The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
grounds".
This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim was repeated yet again
in the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling available at
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm
which states:
"[7] Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes under the
umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see
Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.
As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual
orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated
in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is "a deeply personal
characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable
only at unacceptable personal costs" (para. 5)."
Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
to Christian teaching?
Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> to Christian teaching?
Luckily for us, Canada is not a theocracy.
If you wish to live in a theocracy, I suggest you move to Iran.
Now take your bible, go back to Sunday school, and get the fuck out of
Canada's court rooms.
It wasn't the Supreme Court saying that, it was three different
provincial courts in three different provinces who are saying that. The
latest one was the Ontario Court of Appeal. There is also a significant
portion of the Canadian voters who feel the same way.
----------------------------------------------------------
dpwozney wrote:
> The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> grounds".
>
> This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim was repeated yet again
> in the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling available at
> http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm
> which states:
>
> "[7] Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes under the
> umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see
> Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.
> As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
>
> In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual
> orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated
> in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is "a deeply personal
> characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable
> only at unacceptable personal costs" (para. 5)."
>
> Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> to Christian teaching?
>
> Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
> All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
> Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
--
Great Thundering Nerd
dpwozney wrote:
> The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> grounds".
>
> This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim was repeated yet again
> in the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling available at
> http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm
> which states:
discredited by who? (or do I mean whom??.....where are the language
police when one needs them?)
JS
>
>
> "[7] Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes under the
> umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see
> Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.
> As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
>
> In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual
> orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated
> in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is "a deeply personal
> characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable
> only at unacceptable personal costs" (para. 5)."
>
> Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> to Christian teaching?
>
> Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
> All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
> Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
"Great Thundering Nerd" <ThunderingNerd@no-spam> wrote
in message news:3EF59C52.1030809@no-spam
> It wasn't the Supreme Court saying that, it was three different
> provincial courts in three different provinces who are saying
that.
Well, not quite. They were acting on interpretations already laid
out by the Supreme Court earlier.
The
> latest one was the Ontario Court of Appeal. There is also a
significant
> portion of the Canadian voters who feel the same way.
If enough Canadian voters wanted it that way it would have
already been changed. Canadians, it seems, don't want it changed.
Robinson tried to make a point on CBC a bit back saying Canada
had "joined the people of the Netherlands and Belgium in deciding
to allow gay marriage".
Except we didn't. Canada decided NOT to allow gay marriage, on
numerous occasions. A few unelected judges who are not
responsible to anyone decided it for them.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> dpwozney wrote:
> > The definition of marriage should not be changed because of
the
> > false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual
orientation
> > is a deeply personal characteristic that is either
unchangeable or
> > changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls
within
> > the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the
enumerated
> > grounds".
> >
> > This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim was repeated
yet again
> > in the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling available at
> >
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.
htm
> > which states:
> >
> > "[7] Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes
under the
> > umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see
> > Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2
S.C.R. 3.
> > As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
> >
> > In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual
> > orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated
> > in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is "a deeply personal
> > characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable
> > only at unacceptable personal costs" (para. 5)."
> >
> > Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> > to Christian teaching?
> >
> > Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
> > All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans
3:23).
> > Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> > found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> > unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
>
>
> --
> Great Thundering Nerd
>
That's putting it bluntly. IMO the courts have not gone far enough. I think
the government shouldn't be working in terms of 'marriage' - a somewhat
religious notion - but in terms of declared exclusive single multal
'partnership' between two grown human beings.
My cousins, for instance, twins, now in their late forties or fifties live
together in the same house etc. etc. [for decades now]. No, they don't.
They are life long friends and partners in life. Shouldn't the be able to
declare a 'special' relationship so that if one dies, or something, the
other would recieve the benefits that up to recently a spouse would receive,
like pension etc. Why base this partnership thing on the gay or straight
bedroom and instead allow any two consenting adults to declare a single
special mutual partnership in law.
That way everyone is covered, people can define their relationships and
everyone is treated fairly and the same by government whether or not they
adhere to any particular set of religious principles, rules, traditions etc.
etc.
A couple can get married in a Church then go declare themselves partners
legally. Long term friends can also declare a partnership and gain the
related benefits but skip the religious aspect of marriage.
Seems fair to me.
Stephen
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:36:08 GMT, "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >If enough Canadian voters wanted it that way it would have
> >already been changed. Canadians, it seems, don't want it changed.
>
> Oh? How would you know that? Public opinion polls released recently
> say just the opposite.
>
> Do you live in downtown Calgary, or one of its suburbs?
Or Ekeville.
JS <jstaniec@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3EF5AFE3.912346D6@no-spam>...
> dpwozney wrote:
>
> > The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> > false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> > is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> > changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> > the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> > grounds".
> >
> > This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim was repeated yet again
> > in the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling available at
> > http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm
> > which states:
>
> discredited by who? (or do I mean whom??.....where are the language
> police when one needs them?)
>
> JS
Do you, or does anyone else, dispute the validity of studies
documenting people overcoming homosexuality, such as the one
in the following article?
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/article-pgs/sexuality-at-birth.htm
Is the sexual orientation of a man or woman determined at birth or is it
a willed choice subject to change?
5 June 2001
By Rory Leishman
The London Free Press
The Supreme Court of Canada has entertained no doubts on this issue. In
Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993, it unanimously decreed that
sexual orientation is, "an innate or unchangeable characteristic" like
race, sex, gender and colour.
In a modified statement two years later in Egan v. Canada, the Court
said it had, "no difficulty accepting that whether or not sexual
orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may
be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic
that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal
costs."
The court offered no medical evidence for such assertions. In these
ideologically driven decisions, it proceeded on its own to read sexual
orientation into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
Regardless, are our judicial masters right to insist that sexual
orientation is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable
personal costs?
Dr. Robert Spitzer has offered the best evidence yet on this subject. He
is a professor of psychiatry, Chief of Biometrics at Columbia University
and an internationally renowned expert on homosexuality who led the
taskforce that deleted homosexuality from the official list of mental
disorders in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric
Association in 1973.
In an address to the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric
Association on May 9, Spitzer disclosed the results of a study he led of
143 men and 57 women who had undergone a significant shift from
homosexual to heterosexual attraction that had lasted at
least five years. The men in this study had rarely or never felt any
opposite-sex attraction prior to beginning the process of change, while
the women had been less extreme in their previous homosexual
orientation.
Nonetheless, 66 per cent of the men and 44 per cent of the women had
managed to maintain a, "loving and emotionally satisfying heterosexual
relationship" for at least one year prior to being interviewed by a
member of Spitzer's study team.
The findings came as quite a surprise to Spitzer. He told The New York
Times: "Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behaviour
could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual
orientation. I now believe that's untrue -- some people can and do
change."
While acknowledging that some homosexuals have been harmed by failed
attempts to change their sexual orientation through therapy, Spitzer
maintains that many of the subjects in his study were despondent, and
even suicidal, for the opposite reason -- "precisely because they had
previously thought there was no hope for them, and they had been told by
many mental health professionals that there was no hope for them, they
had to just learn to live with their homosexual feelings."
Parents, teachers, supreme court judges and other citizens should take
note: Homosexuality, bisexuality and sexual promiscuity are no more
fated at birth than alcoholism. They are all more or less willed
behaviours subject to change. ....
[continued at the above link]
> >
> >
> > "[7] Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes under the
> > umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see
> > Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.
> > As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
> >
> > In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual
> > orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated
> > in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is "a deeply personal
> > characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable
> > only at unacceptable personal costs" (para. 5)."
> >
> > Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> > to Christian teaching?
> >
> > Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
> > All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
> > Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> > found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> > unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
"David Deilley" <google@no-spam> wrote in message news:<j6gJa.286178$Vi5.7463641@no-spam>...
> "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> > to Christian teaching?
>
> Luckily for us, Canada is not a theocracy.
Canada is a Christian theocracy. Canada's visible head of state
on earth, Queen Elizabeth II, is referred to as a servant of the
King eternal Jesus Christ. On record at
http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/cools99/11feb99.htm ,
Canadian Senator Anne Cools stated:
"Honourable Senators, I rise to honour the 47th Anniversary of Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne. My theme for
this speech will be 'The Leader as Servant, Public Service, the Queen
and Christ the King.'" .... "Queen Elizabeth II has lived, to the
best of her ability, the high concepts of public service in
Christ the King. She is a great woman, a great Queen and a great
servant. God Bless the Queen!"
The Parliament of Canada passed an act, still in effect today,
respecting the royal title of Queen Elizabeth II, which is
"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom,
Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the
Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".
