ONT POLITICS 12 RE NON CREDIBILITY OF CANADA S SUPREME COURT
From: John Carrick (jcarr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:58:03 GMT


On 22 Jun 2003 03:19:05 -0700, dpwozney@no-spam (dpwozney) wrote:

Would you care to provide us with your "curriculum vitae"?

Some of us might like to know what your qualifications are in the fields of sexual orientation and jurisprudence.

Please, take the time to list your academic achievements. Tell us about your master's degrees and doctorates, won't you?

Obviously, anyone who speaks with such certaintly is highly qualified in these matters.

You could not possibly be just some homophobic crank voicing a personal opinion.

You could not be a social conservative, religious zealot with nothing to back his opinions but a set of crazy personal notions.

Here is the news for you:
Canada is not a theocracy.

Your Christian convictions, as important as they are to you personally, are of no importance whatsoever to many millions of Canadians.

I suggest that you take your religious guilt and go off and hide somewhere with it.

You wish to dreal with your mortality by denying it? Fine. that is your choice.

But do ***NOT*** have the audacity to attempt to impose your misguided values on others.


From: Mountain Goat (rmgoatNO@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:48:51 GMT

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:28:53 -0400, "Tyler Stevens"
<tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote:

>
>"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.
>
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.


From: .BitHead. (bithead@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:09:55 GMT

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 /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \


From: John Carrick (jcarr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:31:57 GMT

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.

They belong in a newsgroup that is concerned with religion and other forms of magic.