination.

The church was strongly against this law. They didn't advocate discrimination so much as argued that Marriage is a religious institution and that the government should use another term for either the Gay Marriages or Marriage in itself and leave the name Marriage alone.

That was the Crux of the debate: whether Marriage should be a religious ceremony or whether it should be the name of a union between two people in love.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=38&Ses=1&ls=c38
Thank you Ma`am

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?


found it! too easy to miss posts on such popular threads.

it's a deal but I can't eat the salmon with you because I'm one of those nasty vegetarians you hear so much about. one day they might let us marry though.


. and I bet you are delectable - I'm so bad *slaps self*

It's based on court rulings in many provinces and in our Supreme Court that said that Gays have the same rights to marry than heterosexual couples. The supreme court told the government to fix their laws to remove that discrimination.

The decision is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/) who is basically the part of the constitution of Canada. Specifically, the Charter says that every citizen has the freedom of association and also that every citizen should not be victim of discrimination.

The church was strongly against this law. They didn't advocate discrimination so much as argued that Marriage is a religious institution and that the government should use another term for either the Gay Marriages or Marriage in itself and leave the name Marriage alone.

That was the Crux of the debate: whether Marriage should be a religious ceremony or whether it should be the name of a union between two people in love.
Cool thanks for the explanation … I am not as familiar with Canadian law or politics as I am with ours.

I think they made a good ruling … Marriage the union has never been nor should ever be let the sole providence of Christianity

And homosexuality is refered to as an abomination before God. Thus, it is not simple opinion or prejudice that is used in condemning that action.
SHow me exactly where in the bible it condemns loving sexual relations between members of the same sex. Show me exactly where in the bible it says "homosexuality is an abomination" The only things I've read concern ritualistic sex and in at least one instance, a mistranslation.

it's a deal but I can't eat the salmon with you because I'm one of those nasty vegetarians you hear so much about. one day they might let us marry though.


. and I bet you are delectable - I'm so bad *slaps self*

That's okay, I'm very tolerant. I'll save the salmon for some undoubtedly Pagan ritual.

*whips out small container of spicy hummus and a small stack of pitae*

Don't say I'm unprepared.

. You've never seen me in my summer whites, dearie. *giggles* We're both bad. Gotta slap for me, too?

Marriage the union has never been nor should ever be let the sole providence of Christianity

Yeah, I think the other world religions would get a little upset over that...lol

Seeing how this thread needs to get a bit back on track, do any of you think that people will try and repeal/find way to get rid off said law, or that people will just accept it and move on with thier lives?
Harper said he would try to get rid of it if elected. I don't think it's likely that will happen, and as one news source explained he woudl have to do what no other government has ever done and pretty much say "fuck you" to the whole democratic process.

You know, religion lost this battle long ago (in Canada and other nations) – by allowing the state to legitimize, or legalize marriage.

Once marriage became a matter for the state to legislate, it became subject to the same, secular rules that guide all legislative matters…namely blind equality.

I for once celebrated this decision (right wing libertarian) – and will enjoy celebrating with my many friends who can now legalize their long-term commitments to one another.

HURRAY FOR CANADA!

That's okay, I'm very tolerant. I'll save the salmon for some undoubtedly Pagan ritual.

*whips out small container of spicy hummus and a small stack of pitae*

Don't say I'm unprepared.

. You've never seen me in my summer whites, dearie. *giggles* We're both bad. Gotta slap for me, too?

LMAO!!!!!!
Yummmm for hummus!

. *spanks you* ooops, not what you asked for.

Yeah, I think the other world religions would get a little upset over that...lol
Yup
Fundie >>"sory guys but we took the name over for ourselfs ... you no longer are married in the eyes of god"

Everyone Else >> "But we do have a god ... our god who we believe to be right"

Fundie pointing to book >> "nope our book is right that means everyone else is wrong"

... Comense beating

(and christians wonder why people get upset with them)

But anyways there is no real reason for the seperation of the name ... they dont controll it ... and its been a unity contract in almost every government on the planet ... i would say it is as much a secular government contract as it is a religous thing

Harper said he would try to get rid of it if elected. I don't think it's likely that will happen, and as one news source explained he woudl have to do what no other government has ever done and pretty much say "fuck you" to the whole democratic process.
True. It is very difficult to overturn a law like this...I hope:) What would the process be to make something illegal that has been declared legal?

I think they made a good ruling … Marriage the union has never been nor should ever be let the sole providence of Christianity
Don't get me wrong... More than Christians faith were opposed to this bill. They saw the term as religious. Not Christian, but religious.

But, hey, I'm with you on the whole "It's not theirs anyways" :cool:

True. It is very difficult to overturn a law like this...I hope:) What would the process be to make something illegal that has been declared legal?
Invoking the "notwitsanding clause" built in the Charter that lets you make law that contradict the charter if you feel it's in the benefit of the country. These law are temporary have to be voted upon again every five years, however.

True. It is very difficult to overturn a law like this...I hope:) What would the process be to make something illegal that has been declared legal?
I'm nto an expert in any of this, but they would have to use the notwithstanding clause or something... I'm not entirely sure what this is and why it would allow such a decision to be overturned, that's just what I've read.

Don't get me wrong... More than Christians faith were opposed to this bill. They saw the term as religious. Not Christian, but religious.

But, hey, I'm with you on the whole "It's not theirs anyways" :cool:
Fair enough … like I was saying … it has been the name of a secular legal contract between two people for almost as long as there have been governments. The term itself has more then religious connotations

I'm happy to hear about this.

Joe Comuzzi resigned his position as minister just over this? This is hardly the most earth-shatteringly important issue out there!

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.
So you are against equal rights.

I think he's waiting for hell to freeze over. No way will he approve of gay marriage he's too big of a religious nut to even consider it!!
He's not a religious nut. He's really more of a Republican party loyalist. He can't be dissenting on this one.

The United States does not have to reconize any marriage performed outside of its borders. I have a feeling that this will probably be the case that does go to the SCOTUS.
In my country, Ireland, there is currently a case of two women who were married in Canada going through our court system. They want to have their marriage recognised here. I hope they succeed.

Real negative-vibe merchants, those darn Tories! They may smarten up yet, you're right. But it'll take a more abiding understanding of Canadians, as a whole, before they'll be given a mandate from the electorate.
Funny how you talk about the Tories the same way US Republicans talk about the Democrats.

However, you have to remember that most states have passed state constitutional amendments against Gay Marriage. Since those amendments don't violate any federal law as well as not violating the constitution, they are valid. It'll be an uphill slope and I don't think that the people bringing the lawsuit will win.
What's your opinion on interracial marriage in the USA? By 1967, 37 states had passed laws banning it and surveys showed that 72% of Americans were against it.

Should the government have waited until interracial marriage gained popular support?

Invoking the "notwitsanding clause" built in the Charter that lets you make law that contradict the charter if you feel it's in the benefit of the country. These law are temporary have to be voted upon again every five years, however.
Ah. So, Harper would have to convince everyone that invoking this clause would be a good idea, and revisiting this issue constantly for the rest of our lives would somehow benefit us.

