Canada becoming a socialist, anti-christian state

[Alfred]

So tell me....if homosexuality, homosexual marriage and abortion are NOT moral issues, what are?? Are Gulags next for Canadian anti-pagans? And it appears that Canada is even more "progressive" on this issue than is Europe. :)
------------------------------------------------

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Christians face threat
pushing Bible beliefs
Churches to lose tax-exempt status
for denouncing same-sex marriage?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 14, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


While an American pastor is the subject of federal investigations for delivering a pro-George Bush sermon on July 4, Christian churches in Canada are now facing the loss of their tax-exempt status should they become involved in partisan politics.


The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has met with legal representatives of both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to warn them of the action in connection with this year's campaign.

According to LifeSiteNews, churches are not only admonished against recommending certain candidates or political parties, but they also face crackdowns for speaking out on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

"The best thing for a charity to do, especially during an election, is to stay away from those issues," Dawna Lynn Labonté, a spokeswoman for the minister of national revenue, told the news agency. "There are certain issues, especially during election times, that are very political."

The gag order on religions is said to cover all moral issues, even poverty.

"Taking out a full page ad before Christmas on homelessness might not be considered political, but doing the same thing the week of an election might be considered political," Labonté said.

The policy is being blasted the group Concerned Christians Canada which says the government is subverting democracy, abrogating basic religious freedom and attacking the nation's Christians.

"For 30 years, the Liberal Party has waged undeclared cultural war against evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics in Canada; this CCRA action is an official declaration," said the group's chairman David Krayden. "Christians and persons of all religious faiths need to know that this Liberal government is working to undermine free speech and compromise freedom of religion. Concerned Christians Canada will ensure that Christians know who their political enemies are in time for the next election."

In April, Canada approved a law some say makes the Bible itself "hate speech," as critics claim it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the issue of churches having their tax-exempt status threatened is also hitting home in the U.S.

At least two organizations are monitoring the content of Sunday sermons by American pastors and threatening to report churches to the Internal Revenue Service if they hear political messages they deem inappropriate under federal guidelines on tax-exempt status.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, headed by Barry Lynn, filed a complaint with the IRS against Ronnie Floyd, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Springdale, Ark., accusing him of preaching a sermon promoting President Bush's re-election July 4.

The complaint challenges the church's tax-exempt status as a religious organization.

The local Democratic Party is supporting the IRS probe, saying the sermon should be "investigated thoroughly."

According to a statement by the Democratic committee, the party, "looks forward to the day when all citizens may vote their conscience without their political beliefs being dictated to them by politically involved religious leaders, regardless of denomination."

"American democracy is rooted in the principle of the separation of church and state," the statement continued. "The Washington County Democratic Party remains committed to maintaining this value and belief if only in our small corner of the state."

Associate Pastor Alan Damron of First Baptist replied in a prepared statement: "Contrary to the statement by the Washington County Democratic Party, 'separation of church and state' is not in the United States Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees the right for all to speak on political, social, moral, and biblical issues. The Constitution includes pastors and churches. There have been American religious leaders past and present who did not and have not withheld their opinions about social issues or moral issues and/or politicians who supported or opposed various American rights. If the pastors or churches are not protected by the First Amendment, then neither are professors, or non-profit, tax-exempt educational institutions. The July 4th sermon of Pastor Ronnie Floyd exemplifies the best of our American tradition of freedom and democracy. The message did not violate any IRS provision by any stretch of the imagination, and is most assuredly protected by the First Amendment, that protects us all, even those who may disagree with us."

The church itself issued a statement: "The alleged letter of complaint to the Internal Revenue Service from Mr. Barry Lynn of the 'Americans United for the Separation of Church and State' is nothing more than a threat to pastors and our churches in America, attempting to intimidate the church into silence. This threat 'to take away our tax-exempt status' based on a July 4 presentation has no credence at all. Pastor Floyd did not violate any laws, nor did he or the church endorse a particular candidate. An attorney who specializes in First Amendment issues and political activity of non-profit organizations has viewed the message presented on July 4 and calls Mr. Lynn's accusations unfounded. Mr. Lynn attempts to intimidate pastors and churches by baseless allegations during every election cycle."

The statement pointed out that the Internal Revenue Service has not taken away the tax-exempt status from any church in the history of our nation for political reasons.