The Government of Canada recognizes that the God of the United
Kingdom is the same God as the God of Canada. Queen Elizabeth II
is recognized by the Government of Canada as "Defender of the
Faith", which faith is the Christian faith.
> If you wish to live in a theocracy, I suggest you move to Iran.
>
> Now take your bible, go back to Sunday school, and get [deleted]
> out of Canada's court rooms.
Demanding and requiring that I do not have access to Canada's
court rooms would be a violation of my constitutional rights.
The Bible was referred to as "the most valuable thing that this
world affords" at the Queen's coronation, the text of which may be
read at http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html .
Queen Elizabeth II promised to the utmost of her power to maintain
the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote
> Canada is a Christian theocracy.
Right.
And the Christian Heritage Party won the last election by a landslide.
You're a fruitcake.
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
news:5dddc6fb.0306221050.6621f042@no-spam
> "David Deilley" <google@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<j6gJa.286178$Vi5.7463641@no-spam>...
> > "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> > > to Christian teaching?
> >
> > Luckily for us, Canada is not a theocracy.
>
> Canada is a Christian theocracy. Canada's visible head of state
> on earth, Queen Elizabeth II, is referred to as a servant of the
> King eternal Jesus Christ.
Wrong. A theocracy insists on one religion for everyone, and in Canda,
that's not true. Iran is a theocracy.
Technicially true, but she is also a part and representative of the
Anglican, not Catholic religion. She "reports" to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, who is the last stop before the Chief Executive Officer of The
Relm, God. She does not
"report" to Jesus Christ so she is not a servant of Him. She does read what
He wrote as does millions of others
It's God, the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Queen in that descending order
order. JC is the Executive Assistant to
God.
She also does not report to the Pope. He's the head of the second largest
divsion of the organisation.
On record at
> http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/cools99/11feb99.htm ,
> Canadian Senator Anne Cools stated:
> "Honourable Senators, I rise to honour the 47th Anniversary of Her
> Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne. My theme for
> this speech will be 'The Leader as Servant, Public Service, the Queen
> and Christ the King.'" .... "Queen Elizabeth II has lived, to the
> best of her ability, the high concepts of public service in
> Christ the King. She is a great woman, a great Queen and a great
> servant. God Bless the Queen!"
Big Schmeal. She like any of the other Senators are a waste of money. Many
more statements better than hers were made
3 years later on the occaision of her 50th anniversary of the accession to
the throne and 7 years before Cools made her
statements on the occaision of the 40th anniversary of the Queen's accession
to the throne.
If any of those Senators want to make a speech regarding "the throne" I 'd
suggest they start talking about where the throne would be in their own
campaign office. The one they will need if Canada decides to get smart and
actually start electing these
money suckers.
> The Parliament of Canada passed an act, still in effect today,
> respecting the royal title of Queen Elizabeth II, which is
> "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom,
> Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the
> Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".
For ceremoninal aspects, and parliamentary tradition. The absolute rule of
Canada does not rest with Queen Elizabeth or her Heirs.That was eliminated
with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. She personally has no say
in how the country is governed (or most other Commonweath countries such as
Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc. You can thank Sen. Cools and her
federal Liberal friends who supported Trudeau for that when he went ahead
with the idea that Queen Elizabeth sign off her rule on Canada in the early
1980's. The result of that was the constitional mess called the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
The statement you mentioned above is also part and parcel to Australia, New
Zealand and a few other Commonwealth
Countries.
All of which is good, since it means Canada still has a large part of
British Tradition, as opposed to those damn Yankees who
have only movie stars and overrated TV personalities to look up to.
God Save the Queen!
> The Government of Canada recognizes that the God of the United
> Kingdom is the same God as the God of Canada. Queen Elizabeth II
> is recognized by the Government of Canada as "Defender of the
> Faith", which faith is the Christian faith.
For ceremonial reasons and parliamentary tradition only. It is not absolute.
"Defender of the Faith" orginates when at the
time Canada and other countries where formed out of British Empire colonies.
You'll find the same statement in other former British colonies now
independent countries such as Australia and New Zealand.
God Bless the Queen!
Canada has evolved to encompass all religions, Buddist, Christian, First
Nations, Hindu, Sikh, you name it.
> > If you wish to live in a theocracy, I suggest you move to Iran.
> >
> > Now take your bible, go back to Sunday school, and get [deleted]
> > out of Canada's court rooms.
>
> The Bible was referred to as "the most valuable thing that this
> world affords" at the Queen's coronation, the text of which may be
> read at http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html .
> Queen Elizabeth II promised to the utmost of her power to maintain
> the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.
As it is interepted through the Anglican Church. Don't forget that.
The sun never sets on the British Commonwealth.
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
news:5dddc6fb.0306221737.7f9313d6@no-spam
> "Paul Keenleyside" <nospam2bcpl8z@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<EAnJa.50$ZS3.82620@no-spam>...
> > "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:5dddc6fb.0306221050.6621f042@no-spam
> > > "David Deilley" <google@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:<j6gJa.286178$Vi5.7463641@no-spam>...
> > > > "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> > > > > to Christian teaching?
> > > >
> > > > Luckily for us, Canada is not a theocracy.
> > >
> > > Canada is a Christian theocracy. Canada's visible head of state
> > > on earth, Queen Elizabeth II, is referred to as a servant of the
> > > King eternal Jesus Christ.
> >
> > Wrong. A theocracy insists on one religion for everyone, and in Canda,
> > that's not true. Iran is a theocracy.
>
> In the following three definitions for "theocracy" from my Webster's
> New WorldT Dictionary (CD-ROM, 1995) no requirement is given for an
> insistence on "one religion for everyone".
>
> "the oc ra cy ( e ak r se) n. , pl. -cies [[Gr theokratia:
> see THEO- & -CRACY]] 1 lit., the rule of a state by God or a god
> 2 government by a person or persons claiming to rule with divine
> authority 3 a country governed in this way"
>
> Actually, freedom of religion (with religion defined as belief in God
> or gods) is consistent with Christianity since free will to reject
> Christ is a Biblical doctrine.
Tell that to the evangelical idiots who seem to want to insist political
parties have to adhere to basic Christian beliefs
and not be too accomodating to other religious beliefs. I'll give one good
example:
VanderZalm and his Christian disciples.
> > ...She does not "report" to Jesus Christ so she is not a servant of Him.
>
> Multiple references are made to Queen Elizabeth II as being God's servant
> at http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html .
We are ALL God's servants in one way or other.
Besides, that was 1953. This is 2003. The major change in how the Queen
governs Canada had since past by the time 1983 arrived.
> > ... JC is the Executive Assistant to God. ...
>
> According to the King James Bible, Jesus Christ is God.
That may well be, but everyone eventually reports to God.
But I won't go any further than that on that subject. I'll discuss that
subject with a friend of mine who is a Church Minister.
One could also argue that the head of the Consumer and Commercial Loands
Department at the Royal Bank or Bank of Montreal is also a god.
Depends on the means of worship. Buddists worship a fat guy. First Nations
refer to the Natrual Spirit World.
Lots of American women worship Oprah.
"Nelson White" <white.nelson@no-spam> wrote in message news:<SFkJa.174304$3Sm.13772@no-spam>...
> "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:5dddc6fb.0306220219.763f9e98@no-spam
Some very dishinest arguements here for someone who claims to be
Christian.
>
> >
> > Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
That's not hat the pasage says. The passage condemns prostitution,
both homosexual and heterosexual. Lying about what is in the Bible in
a debate like this would seem to me to be using the Holy to meet your
own earthly ends of feeling superior and self-righteous. The worst
kind of sin.
> > All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
Including you, evidently.
> > Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> > found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> > unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
>
I could not agree more. Now please, tell us what the Bible really says
on this topic.
I agree totally
Jimbo
"Stephen" <okk@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vfkJa.174238$3Sm.108673@no-spam
> That's putting it bluntly. IMO the courts have not gone far enough. I
think
> the government shouldn't be working in terms of 'marriage' - a somewhat
> religious notion - but in terms of declared exclusive single multal
> 'partnership' between two grown human beings.
>
> My cousins, for instance, twins, now in their late forties or fifties live
> together in the same house etc. etc. [for decades now]. No, they don't.
> They are life long friends and partners in life. Shouldn't the be able to
> declare a 'special' relationship so that if one dies, or something, the
> other would recieve the benefits that up to recently a spouse would
receive,
> like pension etc. Why base this partnership thing on the gay or straight
> bedroom and instead allow any two consenting adults to declare a single
> special mutual partnership in law.