I think we're pretty safe then. Even those FEW people who really oppose it strongly won't have the energy to make it an eternal issue. It seems that most people support it, or don't give a shit either way.

Yay for Canada! You did the moral thing.

Anyways, with all the talk about crazy America:

1) America isn't free or a good place. It is definitely not moral.
They've commited genocide of their fellow humans --the Natives, enslaved their fellow humans -- the Africans, discriminated and violated their fellow humans -- the Irish, devalued and degraded their fellow humans -- Chicanos [along with all other minorities], and lynched their fellow humans for no reason -- African Americans. A much more. America is not becoming morally bankrupt, it emerging from it. And don't refer the stupid 1950s -- you all were busy lynching African Americans and others while the Civil Rights movement was going full swing.

2) Christians are morally bankrupt. The Dark Ages. The Cruscades. The Spanish Inquistion. The Burning of the Mayan libraries. The genocide of the Incas. The genocide of the Mayas. The genocide of the American Indians. The Holocaust [and don't say it did not exist :rolleyes: ]. Africa.

3) Neoconservatives are one step from fascist.
Utilizing proganda to get citizens to believe their lies. Owning most of the media. Suppressing minorities. Warmongering.

So why should the US follow neoconservative Christians? Also, separation of church and state, surely you all don't want a state sanctioned church or a theocracy, which you all have been so vocal on speaking and fighting against? Secular government is what should prevail and will eventually prevail. Look at Europe. Your whole reason to leave the place was freedom of religion even though you all failed miserable to allow others to practice their own religions from arrival. Hypocrisy? Yes. America = full of sh*t.

Long live Canada! :fluffle:
(Sorry for posting so much off topic)

Oh boy. :rolleyes: You've managed to insult Americans, Christians and neoconservatives, all the while making it seem as though you are doing it in the name of Canada. Please don't. Seriously. Yes, you are hijacking.

According to that definition, it IS bigoted to do so.


Has anyone else figured out that Neo Rogolia is a TROLL!

Ah. So, Harper would have to convince everyone that invoking this clause would be a good idea, and revisiting this issue constantly for the rest of our lives would somehow benefit us.

I think we're pretty safe then. Even those FEW people who really oppose it strongly won't have the energy to make it an eternal issue. It seems that most people support it, or don't give a shit either way.
Unfortunately, it'S not that big a deal as you would want to. In Quebec, we use the clause to enforce stricter linguistic laws in an effort to preserve the French language. You see snippets in the papers that the law has been approved for another round and nobody raises the issue.

It may surface again the first time it is renewed but not much after that.

Has anyone else figured out that Neo Rogolia is a TROLL!
That is my personal feeling ... as such she is my first addition to my ignore list ever

Anyways ...

2) Christians are morally bankrupt. The Dark Ages. The Cruscades. The Spanish Inquistion. The Burning of the Mayan libraries. The genocide of the Incas. The genocide of the Mayas. The genocide of the American Indians. The Holocaust [and don't say it did not exist :rolleyes: ]. Africa.
Way to generalise and stereotype, bigot!

Way to generalise and stereotype, bigot!

Not all Christians, by a long way...Although a small but extremely vocal minority are quite spectaularly unpleasent.

Good for Canada. What's the immigration rules there nowadays?

Good for Canada. What's the immigration rules there nowadays?

Canadian Immigration Policy (http://www.canadaimmigrationvisa.com/visatype.html)

Canadian Immigration Policy (http://www.canadaimmigrationvisa.com/visatype.html)
Cool...If I learn french I score 73 points for skilled worker entry, and you only need 67.
See you all in a year or two...

YAY for us!

I just want to add: Some folks a few pages back seemed to consider this decision a big middle finger at religion. But it's not. There were a number of churches, most prominently the United Church of Canada, who presented in support of legalizing gay marriage. And we all know that Canadian Anglicans, Jews, and Catholics are split on the issue, with some in support and some not.

But this legislation does not reject, insult, or mock Christianity or any other religion. In fact, many religious people are very supportive of it. Furthermore, the bill includes a clause that ensures that churches can refuse to perform gay marriages if they so choose. They can even continue to preach against it from the pulpit without running afoul of our hate laws. (Though I hope that any congregation who had to hear such things would vote with their feet and find a more tolerant church service.)

Pass that champagne, Dobbsworld et al. And let's start another round of "In the Navy"!

Their own mistake.

I personally couldn't give a shit either way (as I am not homosexual) but I am just glad that this whole debate is over.

I personally couldn't give a shit either way (as I am not homosexual) but I am just glad that this whole debate is over.
Well, in Canada, at least.

Well, in Canada, at least.

At least.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html


We all win!

Yaaaaaay!

*starts singing O Canada in falsetto, closes eyes and thinks lewd thoughts of Jack Layton's bicycle*

*leaves really grossed out by what he saw.

Politics make me soooooooooo horny. Check out my webcam pics at Presidentialsluts.com

*leaves really grossed out by what he saw.
What, two dudes with their hands touching? Or are you referring to the article itself? Personally, I don't see anything objectionable.

Politics make me soooooooooo horny. Check out my webcam pics at Presidentialsluts.com

Awww. I was hopin'...

nah, never mind.

Awww. I was hopin'...

nah, never mind.


For you they come straight to your email inbox :cool:

DAMN!! I leave to go to bed last nite, wake up in the morning for work and come back this afternoon to 28 PAGES of debate that I have to catch up on!! lol glad I have Hi-speed and am a fast reader!! :D

Unfortunately, it'S not that big a deal as you would want to. In Quebec, we use the clause to enforce stricter linguistic laws in an effort to preserve the French language. You see snippets in the papers that the law has been approved for another round and nobody raises the issue.

It may surface again the first time it is renewed but not much after that.

Yup that's how the "office de le langue francaise" came to be or as we anglophones say the language police!!! :D

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.
Nope, sorry, Corneliu. DOMA only applies to federal reconition of that marriage. The federal goverment only deal with that in regards to taxes (IRS and such like) and social security. No where in the Constitution does it state the Congress has the power to regulate marriages, STATES and ONLY states have that power. Which is why marriage laws vary from state to state. There is no federal guidelines on that and the federal goverment cannot interfear unless an admendment is passed.

Pretty much DOMA just was a symbolic act that effected any married homosexual couple from filing jointly on federal income tax. Federal law does not automatically override state law unless it deals with the very limited areas set forth in the Constitution. You should know that by now.

all I have to say is I'm at post # 4444



not symbolic of anything but I wanted it in this thread to show my support for postwhoring

all I have to say is I'm at post # 4444



not symbolic of anything but I wanted it in this thread to show my support for postwhoring

Can I Be Your Post Pimp Then?? ;) :D

Can I Be Your Post Pimp Then?? ;) :D


sure thing daddy-o

Yay!

<- with a name like that... wonder if i could make it as a wedding planner?

One of the grooms might get jealous and wish to have that name

One of the grooms might get jealous and wish to have that name

Well, he can play goddess all night if he wants... i'll even provide the chocolate "special sauce" to the lovely couple...

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

And obviously a lot more embarrassments. :p

sure thing daddy-o

SWEET!! :D

And obviously a lot more embarrassments. :p
The War of 1812.
The Bay of Pigs.
Vietnam.