"It appears that some people have two rule books, one for liberal, and one for conservative politics," the statement continued." The fact is that history does not support the baseless threats hurled against conservative churches. Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), not one church has ever lost its tax-exempt status."

[Eugeenie]

O.K. -- I'll bite.

Various thoughts on this matter:

As to "socialism" in regards to Christianity, I think if you read the message in the New Testament -- at least the red letters -- it seems Jesus was a bit of a socialist, himself (or Himself in deferance to your religion). His tirades against the Scribes and Pharisees in the book of Matthew show some consistant themes -- themes such as the rejection of entrenched systems of power and privelege, caring for the concerns of common folk and other themes that indicate an attitude that were it expressed today might be interpreted as being of a socialist bent.

As to the separation of church and state, I might also refer you to Jesus, since he/He was asked why he wasn't more involved in politics. His own answer to this question might also suffice as to a path to follow.

Morality is a bit stickier issue, but did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality? I don't know that he did. You have to look pretty darn hard to find much mention throughout, and aside from Paul's Corinthian letters, is there really very much mention of homosexuality in the whole N.T.? The emphasis placed upon this seems to far outweigh it's actual occurance in your bible, and from the sounds of so many Christians, I would think Jesus spoke of homosexuality above all else. He didn't, and so I would hope that might give a clue as to it's importance in the scheme of things.

I can't imagine Jesus suporting abortion, though, so would agree with you on this one from a moral/Christian perspective. Seems to me that the "do unto others (or do not do unto others what you would not...) maxim might be a useful tool in determining what falls within the realm of morals and what are simply social mores. I can't imagine too many people choosing to not be, which is the result of abortion, so see this as a moral issue. Homosexual acts do not fall into this realm as long as they are consentual and conducted beteen two adults since there is no victimization involved. There may be social mores against it, but I don't see it as a moral issue.

I didn't see anything in the article to convince me that Christians are facing any sort of threat. Nobody is telling Christian churches what they may or may not preach, only that they will lose tax exept status if they cross the line into the realm of politics. Is it a church or is it a p.a.c.? When the time comes when churches are told what they may or may not preach on an absolute basis, I might join you in protest, but this decision does not do that -- it only says that there will be certain consequences when churches become political action commitees. Did they go too far by blurring the distinction between overt partisan politicking and politicking in issues closely related to election platforms in general? Who knows? I might even agree that they might have possibly crossed a certain line, but the thing is -- those pastors who are really politicians instead have become so adept at creating their political message that it probably doesn't matter what the government says. It can be overt, it can be read between the lines, or read between the lines that are already between the lines. Message is message.

Don't worry, though -- as a Christian, you are in the majority. Actions that limit the abilty of the majority to impose their will upon the minority are a necessary part of a free society.

Even if they don't always work.

[David_in_NYC]

Canadian socialism is at its high-water mark. They've begun to envy the US, particularly our health-care system (as messed up as it is, it's still the world's best), our economy, our freedom, functional federalism, and so on. So be a little bit patient and you will see the pendulum in Canada swing away from its current travesty (a government so dysfunctional it can't even grow pot) and towards some form of liberty-based society.

[KettleWhistle]

Socialism is an economic system that has nothing to do with regulation of religious establishment. Other than that, why such preoccupation with gay marriage? I find the gay "lifestyle," or as I prefer to describe it, sexual fetish, pretty disgusting, but we live in a free world. I believe in a free world people should be free to define marriage anyway they please, as long as it's concensual. I applaud Cananda for recognizing that, and I think religious groups need to stop trying to write the Bible into constitution. The law gives you right to practice your religion in your church. Stop trying to prevent other people from living their lives the way they chose.

To quote Justice Clarence Thomas on the subject:"The Constitution is a positive document that may be formed by religious beliefs, but they are not in the document. Sometimes people think that you ought to pull out the Constitution and put the Bible next to it. That’s not the way it works."

[Alfred]

I came to realize early in my life that I was born anti-Gay. It took me awhile to accept myself and my situation. But over the years I have come to better understand my feelings and I realize that God made me anti-Gay. I remember Liberal kids laughing at me and my orientation. But I could not lead a double life...a life of lies. I had to come out of the closet.

It is not my fault. I hope you can accept me as "An American Anti-Gay" and realize that I was born this way....there is nothing I can do about it. You need to be tolerant and accepting. There are many anti-gays in America and in fact, in the world. Anti-Gays should not be criticized or ostracized. We are people too.

There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.

