A gay president, and the Irony of Prop 8.

[woodchip]

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

I think what shak is getting at is if Gays have the right to marry and hate crimes include denigrating gays, then any religious expression against gay marriage including deeming gay marriage as being "sinful" could in a broad sense be considered a hate crime, thus effectively muzzling religious expression on the matter.
Whether or not this is the point of the gay movement is open to conjecture and we would need verification to justify it.

[Dakatsu]

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using <hate crime> laws.

Currently, you can say anything you want about blacks, mexicans, or gays under free speech. There was someone near where I live that had "Vote White" and other highly racist things, but the signs couldn't of been taken down because they were protected under free speech. Besides that whole thing I just said, the purpose of the gay marriage movement is to allow same-sex couples to have the same legal rights and social status as opposite-sex couples. Simple.

Now that marriage has been legally defined to be the union of opposite sexes

Actually, it would be more of "A union between two consenting adults". Straight marriage would not be banned, simple as that.

it also is not now a crime to teach that sexual conduct outside of marriage is a sin, since such a message is not aimed at gays specifically.

Explain this to me: how would gays getting married change the ability to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin? If anything, it would strengthen the teachings, because gays could finally follow that idea because they would be married.

Whether you agree with the religious perspective, you should agree that one's right to hold and teach religious beliefs must be preserved at all costs.

Yes I do agree, but this does nothing to restrict that. At all.

And, if you agree that this fundamental right to believe what you want and speak your beliefs freely must be preserved at all costs, you should support prop. 8 type laws until all laws are eliminated which criminalize speech to any degree (barring direct and immediate threats which pose a clear and present danger to life, limb, or property).

If you want to eliminate crimes against hate speech, then eliminate crimes against hate speech! There is no legislation about hate crimes in any gay marriage amendment; therefore what you can or cannot say about gays and their lives would not change.

If I "misunderstood" your argument, please say it in a way that is understandable.
If you understand spanish: Dice el argumento en una lengua comprensible.

To address the gay convert controversy, it is very simple. Sexuality is a very complex subject not fully understood. No one knows how your sexuality is determined, or how you'd go about changing it, but the only clear thing is that it is not a choice.

For those who say it isn't a choice: I can't wake up one day and go "Okay, I'm going to get turned on by other dudes". I'm heterosexual, and I couldn't change that even if I wanted to. I also have many sexual fetishes, and I did not choose them. Something happened to me to have them, and although I don't know if they can change, I know I can't change them by will power (trust me, tried for months, but I didn't change a bit). Preachers, prisons, or gay rehab camps can't change orientation, something has to happen inside the person's mind. None of these conversions, however, have any scientific proof.

[Gooberman]

I went to some lengths to show, in my previous post, that it was not a crucial point in my logic.

Great lengths? It was six lines. You've clearly never met Lothar or Drakona. If you spent more time writing your opinion then seeing if your word of the day calender made an appropriate match or rearranging your sentences, (One could animate your posts with the F5 key), then this topic could actually go some where.

You made outrageous claims, got called on them, and then retreated to "it was not a crucial point."

If I say abortion rights of a mother should be extended to the age of five, and the sky is blue, people are going to be alot more interested in one of those claims then the other: even if it was just made in passing.

[Hostile]

LOL Goob..... (Sorry for the non-contribution...but that was funny!)

[shaktazuki]

You made outrageous claims, got called on them, and then retreated to "it was not a crucial point."

I'm not interested in repeating myself ad nauseam, be compelled to defend points not central to my argument, while the central argument is bypassed, and be called for references on minutiae, all the while being slandered.

[shaktazuki]

Explain this to me: how would gays getting married change the ability to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin?

It wouldn't, and that wasn't the point.

There is no legislation about hate crimes in any gay marriage amendment; therefore what you can or cannot say about gays and their lives would not change.