... And those are just the *military* gaffes.

OMG, 600 posts in 3 days :eek:

correction: 602 posts to be exact

OMG, 600 posts in 3 days :eek:

603 in 30 hours, actually!

:cool:

Bill C-38 is such a hotty issue :fluffle:

Bill C-38 is such a hotty issue :fluffle:

Yay for people from the Northwest.
*was from Kitimat, moved to Nanaimo*

Yay for people from the Northwest.
*was from Kitimat, moved to Nanaimo*


OMFG! I am from Kitimat too. :)

BTW they're gonna blow up the old pink eyesore on July 15 I hear.

(only someone form Kitimat would knwo what the big pink eyesore is) :D

OMFG! I am from Kitimat too. :)

BTW they're gonna blow up the old pink eyesore on July 15 I hear.

(only someone form Kitimat would knwo what the big pink eyesore is) :D

That's so BS. They've been saying that for damn near a decade now. And I'm only 19 and I know it's not gonna happen.

Fuglies, add me to MSN or AIM: shunaria@hotmail.com and shunariadelan respectively.

For people who are just randomly adding msn addresses: I don't care. Go ahead and add me. If I don't block you in less than three days, feel lucky.

For people who plan on spamming me: I don't care. My junk mail filter is on exclusive. It's been years since anything that I didn't want to get into my inbox has.

So yeah. Add me.

That's so BS. They've been saying that for damn near a decade now. And I'm only 19 and I know it's not gonna happen.

Just talked to a friend a few days back and demolition is supposedly set for the 15th. It's already been gutted and stuff. I wish I could get back to see that butt ugly thing go.

I don't have MSN or AIM but I'm usually around here.

Aaah. Nice. Just confirmed that with a friend. Cool. I'm gonna be so happy when it's gone.

And yeah, I'm never on here. It was a wierd-ass thread topic that brought me here.

If I might interject - as glad as I am you two have discovered each other, the topic of your discussion is completely unrelated to the topic at hand in this thread. So...

Might I suggest continuing your chat elsewhere, lest this thread on the advent of legal gay marriage nationwide be thoroughly hijacked?

I'd appreciate it.

Aaah. Nice. Just confirmed that with a friend. Cool. I'm gonna be so happy when it's gone.

And yeah, I'm never on here. It was a wierd-ass thread topic that brought me here.

Well do show up more often. It's good to have other northern Canadians here... we can poke fun at the Americans and say eh a lot. :D

If I might interject - as glad as I am you two have discovered each other, the topic of your discussion is completely unrelated to the topic at hand in this thread. So...

Might I suggest continuing your chat elsewhere, lest this thread on the advent of legal gay marriage nationwide be thoroughly hijacked?

I'd appreciate it.

Be quiet or I will summon Neo Rogolia. :mad:

Ah, no...I don't think so.

Spain just legalized gay marriage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm

They stole our thunder!

Good for Canada for helping to lead the world forward. Its only a matter of time before it happens here in the U.S.. It may take some time (stupid Bible Belt) but we are already making progress, one State with marrage, two with civil unions, and a dozen with various domestic partnership benefits.

Wish Us Luck

man, canada needs to catch up if its just getting civil unions, in NZ weve had them since almost the start of the year

man, canada needs to catch up if its just getting civil unions, in NZ weve had them since almost the start of the year

These are weddings, not civil unions. So far only Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada allow them.

man, canada needs to catch up if its just getting civil unions, in NZ weve had them since almost the start of the year

Actually this is about marriage, not civil unions, as it applies to the constitution. A number of provincial courts legalized same sex marriage close to two years ago.

Huzzah for Canada!
Spain just legalized gay marriage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm

They stole our thunder!
Read about it from some more news sources here:
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-spain-gay.html)
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000245.html)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/30/spain.gay.vote.ap/index.html)
FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161176,00.html)

Closely followed by Spain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4636133.stm

Incidentally this ruling also permits adoption by gay couples, not sure if the Canadians have done this as well.

Yay Canada!

Closely followed by Spain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4636133.stm

Incidentally this ruling also permits adoption by gay couples, not sure if the Canadians have done this as well.
Spain too ... friggin awsome!

Spain just legalized gay marriage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm

They stole our thunder!

Well.... This is going to piss off the catholic church.

Anyone wanna take bets that some politicians get ex-communicated?

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Free gay love for the Spaniards too.

Whoo!

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Free gay love for the Spaniards too.

Whoo!
Just think if they get italy next

Rome surrounded by gay :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Incidentally this ruling also permits adoption by gay couples, not sure if the Canadians have done this as well.
Yep, all the rights of straight couples are available to gay ones in Canada.

Woah, what the fuck?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161176,00.html

Parliament legalized gay marriage (search) Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country to allow same-sex unions nationwide. Jubilant gay activists blew kisses to lawmakers after the vote.

Uh... hello people at Fox news, Canada was the third country to legalize gay marriage, Spain came days later, they are the fourth. Can anybody here count to 4?

Idiots. I can't believe people rely on this as their primary news source.

Woah, what the fuck?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161176,00.html



Uh... hello people at Fox news, Canada was the third country to legalize gay marriage, Spain came days later, they are the fourth. Can anybody here count to 4?

Idiots. I can't believe people rely on this as their primary news source.

Actually it was the AP that got it wrong:

Spain's Parliament Legalizes Gay Marriage
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Associated Press

That is what we call the title and where it came from. It came from the Associated Press.

Woah, what the fuck?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161176,00.html



Uh... hello people at Fox news, Canada was the third country to legalize gay marriage, Spain came days later, they are the fourth. Can anybody here count to 4?

Idiots. I can't believe people rely on this as their primary news source.
Not only that but a few places like Germany and New Zealand allow for civil unions with ALL the benefits accorded to marriage.

Actually it was the AP that got it wrong:

Spain's Parliament Legalizes Gay Marriage
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Associated Press

That is what we call the title and where it came from. It came from the Associated Press.
And fox did not bother to double check before relase

And fox did not bother to double check before relase

Actually, the AP didn't double check it. If the AP double checked it, they would've found it and thus would've corrected it.

Woah, what the fuck?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161176,00.html



Uh... hello people at Fox news, Canada was the third country to legalize gay marriage, Spain came days later, they are the fourth. Can anybody here count to 4?

Idiots. I can't believe people rely on this as their primary news source.


Well hi-ho-diddly-o neighbour.

you know, and I don't mean to criticize, but you might want to take a quick sneaky-peak at your Canadian Citizen's Handbook. Specifically the sections about the nifty-wifty legislative process.

You just might find that Canada has TWO legislative houses, and that a bill needs to pass BOTH before becoming law.


Now thanks to our nifty-wifty tradition of "Stacking the Senate", bills sure DO get a quicky-wicky stampy-wampy from the upper house, but they still need to do that before a bill becomes the law of this fant-abulous-wabulous land.







Which is to say that SOMEONE owes Fox News and the AP an apology in this case.... as much as it may pain their good Christian heart to say it.