>
> That way everyone is covered, people can define their relationships and
> everyone is treated fairly and the same by government whether or not they
> adhere to any particular set of religious principles, rules, traditions
etc.
> etc.
>
> A couple can get married in a Church then go declare themselves partners
> legally. Long term friends can also declare a partnership and gain the
> related benefits but skip the religious aspect of marriage.
>
> Seems fair to me.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
JS <jstaniec@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3EF5AFE3.912346D6@no-spam>...
> dpwozney wrote:
>
> > The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> > false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> > is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> > changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> > the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> > grounds".
> >
> > This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim was repeated yet again
> > in the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling available at
> > http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm
> > which states:
>
> discredited by who? (or do I mean whom??.....where are the language
> police when one needs them?)
>
> JS
The false claim of the Supreme Court of Canada, that
"sexual orientation is a deeply personal characteristic that is
either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal
costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being
analogous to the enumerated grounds",
has been discredited by the testimonials of people who have left
homosexuality at very acceptable personal costs, such as the
testimonials at
http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml
> > "[7] Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes under the
> > umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see
> > Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.
> > As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
> >
> > In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual
> > orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated
> > in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is "a deeply personal
> > characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable
> > only at unacceptable personal costs" (para. 5)."
> >
> > Is everyone not already aware that the above lie is contrary
> > to Christian teaching?
> >
> > Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
> > All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
> > Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> > found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> > unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
In ab.politics dpwozney <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote:
> The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> grounds".
> This discredited Supreme Court of Canada claim ....
You say it is discredited. I don't know by whom, but perhaps you
could deal with it the components of your claim.
1. Do you disagree with a person's sexual orientation being
"deeply personal". It strikes me that few things are more
deeply personal.
2. We can agree for the sake of argument that a person's sexual
orientation is changable. It strikes me that there is some personal
cost to this, for the person involved. If you were forced to change
your sexual orientation, do your really beleive that there would
not be a unacceptable personal cost to you?
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@no-spam
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net
In ab.politics dpwozney <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote:
> Do you, or does anyone else, dispute the validity of studies
> documenting people overcoming homosexuality, such as the one
> in the following article?
>
> http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/article-pgs/sexuality-at-birth.htm
>
> Is the sexual orientation of a man or woman determined at birth or is it
> a willed choice subject to change?
It is certainly subject to change. In that way it is certainly analogous
to a person's religion. It can be changed, but at a personal cost which
can be very significant.
...
> In a modified statement two years later in Egan v. Canada, the Court
> said it had, "no difficulty accepting that whether or not sexual
> orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may
> be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic
> that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal
> costs."
>
> The court offered no medical evidence for such assertions.
Sounds like pretty simple logic to me.
But assuming you are hetrosexual, what changes would have to be made
in your life if you become homosexual today.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@no-spam
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net
In article <infjfvcim1gltgbcnffd9mcdukfh0bt3bm@no-spam>,
John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:18:58 GMT, "Nelson White"
> <white.nelson@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:5dddc6fb.0306220219.763f9e98@no-spam
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
> >> All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
> >> Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be
> >> found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in
> >> unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
> >
> >
> >I've used those passages to successfully beat traffic tickets. It's
> >especially effective against photo radar.
> >
> >You wouldn't happen to be one of those lunatics who scurry around quoting
> >words put down by savages 2,000 years ago, would you?
>
> Thanks for an entertaining post.
>
> It is astounding to me that some religious zealots think that is
> perfectly all right for them to attempt to impose their peculiar
> personal standards on *everyone*.
>
> You'll have noticed that these are the same people who get themselves
> in a frenzy over Canada having a few of the R.C.M.P. in turbans.
>
> They are religious bigots, although they will go to great lengths to
> deny that fact.
I'm sorry, but I am in no way a religious bigot and I object to letting
RCMP officers wear turbans.
The "Freedom of Religion" protections are not
"freedom-to-never-have-the-choices-you-make-because-of-your-religion-impa
ct-your-life" protections.
The RCMP uniform is the RCMP uniform. It wasn't chosen to exclude
anyone; it was chosen on *non*-religious grounds. Hence, it is not
discriminating on religious grounds to expect that anyone who wishes to
become an RCMP officer must wear the RCMP uniform.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic affect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>
>
> The false claim of the Supreme Court of Canada, that
>
> "sexual orientation is a deeply personal characteristic that is
> either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal
> costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being
> analogous to the enumerated grounds",
>
> has been discredited by the testimonials of people who have left
> homosexuality at very acceptable personal costs, such as the
> testimonials at
>
> http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml
>
>
For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the case.
If you wish to fight your personal feelings of homosexuality, that is
fine. Go see a shrink. But don't force it on others. If you believe in
freedom, you will do this much.
soul_scanner66@no-spam (vote_ethnique) wrote in message news:<79d6075a.0306251137.7ae7a242@no-spam>...
> >
> >
> > The false claim of the Supreme Court of Canada, that
> >
> > "sexual orientation is a deeply personal characteristic that is
> > either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal
> > costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being
> > analogous to the enumerated grounds",
> >
> > has been discredited by the testimonials of people who have left
> > homosexuality at very acceptable personal costs, such as the
> > testimonials at
> >
> > http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml
> >
> >
>
> For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the case.
People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
and actions.
On 22 Jun 2003, dpwozney wrote:
> Canada is a Christian theocracy.
What a loon.
The Blue Puttee
> >
> > For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the case.
>
> People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
>
> Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
> and actions.
True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
behavior.
The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the government
doesn't have the right to interfere.
"vote_ethnique" <soul_scanner66@no-spam> wrote in message
news:79d6075a.0306261408.69708a34@no-spam
> > >
> > > For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the case.
> >
> > People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
> >
> > Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
> > and actions.
>
> True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
> Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
> behavior.
>
> The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the government
> doesn't have the right to interfere.
By that logic, sex with children should be someone's choice.
soul_scanner66@no-spam (vote_ethnique) wrote in message news:<79d6075a.0306261408.69708a34@no-spam>...
> > >
> > > For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the case.
> >
> > People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
> >
> > Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
> > and actions.
>
> True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
> Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
> behavior.
>
> The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the government
> doesn't have the right to interfere.
I agree that the state should not interfere with the right of adults
to engage in private homosexual consensual sex.
People have the right to sin and the right to violate New Testament
Christian law. Fornication (voluntary sexual intercourse between
unmarrried persons) is contrary to New Testament Christian law
(1 Corinthians 6:18, 7:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, etc. (KJV)). The
New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment,
or enforcement before the end of the present church age.
Just because the government does not have laws against homosexuality,
however, this does not necessarily imply that the government or
society in general believes homosexuality is morally right.
Have some people mistakenly assumed that, because of the lack of state
laws against homosexuality, that the government or society in general
believes homosexuality is morally right?
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all consider homosexual behavior
and actions to be sinful and morally wrong. What is wrong with
discriminating against something which is immoral?
Do you believe the government has right to interfere with people's
right to morally discriminate against something which is immoral?
"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:q4fnfvkih70db041v3sce2sje6kgr52dl0@no-spam
> >> > People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
> >> >
> >> > Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
> >> > and actions.
> >>
> >> True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
> >> Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
> >> behavior.
> >>
> >> The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the government
> >> doesn't have the right to interfere.
> >
> >By that logic, sex with children should be someone's choice.
> >
> But it dose not work that way because 'their choice' involves
> violating the rights of another, the child. This a fallacious 'straw
> man' argument. The law as it stands, applies to consenting adults or
> under certain restricted circumstances children (legally anyone under
> 18) over the age of consent.
Alright, then let's try this one. Marrying one's sister should be one's
choice.
In ab.politics .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Tyler Stevens"
> <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote:
>>Alright, then let's try this one. Marrying one's sister should be one's
>>choice.
>
> Or, one's mother.
I suppose you could argue this. But it is clearly prohibited by
law.
And in considering of law once has to look at whether there is any
discrimination based on a ground mentioned in the charter or an
analygous ground. If so, you have to look at the reasons for the
distinction and see if it is justified.
In this case, it would seem to fail on both grounds.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@no-spam
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net
The use of "non-credibility" in the header is very strange, because it
implies the court is not believed or believable. The opposite, of course,
its true. It is the fact that some groups don`t WANT to believe what the
court has credibly (i.e legally) ruled that causes the almost comically
imprecise use of language. As for "what the public wants" kind of
reasoning--well, at one time the public did not want women to have the vote
nor did the public want to end slavery, etc. and opposition to such moves
invariably had biblical underpinnings. But then the public DID start to
want those things. So things changed, and continue to change. Get used to
it.