As long as there is no legal institution called "marriage" which includes gays, there is no need to directly tell gays that homosexual practices are sinful - which is technically legally actionable, since it causes "emotional distress" while they are "in the exercise of their rights." We need only teach that sex outside of marriage is sinful, which does not target gays specifically and cannot therefore fall under the hate-crimes statutes.

If there is a legal institution called "marriage" which includes gays, then our ability to speak our beliefs concerning homosexual practices is compromised in two ways.

Saying they aren't "married," even if we mean the actual definition of marriage rather than the legal definition of "marriage," when they are legally "married," is actionable as slander.

Specifically targeting homosexual practices for criticism when they are "married" is actionable as causing "emotional distress" while "in the exercise of their rights."

[Dedman]

You don't have to agree - but in the name of intellectual honesty you should engage the actual argument instead of acting like mocking idiots.

As soon as there is a credible argument I will engage it. We mock because your position is mockable, not credible.

[shaktazuki]

You don't have to agree - but in the name of intellectual honesty you should engage the actual argument instead of acting like mocking idiots.

As soon as there is a credible argument I will engage it. We mock because your position is mockable, not credible.

Explain why you find my argument "not credible," when what I am arguing has already happened ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704 ).

[Gooberman]

Welcome to the DBB

[shaktazuki]

Thanks.

[Dedman]

Explain why you find my argument "not credible," when what I am arguing has already happened ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704 ).

Here is your stated argument

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

First: You have totally failed to show a link between the gay marriage movement and the events referenced in your link.

Second: All of the people I know, myself included, who support gay marriage don't have any hidden agenda. We simply feel that all citizens should have the right to marry the person they love regardless of gender. While I agree with you that there are those who would like to ban public displays of christianity, I don't think they are using the gay marriage movement to do it.

[Ferno]

I read about three sentences this shaktazuki wrote on the first page.. and once it hit the 'gay marriage movement is trying to criminalize religious expression' I just wanted to throw my monitor out the window.

and the CHRT would never, under any circumstances even come close to asking someone to give up their faith. Ever. only the ignorant and gullible would believe that.

[shaktazuki]

Explain why you find my argument "not credible," when what I am arguing has already happened ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704 ).

Here is your stated argument

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

First: You have totally failed to show a link between the gay marriage movement and the events referenced in your link.

First: You must have missed the rest of the thread. That is not, in fact, my argument, but a secondary point not crucial to my actual argument. (Do you know what my argument is?)

Second: All of the people I know, myself included, who support gay marriage don't have any hidden agenda. We simply feel that all citizens should have the right to marry the person they love regardless of gender. While I agree with you that there are those who would like to ban public displays of christianity, I don't think they are using the gay marriage movement to do it.

Second: You are under obligation to show how your thinking processes are consistent with reality, since you have already quoted my evidence that they have used the gay marriage movement to do precisely that. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704 (Gay marriage was legalized in Canada to what effect?)

And since when does the state have any interest in formalizing the mere expression of love between any two individuals? http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10875198

[shaktazuki]

I read about three sentences this shaktazuki wrote on the first page.. and once it hit the 'gay marriage movement is trying to criminalize religious expression' I just wanted to throw my monitor out the window.

and the CHRT would never, under any circumstances even come close to asking someone to give up their faith. Ever. only the ignorant and gullible would believe that.

The evidence is before you. Believe what you want.

And please, succeed with your monitor.

[Ferno]

I think i'll believe that my own country wouldn't even do such a thing. because they never have and never will. we're a little more tolerant than the story would lead people to believe.

I don't know what kind of hateful corner of the world you come from, but you really should try and factcheck a story before throwing it out there like it's 'the truth'.

[shaktazuki]

I think i'll believe that my own country wouldn't even do such a thing. because they never have and never will. we're a little more tolerant than the story would lead people to believe.

I don't know what kind of hateful corner of the world you come from, but you really should try and factcheck a story before throwing it out there like it's 'the truth'.

Here's your third opportunity to set the story straight. Please point out each error in fact in the story, with full references.