Actually, the AP didn't double check it. If the AP double checked it, they would've found it and thus would've corrected it.
True ... that does not remove foxes responsability to make sure what they release is atleast factualy correct

Well hi-ho-diddly-o neighbour.

you know, and I don't mean to criticize, but you might want to take a quick sneaky-peak at your Canadian Citizen's Handbook. Specifically the sections about the nifty-wifty legislative process.

You just might find that Canada has TWO legislative houses, and that a bill needs to pass BOTH before becoming law.


Now thanks to our nifty-wifty tradition of "Stacking the Senate", bills sure DO get a quicky-wicky stampy-wampy from the upper house, but they still need to do that before a bill becomes the law of this fant-abulous-wabulous land.







Which is to say that SOMEONE owes Fox News and the AP an apology in this case.... as much as it may pain their good Christian heart to say it.
Not quite, Ned.

Same Sex Marriage is legal in 7 provinces of Canada and some Gay couples are married since two years already.

So, yeah, the bill isn't a law yet BUT Canada has accepted same sex marriage already...

True ... that does not remove foxes responsability to make sure what they release is atleast factualy correct

Which apparently it was according to another poster. The Upper House of Canada hasn't approved it yet whereas Spain has officially approved it. Therefor, SPAIN and not CANADA actually is the 3rd nation.

Not quite, Ned.

Same Sex Marriage is legal in 7 provinces of Canada and some Gay couples are married since two years already.

So, yeah, the bill isn't a law yet BUT Canada has accepted same sex marriage already...

Actually, its only legal in seven provences. That is not all of Canada unless some provinces split off and no one knows about it.

Actually, its only legal in seven provences. That is not all of Canada unless some provinces split off and no one knows about it.
Are you telling me that gun ownership is not legal in the states since it is not legal in the city of Chicago? It's not legal in all the country so you can't say it's legal there.

Are you telling me that gun ownership is not legal in the states since it is not legal in the city of Chicago? It's not legal in all the country so you can't say it's legal there.

Under federal law gun ownership is legal as proscribed by the United States Constitution. If I lived in Chicago, I would challenge that law since it really does violate my 2nd amendment rights. Why do you think I don't live in Chicago? To much gun crime because the citizens don't have guns whereas crooks do. But that is a different thread.

Here, it isn't federal law. It is only provincial law till this actually gets approved by the upper house. Therefor, it is still illegal in a couple of provences till then. Therefor, not all of Canada recognizes gay marriage.

Not quite, Ned.

Same Sex Marriage is legal in 7 provinces of Canada and some Gay couples are married since two years already.

So, yeah, the bill isn't a law yet BUT Canada has accepted same sex marriage already...


Now, I'm not trying to be all stuffy-wuffy about things. But the point is that the article's statement that Spain became the third country to formally pass all legal-wegal hurdles to make Gay Marriage a country-wide, federal law was, in fact, just okely-dokely.

I mean, you wouldn't go and say that seven provinces equal the law of the land would you?

Not trying to dismiss the good works of the fine Canadian folks. Just dotting the proper "i"s and crossing the good "t"s.




Now, it bothers my heart as much as yours NOT to be able to laugh a bit at Fox. But we can still do that.

Just not using this little article-warticle as a reason.

Which apparently it was according to another poster. The Upper House of Canada hasn't approved it yet whereas Spain has officially approved it. Therefor, SPAIN and not CANADA actually is the 3rd nation.

Now I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, but, umm, who cares? Canada and Spain have legal gay marriage, isn't that all that should matter? Who cares who did it 3rd or 4th? It was done and I admire both countries for their stance on human rights! Both deserve to be commended.

Which apparently it was according to another poster. The Upper House of Canada hasn't approved it yet whereas Spain has officially approved it. Therefor, SPAIN and not CANADA actually is the 3rd nation.
Does anyone really care who came in third?

Does anyone really care who came in third?

Who's on first? :D

Now I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, but, umm, who cares? Canada and Spain have legal gay marriage, isn't that all that should matter? Who cares who did it 3rd or 4th? It was done and I admire both countries for their stance on human rights! Both deserve to be commended.


Bless your sweet little heart, because you win the prize.



You know ole Neddy though.

Just a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit particluar about the facts, and didn't like to see blasphemous words used when they weren't peachy-keenly warranted.



Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to sorting my left-handed hymn books....

Now I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, but, umm, who cares? Canada and Spain have legal gay marriage, isn't that all that should matter? Who cares who did it 3rd or 4th? It was done and I admire both countries for their stance on human rights! Both deserve to be commended.

Canada hasn't officially approved it yet. Spain has. This whole fight is over a particular article done by the Associated Press that said that spain and not canada is the third nation.

Frankly I dont care. I'm sure the Pope will take the action necessary against those catholics (if any) that voted for this in Spain and possibly Canada.

Under federal law gun ownership is legal as proscribed by the United States Constitution. If I lived in Chicago, I would challenge that law since it really does violate my 2nd amendment rights. Why do you think I don't live in Chicago? To much gun crime because the citizens don't have guns whereas crooks do. But that is a different thread.

Here, it isn't federal law. It is only provincial law till this actually gets approved by the upper house. Therefor, it is still illegal in a couple of provences till then. Therefor, not all of Canada recognizes gay marriage.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my analogy.

Let me put it more clearly:
Same-sex marriage is legal in parts of Canada
therefore Same-sex marriage is done in Canada
therefore you can say that Canada is a country that accept same-sex marriage

Just because it's not a faderal law, yet, doesn't mean it's not done. If the article mentionned "at a federal level" or "nationally", AP is right. if not, then AP didn't double check. Same thing for FOX.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html


We all win!

Yaaaaaay!

*starts singing O Canada in falsetto, closes eyes and thinks lewd thoughts of Jack Layton's bicycle*
Mmm, I'm afraid a fair lot of people aren't so happy with this.

By the way, I tought gay marriages had been legal in Canada for a long time.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my analogy.

You made the analogy and I put it into context.

Let me put it more clearly:
Same-sex marriage is legal in parts of Canada
therefore Same-sex marriage is done in Canada

That's like saying prostitution is legal in nevada therefor its legal throughout the United States. It isn't! Its only legal in 7 provences. I wish you would understand that. This hasn't been done by the Upper House yet. Therefor, its not official till they do. Are you understanding how passing a bill works now?

therefore you can say that Canada is a country that accept same-sex marriage

Hmm no you can't till the Upper house approves of it.

Just because it's not a faderal law, yet, doesn't mean it's not done.

Actually it does mean that it isn't done yet. You really need to brush up on parliment procedures. I'm not even Canadian and I know that things have to be approved by both houses before becoming law. Just like here in the US where it goes through both houses and its not official till the President signs the bill into law.

If the article mentionned "at a federal level" or "nationally", AP is right. if not, then AP didn't double check. Same thing for FOX.

In this case, Spain officially approved it. Canada has not. Therefor, Fox and AP are both right.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my analogy.

Let me put it more clearly:
Same-sex marriage is legal in parts of Canada
therefore Same-sex marriage is done in Canada
therefore you can say that Canada is a country that accept same-sex marriage

Just because it's not a faderal law, yet, doesn't mean it's not done. If the article mentionned "at a federal level" or "nationally", AP is right. if not, then AP didn't double check. Same thing for FOX.


