NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm

Don't apologise for all of us. Just do what you can to fight the fundies.

Well, if people at the UN are trying to rewrite the US Constitution, and want to take our guns away, then turnabout is fair play. I'd be happy to send them any idiot idea we have, and let them wrestle with the pigs.

Ya their in Canada to, i'd like them to take their stupid shit home.

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm

They are afraid that a court case from the UK could be used as precedent in a US court???

Ok, first of all they ought to invest their money in a little education, especailly regarding the legal system of their own country...

Well, if people at the UN are trying to rewrite the US Constitution, and want to take our guns away, then turnabout is fair play.

You know, DK, we *are* part of the UN. The UN is not some strange foreign nation or alien presense. The UN is made up of its members ... we're a member ... and a big one at that.

You know, DK, we *are* part of the UN. The UN is not some strange foreign nation or alien presense. The UN is made up of its members ... we're a member ... and a big one at that.
Maybe you should read the part in the UN Charter about non-interference in internal affairs.

Piece of crap.

These people need to learn that we 'don't do God' in this country, and if anyone is seen to be trying to force us to, then we'll sooner hang that person out to dry than listen to them.

I’m fairly sure there is an office in downtown Ottawa, which has American fundaloons who support Christian ends in Canada. They serve only to culturally polarize and fragment this country, we don’t need that shit. People from Ottawa might now what I’m talking about, I think their in that office just west of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

"It's crystal clear to us that unless we get involved in the outcome of foreign law then we're going to be at grave risk," says Bull. Ann Beeson, associate legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, says "We now see regional and international human rights forums as simply another tool in the fight for social justice here in the United States."



What a wonderful way to stop the stereotype of meddling Fundimentalists. :headbang: :headbang:

If there is one thing in the modern age that will get Christians everywhere persecuted, it is this.

UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2:

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

And Chapter VII is : ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

So individual gun ownership in the US isn't an act of international aggression, nor is it an act of international breach of the peace, nor is it a threat to international peace as long as the guns stay in the US.

Now that I've spanked you with the UN Charter...

Maybe you should read the part in the UN Charter about non-interference in internal affairs.

Then maybe the US should stop all our interfering.

Now that you've been spanked with reality ...

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm

I guess you should change the word Christian to homosexuals and you would have it right.

Whatever happened to our own (meaning Americans) good ol' separation of church and state? The guy didn't like working Sundays then he should have quit without wasting the courts' time.


Then maybe the US should stop all our interfering.

Now that you've been spanked with reality ...

w00t w00t! Back to isolationism!
Seriously, all countries and organizations in this global economy "interfere." Some people like certain kinds of interference more than others, that's all.

Then maybe the US should stop all our interfering.

The UN Charter applies to the UN.

Then maybe the US should stop all our interfering.
That's what Bolton is there for.

At this rate, the money is running out. Either the UN decides to go along with the reforms, or the Security Council (within the next two weeks) won't be able to meet, because they can't pay for the translators, staffers, etc.

Would you please control your antidisestablishmentarianists?

I guess you should change the word Christian to homosexuals and you would have it right.
Yeah, because we all know the gays are trying to force through a constitutional ammendment to make Christian men fuck each other in the ass, right?

I’m fairly sure there is an office in downtown Ottawa, which has American fundaloons who support Christian ends in Canada. They serve only to culturally polarize and fragment this country, we don’t need that shit. People from Ottawa might now what I’m talking about, I think their in that office just west of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
Our local radio programming here in rural Alberta plays that "Focus on the Family" radio show. We were laughing one day because we turned the radio on to a show we didn't recognise, and it was talking about atoms and molecules...my husband said, since it was close to Christmas, that he bet they'd suddenly connect this to Jesus. And they did! They started talking how all the space in atoms meant that Jesus could have very well walked through walls, or ascended by spreading his atoms apart...

That's what Bolton is there for.

At this rate, the money is running out. Either the UN decides to go along with the reforms, or the Security Council (within the next two weeks) won't be able to meet, because they can't pay for the translators, staffers, etc.

As both an American citizen and a staff member in the Budget Division of the UN I'm caught right in the crossfire with this one. If only the reforms we as a nation are pushing on the UN would also be applied to our own wasteful government, I'd be very happy.

Yeah, because we all know the gays are trying to force through a constitutional ammendment to make Christian men fuck each other in the ass, right?

I'd support that amendment.

Yeah, because we all know the gays are trying to force through a constitutional ammendment to make Christian men fuck each other in the ass, right?
That works for me.

Politics and Religion :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Oh ohhhh Royalists vs. roundheads time again.

Im a Christian and i work for a local authority and Sunday's is a busy day but i told my boss that i go to Church on Sundays. he said thats fine :)

but if it risks getting sacked then you should go to work on a Sunday thats if it's a carrer not a one off job, because then the money you get from sunday just give it to your Church depending on what they use it on like Themselves in some cases. but havnt worked a Sunday yet.

Conservatives and Christians dont seem to match hehehe i dont like the whole idea of some of these Conservatives what they trying to conserve? something that is already in place and always remain inplace? i dont understand im confused hehehe

I'd support that amendment.
Hope you didn't miss where I spanked you with the UN Charter.

Yeah, because we all know the gays are trying to force through a constitutional ammendment to make Christian men fuck each other in the ass, right?

I think it would do them good...

Whatever happened to our own (meaning Americans) good ol' separation of church and state? The guy didn't like working Sundays then he should have quit without wasting the courts' time.

It's discrimination, you wouldn't ask a Muslim to work on their holy days would you?

Hope you didn't miss where I spanked you with the UN Charter.

I've read the Charter. The US doesn't abide by it unless it serves the US's purpose. So what?

It's discrimination, you wouldn't ask a Muslim to work on their holy days would you?
I wouldn't hire one to begin with. :p

It's discrimination, you wouldn't ask a Muslim to work on their holy days would you?

Huh? Muslims in the US don't work on Fridays???

It's discrimination, you wouldn't ask a Muslim to work on their holy days would you?

Meh .... Friday is the Muslim "sabbath" and Ramadan is the only Muslim holiday/festival ... nearly all Muslims work during both. Few complain.

This is what infuriates Europeans about the American Right. They strongly oppose any non-American influence on their laws, but they think they should influence our laws.

I wouldn't hire one to begin with. :p

How do you know? Is there a black light test or something?

This is what infuriates Europeans about the American Right. They strongly oppose any non-American influence on their laws, but they think they should influence our laws.
Maybe it's payback for interfering in our elections.

How do you know? Is there a black light test or something?
I was just kidding. If I was in a position to hire and fire people I would make the decision based on whether I want to fuck her, not her religion.

The right not to work on Sundays... could this be the link between the Christian Right and the Trade Union movements that we have long sought?

It's discrimination, you wouldn't ask a Muslim to work on their holy days would you?

This sounds absolutely crazy, but discrimination is fine with me. We do it all the time anyway. Having laws against discrimination in companies is simply society's way of saying, we really don't like this.

And if I were an employer and I needed a Muslim to work on his holy days, I'd make it clear up front. If he doesn't like it he can quit and then make a big stink about how my company isn't fair to Muslims.

Maybe it's payback for interfering in our elections.
Stop being an apologist for hypocrites.

Stop being an apologist for hypocrites.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Our local radio programming here in rural Alberta plays that "Focus on the Family" radio show. We were laughing one day because we turned the radio on to a show we didn't recognise, and it was talking about atoms and molecules...my husband said, since it was close to Christmas, that he bet they'd suddenly connect this to Jesus. And they did! They started talking how all the space in atoms meant that Jesus could have very well walked through walls, or ascended by spreading his atoms apart...

Ya, in the past few years I’ve noticed more and more Christian TV and radio stations, its repulsive. I think we should subject all Americans Christians Evangelicals crossing the boarder to 40 hours of this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=4294 so to reprogram them, and perhaps act a deterrent.

Ya, in the past few years I’ve noticed more and more Christian TV and radio stations, its repulsive. I think we should subject all Americans Christians Evangelicals crossing the boarder to 40 hours of this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=4294 so to reprogram them, and perhaps act a deterrent.
If you do the same thing to the Muslims in your country, and the Sikhs, and everyone else, that would be fine.