Again, please be caring, tolerant and progressive by embracing my anti-gayness.

:)

[KSO]

I came to realize early in my life that I was born anti-Gay. It took me awhile to accept myself and my situation. But over the years I have come to better understand my feelings and I realize that God made me anti-Gay. I remember Liberal kids laughing at me and my orientation. But I could not lead a double life...a life of lies. I had to come out of the closet.

It is not my fault. I hope you can accept me as "An American Anti-Gay" and realize that I was born this way....there is nothing I can do about it. You need to be tolerant and accepting. There are many anti-gays in America and in fact, in the world. Anti-Gays should not be criticized or ostracized. We are people too.

There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.

Again, please be caring, tolerant and progressive by embracing my anti-gayness.

:)

How did your parents react when they discovered this?

[Alfred]

How did your parents react when they discovered this?


It was a shock to them. But I think, deep down, that they were anti-Gay too, but were too embarassed to come out of the closet...after all, they live in California where that kind of thinking is not allowed.

[KettleWhistle]

What a thoughtful response, you should pat yourself on the back. In the future you may consider spelling liberals as "lieberals," or possibly "libruls."


There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.
As for forcing morality, perhaps you ought to purchase a mirror and glance into it. The only people trying to force their morality on others are those like you. I know it must be a big revelation to you, but gay marriage will not stop heterosexuals from marrying, or you from living the lifestyle that you chose.

P.S. BTW, I am a very happy heterosexual, and I have no problems accepting people for who they are. I couldn't care less if the faggots are the way they are because they are born that way or not. I support freedom of choice and civil liberties for everyone, and that includes your right to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church, where it belongs.

[Ahava]

What a thoughtful response, you should pat yourself on the back. In the future you may consider spelling liberals as "lieberals," or possibly "libruls."

As for forcing morality, perhaps you ought to purchase a mirror and glance into it. The only people trying to force their morality on others are those like you. I know it must be a big revelation to you, but gay marriage will not stop heterosexuals from marrying, or you from living the lifestyle that you chose.

P.S. BTW, I am a very happy heterosexual, and I have no problems accepting people for who they are. I couldn't care less if the faggots are the way they are because they are born that way or not. I support freedom of choice and civil liberties for everyone, and that includes your right to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church, where it belongs.

Great post!!
I wholeheartedly agree.

[Alfred]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom? I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

But then you ARE practicing your religion on others aren't you :) Oh, and would the "freedom of choice" that you ascribe to go so far as to allow States to decide whether to allow abortion or not?

Oooops, abortion and homosexual marriage are not moral issues... I forgot.

Question for the enlightened.

What is the definition of a "moral issue" and therefore ok for church going people to talk about?

[KSO]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom? I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

But then you ARE practicing your religion on others aren't you :) Oh, and would you "freedom of choice" that you ascribe to go so far as to States deciding whether to allow abortion or not?

Oooops, abortion and homosexual marriage are not moral issues... I forgot.

Question for the enlightened.

What is the definition of a "moral issue" and therefore ok for church going people to talk about?

And freedom of Religion (and from religion) and democracy are not traditional American values?

[Ahava]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom? I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

Ridiculous analogy of course, the BLue T-shirt club, but if I go along with it..all I have to say is that it sounds pretty communist: the group should be homogenous and there is no choice for different people.
You want to portray America as 'club'? Don't you think the country is a tad too big for that?
And oh, the length of certain values tells about the worth of it? What about age old values that women should stay home and aren't allowed to work? Not to mention Muslim age old values..

[KettleWhistle]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....Are you trying to tell us the homosexuals are suing your church to force it to accept them?


I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.You forgot genocide, slavery, segregation, and sex discrimination that were among those values for a good part of those 200 years.... But if only Strom Thurmond won that election from the Liebruls, we'd still might've had these.


What is the definition of a "moral issue" and therefore ok for church going people to talk about?You might've missed it in my first reply to you, but I fully support freedom of speach, including discussion of abortion, homosexuality, etc., in religious institutions.

[Alfred]

AJL: if Gays get their marriage recognized then all States will be forced to recognize it. It has something to do with the Constitution. So yes, they are trying to force their morality on the rest of us by judicial fiat. And the trend is that in the next 5 years churches will be sued for not allowing Gays to be Bishops etc. You already see it with the Boy Scouts of course.