Now now, no need to get huffy-wuffy. The original person got a bit of a burr up their behind over the title, and the article itself is actually pretty gosh-darn specific when it states:

"The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that allow gay marriage nationwide. Canada's House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage; its Senate is expected to pass the bill into law by the end of July."


So let's not make a big mountain out of a molehill over a teensy-weensy misunderstanding made by someone else who started this big kerfluffle....

Canada hasn't officially approved it yet. Spain has. This whole fight is over a particular article done by the Associated Press that said that spain and not canada is the third nation.

Frankly I dont care. I'm sure the Pope will take the action necessary against those catholics (if any) that voted for this in Spain and possibly Canada.

Ok, let me see if I can't get through to you..

See up there in Canada, unlike the US, the Senate is appointed and not elected and their basic and sole duty is to proof read. Unless the Liberal party tells them to do otherwise, as the Liberals dominate the Senate. So, it's kind of like being approved for a credit card and all you're doing now is waiting for it to arrive in the mail. It's a done deal. Nothing will stop the legislation from passing at this point. Nothing!

Ok, let me see if I can't get through to you..

See up there in Canada, unlike the US, the Senate is appointed and not elected and their basic and sole duty is to proof read. Unless the Liberal party tells them to do otherwise, as the Liberals dominate the Senate. So, it's kind of like being approved for a credit card and all you're doing now is waiting for it to arrive in the mail. It's a done deal. Nothing will stop the legislation from passing at this point. Nothing!

I fully understand it but it isn't legal till they actually approve it. Why is this so hard to understand?

Actually it does mean that it isn't done yet. You really need to brush up on parliment procedures. I'm not even Canadian and I know that things have to be approved by both houses before becoming law. Just like here in the US where it goes through both houses and its not official till the President signs the bill into law.


In this case, Spain officially approved it. Canada has not. Therefor, Fox and AP are both right.


Now now, no need for YOU to get all super-duper sancimonious either. After all, you just jumped in deflect the blamey-wamey from Fox and put it on AP at first.


If the missunderstanding was so gosh-darn obvious, surely you would have pointed it out at first instead of just playing "Pass the Bucky-wucky"? Acting all superior when someone else finds the loophole isn't terribly becoming. There are, after all, a few words on the subject of vanity in the Goodly Book.




My, some people around here need to slow down, and enjoy the Good Lord's blessings instead of getting all prickly like a porcupine LOOKING for things to be all argumentative about.

I fully understand it but it isn't legal till they actually approve it. Why is this so hard to understand?
So it isn't legal until it is rubber stamped by the Senate. What everyone is trying to make YOU understand is that this doesn't matter. It is legal in effect, because our unelected Senate do what they are told, and will pass it. The Queen has to give her permission to laws too...but we don't seriously consider her a part of our legislative process. I think this is just a misunderstanding on what Senate is. You seem to be suggesting that this issue hasn't QUITE been decided...as though this is some chance this bill may be overturned. I'm afraid you don't quite get Canadian politics, if that is what you are waiting for.

If you're just trying to make the point that it isn't law yet...you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

I fully understand it but it isn't legal till they actually approve it. Why is this so hard to understand?

whatever.. seems like a pretty petty thing to be making such a huge point over. It was all over Canadian papers yesterday "Gay marriage is legal" not an exact quote, but you get the gist. It's approved, just not rubber stamped, which is merely a formality.

Now now, no need to get huffy-wuffy. The original person got a bit of a burr up their behind over the title, and the article itself is actually pretty gosh-darn specific when it states:

"The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that allow gay marriage nationwide. Canada's House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage; its Senate is expected to pass the bill into law by the end of July."


So let's not make a big mountain out of a molehill over a teensy-weensy misunderstanding made by someone else who started this big kerfluffle....
I'm a stickler for correctness, much like you Ned.
So when Corneliu said that Same-Sex Marriage was not approved in Canada, I had to kick that molehill a bit higher. Just like when you had to reign on our parade when you said that Fox News can't be blamed for this (to our regret, I might add).

But since this whole side discussion is a tempest in a teacup, I shall call a cease-fire.

whatever.. seems like a pretty petty thing to be making such a huge point over. It was all over Canadian papers yesterday "Gay marriage is legal" not an exact quote, but you get the gist. It's approved, just not rubber stamped, which is merely a formality.

I've seen headlines saying something is legal on important bills when they make it out of both house and senate. Doesn't make it true till the President actually signs the bill into law. Then and only then, does the law take affect.

Its the same with this rubber stamping. It isn't tecnically legal yet until the Upper House actually approves it. Then will it become legal. Until that happens, it isn't technically legal.

Its the dotting the i's and crossing the t's type stuff.

If you want to get all technical - following Senate approval, the Gov. General has to provide Royal Assent - as the acting head of state, without her formal approval, the Law is not "in effect".

If you want to get all technical - following Senate approval, the Gov. General has to provide Royal Assent - as the acting head of state, without her formal approval, the Law is not "in effect".
Exactly. The Queen's representative. And are we really going to bring that old bag into this? :D

If you want to get all technical - following Senate approval, the Gov. General has to provide Royal Assent - as the acting head of state, without her formal approval, the Law is not "in effect".

So what your saying is that the Governor General can veto this bill. I don't think that'll happen but hey, you never can tell. :D

I've seen headlines saying something is legal on important bills when they make it out of both house and senate. Doesn't make it true till the President actually signs the bill into law. Then and only then, does the law take affect.

Its the same with this rubber stamping. It isn't tecnically legal yet until the Upper House actually approves it. Then will it become legal. Until that happens, it isn't technically legal.

Its the dotting the i's and crossing the t's type stuff.
Oh drop it already. Your point has no point.

Oh drop it already. Your point has no point.

That's because you don't see it. That is what I get for arguing parlimentary procedures to people who don't understand parlimentary procedures. Alwell...

I've seen headlines saying something is legal on important bills when they make it out of both house and senate. Doesn't make it true till the President actually signs the bill into law. Then and only then, does the law take affect.

Its the same with this rubber stamping. It isn't tecnically legal yet until the Upper House actually approves it. Then will it become legal. Until that happens, it isn't technically legal.

Its the dotting the i's and crossing the t's type stuff.

Ok, let me put this another way, you obviously do not understand Canadian politics at all. Go back to swearing up the ying yang you're right about everything else, cause you're riding the small school bus on this one! ;)

You made the analogy and I put it into context.
I was fully aware of the context, thank you very much. I was making an analogy that your argument was specious.

That's like saying prostitution is legal in nevada therefor its legal throughout the United States. It isn't! Its only legal in 7 provences. I wish you would understand that. This hasn't been done by the Upper House yet. Therefor, its not official till they do. Are you understanding how passing a bill works now?
And yet, in the list of countries that accept protitution, you have to list the US, even if it's with an asterisk.

I'm a stickler for correctness, much like you Ned.
So when Corneliu said that Same-Sex Marriage was not approved in Canada, I had to kick that molehill a bit higher. Just like when you had to reign on our parade when you said that Fox News can't be blamed for this (to our regret, I might add).

But since this whole side discussion is a tempest in a teacup, I shall call a cease-fire.