So far, hate and intolerance have been conspicuous in your posts.

[Ferno]

the only thing i've been intolerant to is the fact the story you linked to is nothing more than a smear job on my countries human rights tribunal.

I challenged you to back the story up with facts of your own and you try and turn this around on me. It does not work that way. the only time it would work that way is if I posted a story alleging a rather controversial position. I never did that. you on the other hand did.

If you cannot back your argument and story up with facts, then I will have to regard you as an agent provocateur.

[Dedman]

Does anyone else get the feeling that shaktazuki is trying to get us to do his high school debate club research for him?

[Will Robinson]

I think i'll believe that my own country wouldn't even do such a thing. because they never have and never will. we're a little more tolerant than the story would lead people to believe.

I don't know what kind of hateful corner of the world you come from, but you really should try and factcheck a story before throwing it out there like it's 'the truth'.

Ferno, it sure looks like your country did do what shaktazuki's linked article claims. whether or not the gay marriage agenda caused this is beyond me..but then again the ruling of your countries human rights board is just as hard to believe and it appears to be true....

If the Concerned Christian Coalition believes homosexuality is bad they apparently are now banned from expressing that belief in Canada. The question that raised...'is the expression of ones own moral values now a hate crime' because of this ruling is a valid question'.

I read shaktazuki's posts and I'm not sure I understand them completely either but the link he posted sure does raise the red flags for political correctness gone bad.
Religious fundamentalists don't practice the only kind of fundamentalism, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission is pretty damn fundamentalist in their practice of political correctness!

We have the right to free speech, you guys should adopt it into your rights before it gets too late!

[shaktazuki]

the only thing i've been intolerant to is the fact the story you linked to is nothing more than a smear job on my countries human rights tribunal.

I challenged you to back the story up with facts of your own and you try and turn this around on me. It does not work that way. the only time it would work that way is if I posted a story alleging a rather controversial position. I never did that. you on the other hand did.

If you cannot back your argument and story up with facts, then I will have to regard you as an agent provocateur.

That's not the way it works.

I cited an authority; a publicly available news source which stated facts.

You've claimed the story is a lie. You've cited nothing to back up your assertion.

Yours is now the burden of proof to show what I claim are facts by virtue of the news story are, in fact, false.

(Will Robinson's citation shows you cannot meet this burden of proof, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Foil]

Will,

Yes, of course there should be concern about our freedom of speech and religious expression. As previously linked, there have been cases where those freedoms have been attacked on a legal basis. It's a valid point.

...But that's not the major issue here. The problem is shaktazuki's original argument, which included the statement that legal attacks against religious speech are the "whole point of the gay-marriage movement".

He has since backtracked and claimed it was just a "tangential point" and not crucial to his argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the only point in his logic where he tied gay marriage to legal attacks against free speech.

-------------

shaktazuki,

I neglected to say it before, but I'll echo the earlier sentiment: Welcome to the DBB.

I hope it's clear to you that this is not only a place where lots of different viewpoints can dialogue, this is a place where one can and will get called out for flawed arguments. (I've personally been shot down many times, and I think I've learned from it.)

You can't make a five-point argument, get called on one of them, and then claim that it was tangential and non-crucial. It just doesn't fly, not here.

[If arguments with flaws were okay, I'd show you about 10 ways to prove that 0 = 1. All but one of the statements in each proof are completely valid. ]

If you have something (more than links to isolated events) to show that the sole motivation of the gay marriage movement is legal attacks against freedoms of speech and religion, then please, show us.

----------

Okay, back to the rest of your argument:

If there is a legal institution called "marriage" which includes gays, then our ability to speak our beliefs concerning homosexual practices is compromised in two ways.

Saying they aren't "married," even if we mean the actual definition of marriage rather than the legal definition of "marriage," when they are legally "married," is actionable as slander.

Specifically targeting homosexual practices for criticism when they are "married" is actionable as causing "emotional distress" while "in the exercise of their rights."

