On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:08:16 GMT, Stephen Jenuth
<jenuths@no-spam> wrote:
>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?
Oh, oh! You are asking your correspondent to think! You are asking
him to be rational rather than merely emotional.
That is not going to work. He doesn't have the ability to reason that
way.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Tyler Stevens"
<tylerstevens101@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"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.
Or, one's mother.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/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 /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
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.
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?
>"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.
>>
>
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?
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:53:15 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@no-spam>
wrote:
>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:
>>
>> >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?
>
>Good question. The only answer I can come up with is some kind
>of destructive psychologic practice akin to necromancy.
There are numerous individuals who participate here who might well be
committed to mental institutions based upon their posts alone.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:17:13 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@no-spam>
wrote:
>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:
>>
>> >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:
>> >>
>> >> >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?
>> >
>> >Good question. The only answer I can come up with is some kind
>> >of destructive psychologic practice akin to necromancy.
>>
>> 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 ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.