Personally, I don't care what they do behind closed doors....you notice I say behind closed doors. As long as it doesn't involve children, or as many Gays are trying to push: "consenting children." So they can do whatever they want. Just don't force their views on schools curriculums, force their views on marriage or kill any criticism of them under the guise of "hate crimes" and I don't have a problem.

I do have a problem pumping billions into AIDS research when there are more worthy diseases to go after. Gays should learn how to spell CONDOM and let science try to cure cancer.

The purpose of this thread was to show that a Liberal (or Liebruls...not sure what you are attempting on that one) government very soon makes speech contrary to the Liberal view "hate speech" and bans it. Even in churches. It is a trait of theirs that coincides with their history. Liberals, by their actions are very racist and close-minded (although their words would never betray that trait).




I support freedom of choice and civil liberties for everyone, and that includes your right to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church, where it belongs.

Good point. That is what this thread is all about. Canada says NO to "keeping it in your church." They can't even criticize homosexuality behind closed doors in their church. They have the Canadian PC Police listening to churches.

(shouldn't they be in Mosques looking for terrorist training via the pulpit??..ahh, but the REAL enemy is not Islamic radicalism, it is Christians and their awful morals.)






CRIMENETDAILY
Guilty verdict for 'homosexual Christ' actor
Man seeking sex with boy, 14, was really e-chatting with police

________________________________________
Posted: August 17, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A New Jersey actor who reportedly played prominent roles in a homosexual-themed play paralleling the life of Jesus Christ has been found guilty of seeking sex with someone he thought was a 14-year-old boy he met on the Internet.

Steven Shriner, 42, was convicted of attempted sexual assault, attempted luring/enticing of a child, and attempted criminal sexual contact. He faces up to ten years prison when sentenced Nov. 5.
"The verdict sends a loud and clear message that individuals who use the Internet to seek out and prey upon children will be uncovered, arrested, prosecuted and sent to jail," said Vaughn L. McKoy, director of the state division of criminal justice.
"The Computer Analysis & Technology Unit will continue to patrol the Internet to identify sexual predators lurking behind the monitor to prevent them from luring unsuspecting children."
According to the Trentonian newspaper, Shriner allegedly used his home computer in January of last year for the "express purpose of meeting and having sex with a boy."
Deputy Attorney General Charles Ouslander said Shriner entered a sexually explicit chat room, thinking he was conversing with a teen boy, whose screen name was Timpit6668. In reality, Shriner was speaking with investigator Brian Damiani who was typing on his undercover computer at the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton.
Shriner allegedly sought to meet Timpit6668, discussing the location and activities in which the two would engage.
He also sent a video clip of himself masturbating.
"I have more ; ) ," Shriner allegedly wrote, according to printouts of the conversations.
The Trentonian says authorities closed in on the suspect at a pizza place in Hamilton, N.J., when he showed up and flashed his lights, which was the agreed code.
Armed with a search warrant, authorities recovered 24 images of suspected child pornography involving kids between the ages of 8 and 10.
Defense attorney Will Anklowitz said Shriner believed he was dealing with someone who was 18 years old at the time he entered the porn site, since a disclaimer at the chat room's entrance stated users must be at least 18.
Shriner himself testified, "I never believed that I wasn’t talking to an adult."
Shriner reportedly portrayed the characters of both Mary and the apostle Peter in "Corpus Christi," a production of the Chicago-based Ulysses Theatre Company about a victim of "homophobes" in a Texas high school who eventually performs miracles for his 12 disciples.

[Mediocrates]

I imagine though that attempting to procure sex from any 14 year old is already covered under existing criminal statutes is it not?. That the offender is gay seems besides the point, legally.

[Alfred]

I imagine though that attempting to procure sex from any 14 year old is already covered under existing criminal statutes is it not?. That the offender is gay seems besides the point, legally.


I agree. And 4 young Saudi Arabians sitting in First Class on your next flight is also perfectly legal........however.

People go to all kinds of attempts to separate the two don't they?


:)

[Mediocrates]

Oh if only I could afford to fly first class instead of steerage like the rest of the cattle. If some swarthy dude did anything nefarious I would stab him in the face with a shiv made out of my kosher meal tray.

[KettleWhistle]

AJL: if Gays get their marriage recognized then all States will be forced to recognize it. It has something to do with the Constitution. So yes, they are trying to force their morality on the rest of us by judicial fiat.What a big deal is that gonna be! You really got me scared now. But do tell me, how are they forcing their morality on anyone by wanting to allowed to legally incorporate their domestic union in the same fashion as the heterosexual couples?