Sorry EC. But I just thought it was my civic duty to point out an understandable error made in a good, Christian supportive way.... rather than let someone else notice the problem who might have been a wee bit more nasty-wasty about it.

Sorry EC. But I just thought it was my civic duty to point out an understandable error made in a good, Christian supportive way.... rather than let someone else notice the problem who might have been a wee bit more nasty-wasty about it.
ah, man! And I so wanted to say "Shut up Flanders!" :p

ah, man! And I so wanted to say "Shut up Flanders!" :p

LOL :D

ah, man! And I so wanted to say "Shut up Flanders!" :p


Now why does that sound so gosh-darn familliar...........?


Here neighbour-guy, have a donut! You know they always make you feel better....

:D

... Ok. Now I REALLY hate Canada. Who wouldn't want to live in an Igloo? Seriously.

We want to, but they melt in our brief summer, and we get all wet. :(

That's because you don't see it. That is what I get for arguing parlimentary procedures to people who don't understand parlimentary procedures. Alwell...
:rolleyes:

My favorite aspect of this whole revelation and decision in Canada was an interview that All Things Considered (NPR) had with their Canada reporter yesterday.

This guy fielded all the requisite questions from the NPR anchor (I think it was Siegel), but the genius moment was when he was asked what the reaction of Canadians was to the whole affair.

I can't remember his exact words (I was too busy laughing in complete agreement and appreciation), but it was essentially this:

The main reaction has been relief that the debate is over. Canadians really don't care about what other people do in their private lives.

I heard that and I thought to myself: would that it were so here in the US.

I love the fact that the average Canadian couldn't care less about the issue -- that it's a non-starter for them.

"From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee..."

Indeed! Well done!

Marry me Spain, I'm gay Canadian?

My favorite aspect of this whole revelation and decision in Canada was an interview that All Things Considered (NPR) had with their Canada reporter yesterday.

This guy fielded all the requisite questions from the NPR anchor (I think it was Siegel), but the genius moment was when he was asked what the reaction of Canadians was to the whole affair.

I can't remember his exact words (I was too busy laughing in complete agreement and appreciation), but it was essentially this:

The main reaction has been relief that the debate is over. Canadians really don't care about what other people do in their private lives.

I heard that and I thought to myself: would that it were so here in the US.

I love the fact that the average Canadian couldn't care less about the issue -- that it's a non-starter for them.

"From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee..."

Indeed! Well done!


Well, hi-ho-diddly-do, now THAT sure hits the nail on the head. Turn the other cheeky-weeky and love thy neighbour.

But don't peek in their bedroom window!

I remember one time Homer and Marge left their blinds up..... and I just happened to look out our bathroom window and saw....

*shudder*

I do NOT need to know nor care what anyone else does in the darky-warky.

Ever.

Again.

[QUOTE=Ned Flanderss]Well, hi-ho-diddly-do, now THAT sure hits the nail on the head. Turn the other cheeky-weeky and love thy neighbour.
[QUOTE]

Well, that was sure one slam-bang of a retort, there, neighbor! Yes indeedley-doodley!

Yay for people from the Northwest.
*was from Kitimat, moved to Nanaimo*

SWEET! another BC'er.

Well.... This is going to piss off the catholic church.

Anyone wanna take bets that some politicians get ex-communicated?

dude, are u being religious???

dude, are u being religious???

Not at all. I'm just saying that the Pope as already stated that Gay Marriages is illegal in accordance with the catholic faith and has stated that Catholic politicians need to vote against it.

Since this is an edict by the head of the Catholic Faith, if they don't follow it, they are subject to being excommunicated from said church.

That was all that I was saying.

Not at all. I'm just saying that the Pope as already stated that Gay Marriages is illegal in accordance with the catholic faith and has stated that Catholic politicians need to vote against it.

Since this is an edict by the head of the Catholic Faith, if they don't follow it, they are subject to being excommunicated from said church.

That was all that I was saying.
I think this was a dangerous stance for one to take … making their religious life dependant on their job decisions is dangerous and may come down badly for the Vatican

This is so close to openhanded blackmail that it would defiantly not be a good idea for the pope to push this thru


“Do what you think is best for the people in your country except if your decision goes against us … in that case we will remove your ability to practice your faith correctly”

heh heh.... Prime Minister Paul Martin is a Catholic, he voted FOR Bill C-38.

Politicians suppose to listen to their own people, not the Pope!

Well since when did Catholics ever listen to what the Pope had to say..lol seriously.

I think this was a dangerous stance for one to take … making their religious life dependant on their job decisions is dangerous and may come down badly for the Vatican

Welcome to the Catholic Faith! Though my family and I aren't catholics, most of my father's side of the family is catholic. So I try to stay on top of what the Catholic Church is saying.

This is so close to openhanded blackmail that it would defiantly not be a good idea for the pope to push this thru

Well the edict did come under Pope John Paul II. I don't know where Pope Benedict stands.

“Do what you think is best for the people in your country except if your decision goes against us … in that case we will remove your ability to practice your faith correctly”

Who am I to judge a religion?

heh heh.... Prime Minister Paul Martin is a Catholic, he voted FOR Bill C-38.

Politicians suppose to listen to their own people, not the Pope!

You'll get no arguement out of me but he is the head of the faith and speaks for the faith so what he says is basically Catholic Law.

*shrugs* Makes me glad I'm not Catholic. To many rules to follow.

You'll get no arguement out of me but he is the head of the faith and speaks for the faith so what he says is basically Catholic Law.

*shrugs* Makes me glad I'm not Catholic. To many rules to follow.
Yeah its one thing thinking a man out of a book that SHOULD not change is infallible … it is different to have an active office making rules all the time claiming infallibility in church doctrine

Also dangerous claiming that as you can theoretically never go back and say “whoops” because if one failed they all are suspect of failure

You'll get no arguement out of me but he is the head of the faith and speaks for the faith so what he says is basically Catholic Law.

*shrugs* Makes me glad I'm not Catholic. To many rules to follow.

Doesn't matter, he's the Canadian PM. His first obligation is to uphold the Constitution of Canada in his official role. He can be a Catholic all he wants, Canada is a secular country as far as government goes. The same as the US is suppose to be, but one has to wonder these days. Although if you need a reference, look no further than what J.F.K. said when he was elected.

Doesn't matter, he's the Canadian PM. His first obligation is to uphold the Constitution of Canada in his official role. He can be a Catholic all he wants, Canada is a secular country as far as government goes. The same as the US is suppose to be, but one has to wonder these days. Although if you need a reference, look no further than what J.F.K. said when he was elected.

Are you assuming something here? I already stated that politicians should listen to the people more than the head of the Catholic Faith, even if they are Catholics themselves.

Not at all. I'm just saying that the Pope as already stated that Gay Marriages is illegal in accordance with the catholic faith and has stated that Catholic politicians need to vote against it.

Since this is an edict by the head of the Catholic Faith, if they don't follow it, they are subject to being excommunicated from said church.

That was all that I was saying.
IIRC, he strongly urged to vote against it. Some other cardinal threathened excommunion.

That way, the pope doesn't have to follow on the threat and everybody saves face while the threat is still made.