I'm no lawyer, but I'd venture to say those are a huge legal stretch at best. Can you provide some support for those claims?

[Ferno]

Ferno, it sure looks like your country did do what shaktazuki's linked article claims. whether or not the gay marriage agenda caused this is beyond me..but then again the ruling of your countries human rights board is just as hard to believe and it appears to be true....

If the Concerned Christian Coalition believes homosexuality is bad they apparently are now banned from expressing that belief in Canada. The question that raised...'is the expression of ones own moral values now a hate crime' because of this ruling is a valid question'.

Will: there's a difference between freedom of speech and trying to hide behind a religious belief to espouse hatred. Here's an example: I can't go around saying that jews are the scum of the earth and should be destroyed and then turn around and say i'm only expressing a religious belief.

there's a fine line between expressing one's opinion and using it to spread hate. the CCC tries to hide behind religion to express some of the most hateful things imaginable.

The story shak linked to tries to twist the ruling into saying the CHRT is trying to take people's free speech away and the CCC is just an innocent orginization trying to express an opinion.

here's something that may interest you:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

Robinson denied that the bill would inhibit normal religious speech when it denigrates gays and lesbians. He told the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights who was examining the bill: ''There's not an attorney general in the country anywhere at any level who would consent to the prosecution of an individual for quoting from the Bible. An attorney general who tried something like that would be run out of town on a rail.'' 2 He said that the Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois members support the bill, but that the extreme right-wing Canadian Alliance does not. He said that the Alliance has "...opposed every equality bill that's come before the House for gays and lesbians."

Shaktazuki: you are essentially asking me to disprove what you've said. no. You brought in a claim, now back it up.

It will only work when you back your story up first, because that's how it works here. Person 1 posts a story, then backs it up. Person 2 refutes with their examples.

[Will Robinson]

Will: there's a difference between freedom of speech and trying to hide behind a religious belief to espouse hatred. Here's an example: I can't go around saying that jews are the scum of the earth and should be destroyed and then turn around and say i'm only expressing a religious belief.

there's a fine line between expressing one's opinion and using it to spread hate. the CCC tries to hide behind religion to express some of the most hateful things imaginable....

I guess we just have a different definition of free speech down here because we can say "jews are the scum of the earth and should be destroyed" and claim it as our own opinion, tattoo it on our foreheads or declare it to be the foundation of our religion and require members to recite it at the beginning of church service if we want to and either way the government can't tell us to stop.
That's free speech.
Maybe if we tried to incite people to go actually kill someone would they stop us but just expressing a thought is allowed by individuals as well as individuals speaking for a church or religion. Go look up God Hates Fags for a really embarrassing example of the crap we tolerate....

Sorry for the hijack, I didn't think
I'd actually find the Canadian Government did that when I looked for it so when it turned out to be there I had to share my incredulity.

[Behemoth]

Hooray for california.

[Ferno]

Maybe if we tried to incite people to go actually kill someone would they stop us but just expressing a thought is allowed by individuals as well as individuals speaking for a church or religion.

which was the aim behind the hate propoganda that was disseminated here.

because of their anti-gay position and literature, at least one gay person got beat to death in stanley park.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Here's the article behind the controversy:

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

Boissoin's letter originally appeared in the Jun 17, 2002 issue of the Red Deer Advocate.

Here's the Court Ruling (pdf), for anyone who cares to wade through that.

It's all a bunch of bull**** after all, Ferno. That's not hate. And not only that, Boissoin is absolutely right!

[Ferno]

ST.. that article is slanted so much you can't even put a drink on it and have it stay put. Did you read the essay I linked to? i bet not.

And looky look... Boissoin was a chairman of the Concerned Christian Coalition. Don't you think he might benefit from seeing anti-gay rulings in place? maybe a law that bans gays from marrying.. OH WAIT!