I was just kidding. If I was in a position to hire and fire people I would make the decision based on whether I want to fuck her, not her religion.

No .. seriously ... is there a black light test or something?

>.>
<.<

...

If you do the same thing to the Muslims in your country, and the Sikhs, and everyone else, that would be fine.

Of course, all theists.

If the guy could not handle doing his job he should have shopped elsewhere.

This sounds absolutely crazy, but discrimination is fine with me. We do it all the time anyway. Having laws against discrimination in companies is simply society's way of saying, we really don't like this.

And if I were an employer and I needed a Muslim to work on his holy days, I'd make it clear up front. If he doesn't like it he can quit and then make a big stink about how my company isn't fair to Muslims.

Agreed. Of course, when a company changes its policies in such a way that the (wo)man in question does have a problem that previously did not exist, they should offer some sort of compensation.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
What?

What?
Pwned.

Pwned.
Are you trying to say that I am a hypocrite?

Europeans don't interfere with US elections, as you allege. We don't try to influence US laws that don't affect us either, as these Christian Rightists do.

Agreed. Of course, when a company changes its policies in such a way that the (wo)man in question does have a problem that previously did not exist, they should offer some sort of compensation.

That's true. If a company agrees to hire someone and leaves them with the impression that they'll get their holidays off, that's not fair. Contracts should be clear.

Yeah, because we all know the gays are trying to force through a constitutional ammendment to make Christian men fuck each other in the ass, right?
You know, I might become christian again if that passed, if I get a shot at Jerry Falwell.

Maybe it's payback for interfering in our elections.
How have Europeans interfered in US elections?

If someones religion forbids him to work on fridays or sundays, maybe he should think about that before signing a contract that makes him work on these days to begin with.

How have Europeans interfered in US elections?
Oh, that was me and some mates. Fake noses and moustaches work wonders. Sorry we werent enough to turn the vote. :p

If someones religion forbids him to work on fridays or sundays, maybe he should think about that before signing a contract that makes him work on these days to begin with.
Agreed and employer needs to have work done at certian times on a certian schedule. if you as a worker are not qualified to do the job that the employer needs the employer has every right to go get a worker that will.

So individual gun ownership in the US isn't an act of international aggression, nor is it an act of international breach of the peace, nor is it a threat to international peace as long as the guns stay in the US.

Nor is it being regulated or trying to be regulated by the UN. Not that you care about facts, but there you are.

Nor is it being regulated or trying to be regulated by the UN. Not that you care about facts, but there you are.

Truthiness? haha

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm

It's a well known fact that left-wing extremists in the Atheist Criminal Liberal Union, the sexual-deviant lobby and others use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans.

Save your apologies, pal.

Props to the ADF.

It's a well known fact that left-wing extremists in the Atheist Criminal Liberal Union, the sexual-deviant lobby and others use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans.

Save your apologies, pal.

Props to the ADF.

Laughable.

It's a well known fact that left-wing extremists in the Atheist Criminal Liberal Union, the sexual-deviant lobby and others use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans.

Save your apologies, pal.

Props to the ADF.
Shame on the ACLU for trying to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. They really suck for that.

This is a bit annoying, in that nobody seems to have read Lawrence vs. Texas, at all:

"Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States, including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855—856. Bowers causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its central holding. Pp. 12—17."

What Kennedy and the majority argued in their decision was that Bowers vs. Hardwick - a 1986 ruling that upheld sodomy laws - was wrong when it was decided, because the majority in that case argued that Western Civilisation itself condemned homosexual behaviour and that the US shared these "values" with the rest of us, which is clearly false, seeing as the European Court in 1981's Dudgeon v. United Kingdom struck null and void all sodomy laws in Europe - that is five years before Bowers claimed that Western Civilisation condemned homosexual behaviour.

The original case was partially decided on a false premise, and that is why Kennedy had to cite Dudgeon, to show why Bowers was wrong when it was decided, and why it continued to be wrong. The court did not "fall in line with" or "adopt" European case law - it merely showed that a large part of the reasoning in Bowers was flawed and also showed why it was flawed.

The really, really annoying thing about this ignorance of what SCOTUS actually did in Lawrence vs. Texas is that not a peep was heard from these same people when Bowers tried to falsely use "Western Civilisation and its laws" to uphold bans on sodomy, but when Lawrence turned the table and showed that that was incorrect, they bitched and moaned and continue to do so about the US "adopting foreign law." Which is as false a claim as that of Bowers, and equally easily refuted by actually reading the decision.

It was not Lawrence that involved foreign law, but Bowers, and Lawrence refuted this involvement. The conservatives of course didn't bitch about "adopting foreign laws" then because it decided as they wanted - that punishing the fags was OK.

Hypocrites, and distorters of the truth!

Nor is it being regulated or trying to be regulated by the UN. Not that you care about facts, but there you are.
They're trying to regulate it. It's under discussion now.

It's called “U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects”

Note the last part of the title. "All Its Aspects".

And if this treaty were ratified in the United States, it would be binding on its citizens with the full force of American law—outlawing guns, extinguishing hunting, prohibiting shootings sports, ending the right to self-defense, and destroying Second Amendment rights forever.

destroying Second Amendment rights forever.

And the world will keep on turnin' ...

They're trying to regulate it. It's under discussion now.

It's called “U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects”

Note the last part of the title. "All Its Aspects".

Note the part of the title: "Illicit Trade" Did you take English in school?

And if this treaty were ratified in the United States, it would be binding on its citizens with the full force of American law—outlawing guns, extinguishing hunting, prohibiting shootings sports, ending the right to self-defense, and destroying Second Amendment rights forever.
Suuure, because all US citizens acquire their guns through illicit methods.

It's called “U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects”

Note the last part of the title. "All Its Aspects".

Oh, the irony that lies in you asking someone else to note parts of that title...

Note the part of the title: "Illicit Trade" Did you take English in school?


Suuure, because all US citizens acquire their guns through illicit methods.

Note the part of the actual conference that pushes for severely increased government restrictions on private ownership.

They're trying to regulate it. It's under discussion now.

It's called “U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects”

Note the last part of the title. "All Its Aspects".

And if this treaty were ratified in the United States, it would be binding on its citizens with the full force of American law—outlawing guns, extinguishing hunting, prohibiting shootings sports, ending the right to self-defense, and destroying Second Amendment rights forever.
One: as if you'll ratify it. You won't even ratify the Convention of the Rights of the Child because it might interfere with your practice of putting minors to death.

Two: What Itz said.

Note the part of the title: "Illicit Trade" Did you take English in school?

Suuure, because all US citizens acquire their guns through illicit methods.
If you were familiar with what's being discussed at the conference, they feel that if civilians can't buy any firearms at all, they will have better control over the illicit trade.

Try again, fuzzball.

Don't apologise for all of us. Just do what you can to fight the fundies.

Don't apologize for me. I'm happy, and I'm not sorry. You guys are sorry. And you're the ones rewriting the Constitution. Not us. We've been around way longer than you stupid liberal commies have.

Yeah, because we all know the gays are trying to force through a constitutional ammendment to make Christian men fuck each other in the ass, right?

Since you've asked so politely, no. They are however, wanting to remove the roles of mother and father. Look what happened in Canada, mother and father have been delisted in the lawbooks.

Shall we see what's being discussed? Here are Bolton's comments on the Small Arms conference:
There are, however, aspects of the draft Program of Action that we cannot support. Some activities inscribed in the Program are beyond the scope of what is appropriate for international action and should remain issues for national lawmakers in member states. Other proposals divert our attention from practical, effective measures to attack the problem of the illicit trade in SA/LW where it is most needed. This diffusion of focus is, indeed, the Program's chief defect, mixing together as it does legitimate areas for international cooperation and action and areas that are properly left to decisions made through the exercise of popular sovereignty by participating governments:

* We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons. The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic. Each member state of the United Nations has the right to manufacture and export arms for purposes of national defense. Diversions of the legal arms trade that become "illicit" are best dealt with through effective export controls. To label all manufacturing and trade as "part of the problem" is inaccurate and counterproductive. Accordingly, we would ask that language in Section II, paragraph 4 be changed to establish the principle of legitimacy of the legal trade, manufacturing and possession of small arms and light weapons, and acknowledge countries that already have in place adequate laws, regulations and procedures over the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of small arms and light weapons.