Are you assuming something here? I already stated that politicians should listen to the people more than the head of the Catholic Faith, even if they are Catholics themselves.

no he's not.

Homosexuals are so gay!

Nuff said

IIRC, he strongly urged to vote against it. Some other cardinal threathened excommunion.

That way, the pope doesn't have to follow on the threat and everybody saves face while the threat is still made.

Ahh Good point. Thanks. I thought it was the pope that said it. Thanks for correcting me.

Well hi-ho-diddly-o neighbour.

you know, and I don't mean to criticize, but you might want to take a quick sneaky-peak at your Canadian Citizen's Handbook. Specifically the sections about the nifty-wifty legislative process.

You just might find that Canada has TWO legislative houses, and that a bill needs to pass BOTH before becoming law.


Now thanks to our nifty-wifty tradition of "Stacking the Senate", bills sure DO get a quicky-wicky stampy-wampy from the upper house, but they still need to do that before a bill becomes the law of this fant-abulous-wabulous land.







Which is to say that SOMEONE owes Fox News and the AP an apology in this case.... as much as it may pain their good Christian heart to say it.
Actually, if you read the article, Spain has the same deal. They have to pass it through their senate, which turned them down about it last time. Getting the canadian senate to pass this through is a formality.

And also, not exactly christian here...

This is unbelieveable This is tyranny of the minority over the majority. Have a referrendum on this issue, and we'll see just how accepting Canadians are

Welcome to Ontario where you can marry a fag, but you cant smoke one.. What the hell is wrong with this country

Which apparently it was according to another poster. The Upper House of Canada hasn't approved it yet whereas Spain has officially approved it. Therefor, SPAIN and not CANADA actually is the 3rd nation.
Spain has a senate too...

This is unbelieveable This is tyranny of the minority over the majority. Have a referrendum on this issue, and we'll see just how accepting Canadians are

Welcome to Ontario where you can marry a fag, but you cant smoke one.. What the hell is wrong with this country
Its tyranny to want equal rights? ... me thinks you better look up the definition

This is unbelieveable This is tyranny of the minority over the majority. Have a referrendum on this issue, and we'll see just how accepting Canadians are

Welcome to Ontario where you can marry a fag, but you cant smoke one.. What the hell is wrong with this country

*shrugs* Its got the right people in charge?

This is unbelieveable This is tyranny of the minority over the majority. Have a referrendum on this issue, and we'll see just how accepting Canadians are

Welcome to Ontario where you can marry a fag, but you cant smoke one.. What the hell is wrong with this country

Yea scew equal rights, they're outdated anyway. :rolleyes:

Gay marriages have no place in Canada. or in any nations laws for that matter

Tolerance. Not acceptance

Put this to a referendum.... Its laughable to think that it would gain public majority approval

Spain has a senate too...


Not to be a picky-wicky sort of neighbour, but the article is do-dum-diddly clear:

"The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187 to 147. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.

The bill is now law. The Senate, where conservatives hold the largest number of seats, rejected the bill last week. But it is an advisory body and final say on legislation rests with the Congress of Deputies.
"


Not exactly the same hurdly-wurdly's to pass in Spain. the Senate does not have to pass the bill as it presents no procedural barrier to passing laws, which - of course - begs the silly-willy question as to what purpose it actually serves, however that is is clearly another debate.



Now, I'm not being deliberately persnickity. Just pointing out that the article WAS in fact correct as in Spain the bill became law with the passing through the Congress of Deputies while in freezy-weezie Canada there are a couple of procedureal hurdles to pass before it officially hits the books.

In spirit, though, Canada DID get their votey-wotey out one day before Spain.

But for the purposes of this article's actual technical veracity, let's use a parallel idea: It's not when you makey-wakey the invention that matters in court, it's when you register it at the patent office that counts....

Gay marriages have no place in Canada.

Tolerance. Not acceptance
Well they seem to have found a home in the peoples hearts up there anyways.

I think bigotry is a sin (in my book) tolerance not acceptance

Gay marriages have no place in Canada.

Tolerance. Not acceptance
So, you would rather have this or that specific group alienated by the majority? Would it make you feel better about yourself in some way? Do you like playing the bullying card?

Gay marriages have no place in Canada.


I'm so glad you're wrong. Deal with it.

Homosexuality is a sin. and Im sorry If Im a little peeved at my government for attempting to condone this especially when most people are against it (or dont care) I have no issue with rights of gays in terms of union (support, estate child rearing and care etc) BUT to call it a marriage is discriminatory against all who hold the institution of marriage sacred. Gay unions should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. But the line is drawn at marriage.

Solar technology was introduced to society when it was inefficient. Nuclear power was introduced when it wasnt safe. Gay marriage is being introduced when the nations conscious isnt ready to accept it

Tolerance Not Acceptance

....Read Michael Ignatieff's Rights Revolution

Homosexuality is a sin. and Im sorry If Im a little peeved at my government for attempting to condone this especially when most people are against it (or dont care) I have no issue with rights of gays in terms of union (support, estate child rearing and care etc) BUT to call it a marriage is discriminatory against all who hold the institution of marriage. Gay unions should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. But the line is drawn at marriage.
Sence when has "marriage" been a purly christian concept?

Gay marriages have no place in Canada. or in any nations laws for that matter

Tolerance. Not acceptance

Put this to a referendum.... Its laughable to think that it would gain public majority approval
Uh... if I'm not mistaken about 60% of canadians support gay marriage.

This is unbelieveable This is tyranny of the minority over the majority. Have a referrendum on this issue, and we'll see just how accepting Canadians are

Welcome to Ontario where you can marry a fag, but you cant smoke one.. What the hell is wrong with this country

There's nothing wrong...and there's everything right, EN. To quote Prime Minister Martin directly:

"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."

What majority are you referring to, then?

marriage has never been purly christian?

Uh... if I'm not mistaken about 60% of canadians support gay marriage.


Uhh.. if Im not mistaken about 60% of all statistics are made up on the spot

marriage has never been purly christian?

Never. Marriages predate Christianity, and are performed in just about every country, culture and religion the world has on offer.

No monopolies on marriage have ever existed.

marriage has never been purly christian?
nope.

For starters, most religion (if not all) have a marriage ceremony. Then, there's the fact that marriage was around before Christianity was even invented.

So, no, marriage is not purely Christian. Besides, it stopped being purely Christian whe the state started marrying people at the courthouse. So it's a moot point anyways.

marriage has never been purly christian?
Marriage traditions have existed in cultures all throughout the world without christianity, so, no, it is not purely christian.

i know... i was agreeing with you.. gah forums are impossible to discern tone

Tolerance not Acceptance

Gay marriages have no place in Canada. or in any nations laws for that matter

Tolerance. Not acceptance

Put this to a referendum.... Its laughable to think that it would gain public majority approval

Well, too late. You can't put the genie back into the bottle now.

marriage has never been purly christian?

No, it hasn't.

Now, some people have purely Christian marriages, but the institution itself has never been "owned" by Christianity. Both secular marriage and marriage under other religions has been around for quite a while.

Uh... if I'm not mistaken about 60% of canadians support gay marriage.


Uhh.. if Im not mistaken about 60% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Well, maybe you should really check to see if you're mistaken, then.