From the court ruling you provided...

section 320 reads:

In response to the questions posed by Justice Rooke, in my view it is clear that the letter expresses hatred or contempt for a group of persons on the basis of their sexual preference. It is also my view that any person of reasonable intelligence informed about the context of this statement would understand the message is expressing hatred and/or contempt. This is obvious from the response to the message in other letters to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that followed this publication and from the incidence heard at the hearing.

For a person who talks about critical thinking, you posted that letter with blinders on. Perhaps you should have read through the court ruling yourself because it completely disagrees with your position and Mr. Boissoin's.






You want some salt to go with that foot?

[Will Robinson]

I don't see the incitement to violence. If that letter is mean enough to be criminal then you Canadians better get frontal lobotomies if you want to stay out of jail!

[Ferno]

no it's not that. it's the fact the letter crossed from expressing beliefs to encouraging hate.

we've already had one confirmed report of someone of a disagreed-with sexual orientation killed due to hate. I don't think we need two, three, four or twenty deaths to make people go 'oh wait maybe this isn't such a good idea'.

[Testiculese]

I could replace homosexuality with Christianity and the letter would still be the same.

See how easy it is to be an ass? What a total waste of time.

[Will Robinson]

no it's not that. it's the fact the letter crossed from expressing beliefs to encouraging hate.

we've already had one confirmed report of someone of a disagreed-with sexual orientation killed due to hate. I don't think we need two, three, four or twenty deaths to make people go 'oh wait maybe this isn't such a good idea'.

If that letter is evidence of how easily Canadians are manipulated into murder-mode then you all need to quit making jokes about Americans right away!

[sniper725]

what if a religion preached that marrage between a man and a women was sinful... 0.0

[Sergeant Thorne]

Oh no, we've been encouraged in anti-homosexuality, someone call the police.

... My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. ...

What the article does is encourage strong feelings in those opposed to homosexuality, arguing that they've been complacent, which is absolutely true. What you and these Canadian officials are saying is that you can express your "beliefs", but you'd better not turn up the volume and connect them with a highly and recently opposed reality or you're hating. Just shut the **** up and "believe", and we'll all get along. Violence may well be a side-effect, as I believe even people up in Canada have a free will, but it is not encouraged and will certainly not be the norm in a Christian movement that has emphasized God and the "Moral Majority" as its weapons, not guns and knives.

Biblically speaking the homosexual movement is a terrible evil, every bit as bad as this guy makes out. I don't hate these people, but I am absolutely opposed to them. Hate the sin, not the sinner. If you want to know what the Bible says about the subject, it says that it would be better for these people that this letter speaks against if a millstone were tied around their neck and they were cast into the sea. That's how bad it is in God's eyes.

what if a religion preached that marrage between a man and a women was sinful...

Then it'd be nuts. Any more questions?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Double-post.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Triple-post. (kept running into an SMTP error page, and I thought the post wasn't going through.)

[Behemoth]

In my opinion the message found in judeo-christian morality seems more logically based than any other religion i've heard about.

\"Love thy neighbor\" (Take care of each other, Don't murder innocent people, Don't take what is rightfully someone elses)

Not that i find fault in the practice of sojourning for peace ala buddhism, and searching for enlightment.

The only message i've gotten from islam seems to be hatred.

I've not read in the bible where it condones hatred towards homosexuals aside from that it was a sin under the penalty of death just like many others were, This seems logical to me under the impression that you cannot create humans from homosexual relations, And the bible from what i've read didn't really include much to say about having sex for anything but procreation.

Not that i myself believe that it's sinful for a married couple to enjoy themselves, That's just my take on it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And the bible from what i've read didn't really include much to say about having sex for anything but procreation.

Not that i myself believe that it's sinful for a married couple to enjoy themselves, That's just my take on it.

No, it really doesn't come right out and mention the act in a context other than conception, but it alludes to it in many places (Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Hebrews, right off the top of my head). It does mention self-control in Hebrews. Sex is natural, but it's meant to be between one man and one woman, for reasons that are too grounded in common sense and reason to be appreciated in this day and age.