* We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states. What individual governments do in this regard is for them to decide, but we do not regard the international governmental support of particular political viewpoints to be consistent with democratic principles. Accordingly, the provisions of the draft Program that contemplate such activity should be modified or eliminated.

* We do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. This is outside the mandate for this Conference set forth in UNGA Resolution 54/54V. We agree with the recommendation of the 1999 UN Panel of Governmental Experts that laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians are properly left to individual member states. The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms. We request that Section II, para 20, which refers to restrictions on the civilian possession of arms to be eliminated from the Program of Action, and that other provisions which purport to require national regulation of the lawful possession of firearms such as Section II, paras 7 and 10 be modified to confine their reach to illicit international activities.

* We do not support measures limiting trade in SA/LW solely to governments. This proposal, we believe, is both conceptually and practically flawed. It is so broad that in the absence of a clear definition of small arms and light weapons, it could be construed as outlawing legitimate international trade in all firearms. Violent non-state groups at whom this proposal is presumably aimed are unlikely to obtain arms through authorized channels. Many of them continue to receive arms despite being subject to legally-binding UNSC embargoes. Perhaps most important, this proposal would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government. Distinctions between governments and non-governments are irrelevant in determining responsible and irresponsible end-users of arms.

* The United States also will not support a mandatory Review Conference, as outlined in Section IV, which serves only to institutionalize and bureaucratize this process. We would prefer that meetings to review progress on the implementation of the Program of Action be decided by member states as needed, responding not to an arbitrary timetable, but specific problems faced in addressing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. Neither will we, at this time, commit to begin negotiations and reach agreement on any legally binding instruments, the feasibility and necessity of which may be in question and in need of review over time.

Still think it has nothing to do with the individual right to bear arms? Izzy, you need to learn to read English yourself.

Since you've asked so politely, no. They are however, wanting to remove the roles of mother and father. Look what happened in Canada, mother and father have been delisted in the lawbooks.
And Canadian civilisation as we know it has crumbled and fallen apart...look at us sifting through the ruins because some kids have two fathers, and others have two mothers...or EVEN WORSE two sets of parents after divorce and subsequent remarriages...

Since you've asked so politely, no. They are however, wanting to remove the roles of mother and father. Look what happened in Canada, mother and father have been delisted in the lawbooks.

1. Source.

2. And the sky somehow didn't fall? :eek:

Shame on the ACLU for trying to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. They really suck for that.

And then you woke up.

If you were familiar with what's being discussed at the conference, they feel that if civilians can't buy any firearms at all, they will have better control over the illicit trade.

Try again, fuzzball.

Nice try.

When you think it supports your argument, you are quite happy to 'spank' (that's right, isn't it?) with the literal word... but when it is pointed out that your own argument is OPPOSED to the literal word, you start whining about something you 'heard'...?

If you were familiar with what's being discussed at the conference, they feel that if civilians can't buy any firearms at all, they will have better control over the illicit trade.

Try again, fuzzball.

For example, one of the stated goals:

"States should work towards ... appropriate national legislation, regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons."

What do they consider "appropriate"?:

From IANSA, the primary coordinator:

Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.
Providing resources to develop the capacity in national and local governments to achieve effective controls over small arms possession and use.
Banning the advertisement and promotion of small arms to civilians.

Rebecca Peters has openly stated that civilians should only be "allowed" single shot long arms w/ a range of less than 100m after they have "proven" they "need" it.

Being that IANSA admits that over 75% of civilian firearms are in the US, who are they trying to effect?

As for the influence on the elections, I take it certain people don't recall the letter writing campaign in the UK opposing Bush? That's not attempting to influence?

Note the part of the actual conference that pushes for severely increased government restrictions on private ownership.
Some members may be asking for greater restrictions. That doesn't mean that'll be one of the conclusions in the conference. What they're trying to do right now is to encourage legislation to prevent illicit trade in countries that don't have it, and enforcement in countries that do.

And Canadian civilisation as we know it has crumbled and fallen apart...look at us sifting through the ruins because some kids have two fathers, and others have two mothers...or EVEN WORSE two sets of parents after divorce and subsequent remarriages...

Hey, if you're that short-sighted, blame yourself. Its already happening in the Netherlands. If you really think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you really are close-minded.

If you were familiar with what's being discussed at the conference, they feel that if civilians can't buy any firearms at all, they will have better control over the illicit trade.
Oh, I forgot you've been attending. Sorry.

How do you know what they feel anyway?

Try again, fuzzball.
Yeah, gotta' stop using the brain to think. I'll try to do that more often.

Some members may be asking for greater restrictions. That doesn't mean that'll be one of the conclusions in the conference. What they're trying to do right now is to encourage legislation to prevent illicit trade in countries that don't have it, and enforcement in countries that do.

The coordinators of the conference are asking for it. It is one of their stated goals. To reduce "illicit trade" by restricting/regulating private ownership.

Hey, if you're that short-sighted, blame yourself. Its already happening in the Netherlands. If you really think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you really are close-minded.
Oh care to show some real evidence that it has had any effect on the Netherlands preferably some hard data (and even more preferably raw data) that the regression was based upon as well as some correlation coefficients as well as fits (not needed if you got the raw data I can run them through SAS or Minitab myself then)

My guess is you are talking out your ass though

As for the influence on the elections, I take it certain people don't recall the letter writing campaign in the UK opposing Bush? That's not attempting to influence?
Actually, I don't recall that, though it wouldn't surprise me if it happened. But was that a government sponsored program? Or was that simply a case of private citizens making their views known? Seems to me that if it were the latter, then you ought to be applauding it rather than bitching about it, and if it were the former, then we need to be having some serious talks with Downing Street. So which is it?

Don't apologize for me. I'm happy, and I'm not sorry. You guys are sorry. And you're the ones rewriting the Constitution. Not us. We've been around way longer than you stupid liberal commies have.
Who's we?

Hey, if you're that short-sighted, blame yourself. Its already happening in the Netherlands. If you really think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you really are close-minded.
Yeah, look who is talking about closed minded...it's already happening in the Netherlands, is it? Their whole civilisation is in ruins, and children are so confused as to who their parents are that they run around until they get dizzy and fall down...:rolleyes:

Hey, if you're that short-sighted, blame yourself. Its already happening in the Netherlands. If you really think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you really are close-minded.
Do you actually know any Dutch people who hold this opinion?

1. Source.

2. And the sky somehow didn't fall? :eek:

I'll repeat this for your benefit, if you think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you're a very close-minded person.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111810.html

This is from the PEI provincial government. I can't seem to find the link for the Ontario legislature, but that's happened already.

Do you actually know any Dutch people who hold this opinion?

Try looking at their society from an objective view.

Since you've asked so politely, no. They are however, wanting to remove the roles of mother and father. Look what happened in Canada, mother and father have been delisted in the lawbooks.
Yes, and now all Canadian children are reared in large factories. Row upon row of identically dressed Canadian kids sit at cubicles watching and listening to Canadian government propaganda intended to make them model Canadian citizens.

Yeah, look who is talking about closed minded...it's already happening in the Netherlands, is it? Their whole civilisation is in ruins, and children are so confused as to who their parents are that they run around until they get dizzy and fall down...:rolleyes:

Just take a look at their marriage rates and mortality rates and so forth. Obviously, you would love their society but that's what a leftwinger aspires.

Try looking at their society from an objective view.
Because Dutch people can't?

Yes, and now all Canadian children are reared in large factories. Row upon row of identically dressed Canadian kids sit at cubicles watching and listening to Canadian government propaganda intended to make them model Canadian citizens.

You certainly live up to your handle. Go see a psychologist for help, or AA.

I'll repeat this for your benefit, if you think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you're a very close-minded person.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111810.html

This is from the PEI provincial government. I can't seem to find the link for the Ontario legislature, but that's happened already.
So you are upset that they are correcting the governments wording in things like legal documents and laws to reflect the reality that they have same sex marriage now?

Heaven forbid we have correct terminology in our laws :eek:

Hey, if you're that short-sighted, blame yourself. Its already happening in the Netherlands. If you really think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you really are close-minded.