"David Deilley" <google@no-spam> wrote in message
news:xalJa.287169$Vi5.7482755@no-spam
> "John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:36:08 GMT, "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >If enough Canadian voters wanted it that way it would have
> > >already been changed. Canadians, it seems, don't want it changed.
> >
> > Oh? How would you know that? Public opinion polls released recently
> > say just the opposite.
> >
> > Do you live in downtown Calgary, or one of its suburbs?
>
> Or Ekeville.
>
>
O dear...Someone want to marry his mother.
"Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
news:PNCLa.107$bD1.27536@no-spam
>
> "Stephen Jenuth" <jenuths@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:WzCLa.344790$Vi5.8742185@no-spam
> > In ab.politics .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Tyler Stevens"
> > > <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >>Alright, then let's try this one. Marrying one's sister should be
one's
> > >>choice.
> > >
> > > Or, one's mother.
> >
> > I suppose you could argue this. But it is clearly prohibited by
> > law.
> >
>
> It's an infringment of my rights! We need to rise up and change this
> oppressive law! The government should stay out of my private bedroom! We
> should ignore the bible! We need to have parades! Who cares about the
> health issues! Who cares about logic!............
>
>
Christ himself had absolutely nothing to say on the subject of
homosexuality. End of argument. Get used to it....
"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4ovsfvcskv1gipin1m62mf1gcoroapps67@no-spam
> On 27 Jun 2003 09:12:26 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
>
> >soul_scanner66@no-spam (vote_ethnique) wrote in message
news:<79d6075a.0306261408.69708a34@no-spam>...
> >> > >
> >> > > For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the
case.
> >> >
> >> > People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
> >> >
> >> > Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
> >> > and actions.
> >>
> >> True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
> >> Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
> >> behavior.
> >>
> >> The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the government
> >> doesn't have the right to interfere.
> >
> >I agree that the state should not interfere with the right of adults
> >to engage in private homosexual consensual sex.
> >
> >People have the right to sin and the right to violate New Testament
> >Christian law. Fornication (voluntary sexual intercourse between
> >unmarrried persons) is contrary to New Testament Christian law
> >(1 Corinthians 6:18, 7:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, etc. (KJV)). The
> >New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment,
> >or enforcement before the end of the present church age.
> >
> >Just because the government does not have laws against homosexuality,
> >however, this does not necessarily imply that the government or
> >society in general believes homosexuality is morally right.
> >
> >Have some people mistakenly assumed that, because of the lack of state
> >laws against homosexuality, that the government or society in general
> >believes homosexuality is morally right?
> >
> >Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all consider homosexual behavior
> >and actions to be sinful and morally wrong. What is wrong with
> >discriminating against something which is immoral?
> >
> >Do you believe the government has right to interfere with people's
> >right to morally discriminate against something which is immoral?
>
> Yes.
>
> All are equal before the law. You are arguing in favour of removing
> rights from those whose morals are different from yours. Follow this
> to it's logical conclusion and you can remove their right to life.
> 'Lets stone the fags'. Remember some other Bile quotations?
> "He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7" I refer
> you to http://www.jesus-ourlord.com/Sermons/Hewithoutsin.htm Certainly
> by the standards in this sermon you are a Pharisee.
>
> "Let's look back to Luke 8:10. There is where our Lord tells a parable
> about two men who went to the temple to pray. One a Pharisee, the
> other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed, thanking God that he
> was not as other men. Other men who were extortionists, unjust,
> adulterers, and publicans. The Pharisee went on to say that he fasted
> twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed. The publican on the
> other hand was standing some distance away from the temple and would
> not lift his eyes to heaven. Instead, he struck himself on the chest
> and said, "God be merciful to me, I am a sinner". Jesus ended this
> parable by saying that the publican was justified, not the Pharisee.
> "everyone who exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles
> himself will be exalted."
>
> Are there still Pharisees in existence today? Of course there are.
> Those are the ones of us who believe very strongly in the teachings of
> Jesus, but somehow along the way forget to actually "forgive" someone
> in our own lives and think that it's okay. Or perhaps it's the person
> who tells someone on Sunday that it's improper to "judge", and yet the
> same person can be seen in gossip sessions with various people all
> week long. "Her hair is not right, she shouldn't wear that dress, I
> can't believe they did that"....you know the discussion.
>
> Are you a Pharisee? Sometimes I am, and I strive not to be. Are you
> humble enough to admit it? That's the beauty of living for Christ. You
> must work at it every day. Even as someone who is born again, it is
> possible to sin. If you think that you get saved, and you will never
> sin again, you might be closer to being a Pharisee than you think"
>
> Likewise it is not your place to discriminate against people whose
> morals you disapprove of "'Justice is Mine. I will repay,' says the
> Lord" Romans 12:19
>
> And for those who claim that so called 'gay rights' gives homosexuals
> 'special' rights, they are looking through the wrong end of the
> telescope. What the homosexual wants is not to have rights removed
> from them because of what they are.
>
Why can't I ! Why are you oppressing me you faggot. Why can you get
married and I can't! You incestaphobe!
"Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:UsIMa.30521$ZS3.2778060@no-spam
> O dear...Someone want to marry his mother.
> "Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:PNCLa.107$bD1.27536@no-spam
> >
> > "Stephen Jenuth" <jenuths@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:WzCLa.344790$Vi5.8742185@no-spam
> > > In ab.politics .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Tyler Stevens"
> > > > <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Alright, then let's try this one. Marrying one's sister should be
> one's
> > > >>choice.
> > > >
> > > > Or, one's mother.
> > >
> > > I suppose you could argue this. But it is clearly prohibited by
> > > law.
> > >
> >
> > It's an infringment of my rights! We need to rise up and change this
> > oppressive law! The government should stay out of my private bedroom!
We
> > should ignore the bible! We need to have parades! Who cares about the
> > health issues! Who cares about logic!............
> >
> >
>
>
dear o dear--it`s getting stuffy in your closet and causing you to lose your
cool, as it were. Come out of the closet. It`s legal to do so....don`t
worry your pretty little head about a THING....
"Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
news:i4LMa.239$NW1.34086@no-spam
> Why can't I ! Why are you oppressing me you faggot. Why can you get
> married and I can't! You incestaphobe!
>
> "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:UsIMa.30521$ZS3.2778060@no-spam
> > O dear...Someone want to marry his mother.
> > "Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:PNCLa.107$bD1.27536@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Stephen Jenuth" <jenuths@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:WzCLa.344790$Vi5.8742185@no-spam
> > > > In ab.politics .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Tyler Stevens"
> > > > > <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>Alright, then let's try this one. Marrying one's sister should be
> > one's
> > > > >>choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or, one's mother.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose you could argue this. But it is clearly prohibited by
> > > > law.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's an infringment of my rights! We need to rise up and change this
> > > oppressive law! The government should stay out of my private bedroom!
> We
> > > should ignore the bible! We need to have parades! Who cares about
the
> > > health issues! Who cares about logic!............
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Mountain Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:52:41 GMT, "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>Christ himself had absolutely nothing to say on the subject of
>>homosexuality. End of argument. Get used to it....
>
>
> So if he did not, why are all the bible thumpers here whining about
> it?
>
Even if they did, so what. The Bible was written two thousand years
ago. There's been a lot of change in the world since then. This is one
of the reasons why I'm not Christian. People tend to interpret it to
suit their own particular need and discount whatever might not suit
them. It's so open to interpretation that it's easy for them to do that.
Then of course there's the fact that it's gone through so many different
interpretations. Most of it was written well after the fact, with
respect to the events it recounts.
D
>
>
>>"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:4ovsfvcskv1gipin1m62mf1gcoroapps67@no-spam
>>
>>>On 27 Jun 2003 09:12:26 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>soul_scanner66@no-spam (vote_ethnique) wrote in message
>>>
>>news:<79d6075a.0306261408.69708a34@no-spam>...
>>
>>>>>>>For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the
>>>>>>
>>case.
>>
>>>>>>People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual behavior
>>>>>>and actions.
>>>>>
>>>>>True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
>>>>>Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the government
>>>>>doesn't have the right to interfere.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that the state should not interfere with the right of adults
>>>>to engage in private homosexual consensual sex.
>>>>
>>>>People have the right to sin and the right to violate New Testament
>>>>Christian law. Fornication (voluntary sexual intercourse between
>>>>unmarrried persons) is contrary to New Testament Christian law
>>>>(1 Corinthians 6:18, 7:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, etc. (KJV)). The
>>>>New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment,
>>>>or enforcement before the end of the present church age.