[Behemoth]

And the bible from what i've read didn't really include much to say about having sex for anything but procreation.

Not that i myself believe that it's sinful for a married couple to enjoy themselves, That's just my take on it.

No, it really doesn't come right out and mention the act in a context other than conception, but it alludes to it in many places (Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Hebrews, right off the top of my head). It does mention self-control in Hebrews. Sex is natural, but it's meant to be between one man and one woman, for reasons that are too grounded in common sense and reason to be appreciated in this day and age.

That's where the problem began, When people want more and more personal "freedoms" yet they're blinded from the rights that actually matter that are being stolen away under our noses.

It's kinda sad when someone running for a public office has to whip out the pro-choice/pro-life type of cards to get voters and then nothing really ever happens.

I remember when people were voting for bush they were all talking a storm of how "He's so christian, he'll ban abortion and gay marriage and take care of this country the way it should be"
Then he goes and puts us so deep in a cycle of conflict with other nations and even our past allied nations that it'll be a miracle if we get even half of what we lost back within the next 10-20 years... That is, IF we're not destroyed by that huge meteor in 2012 /endsarcasm ;P

[Foil]

My take on these last few posts:

• Will Robinson is right on at least one thing: censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech is not the way a government (Canadian, U.S., or any other) should go about trying to resist hatred.
  
  While such legislation is well-meaning, censorship is just a freakishly bad idea. The last thing we need is some government agent or agency stepping into a debate and trying to make judgements about the religious content.
• The article Thorne posted reflects the same problem that I had with shaktazuki's earlier posts... implying \"the homosexual agenda\" is some kind of evil conspiracy to infringe on our Christian rights and corrupt our children, and that their fight for legal rights is just some kind of cover.
  
  As a Christian my faith doesn't support the homosexual lifestyle. But characterizing the entire gay/lesbian movement as some kind of evil conspiracy masterminded by depraved homosexual rights activists (Boissoin compares them to \"pedophiles, drug dealers, and pimps\", among other things)... it's not only unfounded, it's way off in paranoia-ville in my book.

[Tunnelcat]

What would people's opinion be concerning gay marriage if it were proven scientifically that homosexuality was NOT a choice? Would people be so willing to take away other's rights based only on the wording in the Bible or loathing? When should the Bible be used as a base for law in this country? Last I heard, the stoning death punishment for adultery, owning slaves and yes, allowing multiple wives for a man, are not legal in this country. We don't live in the Middle Ages, nor the Middle East for that matter, either. As far as I'm concerned, since I don't consider myself a Christian, the Bible is outdated, outmoded and the last place I'd go for advice concerning rights in a modern pluralistic society that supposedly allows freedom for ALL religions, even Mormonism and Scientology.

But on another tack, we may not ever get any research done about the issue because of the religious dogma, hatred and fear that keeps squelching a lot of the funding for gender research and even vehemently tries to discredit any findings. What is the fear of homosexuality anyway? What are people afraid of? This homosexual agenda that people keep talking about is pure bunk! No one is out to subvert your children to some different lifestyle! The only explanation for this fear is that it's a rationalization, because most people are afraid if homosexuality was not a choice, then they would have no control whether their kids turned out gay or straight, and that scares them! So to keep control of their lives and children, they rationalize that it's just a choice, the Bible says it's wrong and if we keep our kids away from it, they won't become 'QUEER'!

What would be wrong with a gay president anyway? Most of the gay people I know are intelligent, artistic, loving and full of energy. All they want in life is equality in our society and to be treated as human beings, not some loathsome pests to be stomped on over and over using unsympathetic religious reasons to demean and condem the way they live. And they know in their hearts that it's not a choice to be gay. That's why they are fighting so hard to be part of this society and be treated as equals. By the way, we already may have had a gay president in the past, but it's only rumored and many people get mad if it's even mentioned. Can you say Abraham Lincoln?