Ah yes. The very fabric of homophobic, bigoted society is in danger of being destroyed.

Time to haul it down completely, I say.

Try looking at their society from an objective view.
You're asking people to look at society from an objective view? That may be the most unintentionally hilarious thing written in this thread.

I'll repeat this for your benefit, if you think that the effects of societal changes happen instantly, you're a very close-minded person.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111810.html

This is from the PEI provincial government. I can't seem to find the link for the Ontario legislature, but that's happened already.

So what?

Actually, I don't recall that, though it wouldn't surprise me if it happened. But was that a government sponsored program? Or was that simply a case of private citizens making their views known? Seems to me that if it were the latter, then you ought to be applauding it rather than bitching about it, and if it were the former, then we need to be having some serious talks with Downing Street. So which is it?

Free speech is great, You should be saying that to the other people on this board griping because the reverse is happening.

Oh care to show some real evidence that it has had any effect on the Netherlands preferably some hard data (and even more preferably raw data) that the regression was based upon as well as some correlation coefficients as well as fits (not needed if you got the raw data I can run them through SAS or Minitab myself then)

My guess is you are talking out your ass though

Its very easily searchable, but I would guess that you don't care to find out so keep your head in the sand. Typical leftwinger.

Just take a look at their marriage rates and mortality rates and so forth. Obviously, you would love their society but that's what a leftwinger aspires.

Of course - gay marriage causes high mortality rates. It has nothing to do with.. oh, I don't know.. a significant portion of Dutch population being quite old ?

Yes, and now all Canadian children are reared in large factories. Row upon row of identically dressed Canadian kids sit at cubicles watching and listening to Canadian government propaganda intended to make them model Canadian citizens.
That's not civilization collapse. It's socialism. ;)

Yes, and now all Canadian children are reared in large factories. Row upon row of identically dressed Canadian kids sit at cubicles watching and listening to Canadian government propaganda intended to make them model Canadian citizens.

You can tell by the maple leaf they tattoo on their arms, along with a serial number. It's an old liberal trick.

So what?


If you have to ask, you wouldn't know the answer if it hit you in the face.:headbang:

Still think it has nothing to do with the individual right to bear arms? Izzy, you need to learn to read English yourself.
That's the draft for the Program of Action which is general guidelines, not binding obligations. And the US is right in asking for clarification in terms and allowing countries to determine how they should tackle the problem internally.

Just take a look at their marriage rates and mortality rates and so forth. Obviously, you would love their society but that's what a leftwinger aspires.
And you blindly attribute that to homosexual marriage? I would like to see the correlation for THAT supposition

Of course - gay marriage causes high mortality rates. It has nothing to do with.. oh, I don't know.. a significant portion of Dutch population being quite old ?

Ah, I didn't say that but if you want to go to extremes, don't let me stop you.

And you blindly attribute that to homosexual marriage? I would like to see the correlation for THAT supposition

Stoopid communist leftist! Use Google, God!

And you blindly attribute that to homosexual marriage? I would like to see the correlation for THAT supposition

See post above for answer.
:rolleyes:

You certainly live up to your handle. Go see a psychologist for help, or AA.
AA is a Christian brainwashing cult. I'm perfectly happy and well adjusted.

Its very easily searchable, but I would guess that you don't care to find out so keep your head in the sand. Typical leftwinger.
No I have looked … you seem to have some source of information that I have not been able to get my hands on.

Please share it with us unless you really are making all these supposed statistics up.

As far as I can tell you are just guessing that homosexual marriage is a predictor for certain bad aspects in a society … and so far you have completely failed in supporting YOUR proposition

See post above for answer.
:rolleyes:

You realise I'm not on your side...right?


Seriously though, you make the accusations, you must provide the evidence.

AA is a Christian brainwashing cult. I'm perfectly happy and well adjusted.

That's hilarious, do you do stand up?

Free speech is great, You should be saying that to the other people on this board griping because the reverse is happening.
I haven't seen too many people arguing that we ought to forcibly shut anyone's mouth either.

See post above for answer.
:rolleyes:
See reply to said post

:rolleyes:

You realise I'm not on your side...right?


Seriously though, you make the accusations, you must provide the evidence.

Go search for it as I have said. I don't have to do your work, the thing of it is, when I provide evidence, I get a stupid reply, such as, so what??? See steffi's reply. No thanks, I don't waste my time when you won't spend the time to analyse the results.

You realise I'm not on your side...right?


Seriously though, you make the accusations, you must provide the evidence.
Me thinks he has problems understanding sarcasm

From IANSA, the primary coordinator:

Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.
Providing resources to develop the capacity in national and local governments to achieve effective controls over small arms possession and use.
Banning the advertisement and promotion of small arms to civilians.

Yeah, the IANSA people are nuts, but they're not the UN nor do they have any power over what member states finally adopt. They can encourage them to see their point of view, just like anybody else, but that doesn't mean they'll get them to agree on a binding document that effectively removes the legality of individual weapon ownership; much less get the US to ratify it.

Go search for it as I have said. I don't have to do your work, the thing of it is, when I provide evidence, I get a stupid reply, such as, so what??? See steffi's reply. No thanks, I don't waste my time when you won't spend the time to analyse the results.
You misunderstood. "So what?" means that the evidence you provided does not support the claim you made.

Me thinks he has problems understanding sarcasm

*Nods*

Teh intarnets is serious business.

Stoopid communist leftist! Use Google, God!
Lol that’s about the extent he actually supports his position … rather pathetic is it not

No I have looked … you seem to have some source of information that I have not been able to get my hands on.

Please share it with us unless you really are making all these supposed statistics up.

As far as I can tell you are just guessing that homosexual marriage is a predictor for certain bad aspects in a society … and so far you have completely failed in supporting YOUR proposition

Lots of people have spread accusations about Christians on here without any links, no actual points either and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but when a person does that against homosexuals, they must provide proof. Nice hypocrisy.

Go search for it as I have said. I don't have to do your work, the thing of it is, when I provide evidence, I get a stupid reply, such as, so what??? See steffi's reply. No thanks, I don't waste my time when you won't spend the time to analyse the results.

That reply showed that your evidence did not support your suppositions. Perhaps instead of flaming continuously and using crass generalisations, you culd provide more evidence.

Lots of people have spread accusations about Christians on here without any links, no actual points either and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but when a person does that against homosexuals, they must provide proof. Nice hypocrisy.

Really? Links to threads in which these 'accusations' have been made, please.

You misunderstood. "So what?" means that the evidence you provided does not support the claim you made.

Neither has anyone with their accusations about Christians, but I don't see you demanding proof. Wouldn't you say that's pretty hypocritical?

Lots of people have spread accusations about Christians on here without any links, no actual points either and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but when a person does that against homosexuals, they must provide proof. Nice hypocrisy.
Anyone making claims as to having proof (specially statistical proof) of a claim but does not support it gets challenged by me. Show me anyone else that made such claims and I will be most happy to argue with them. I always do

Really? Links to threads in which these 'accusations' have been made, please.

Um, read from the beginning of this thread. Go ahead, you can do it.

Neither has anyone with their accusations about Christians, but I don't see you demanding proof. Wouldn't you say that's pretty hypocritical?
Not really, because while accusations may be required to be backed up, opinions are not.

It was opinions offered about Christians, not accusations.

That reply showed that your evidence did not support your suppositions. Perhaps instead of flaming continuously and using crass generalisations, you culd provide more evidence.
But that is too hard!!!1!!!

Go search for it as I have said. I don't have to do your work, the thing of it is, when I provide evidence, I get a stupid reply, such as, so what??? See steffi's reply. No thanks, I don't waste my time when you won't spend the time to analyse the results.

This whole gay marriage thing is appears overblown; I’m going to dismiss you on the grounds that your going to have to come up with some serious evidence showing that gay marriage is ultimately harmful. I doubt such hard evidence exists. MOreover, the married gays in my family live an innocuous life, your going to have to show me that their overtly harmful.

The burden of proof is on you.

Anyone making claims as to having proof (specially statistical proof) of a claim but does not support it gets challenged by me. Show me anyone else that made such claims and I will be most happy to argue with them. I always do

Just go ahead right from the beginning of this thread, as a matter of fact, my first post on this thread quoted another poster's accusation about Christians. And no, you didn't argue with them.