>>>>
>>>>Just because the government does not have laws against homosexuality,
>>>>however, this does not necessarily imply that the government or
>>>>society in general believes homosexuality is morally right.
>>>>
>>>>Have some people mistakenly assumed that, because of the lack of state
>>>>laws against homosexuality, that the government or society in general
>>>>believes homosexuality is morally right?
>>>>
>>>>Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all consider homosexual behavior
>>>>and actions to be sinful and morally wrong. What is wrong with
>>>>discriminating against something which is immoral?
>>>>
>>>>Do you believe the government has right to interfere with people's
>>>>right to morally discriminate against something which is immoral?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>All are equal before the law. You are arguing in favour of removing
>>>rights from those whose morals are different from yours. Follow this
>>>to it's logical conclusion and you can remove their right to life.
>>>'Lets stone the fags'. Remember some other Bile quotations?
>>>"He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7" I refer
>>>you to http://www.jesus-ourlord.com/Sermons/Hewithoutsin.htm Certainly
>>>by the standards in this sermon you are a Pharisee.
>>>
>>>"Let's look back to Luke 8:10. There is where our Lord tells a parable
>>>about two men who went to the temple to pray. One a Pharisee, the
>>>other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed, thanking God that he
>>>was not as other men. Other men who were extortionists, unjust,
>>>adulterers, and publicans. The Pharisee went on to say that he fasted
>>>twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed. The publican on the
>>>other hand was standing some distance away from the temple and would
>>>not lift his eyes to heaven. Instead, he struck himself on the chest
>>>and said, "God be merciful to me, I am a sinner". Jesus ended this
>>>parable by saying that the publican was justified, not the Pharisee.
>>>"everyone who exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles
>>>himself will be exalted."
>>>
>>>Are there still Pharisees in existence today? Of course there are.
>>>Those are the ones of us who believe very strongly in the teachings of
>>>Jesus, but somehow along the way forget to actually "forgive" someone
>>>in our own lives and think that it's okay. Or perhaps it's the person
>>>who tells someone on Sunday that it's improper to "judge", and yet the
>>>same person can be seen in gossip sessions with various people all
>>>week long. "Her hair is not right, she shouldn't wear that dress, I
>>>can't believe they did that"....you know the discussion.
>>>
>>>Are you a Pharisee? Sometimes I am, and I strive not to be. Are you
>>>humble enough to admit it? That's the beauty of living for Christ. You
>>>must work at it every day. Even as someone who is born again, it is
>>>possible to sin. If you think that you get saved, and you will never
>>>sin again, you might be closer to being a Pharisee than you think"
>>>
>>>Likewise it is not your place to discriminate against people whose
>>>morals you disapprove of "'Justice is Mine. I will repay,' says the
>>>Lord" Romans 12:19
>>>
>>>And for those who claim that so called 'gay rights' gives homosexuals
>>>'special' rights, they are looking through the wrong end of the
>>>telescope. What the homosexual wants is not to have rights removed
>>>from them because of what they are.
>>>
>>
>
Get your doctor to adjust your medications...you are in a dwindling minority
and the strain is getting to you.....kiss kiss
"Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r02Oa.6566$Tx.109774@no-spam
> Who the hell is Christ and who cares what he did or did not say about
fags?
> Common sense and human anatomy dictates that homosexuality is wrong. And
> even though I'm an atheist, you don't simply throw something out (ie the
> bible) because it doesn't suit your sick, warped, fucked up life style.
> Let's see, let's throw out the commandments about adultery and murder.
> These commandments are two thousand years old. The world has changed,
most
> people get divorced, so let's throw out the adultery commandment. The
world
> would be a much worse place (anarchy?) if it wasn't for the bible's
> teachings. Hence, by ignoring it, it will be a worse place.
>
>
> "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Fi0Oa.52881$T85.6276767@no-spam
> > AND TO REPEAT:
> > Christ had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuals, and we know from
> his
> > encounters with other minorities what his attitude was towards them...
> > "Damson Rhee" <Damson47@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F0830EE.3010002@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Mountain Goat wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:52:41 GMT, "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Christ himself had absolutely nothing to say on the subject of
> > > >>homosexuality. End of argument. Get used to it....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So if he did not, why are all the bible thumpers here whining about
> > > > it?
> > > >
> > > Even if they did, so what. The Bible was written two thousand years
> > > ago. There's been a lot of change in the world since then. This is
one
> > > of the reasons why I'm not Christian. People tend to interpret it to
> > > suit their own particular need and discount whatever might not suit
> > > them. It's so open to interpretation that it's easy for them to do
> that.
> > > Then of course there's the fact that it's gone through so many
different
> > > interpretations. Most of it was written well after the fact, with
> > > respect to the events it recounts.
> > > D
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > >>news:4ovsfvcskv1gipin1m62mf1gcoroapps67@no-spam
> > > >>
> > > >>>On 27 Jun 2003 09:12:26 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>soul_scanner66@no-spam (vote_ethnique) wrote in message
> > > >>>
> > > >>news:<79d6075a.0306261408.69708a34@no-spam>...
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>For some. For others, indeed most homosexuals, that is not the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>case.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>People choose to start and continue homosexual behavior and
> actions.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Any practicing homosexual can stop and change homosexual
behavior
> > > >>>>>>and actions.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>True. But why should he if he's happy and comfortable with it?
> > > >>>>>Conservative Jews, Christians or Muslims also often change their
> > > >>>>>behavior.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>The point is it's nobody's choice but their own, and the
government
> > > >>>>>doesn't have the right to interfere.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I agree that the state should not interfere with the right of
adults
> > > >>>>to engage in private homosexual consensual sex.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>People have the right to sin and the right to violate New
Testament
> > > >>>>Christian law. Fornication (voluntary sexual intercourse between
> > > >>>>unmarrried persons) is contrary to New Testament Christian law
> > > >>>>(1 Corinthians 6:18, 7:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, etc. (KJV)). The
> > > >>>>New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty,
punishment,
> > > >>>>or enforcement before the end of the present church age.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Just because the government does not have laws against
> homosexuality,
> > > >>>>however, this does not necessarily imply that the government or
> > > >>>>society in general believes homosexuality is morally right.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Have some people mistakenly assumed that, because of the lack of
> state
> > > >>>>laws against homosexuality, that the government or society in
> general
> > > >>>>believes homosexuality is morally right?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all consider homosexual behavior
> > > >>>>and actions to be sinful and morally wrong. What is wrong with
> > > >>>>discriminating against something which is immoral?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Do you believe the government has right to interfere with people's
> > > >>>>right to morally discriminate against something which is immoral?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Yes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>All are equal before the law. You are arguing in favour of removing
> > > >>>rights from those whose morals are different from yours. Follow
this
> > > >>>to it's logical conclusion and you can remove their right to life.
> > > >>>'Lets stone the fags'. Remember some other Bile quotations?
> > > >>>"He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7" I refer
> > > >>>you to http://www.jesus-ourlord.com/Sermons/Hewithoutsin.htm
> Certainly
> > > >>>by the standards in this sermon you are a Pharisee.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>"Let's look back to Luke 8:10. There is where our Lord tells a
> parable
> > > >>>about two men who went to the temple to pray. One a Pharisee, the
> > > >>>other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed, thanking God that
he
> > > >>>was not as other men. Other men who were extortionists, unjust,
> > > >>>adulterers, and publicans. The Pharisee went on to say that he
fasted
> > > >>>twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed. The publican on
> the
> > > >>>other hand was standing some distance away from the temple and
would
> > > >>>not lift his eyes to heaven. Instead, he struck himself on the
chest
> > > >>>and said, "God be merciful to me, I am a sinner". Jesus ended this
> > > >>>parable by saying that the publican was justified, not the
Pharisee.
> > > >>>"everyone who exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles
> > > >>>himself will be exalted."
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Are there still Pharisees in existence today? Of course there are.
> > > >>>Those are the ones of us who believe very strongly in the teachings
> of
> > > >>>Jesus, but somehow along the way forget to actually "forgive"
someone
> > > >>>in our own lives and think that it's okay. Or perhaps it's the
person
> > > >>>who tells someone on Sunday that it's improper to "judge", and yet
> the
> > > >>>same person can be seen in gossip sessions with various people all
> > > >>>week long. "Her hair is not right, she shouldn't wear that dress, I
> > > >>>can't believe they did that"....you know the discussion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Are you a Pharisee? Sometimes I am, and I strive not to be. Are you
> > > >>>humble enough to admit it? That's the beauty of living for Christ.