Instead of waving your flaccid member all about the room.

Uh... if I'm not mistaken about 60% of canadians support gay marriage.


Uhh.. if Im not mistaken about 60% of all statistics are made up on the spot
Well, in that case, you're right. According with the latest poll I've seen (Globe And Mail/CBC) 54% of Canadian support same-sex marriage BUT a whopping 70% support same-sex union. They just don't like the term "marriage" being used.

But it is my understanding that an astounding 80% find the whole debate to be a minor issue anyways. Most people are in the category "pass the law already so that we can talk about something else!"

I couldn't care less. I'm not Canadian, I'm not moving to Canada, and I don't know any Canadians personally.

marriage has never been purly christian?
Of course it's a purely Christian thing! Marriage means being joined in the eyes of God, and clearly the Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, atheists and so on aren't married in the eyes of OUR God...so let's make all those unions illegal too! There will be no discrimination involved, because these people can still go get married in a Christian church like everyone else...we'll even let them keep their own religion or atheist views as long as they get married like good Christians, and have their union blessed by our God! Tolerance, not acceptance, right?

I couldn't care less. I'm not Canadian, I'm not moving to Canada, and I don't know any Canadians personally.

Thanks for your input, then.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062810.html

Don't turn around...you may become a pillar of salt!

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062810.html

Don't turn around...you may become a pillar of salt!
Hee. I love LifeSite. So silly.

Anyway, hooray for Canada and gay marriage and such. Is Canada the first place to allow marriages rather than civil unions?

Hee. I love LifeSite. So silly.

Anyway, hooray for Canada and gay marriage and such. Is Canada the first place to allow marriages rather than civil unions?
It will be 4th actually.

Netherlands, Belgium, Spain are the others

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062810.html

Don't turn around...you may become a pillar of salt!

The major problem I have with the headline is the inclusion of the word, 'eerily'.

Eerily, as in, "eerily enough, Catholic clergy invokes negative Christian mythology at opportunistic moment, hoping to capitalize on ignorant fear & loathing of their membership".

Solar technology was introduced to society when it was inefficient. Nuclear power was introduced when it wasnt safe. Gay marriage is being introduced when the nations conscious isnt ready to accept it



Ya know? Maybe yer on to something. We should look into gays as an alternative energy source.

Ya know? Maybe yer on to something. We should look into gays as an alternative energy source.

Mmmm...ohh, not like...ohhh, YEAHH. OH, unhhh baby...like THAT! Yes! Yes! Yes!

ooooOOOOOAUGGHHHH GOD IT'S SOO GOOOOOD

*we got enough power to run the dishwasher yet?*

*no?*

good. C'mere, sweetie....

....unhhhh.....oooh!

LOL

Solar technology was introduced to society when it was inefficient. Nuclear power was introduced when it wasnt safe. Gay marriage is being introduced when the nations conscious isnt ready to accept it

Ya know? Maybe yer on to something. We should look into gays as an alternative energy source.
AHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA...... AAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAHAHAH!!!

This is the funniest thing I've seen all day! I'm printing this out in big letters and posting it in my cubicle as we speak!

Mmmm...ohh, not like...ohhh, YEAHH. OH, unhhh baby...like THAT! Yes! Yes! Yes!

ooooOOOOOAUGGHHHH GOD IT'S SOO GOOOOOD

*we got enough power to run the dishwasher yet?*

*no?*

good. C'mere, sweetie....

....unhhhh.....oooh!

LOL


LMFAO

AHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA...... AAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAHAHAH!!!

This is the funniest thing I've seen all day! I'm printing this out in big letters and posting it in my cubicle as we speak!


hehehe ty *bows* I have my moments.

Solar technology was introduced to society when it was inefficient. Nuclear power was introduced when it wasnt safe. Gay marriage is being introduced when the nations conscious isnt ready to accept it

All the things you listed were upgrades from current power technology

Are you saying that homosexual marrige is an upgrade from the current hetro one?

All the things you listed were upgrades from current power technology

Are you saying that homosexual marrige is an upgrade from the current hetro one?


Plus they all got better, so this must be good news for gay marriage - yay thanks for the positive uplifiting sentiments East Nations.

Way to turn that frown upside-down.

Plus they all got better, so this must be good news for gay marriage - yay thanks for the positive uplifiting sentiments East Nations.
Exactly … and think how powerful they could be combined! * Starts thinking of the captain planet intro* “By our powers combined …”

Exactly … and think how powerful they could be combined! * Starts thinking of the captain planet intro* “By our powers combined …”


And this led me to thoughts about the Ambiguously Gay Duo

And this ld me to thoughts about the Ambiguously Gay Duo

"Come, friend-o-friends! We've got a lot of electricity to generate if we're going to watch that movie marathon tonight...!"

"Not to mention melting the butter for our popcorn, Gary!"

"Come, friend-o-friends! We've got a lot of electricity to generate if we're going to watch that movie marathon tonight...!"

"Not to mention melting the butter for our popcorn, Gary!"

hehe

suure thats what the butter's for

Not only that but a few places like Germany and New Zealand allow for civil unions with ALL the benefits accorded to marriage.

We passed that law in december. It comes into force at the end of the year. Our legislative system slows everything down alot between passing a law and it coming into force.

Mmmm...ohh, not like...ohhh, YEAHH. OH, unhhh baby...like THAT! Yes! Yes! Yes!

ooooOOOOOAUGGHHHH GOD IT'S SOO GOOOOOD

*we got enough power to run the dishwasher yet?*

*no?*

good. C'mere, sweetie....

....unhhhh.....oooh!

LOL

ROFLMFAO Now THAT's what you call a renewable energy source!!!! and it's environmentally friendly too!!! ;) :D

All the things you listed were upgrades from current power technology

Are you saying that homosexual marrige is an upgrade from the current hetro one?
Everybody knows hetero's don't know the first thing about good sex. Ask any bisexual out there ;)

Everybody knows hetero's don't know the first thing about good sex.

Yeah sure and the virgin too . :(

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062810.html

Don't turn around...you may become a pillar of salt!
I love how Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed for their inhospitality, not their homosexuality.

Mmmm...ohh, not like...ohhh, YEAHH. OH, unhhh baby...like THAT! Yes! Yes! Yes!

ooooOOOOOAUGGHHHH GOD IT'S SOO GOOOOOD

*we got enough power to run the dishwasher yet?*

*no?*

good. C'mere, sweetie....

....unhhhh.....oooh!

LOL

LMAO you made my evening! *giggles*

*Nudges USA*

"Hey you might wanna take a look at that."


lol I knew about this. Canada is allowing gays to get marrried. That's cool, I still love Canada. Now where's my double double!

lol what size of double double and where would you get said double double?? :D

I love how Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed for their inhospitality, not their homosexuality.

And how after the great laying to waste of the city, Lot takes his two daughters to a cave, where they get him drunk and both arrange to get pregnant by their own father.

Yes, incest is MUCH better for the gene pool.

This is gravedigging. Come on, now.

Start a new thread or something.

Yes, incest is MUCH better for the gene pool.

Yuck........

Ok, no kidding around.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9204947#post9204947

Couldn't leave well enough alone, could you?