That's hilarious, do you do stand up?
I've always wanted to but it's hard to get a solid 20 minutes of material.

This whole gay marriage thing is appears overblown; I’m going to dismiss you on the grounds that your going to have to come up with some serious evidence showing that gay marriage is ultimately harmful. I doubt such hard evidence exists. MOreover, the married gays in my family live an innocuous life, your going to have to show me that their overtly harmful.

Again, if you can't see that removing father and mother from society isn't harmful, then I would be wasting my time even going a little bit more in depth.

I've always wanted to but it's hard to get a solid 20 minutes of material.

I'm sure, its hard to come up with a vocabulary that just includes, "I hate Christians."

Um, read from the beginning of this thread. Go ahead, you can do it.

I have. Please don't make such assumptions...you know how the rest goes. Your first post quoted the OP, giving a link to the story. It was not unsupported, as it does in fact show how Christian Fundamenatlists are trying to interefere in judicial matters.

EDIT: Also, ironically, your post made a spurious claim about a 'Homosexual Agenda' without statistics. Hypocritical much?

Again, if you can't see that removing father and mother from society isn't harmful, then I would be wasting my time even going a little bit more in depth.
The family structure in Canada has not changed.

Replacing the words "mother" and "father", "wife" and "husband" with "spouse" in the lawbooks does not change the laws one bit.

Hey, if you're that short-sighted, blame yourself. Its already happening in the Netherlands.
And what exactly can i see happening there? :confused:

Not really, because while accusations may be required to be backed up, opinions are not.

It was opinions offered about Christians, not accusations.

Oh really. Shouldn't one back up their opinion with proof, especially when that opinion accuses Christians of things? If you can't even see past your nose on this, don't bother replying to me.

I'm scared of Christians. If they take power, they will force their morality on all of us and I won't be able to have fun anymore. What happens if they also get rid of the safety net that helps us all freely develop without concern for the financial consequences.

Lots of people have spread accusations about Christians on here without any links, no actual points either and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but when a person does that against homosexuals, they must provide proof. Nice hypocrisy.
Well, we've got the "Defense of marriage act", sodomy laws, and Christians trying to slap the ten commandments on every available surface. Those are assaults against gay families, personal freedom, and the establishment clause respectively. Now you show me how a couple of homos threaten America.

Again, if you can't see that removing father and mother from society isn't harmful, then I would be wasting my time even going a little bit more in depth.

I fail to see how 'Father' and 'Mother' are being removed from society. Your accusations and fears are groundless.

Just go ahead right from the beginning of this thread, as a matter of fact, my first post on this thread quoted another poster's accusation about Christians. And no, you didn't argue with them.
Except he supported his claim … he had that nice little story that you know showed a right hand Christian organization funding change over seas

Where as you made statistical claims it was degrading a society (things like mortality rate if I remember right) and failed to back them up with statistical data.

He supported his claim you did not

Oh really. Shouldn't one back up their opinion with proof, especially when that opinion accuses Christians of things? If you can't even see past your nose on this, don't bother replying to me.
One should never have to back up opinions, unless they have some vested interest in being believed.

Well, we've got the "Defense of marriage act", sodomy laws, and Christians trying to slap the ten commandments on every available surface. Those are assaults against gay families, personal freedom, and the establishment clause respectively. Now you show me how a couple of homos threaten America.

BECAYSE THEY'RE ICKY GAYS!!1

Oh really. Shouldn't one back up their opinion with proof, especially when that opinion accuses Christians of things? If you can't even see past your nose on this, don't bother replying to me.
Idealy but not nessisarly ... again they did not make an appeal to statistics that they failed to back up

I'm sure, its hard to come up with a vocabulary that just includes, "I hate Christians."
What the fuck does that even mean? Post something with some content, dude.

Again, if you can't see that removing father and mother from society isn't harmful, then I would be wasting my time even going a little bit more in depth.

The notions of father and mother will continue to exist regardless of whether its mentioned on a marriage certificate. And you’ll need to illustrate that mothers/ father family unit is necessary to public utility. Your just making assumptions, which you’ve yet to back, contrary to your opinion, its not a given fact.

I fail to see how 'Father' and 'Mother' are being removed from society. Your accusations and fears are groundless.

Okay, but don't blame me for your failures.

The notions of father and mother will continue to exist regardless of whether its mentioned on a marriage certificate. And you’ll need to illustrate that mothers/ father family unit is necessary to public utility. Your just making assumptions, which you’ve yet to back, contrary to your opinion, its not a given fact.

Again, if you cannot understand that a child needs a mother and a father for balance, its a waste of my time, don't bother replying.

I'm scared of Christians. If they take power, they will force their morality on all of us and I won't be able to have fun anymore. What happens if they also get rid of the safety net that helps us all freely develop without concern for the financial consequences.
Bashing gays isn't morality, it's bigotry. That's immoral. Not giving to the needy is immoral. Conversely a social safety net to provide for those who can't provide for themselves is moral.

If you're an example of Christian morality I'll pass.

Okay, but don't blame me for your failures.

Failures like what? Giving homosexuals equal rights in society? That will bring the whole of society crashing down into anarchy?

Give me a boody break. It just means more equality, something you appear to be against.

Oh really. Shouldn't one back up their opinion with proof, especially when that opinion accuses Christians of things? If you can't even see past your nose on this, don't bother replying to me.

I think the important detail you are missing, is that the 'accusation' against Christians IS supported, in the original article which the entire thread is based upon - except, apparently, for your little homophobic rant.

So - opinion or otherwise, the 'source' of the information - as debated - HAS been cited. Please, my friend, allow me to illustrate:

"When a devout Christian man in England was fired in 2002 for refusing to work on Sundays, his case became something of a cause célèbre among British evangelicals. But the money and part of the legal strategy behind Stephen Copsey's latest court appeal comes not from London but from Scottsdale, Ariz., and the Alliance Defense Fund.


Thus - your little sortie into the relative merits of gay marriage is not only irrelevent to the topic - but also not supported... while the 'opinion' of the thread IS.

Okay, but don't blame me for your failures.
Naw the blame lies in the person that so far has been a miserable failure at backing their claims (which happens to be you in this thread … just incase you were confused)

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm
You do not speak for the U.S. To say that all of the U.S. government is Christian extremist is steroetypical.

Bashing gays isn't morality, it's bigotry. That's immoral. Not giving to the needy is immoral. Conversely a social safety net to provide for those who can't provide for themselves is moral.

If you're an example of Christian morality I'll pass.

Oh, I get it, bashing Christians is alright but critiquing homosexuality is bigotry. Just so I know where the boundaries are here.:rolleyes:

Again, if you cannot understand that a child needs a mother and a father for balance, its a waste of my time, don't bother replying.

I'm rather fascinated by this, in a perverse way. Why exactly do children ned a mother and a father 'For Balance', exactly? What evidence do you provide for this accusation?

Do you think evangelicals in Britain will mean more votes for the Tory Party?

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2000_July_August/article_10.html

Yeah, the IANSA people are nuts, but they're not the UN nor do they have any power over what member states finally adopt. They can encourage them to see their point of view, just like anybody else, but that doesn't mean they'll get them to agree on a binding document that effectively removes the legality of individual weapon ownership; much less get the US to ratify it.

here's the thing. IANSA is the one that that has coordinated, along w/ AI, for this conference. They have lots of clout. Who do you think it was that coordinated the new Australian regulations? Coordinated the recent Brazilian legislation (even though it failed)?

If you read the POA, it uses typically vague wording like "in all its aspects" along w/ naming sources such as theft and smuggling the increase the illicite trade. They also call for govenrments to "encourage" "voluntary" turn ins of private firearms and to consider "further steps".

Again, if you cannot understand that a child needs a mother and a father for balance, its a waste of my time, don't bother replying.
Right. So we should just exterminate the children in single parent families or in orphanages. They'll only turn out fucked up anyway because they don't have a mother and father.

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2000_July_August/article_10.html

I read about half-way through that before laughing my arse off. That really is amusing, and rather pathetic if thats the best 'argument' that can be came up with.

I'm rather fascinated by this, in a perverse way. Why exactly do children ned a mother and a father 'For Balance', exactly? What evidence do you provide for this accusation?