> You
> > > >>>must work at it every day. Even as someone who is born again, it is
> > > >>>possible to sin. If you think that you get saved, and you will
never
> > > >>>sin again, you might be closer to being a Pharisee than you think"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Likewise it is not your place to discriminate against people whose
> > > >>>morals you disapprove of "'Justice is Mine. I will repay,' says the
> > > >>>Lord" Romans 12:19
> > > >>>
> > > >>>And for those who claim that so called 'gay rights' gives
homosexuals
> > > >>>'special' rights, they are looking through the wrong end of the
> > > >>>telescope. What the homosexual wants is not to have rights removed
> > > >>>from them because of what they are.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
"Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r02Oa.6566$Tx.109774@no-spam
> Who the hell is Christ and who cares what he did or did not say about
fags?
> Common sense and human anatomy dictates that homosexuality is wrong. And
> even though I'm an atheist, you don't simply throw something out (ie the
> bible) because it doesn't suit your sick, warped, fucked up life style.
> Let's see, let's throw out the commandments about adultery and murder.
> These commandments are two thousand years old. The world has changed,
most
> people get divorced, so let's throw out the adultery commandment. The
world
> would be a much worse place (anarchy?) if it wasn't for the bible's
> teachings. Hence, by ignoring it, it will be a worse place.
>
What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those who
commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
Neil
"neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam
>
> "Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:r02Oa.6566$Tx.109774@no-spam
> > Who the hell is Christ and who cares what he did or did not say about
> fags?
> > Common sense and human anatomy dictates that homosexuality is wrong.
And
> > even though I'm an atheist, you don't simply throw something out (ie the
> > bible) because it doesn't suit your sick, warped, fucked up life style.
> > Let's see, let's throw out the commandments about adultery and murder.
> > These commandments are two thousand years old. The world has changed,
> most
> > people get divorced, so let's throw out the adultery commandment. The
> world
> > would be a much worse place (anarchy?) if it wasn't for the bible's
> > teachings. Hence, by ignoring it, it will be a worse place.
> >
>
>
> What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
who
> commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
What about eating owls? The pork, shellfish and so on (also banned in
Leviticus) I can go without.
Seriously, the bible contains indispensible
information necessary for a civil society, but I think one has to realize
that the information which came from what many would refer to as
God: was decoded by fallible humans; contained laws which were important
to their day, but make no sense today (i.e. the ban on shellfish); often
lost something in translation from Aramic to Hebrew to English; and lost
even more through selective editing (i.e. the books of Thomas and
Mary Magdalene not being excluded) and so on.
Regards
Dan Parker
> Neil
>
>
"neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam
>
> "Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:r02Oa.6566$Tx.109774@no-spam
> > Who the hell is Christ and who cares what he did or did not say about
> fags?
> > Common sense and human anatomy dictates that homosexuality is wrong.
And
> > even though I'm an atheist, you don't simply throw something out (ie the
> > bible) because it doesn't suit your sick, warped, fucked up life style.
> > Let's see, let's throw out the commandments about adultery and murder.
> > These commandments are two thousand years old. The world has changed,
> most
> > people get divorced, so let's throw out the adultery commandment. The
> world
> > would be a much worse place (anarchy?) if it wasn't for the bible's
> > teachings. Hence, by ignoring it, it will be a worse place.
> >
>
>
> What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
who
> commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
>
>
> Neil
I guess instead of stoning, they should be forced to become baby making
machines. Since homosexual procreation doesn't work, we will have to enlist
a factory of women to pump out new generations.
Why is there so much concern about babies? Isn`t the world over-populated?
"Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b6oOa.729$Ag6.79060@no-spam
>
> "neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam
> >
> > "Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:r02Oa.6566$Tx.109774@no-spam
> > > Who the hell is Christ and who cares what he did or did not say about
> > fags?
> > > Common sense and human anatomy dictates that homosexuality is wrong.
> And
> > > even though I'm an atheist, you don't simply throw something out (ie
the
> > > bible) because it doesn't suit your sick, warped, fucked up life
style.
> > > Let's see, let's throw out the commandments about adultery and murder.
> > > These commandments are two thousand years old. The world has changed,
> > most
> > > people get divorced, so let's throw out the adultery commandment. The
> > world
> > > would be a much worse place (anarchy?) if it wasn't for the bible's
> > > teachings. Hence, by ignoring it, it will be a worse place.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
> who
> > commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
> >
> >
> > Neil
>
> I guess instead of stoning, they should be forced to become baby making
> machines. Since homosexual procreation doesn't work, we will have to
enlist
> a factory of women to pump out new generations.
>
>
Well, Neil, I would just say, that there must be some limits to degredation
and perversion in our human community.
The bible and many other sources do hold up a certain level of behaviour,
believe in them or not.
AIDS, as example, is contacted, 98% of the time, by a totally voluntary and
very perverted act. I personally have absolutely no pitty for those who
contacted AIDS through perversion.
They contaminate the entire human race through their body fluids such as
their blood, etc., and endanger us all.
I also feel that all of my tax money expended in an effort to "cure" these
people is a crime. There are many REAL INVOLUNTARY sicknesses where this
money could be better spent.
AIDS people should be banished to an island somewhere, separated from the
rest of mankind. My opinion.
Adultery? Hell, man, make sure you know who you marry. Stone them to death?
No. Just walk away and forget it, find a real partner.
But in the end, find a better goal, a better guide, than "Everybody does
it!" or "If it feels good, do it!" Because neither is correct nor true.
"neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam
>
> "Tyler Stevens" <tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:r02Oa.6566$Tx.109774@no-spam
> > Who the hell is Christ and who cares what he did or did not say about
> fags?
> > Common sense and human anatomy dictates that homosexuality is wrong.
And
> > even though I'm an atheist, you don't simply throw something out (ie the
> > bible) because it doesn't suit your sick, warped, fucked up life style.
> > Let's see, let's throw out the commandments about adultery and murder.
> > These commandments are two thousand years old. The world has changed,
> most
> > people get divorced, so let's throw out the adultery commandment. The
> world
> > would be a much worse place (anarchy?) if it wasn't for the bible's
> > teachings. Hence, by ignoring it, it will be a worse place.
> >
>
>
> What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
who
> commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
>
>
> Neil
>
>
BC`s first gay marriage is being performed today, JULY 8, after being given
the green light in a special ruling by the BC SUPREME COURT this morning.
".BitHead." <bithead@no-spam> wrote in message
news:c2gpfvcqbcnja8vn8mr5fp9sukntsdiq04@no-spam
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:41:35 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>It has been discredited by the testimonies of former homosexuals, such
> >>as the testimonies at http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/menus/pages.html
> >
> >What silliness! You are saying that *any* criticism of an institution
> >or disagreement with its policies ***DISCREDITS* it?
> >
> >That is the most fatuous nonsense.
> >
> >You obviously don't know what the word "discredited" means.
> >
> >By your definition every institution in existence can be "discredited"
> >by one person complaining about it.
>
> Perhaps you're not factoring in the idea of the complaints being true,
> and verifyable.
>
>
> ----
> _____________________________________________________________
> /BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
> / http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
> /Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
> / http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
> http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
> ____________________________________________________________/ /
> ____________________________________________________________\/
> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
In article <bjzOa.5561$zE.1900@no-spam>,
<nshinede@no-spam> writes:
> ...
> AIDS, as example, is contacted, 98% of the time, by a totally voluntary and
> very perverted act. I personally have absolutely no pitty for those who
> contacted AIDS through perversion.
like e.g. the people who got it through blood transfusion? serves them
right to voluntarily get into a car that later got into an accident.
serves them right to voluntarily go to the school where somebudy
decided to pull a coumbine
and what is voluntary about being born to an aids infected mother?
hs
--
ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam
<nshinede@no-spam> wrote
>
> AIDS, as example, is contacted, 98% of the time, by a totally voluntary
and
> very perverted act. I personally have absolutely no pitty for those who
> contacted AIDS through perversion.
You really think that sex is perverted? I guess that would explain a lot
. . .
Neil
"Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<5DlOa.53605$T85.6580585@no-spam>...
...
> VANCOUVER SUN--today`s headline is about the swift progress being made re
> government`s gay marriage legislation, which the Supreme Court will help
> with--one issue will be to make sure that the feds have all the power re
> marriage and Klein won`t be in a position to do anything. He can`t really
> do anything now, but the court will rule on what changes should be made if
> there`s a loophole. Happy reading everyone!
Canadian courts have lost credibility on this matter and the federal
government does not have any constitutional authority to change the
legal definition of marriage.
"neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam>...
>
> What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
> who commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
In the present church age, Christians are not under Mosaic law (which
was for Israel) but rather are under New Testament Christian law.