Boy, you really do live in a strange world. Let me know when you come back to the real world. Unbelievable.:headbang:

Again, if you cannot understand that a child needs a mother and a father for balance, its a waste of my time, don't bother replying.

Dude your a waist of my time, this is an argument, you gotta support your position if you want to get anywhere, but because your not interested, I’ll take you refusal to argue and offer you this: http://ualuealuealeuale.ytmnd.com/

Right. So we should just exterminate the children in single parent families or in orphanages. They'll only turn out fucked up anyway because they don't have a mother and father.

It is Gods will.

Boy, you really do live in a strange world. Let me know when you come back to the real world. Unbelievable.:headbang:

In other words... you have no answer?

You do not speak for the U.S. To say that all of the U.S. government is Christian extremist is steroetypical.
Um, yeah I do speak for the US. Also I never said that the US government is Christian. It's supposed to take no side in matters of religion and allow all religions to practice freely.

In other words... you have no answer?

That indeed seems to be the gist.

Boy, you really do live in a strange world. Let me know when you come back to the real world. Unbelievable.:headbang:

That isn't an answer. Please, do tell me why a mother and father are needed? Does that mean, as DCD has said, that all orphans should be killed, or those with single parents? It would seem to follow that logic.

Remember when I said that if I was to provide any proof that immediately it would be ridiculed and not even read by the person. See above. Those of you who are actually interested in receiving this information are few and far in between. Close-minded people.

I'm rather fascinated by this, in a perverse way. Why exactly do children ned a mother and a father 'For Balance', exactly? What evidence do you provide for this accusation?
Well, if they don't have that balance, if they have two mommies, they'll all (boys and girls) grow up thinking like girls.

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2000_July_August/article_10.html
What a worthless page … they have not compared it to … I don’t know maybe heterosexuals for all I know could have twice the “promiscuity rates” then these mid 80’s studies

Either they are being picky and choosy about what they include or a 2nd year stats students could do better then these fuckups.

Remember when I said that if I was to provide any proof that immediately it would be ridiculed and not even read by the person. See above. Those of you who are actually interested in receiving this information are few and far in between. Close-minded people.

Actually, I read it. That study is a pile of horecrap, and biased to hell. I'd love to see what the promiscuity rates are for heterosexuals...

Oh, I get it, bashing Christians is alright but critiquing homosexuality is bigotry. Just so I know where the boundaries are here.:rolleyes:
I'm not trying to make Christianity a crime. Some Christians are, however, trying to make gayness a crime.

Right. So we should just exterminate the children in single parent families or in orphanages. They'll only turn out fucked up anyway because they don't have a mother and father.

Again, as I have said earlier, you go right ahead with your extremes. It doesn't reflect poorly on me, just you.

Well, if they don't have that balance, if they have two mommies, they'll all (boys and girls) grow up thinking like girls.

And GTA makes me want to go out and run people over...

I'm not trying to make Christianity a crime. Some Christians are, however, trying to make gayness a crime.

Right, you're just spreading hateful words against them but that's alright as long as you aren't making it a crime to be Christian, how nice of you.

Remember when I said that if I was to provide any proof that immediately it would be ridiculed and not even read by the person. See above. Those of you who are actually interested in receiving this information are few and far in between. Close-minded people.

If this is a reference to an orphaned link pointing to god-only-knows-where, very few people will click on random links, because trolls use them as a mechanism to redirect to distasteful sites, or sites that have various malware.

I know I didn't read your link - which you apparently couldn't find anything worth quoting within, and while failed to warrant so much as a description from you.

Again, as I have said earlier, you go right ahead with your extremes. It doesn't reflect poorly on me, just you.

It isn't an extreme. It is following the logic that you yourself have given.

Actually, I read it. That study is a pile of horecrap, and biased to hell. I'd love to see what the promiscuity rates are for heterosexuals...

Ah, why is it crap and biased? I know, because it doesn't suit your opinion. Talk about being close-minded.

Right, you're just spreading hateful words against them but that's alright as long as you aren't making it a crime to be Christian, how nice of you.

Where was anyone spreading hateful words?

Are you just trolling for a response?

I am still wondering what is wrong in the Netherlands...
After you categorically decline to discuss this issue (then why are you on a discussion board, fuckwit?), i still have you to know that there are no scientific studies that show any big difference in the psychological makeup of children raised in "normal" families and those raised by homosexual partners.

Well, if they don't have that balance, if they have two mommies, they'll all (boys and girls) grow up thinking like girls.
Come to think of it, they'll grow up thinking unmanlike even if they have two daddies. ;)

I'm not trying to make Christianity a crime. Some Christians are, however, trying to make gayness a crime.

Jesus will deal with the gays in good time, but first: http://jesuswilldestroyscientology.ytmnd.com/

Again, as I have said earlier, you go right ahead with your extremes. It doesn't reflect poorly on me, just you.
My posts don't need to reflect poorly on you. You do that all by yourself. Seriously, are you saying it's better for a kid to be raised in an orphanage than to have two gay parents? It's not like some gay guy is going to start squeezing out kids. They'll be adopting. Don't you people think adoption is a good thing? Cuts down on abortion and all that crap?

It isn't an extreme. It is following the logic that you yourself have given.

You're crazy, he accused me of wanting to exterminate children, or did you actually read that??? If you think this is proper for civilized people to suggest that a Christian would do that, I don't want to live in your world. That's hatred and its disgusting garbage.

Ah, why is it crap and biased? I know, because it doesn't suit your opinion. Talk about being close-minded.

I never said that. It is biased and crap because its control groups are far too small and biased towards finding god knows what participants...not to mention it's about twenty years old.

Where was anyone spreading hateful words?

Are you just trolling for a response?

Hey idiot, if someone accuses me of wanting to exterminate children, I think that's pretty bad, or does that fit your opinion too? I shouldn't expect more, I guess when people have their head in the sand its alright to accuse people of such extremism and hatred.

I'll make the size of this big so the right-wingers religious FASCISTS here get my point.

Right-wingers: Trying to force religion down our throats is nothing short of rape. You are rapists.

Thank you.

Right, you're just spreading hateful words against them but that's alright as long as you aren't making it a crime to be Christian, how nice of you.
Hatefull? Sorry dude, you have to deal with criticism for your words and actions. If I don't agree with you I'll speak up. When I see you perverting the constitution and trampling on human dignity I'm going to say something.

Perfect example above about rape. Is anyone going to stand up against this garbage?

Ah, I didn't say that but if you want to go to extremes, don't let me stop you.

Please look up the word "sarcasm".

Now for a more serious reply - at first sight the only negative result of legalising gay marriage in the Netherlands was increased homophobia amongst the Muslim population, including an increase in verbal and physical aggression against them, primarily performed by teenagers of Moroccan descent.

One cannot really blame the gays for that...

You're crazy, he accused me of wanting to exterminate children, or did you actually read that??? If you think this is proper for civilized people to suggest that a Christian would do that, I don't want to live in your world. That's hatred and its disgusting garbage.

Actually - it would not be an entirely unreasonable argument to make.

After all - if one dies innocent, many hold that one is automatically 'accepted in grace'.

So - okay, the Christian who KILLED all the children would be condemened for breaking Levitical law... but it would be a small sacrifice, if they REALLY lived the values Jesus is alleged to have preached... to love one's neighbour.

Hatefull? Sorry dude, you have to deal with criticism for your words and actions. If I don't agree with you I'll speak up. When I see you perverting the constitution and trampling on human dignity I'm going to say something.

You can't change the disgusting things you have said so far, so don't toss your filth at me.

Perfect example above about rape. Is anyone going to stand up against this garbage?

Actually, although the language is a little verbose, it is rather an apt analogy. The Defense Of Marriage Act was extremely forceful, restrictive and bigoted, and is much like rape in that it would force such bigotry on an entire nation.

Please look up the word "sarcasm".

Now for a more serious reply - at first sight the only negative result of legalising gay marriage in the Netherlands was increased homophobia amongst the Muslim population, including an increase in verbal and physical aggression against them, primarily performed by teenagers of Moroccan descent.

One cannot really blame the gays for that...

Whoa here, if I made a sarcastic remark about homosexuals, you would be attacking me nonetheless, so why is it that it is okay for you but not for me? Hypocrisy indeed.