Christ provided new law with respect to stoning (John 8:7).
Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not prescribe any
specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement before the end of the
present church age.
Better tell that to the judges. And the lawyers, especially the
constitutional lawyers. And the majority of the Canadian public.....
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
news:5dddc6fb.0307090421.fc0f15c@no-spam
> "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<5DlOa.53605$T85.6580585@no-spam>...
> ...
> > VANCOUVER SUN--today`s headline is about the swift progress being made
re
> > government`s gay marriage legislation, which the Supreme Court will
help
> > with--one issue will be to make sure that the feds have all the power re
> > marriage and Klein won`t be in a position to do anything. He can`t
really
> > do anything now, but the court will rule on what changes should be made
if
> > there`s a loophole. Happy reading everyone!
>
> Canadian courts have lost credibility on this matter and the federal
> government does not have any constitutional authority to change the
> legal definition of marriage.
Democracies are under SECULAR law--that`s it. It has to be that way,
particularly in multicultural world.
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
news:5dddc6fb.0307090431.4fca9973@no-spam
> "neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam>...
> >
> > What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
> > who commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
>
> In the present church age, Christians are not under Mosaic law (which
> was for Israel) but rather are under New Testament Christian law.
>
> Christ provided new law with respect to stoning (John 8:7).
>
> Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not prescribe any
> specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement before the end of the
> present church age.
"Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<Y51Pa.62472$Mc4.8517398@no-spam>...
> Democracies are under SECULAR law--that`s it. It has to be that way,
> particularly in multicultural world.
Definitions for "secular", such as "of or relating to worldly things
as distinguished from things relating to church and religion", are
problematic, specious, and untenable. Nothing in the world can be
distinguished from things relating to church and religion.
According to Colossians 1:16-17, by Jesus Christ were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is
before all things, and by Him all things consist.
So, like the concept of "infinity", the concept of "secular law" is
an interesting concept that has no basis or foundation in reality.
Canada, which is a parliamentary democracy, was founded upon the
principles that recognize the supremacy of God.
A multicultural world can and does exist under New Testament
Christian law.
> "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:5dddc6fb.0307090431.4fca9973@no-spam
> > "neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam>...
> > >
> > > What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that those
> > > who commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
> >
> > In the present church age, Christians are not under Mosaic law (which
> > was for Israel) but rather are under New Testament Christian law.
> >
> > Christ provided new law with respect to stoning (John 8:7).
> >
> > Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not prescribe any
> > specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement before the end of the
> > present church age.
AGain, better brush up on history, law, etc. Churches lost their clout
centuries ago. Only in some Muslim countries are theocracies (religious
dictatorships) in existence (eg Iran, which is teetering on the brink of
revolution, thanks to the students). Not Canada, which is a secular
democracy, as are the U.S. Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Britain,
Ireland, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy,
Greece, Malta, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, and a few
others. Read up on the subject."dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in
message news:5dddc6fb.0307100823.667ce72@no-spam
> "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<Y51Pa.62472$Mc4.8517398@no-spam>...
> > Democracies are under SECULAR law--that`s it. It has to be that way,
> > particularly in multicultural world.
>
> Definitions for "secular", such as "of or relating to worldly things
> as distinguished from things relating to church and religion", are
> problematic, specious, and untenable. Nothing in the world can be
> distinguished from things relating to church and religion.
>
> According to Colossians 1:16-17, by Jesus Christ were all things
> created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
> invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
> or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is
> before all things, and by Him all things consist.
>
> So, like the concept of "infinity", the concept of "secular law" is
> an interesting concept that has no basis or foundation in reality.
>
> Canada, which is a parliamentary democracy, was founded upon the
> principles that recognize the supremacy of God.
>
> A multicultural world can and does exist under New Testament
> Christian law.
>
> > "dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:5dddc6fb.0307090431.4fca9973@no-spam
> > > "neil tupper" <neil_tupper@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:<vvhOa.381600$ro6.9202924@no-spam>...
> > > >
> > > > What peculiar reasoning. I take it then, that you believe that
those
> > > > who commit adultery (the women, anyway) should be stoned to death?
> > >
> > > In the present church age, Christians are not under Mosaic law (which
> > > was for Israel) but rather are under New Testament Christian law.
> > >
> > > Christ provided new law with respect to stoning (John 8:7).
> > >
> > > Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not prescribe any
> > > specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement before the end of the
> > > present church age.
"Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<tphPa.53795$ZS3.5662575@no-spam>...
> AGain, better brush up on history, law, etc. Churches lost their clout
> centuries ago. ...
Canada does not have separation of the Christian church and state.
The laws of God are recognized by the Canadian head of state, Queen
Elizabeth II. These laws of God are found in the Christian Bible,
which was referred to as "the most valuable thing that this world
affords" at the Queen's coronation, the text of which may be read at
http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html .
Queen Elizabeth II promised to the utmost of her power to maintain
the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.
The Parliament of Canada passed an act, still in effect today,
respecting the royal title of Queen Elizabeth II, which is
"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom,
Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the
Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".
The Government of Canada recognizes that the God of the United
Kingdom is the same God as the God of Canada. Queen Elizabeth II
is recognized by the Government of Canada as "Defender of the
Faith", which faith is the Christian faith.
> Only in some Muslim countries are theocracies (religious
> dictatorships) in existence (eg Iran, which is teetering on the
> brink of revolution, thanks to the students). Not Canada, which
> is a secular democracy, ...
Canada is a parliamentary democracy, a constitutional monarchy,
and a Christian theocracy. Canada's visible head of state on
earth, Queen Elizabeth II, is referred to as a servant of the
King eternal Jesus Christ. On record at
http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/cools99/11feb99.htm ,
Canadian Senator Anne Cools stated:
"Honourable Senators, I rise to honour the 47th Anniversary of Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne. My theme for
this speech will be 'The Leader as Servant, Public Service, the Queen
and Christ the King.'" .... "Queen Elizabeth II has lived, to the
best of her ability, the high concepts of public service in
Christ the King. She is a great woman, a great Queen and a great
servant. God Bless the Queen!"
Freedom of religion is consistent with Canada's Christian theocracy
since free will to reject Christ is a Biblical doctrine. Also, the
New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment,
or enforcement before the end of the present church age.
In article <zYSOa.11301$ND.9934@no-spam>,
<nshinede@no-spam> writes:
> You obviously did'nt read my entire post.
>
> Why do you think I indicated a diference between "voluntary" and other?
>
> Nevertheless, AIDS began as a result of a perverted sex act. PERVERTED.
> VOLUNTARY.
>
> I have no sympathy for these perverts, and I resent my tax money being spent
> to "cure" them.
> You don't like that? Too bad. I am not "politically correct"
"I am not politically correct" seems to become the standard defense of
idiots when somebody points out their stupisity
for somebody who claims to be 63 years old you are amazingly, let's
put it mildly, uninformed and your logic would make a 63 days old
blush. first of all, your 98% figure is probably 20 years out of
date. sure, it started to take epidemic proportions in the gay
community (at least in north america and europe), but you appear
totally unaware that it has reached other groups of society. so you
better come up with some evidence for your claim that 98% of AIDS
victims are homosexuals. even in the early days it should have been
quite clear that it wasn't that heterosexuals were also at risk and
that it would be only a matter of time when other populatin groups
would be effected, among them
- children of aids victims
- recipients of blood transfusion
people who had (usually unknowingly) sexual contact with AIDS
victims. If you object to your tax money used in an attempt to cure
them, i hope you won't object when other people complain that their
tax money is wasted on feeding an old fool who voluntarily lived
beyond his usefulness
hs
--
ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam
"Hartmann Schaffer" <hs@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0f56a0@no-spam
> In article <zYSOa.11301$ND.9934@no-spam>,
> <nshinede@no-spam> writes:
> > You obviously did'nt read my entire post.
> >
> > Why do you think I indicated a diference between "voluntary" and other?
> >
> > Nevertheless, AIDS began as a result of a perverted sex act. PERVERTED.
> > VOLUNTARY.
> >
> > I have no sympathy for these perverts, and I resent my tax money being
spent
> > to "cure" them.