Hey idiot, if someone accuses me of wanting to exterminate children, I think that's pretty bad, or does that fit your opinion too? I shouldn't expect more, I guess when people have their head in the sand its alright to accuse people of such extremism and hatred.

Well, THAT was an outpouring of vitriol from someone who CLAIMS to be a Christian. I'd meditate on that thought if I were you.

Which quote was it that states you 'want to exterminate children'? I might have missed that one.

I'll make the size of this big so the right-wingers religious FASCISTS here get my point.

Right-wingers: Trying to force religion down our throats is nothing short of rape. You are rapists.
Thank you.

Please realise that not all right wingers are fundies. I am right wing in economic terms, but an atheist. So am I a rapist?

Actually, although the language is a little verbose, it is rather an apt analogy. The Defense Of Marriage Act was extremely forceful, restrictive and bigoted, and is much like rape in that it would force such bigotry on an entire nation.

Ah, I should have expected that you would defend that type of garbage. Speaks volumes for the crowd here.

Whoa here, if I made a sarcastic remark about homosexuals, you would be attacking me nonetheless, so why is it that it is okay for you but not for me? Hypocrisy indeed.

I fail to see an attack on you here. In fact, he is providing evidence to go against your as-yet unfounded supposition that something is wrog in the Netherlands after they legalised gay marriage.

Perfect example above about rape. Is anyone going to stand up against this garbage?

Ah, so you admit to wanting to force religion down our throats? I stand by what I said: Anyone that tries to force religion down people's throats is a rapist. I'm not flaming you. Unless, of course, the shoe fits. And if you stand against me, I'll humiliate you with the ease of a karate master against a pig.

Please realise that not all right wingers are fundies. I am right wing in economic terms, but an atheist. So am I a rapist?

Well, the quote DID specify 'religious'...

Ah, I should have expected that you would defend that type of garbage. Speaks volumes for the crowd here.

It was an apt point. Defense Of Marriage was an act of legal 'Rape', as it would have forced bigoted laws on an entire nation, and breached the seperation of Church and State that the US was founded on.

Ah, I should have expected that you would defend that type of garbage. Speaks volumes for the crowd here.
Yeah makes me proud to be associated with them

Well, THAT was an outpouring of vitriol from someone who CLAIMS to be a Christian. I'd meditate on that thought if I were you.

Which quote was it that states you 'want to exterminate children'? I might have missed that one.

If you want to critique a Christian become one, otherwise you really don't know what you're talking about.

Here is the quote, <i>Right. So we should just exterminate the children in single parent families or in orphanages. They'll only turn out fucked up anyway because they don't have a mother and father.</i>

Ah, I should have expected that you would defend that type of garbage. Speaks volumes for the crowd here.

A generic 'flame' aimed at ANY who disagree with you?

Yep - I'm thinking troll.

I'd imagine the Wrath of Mod is being weighed against you...

Whoa here, if I made a sarcastic remark about homosexuals, you would be attacking me nonetheless, so why is it that it is okay for you but not for me? Hypocrisy indeed.

I vehemently dislike this accusation. Either back it up or apologise.

Hey idiot, if someone accuses me of wanting to exterminate children, I think that's pretty bad, or does that fit your opinion too? I shouldn't expect more, I guess when people have their head in the sand its alright to accuse people of such extremism and hatred.
I was just showing how your lline of thinking, taken to the extreme, is absurd. Oh, and you're the one with his head in the sand if you can't recognize that you can't force Christianity on everyone.

It was an apt point. Defense Of Marriage was an act of legal 'Rape', as it would have forced bigoted laws on an entire nation, and breached the seperation of Church and State that the US was founded on.

I would suspect that those people who have been actually raped would be very upset at people like you throwing the word around so frivelously.

If you want to critique a Christian become one, otherwise you really don't know what you're talking about.

Here is the quote, <i>Right. So we should just exterminate the children in single parent families or in orphanages. They'll only turn out fucked up anyway because they don't have a mother and father.</i>

So by that logic, to critique the military I should join up, to critique Muslims I should be come one...to critiqe bigots I should become one?

It's a well known fact that christian extremists use the US political and legal system in an attempt to impose their beliefs and way of life on other Americans. Now they're funding similar attempts overseas. Sorry.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060614/14foreignlaw.htm

:rolleyes:

Since when is it our job to apologize to the world? We are not diplomats and you do not apologize for me so no. You do not have authority to apologize on behalf of the United States.

Please look up the word "sarcasm".

Now for a more serious reply - at first sight the only negative result of legalising gay marriage in the Netherlands was increased homophobia amongst the Muslim population, including an increase in verbal and physical aggression against them, primarily performed by teenagers of Moroccan descent.

One cannot really blame the gays for that...
One can blame religion though.

If you read the POA, it uses typically vague wording like "in all its aspects" along w/ naming sources such as theft and smuggling the increase the illicite trade. They also call for govenrments to "encourage" "voluntary" turn ins of private firearms and to consider "further steps".
Yes, it's vague, but on the other hand, it's still in the draft stage and it can change a lot. The US and others do well in asking for more precise language. Many countries do benefit from legal trade in small weapons, after all.

I was just showing how your lline of thinking, taken to the extreme, is absurd. Oh, and you're the one with his head in the sand if you can't recognize that you can't force Christianity on everyone.

No, you weren't, you were taking things to the extreme because you don't have an actual argument. So, you accuse me of wanting to exterminate children. Speaks volumes for your type of person.

I would suspect that those people who have been actually raped would be very upset at people like you throwing the word around so frivelously.

I mean no disrespect to those who have suffered such a horrendous act, but it is still an apt comparison. I will not withdraw that remark.

You can't change the disgusting things you have said so far, so don't toss your filth at me.
I'm not taking back anything I said.

If you want to critique a Christian become one, otherwise you really don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to criticize Al Qaeda, become a part of it.

On a second thought, you have shown many things in common with them...

Piece of crap.

These people need to learn that we 'don't do God' in this country, and if anyone is seen to be trying to force us to, then we'll sooner hang that person out to dry than listen to them.

That's why Britain has a state religion and the US doesn't :rolleyes:

So by that logic, to critique the military I should join up, to critique Muslims I should be come one...to critiqe bigots I should become one?

Logic escapes you, don't bother trying.

No, you weren't, you were taking things to the extreme because you don't have an actual argument. So, you accuse me of wanting to exterminate children. Speaks volumes for your type of person.

Actually, by reading the quote, he does not actually suggest you want to. He enquires as to whether you want to. You are free, as you have done, to reply in the negative.

If you want to criticize Al Qaeda, become a part of it.

On a second thought, you have shown many things in common with them...

Wait wait, here's another one. Now I'm the Al Qaeda. Comparing me to mass murderers and terrorists. Anyone want to defend his position on this?

Please realise that not all right wingers are fundies. I am right wing in economic terms, but an atheist. So am I a rapist?

In the US they tend to be.

Since the story involves the US, they are talking about fundaloons.....

If you want to critique a Christian become one, otherwise you really don't know what you're talking about.

Here is the quote, <i>Right. So we should just exterminate the children in single parent families or in orphanages. They'll only turn out fucked up anyway because they don't have a mother and father.</i>

You assume too much, my friend... it makes your arguments weaker.

I 'really do' know what I'm talking about, because I 'started' being a Christian more than three decades ago...

And - I'm reading that quote... I don't see that it says anything about 'you', it certainly doesn't say YOU 'want' to exterminate children.

What it DOES do - is refer to the fact that you made the (unsupported) claim that it was ESSENTIAL for a child to grow up in a one-mom-one-dad family. If it is as essential as you seem to think - surely one-parent-families, and orphanages ARE destructive to children... and WILL produce detrimental influences.

Was the other poster taking it too far'? Perhaps... but you set the precedent, and have still singularly failed to deliver.

:rolleyes:

Since when is it our job to apologize to the world? We are not diplomats and you do not apologize for me so no. You do not have authority to apologize on behalf of the United States.
You know that I do.

Again, if you cannot understand that a child needs a mother and a father for balance, its a waste of my time, don't bother replying.

http://talbfij.ytmnd.com/ Alarmist bullshit.

Actually, by reading the quote, he does not actually suggest you want to. He enquires as to whether you want to. You are free, as you have done, to reply in the negative.

He has suggested it, and to even bring that up is disgusting in a civilized world and you supported it too. You can try and wriggle out of it all you want.

The UN Charter applies to the UN.

Which are agreed to by all the member nations of the United Nations.

That's why Britain has a state religion and the US doesn't :rolleyes:

Oh yes. Our state religion has so much power here in Britain. That's why we have civil unions and are pushing for gay marriages. Hell, the Archbishop of Canterbury is practically a figurehead...

Wait wait, here's another one. Now I'm the Al Qaeda. Comparing me to mass murderers and terrorists. Anyone want to defend his position on this?

HEY HEY HEY HEY! You can't criticize Al Qaeda without being a part of it. Are you?

He has suggested it, and to even bring that up is disgusting in a civilized world and you supported it too. You can try and wriggle out of it all you want.

I would suggest that supporting the suppression of homosexuals is disgusting in a civilised world.

You assume too much, my friend... it makes your arguments weaker.

I 'really do' know what I'm talking about, because I 'started' being a Christian more than three decades ago...

And - I'm reading that quote... I don't see that it says anything about 'you', it certainly doesn't say YOU 'want' to exterminate children.

What it DOES do - is refer to the fact that you made the (unsupported) claim that it was ESSENTIAL for a child to grow up in a one-mom-one-dad family. If it is as essential as you seem to think - surely one-parent-families, and orphanages ARE destructive to children... and WILL produce detrimental influences.

Was the other poster taking it too far'? Perhaps... but you set the precedent, and have still singularly failed to deliver.

Ah, turn the accusation to me as I have brought it on myself. When did I ever say that I support exterminating people??? Where??? Because that is heinous to even suggest what you are doing.

Wait wait, here's another one. Now I'm the Al Qaeda. Comparing me to mass murderers and terrorists. Anyone want to defend his position on this?
No he was saying you have many of those qualities … it is a matter of degree not type

Wait wait, here's another one. Now I'm the Al Qaeda. Comparing me to mass murderers and terrorists. Anyone want to defend his position on this?

Why is it EVERY slight, real or imagined, has you crying out for someone ELSE to defend YOUR side of the argument...?

I would suggest that supporting the suppression of homosexuals is disgusting in a civilised world.

Change the subject all you want, it doesn't even come close to accusing someone of wanting to exterminate children or anyone. Disgusting.

You know that I do.

Of course you do. Clinton got drunk with you one night and made you NS General's Ambassador to the International Community. I quite clearly remember the headlines.

Wait wait, here's another one. Now I'm the Al Qaeda. Comparing me to mass murderers and terrorists. Anyone want to defend his position on this?

Query: are you purposefully twisting the meaning of peoples posts for fun, or do you honestly interpret them in the way you describe ?

Attacks on your arguments are not the same as attacks on your person.

No, you weren't, you were taking things to the extreme because you don't have an actual argument. So, you accuse me of wanting to exterminate children. Speaks volumes for your type of person.
No, maybe you just aren't smart enough to get my point. I'll spell it out in a more simple way for you. There are plenty of kids without parents to take care of them. Allowing them to be raised by gay parents who choose to adopt them is better than letting some institution raise them. Gay parents are better than no parents, and even if it's not the absolute best situation, it's still better than the alternative. You have no right to condem kids just because they don't have a male and female parent in the home.

Change the subject all you want, it doesn't even come close to accusing someone of wanting to exterminate children or anyone. Disgusting.

He suggested, you rebutted in the negative. There should be no more problem. Please, don't keep flaming. You'll only suffer for it; logical, reasoned debate is far better, as has been shown here.

That's why Britain has a state religion and the US doesn't :rolleyes:

The CofE is a national joke, not unlike the Royal Family.

Logic escapes you, don't bother trying.
You talking about logic is like Bush talking about pacifism.

Why is it EVERY slight, real or imagined, has you crying out for someone ELSE to defend YOUR side of the argument...?

Wait, you honestly think he wasn't comparing me to the Al Qaeda??? Where do you get this conclusion??? And why shouldn't I stand up when someone accuses me of exterminating children and then having a lot in common with Al Qaeda? Why is it that people like you have to resort to extremes like this? It suggests to me that any opposition to your opinion(s) are met with blanket statements like these. I'm waiting (not hoping) for someone to bring up a comparison to the Nazi's because that is all that you're missing.

Query: are you purposefully twisting the meaning of peoples posts for fun, or do you honestly interpret them in the way you describe ?

Attacks on your arguments are not the same as attacks on your person.

I think he's trying to get people that disagree with him banned.

Wait wait, here's another one. Now I'm the Al Qaeda. Comparing me to mass murderers and terrorists. Anyone want to defend his position on this?
You have similar positions on morality with regards to homosexuality and family life.

You talking about logic is like Bush talking about pacifism.

I take back my most recent post, I forgot that Bush was going to be mentioned too. Typical leftwinger.

You have similar positions on morality with regards to homosexuality and family life.

No I don't and that's a lie. You'd have to be an idiot to suggest this.

He has suggested it, and to even bring that up is disgusting in a civilized world and you supported it too. You can try and wriggle out of it all you want.
So now you don't approve of free speech?

I take back my most recent post, I forgot that Bush was going to be mentioned too. Typical leftwinger.

How do you know that DCD is a left-winger?

Ah, turn the accusation to me as I have brought it on myself. When did I ever say that I support exterminating people??? Where??? Because that is heinous to even suggest what you are doing.

I didn't say you had... I emrely pointed out that you opened that particular avenue, by claiming that it is ESSENTIAL for a child to be raised in a two-oppositely-gendered/sexed-parent-family. Which is transparently untrue... and which you haven't even pretended to make a decent defence for being able to 'prove'.

Your argument lacks evidentiary support - as it must, because it is bigotry.

You didn't really deal with my 'premise' under which it would be, not only non-heinous, but actually laudable, for the Christian to murder children.

Do you not agree with Christ, that self-sacrifice is the GREATEST gift, and that the greatest commandment for existence between men, is to love one's neighbour?

Query: are you purposefully twisting the meaning of peoples posts for fun, or do you honestly interpret them in the way you describe ?

Attacks on your arguments are not the same as attacks on your person.

Wait here, you are telling me that when someone says that I would support exterminating children, having a lot in common with Al Qaeda is not an attack on my person??? Wow, I do have a thick skin, but not that thick.

No, you weren't, you were taking things to the extreme because you don't have an actual argument. So, you accuse me of wanting to exterminate children. Speaks volumes for your type of person.
Sarcasm CAN be an argument.

Of course you do. Clinton got drunk with you one night and made you NS General's Ambassador to the International Community. I quite clearly remember the headlines.
Yeah, and Madeline Albright showed me her titties. I'm still trying to drink that mammary, uh, memory away.

Wait, wait, wait...

I decided.

Maimed... Why don't you state what are your little rules for arguing, do you? I'll let you make up any rules you want, and, then, guess what?

I will STILL KICK YOUR ASS IN THE ARGUMENT!

Wait here, you are telling me that when someone says that I would support exterminating children, having a lot in common with Al Qaeda is not an attack on my person??? Wow, I do have a thick skin, but not that thick.

I know the internet is not the perfect route for sarcasm, but surely you can detect sarcasm in peoples posts...right?

No, maybe you just aren't smart enough to get my point. I'll spell it out in a more simple way for you. There are plenty of kids without parents to take care of them. Allowing them to be raised by gay parents who choose to adopt them is better than letting some institution raise them. Gay parents are better than no parents, and even if it's not the absolute best situation, it's still better than the alternative. You have no right to condem kids just because they don't have a male and female parent in the home.

And what evidence is there to suggest that gay parents are inadequate relative to heterosexual couples, I know plenty of people abused by heterosexual parents, should be ban them too?

Well, the quote DID specify 'religious'...

Actually it didn't, which is why I objected. If you read (past tense) it as meaning the religious right, then fine, but it does not say the religious right.

I take back my most recent post, I forgot that Bush was going to be mentioned too. Typical leftwinger.
Thank you! Left wingers were responsible for expanding liberty and democracy throughout our nation's history. You've paid me quite a nice compliment.