> > You don't like that? Too bad. I am not "politically correct"
>
> "I am not politically correct" seems to become the standard defense of
> idiots when somebody points out their stupisity
>
> for somebody who claims to be 63 years old you are amazingly, let's
> put it mildly, uninformed and your logic would make a 63 days old
> blush. first of all, your 98% figure is probably 20 years out of
> date. sure, it started to take epidemic proportions in the gay
> community (at least in north america and europe), but you appear
> totally unaware that it has reached other groups of society. so you
> better come up with some evidence for your claim that 98% of AIDS
> victims are homosexuals. even in the early days it should have been
> quite clear that it wasn't that heterosexuals were also at risk and
> that it would be only a matter of time when other populatin groups
> would be effected
>
The fact remains that gay sex was the cause of the AIDS epidemic. By
allowing marriage, a union that should be a man and a woman, it is simply
providing further credence to their sick lifestyle. In what horrible way
will the world be affected/infected as a result???
Credibility of marriages is set by secular governments. Millions of gays do
not "change". No reason to....
"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message
news:5dddc6fb.0307101239.3d97b51@no-spam
> "Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<b0DOa.46188$ZS3.4965459@no-spam>...
> > BC`s first gay marriage is being performed today, JULY 8, after being
given
> > the green light in a special ruling by the BC SUPREME COURT this
morning.
>
> The relationship between Antony Porcino and Tom Graff is not a marriage
> relationship. Marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4, KJV) whereas
> homosexual relationships (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable.
>
> > ".BitHead." <bithead@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:c2gpfvcqbcnja8vn8mr5fp9sukntsdiq04@no-spam
> > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:41:35 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>It has been discredited by the testimonies of former homosexuals,
such
> > > >>as the testimonies at
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/menus/pages.html
> > > >
> > > >What silliness! You are saying that *any* criticism of an
institution
> > > >or disagreement with its policies ***DISCREDITS* it?
> > > >
> > > >That is the most fatuous nonsense.
> > > >
> > > >You obviously don't know what the word "discredited" means.
> > > >
> > > >By your definition every institution in existence can be
"discredited"
> > > >by one person complaining about it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you're not factoring in the idea of the complaints being true,
> > > and verifyable.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > /BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
> > > / http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
> > > /Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
> > > / http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
> > > http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
> > > ____________________________________________________________/ /
> > > ____________________________________________________________\/
> > > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bomrgv05fknsi2e2cb427aabdd63r79tf4@no-spam>...
> On 10 Jul 2003 13:39:12 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
>
> >"Ken" <Ken_9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<b0DOa.46188$ZS3.4965459@no-spam>...
> >> BC`s first gay marriage is being performed today, JULY 8,
> >> after being given the green light in a special ruling by
> >> the BC SUPREME COURT this morning.
> >
> > The relationship between Antony Porcino and Tom Graff is not
> > a marriage relationship. Marriage is honourable in all
> > (Hebrews 13:4, KJV) whereas homosexual relationships
> > (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable.
>
> Your posts are out of place in any political newsgroup.
My World Book Dictionary defines "political" as "having to do
with citizens or government". With more than three in four
Canadian citizens claiming to be Christian, posts referring to
the Christian Bible are not "out of place" but rather are quite
relevant and appropriate in Canadian political newsgroups.
> They belong in a newsgroup that is concerned with religion and
> other forms of magic.
The Christian religion, the Christian belief in God, is not a
form of magic. Actually, Christianity denounces forms of magic
(witchcraft, sorcery, wizardry, necromancy, enchantments,
divination) as being evil and sinful.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:30:35 -0400
JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2003 03:19:05 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
>=20
> >The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> >false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> >is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> >changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> >the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> >grounds".
>=20
> How does someone like you stay out of a mental institution?
Good question. The only answer I can come up with is some kind
of destructive psychologic practice akin to necromancy. =20
Dhu
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
Can't get good help? =20
Contact Fubar the Hack: fubar AT neotext.ca
Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine
Highland terms, Canadian workmanship.
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
"JohnCarrick" <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:qhcie19pkdsih2bo9bsfijmf94i3bp7vmh@no-spam
> On 22 Jun 2003 03:19:05 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
>
>>The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
>>false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
>>is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
>>changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
>>the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
>>grounds".
>
> How does someone like you stay out of a mental institution?
I'm so impressed, John. Your debating skills are truly impressive.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:43:05 -0400
JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:53:15 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@no-spam>
> wrote:
>=20
> >On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:30:35 -0400
> >JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Jun 2003 03:19:05 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
> >> >false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
> >> >is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
> >> >changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
> >> >the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
> >> >grounds".
> >>=20
> >> How does someone like you stay out of a mental institution?
> >
> >Good question. The only answer I can come up with is some kind
> >of destructive psychologic practice akin to necromancy. =20
>=20
> There are numerous individuals who participate here who might well be
> committed to mental institutions based upon their posts alone.
Yes, but how do they stay out was the question, I'd thot ;-)
Dhu
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
Can't get good help? =20
Contact Fubar the Hack: fubar AT neotext.ca
Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine
Highland terms, Canadian workmanship.
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
> On 22 Jun 2003 03:19:05 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:
>
>>The definition of marriage should not be changed because of the
>>false claim by the Supreme Court of Canada that "sexual orientation
>>is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
>>changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within
>>the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated
>>grounds".
If you think that the claim made by the Supreme Court is false, we don't you
prove it. Its easy. Change your sexual orientation for a month or two.
See if the cost of doing this is personally acceptable to you.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@no-spam
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net
"JohnCarrick" <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:81j7f111idcjsbf944bjqhdab7ge6njjsp@no-spam
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:34:08 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> How does someone like you stay out of a mental institution?
>>
>>I'm so impressed, John. Your debating skills are truly impressive.
>
> Is that the case?
>
> What *should* impress you is that I am not a back-shooting coward,
> who comes here under a pseudonym to attack others with poison-pen
> letters.
>
> Get the guts to identify yourself properly, and maybe you'll start to
> impress some of us too.
>
> Until then your opinions are worthless, since you won't stand behind
> them.
>
> All anonymous criticism is chicken-shit, baby.
You've been on that tired old kick for years. Opinions are no less valid
under a real name or a pseudonym. Mark Twain was no less an author than
Samuel Clemens.
"JohnCarrick" <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nko9f19cto2m2vtptsese6bm2r87gagddr@no-spam
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:09:38 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
>>> All anonymous criticism is chicken-shit.
>>
>>You've been on that tired old kick for years.
>
> That is a bullshit reply from someone who wants to be able to express
> strong negative opinions without taking responsibility for them.
>
> You are a no more than a fucking coward.
>
>> Opinions are no less valid under a real name or a pseudonym.
>
> Well, *of course* an anonymous opinion lacks any credibility at all.
>
> If you do not have the courage or confidence to identify yourself, no
> one can have any insight into your motivation for expressing a
> viewpoint.
>
> Issuing harsh, anonymous criticism is the height of irresponsibility.
>
> You may have noticed that it is not permitted in any reputable
> Canadian newspaper.
>
>> Mark Twain was no less an author than Samuel Clemens.
>
> That comparison is preposterous. Clemens wrote his early novels under
> a pseudonym, but at the time that he was writing his satirical pieces,
> his identity was well-known.
>
> You are simply a coward.
>
> You want to have your say, but you don't want to take responsibility
> for your notions.
>
> You can fuck off, you pusillanimous prick.
I guess by your logic than, all those childish appellations you apply to me
don't mean a thing, because they aren't my real name.
Thanks again. :-)
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:29:17 -0400
JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:17:13 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@no-spam>
> wrote:
>=20
[].
> >
> >Yes, but how do they stay out was the question, I'd thot ;-)
>=20
> I have been in contact with an experienced lawyer in the Toronto area,
> who suggests that, once someone who uses a chat-room regularly has
> established a reputation for being an abusive, right-wing extremist
> loudmouth, he can say almost anything, since it is expected that other
> participants will no longer take seriously anything that he has to
> say.=20
>=20
> It seems to me to be an odd form of freedom of speech, but I think
> that we have to accept the advice of someone who is an expert in cyber
> law.
>=20
> Make enough crazed, off-the-wall statements about liberals and
> progressives. Daily attack anyone with a social conscience. Impugn
> the honesty and decency of the courts. Come across as the worst sort
> of fascist, and your credentials as a nut, whose words are not to be
> taken seriously, are established.
>=20
> If such a person should find himself in court, defending his posts, he
> need only claim, "No one has taken me seriously for years," and he'll
> walk.
Gotta tell ya', that's the last defense of most of us around here. The
next to last defense is "Just why, precisely, do you care what [I/U/SHiT]=20
wrote, anyways?" and the next, next to last is "why should _they_ care"?
There's a reason to not let the bastards have their goat ;-)
Dhu
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
Can't get good help? =20
Contact Fubar the Hack: fubar AT neotext.ca
Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine
Highland terms, Canadian workmanship.
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????