And the trend is that in the next 5 years churches will be sued for not allowing Gays to be Bishops etc. You already see it with the Boy Scouts of course.


I do have a problem pumping billions into AIDS research when there are more worthy diseases to go after. Gays should learn how to spell CONDOM and let science try to cure cancer.Same can be said about heterosexuals, yet, the far-right concervatives try to prevent schools from teaching it. I certainly don't blame all concervatives for it. I'd preffer a moderate concervative, one who is not trying to legislate morality, to a liberal, but the far right seems to be way worse than the liberals.

The purpose of this thread was to show that a Liberal (or Liebruls...not sure what you are attempting on that one) government very soon makes speech contrary to the Liberal view "hate speech" and bans it. Even in churches. It is a trait of theirs that coincides with their history. Liberals, by their actions are very racist and close-minded (although their words would never betray that trait).
I agree. The liberals, especially the far left are discriminating bigots. I just don't understand the reasons for the homophobia in your post, or your fear of gay marriage. I couldn't care less if they want to get married, or want to call their civil unions marriages, or whatever. I support allowing them to do so because I believe that there is no reason why a free country should prohibit its citizens from defining the meaning of marriage for themselves. If it is a sanctious relationship to you, allowing for gay marriage won't change that.

[Alfred]

I am sorry, this is one of those topics that you either get or you don't. It is either an innate understanding of why it is bad, or it is not; as one can intellectualize anything, even murder.

Kind of like other social taboos....incest, murder, rape, stealing, kids should have a Mom and a Dad, boys don't hit girls, girls should not be in combat, dad should work and moms should raise kids, parents should stay together while their kids are still at home, men should marry a woman and not just sleep around with 100 women, men should not bugger little boys or barn animals etc. It is called SOCIETY.

All are societal moral codes from times ancient that one either subscribes to or does not. One can argue against all other moral codes too. I am sure I could come up with a Darwinistic justification for the elimination of all Liberals....But societies have fallen when too many ignore these historical moral codes, just as our society will eventually fall if you start to destroy the fabric of society. One of the most basic and fundamental fabrics of society is marriage. Which is why the militant Gay community is trying to kill it.

But a warning must be issued. When the fabric of society falls, you have mass murder and war. See what is happening in LA with the fatherless Black kids. See what is happening in parts of Africa. What these Gay militants don't realize is that one of two things will happen if they destroy too many of these social mores; 1) our civilization will collapse into anarchy and they will be persecuted. Or, 2) there will be a huge backlash (ala Nazi Germany) and they will be persecuted.The US is a very positive and open place for Gays to live. If they push it too far however, there will either be anarchy or a backlash. They do not need to do what they are doing....as they have not suffered persecution for quite some time. There is a limit to what society can put up with.

I understand that most Gays do not wish to pursue this Marriage issue. It is the radical leftist that are pursuing it. At least that is what I hear from some Gay-friendly broadcasters.

But no sense in beating a dead horse. I won't change anyone's mind here so I will just end with the fact that the Left is trying to curtail all discussion of the issue in a public forum...which is a typical tactic.

Shalom

[Kev]

I do have a problem pumping billions into AIDS research when there are more worthy diseases to go after. Gays should learn how to spell CONDOM and let science try to cure cancer.



The issue of Alfreds homophobia is a tired subject for me for we have been down this road now a few times and he still is unable to grasp the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia as he blends the two together.


But the above quote is absurd for nowhere today are the rates for HIV/AIDS lower than in the gay community itself while the rates are spreading far higher amongst hetrosexual women from their hetrosexual male partners.

[Roland]

So tell me....if homosexuality, homosexual marriage and abortion are NOT moral issues, what are??
They are religious issues, of cause.

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom?
For exclusivity, like any other club, the Blue T-Shirt club has to retreat from the society, out of which it recruits it's members, by i.e. installing rules and entry-fees and excluding memberships with other clubs. Ask any club in your town. If you are a member of "ordinary US-citizens" you'll have to follow their rules like i.e. allowing ppl with their own race/faith/sexuality.
You are always free to cancel your membership in favour of your own club. No moral forced.


I do have a problem pumping billions into AIDS research when there are more worthy diseases to go after. Gays should learn how to spell CONDOM and let science try to cure cancer.
That must have been be your money, I see ...
More worthy! Can you name another worthy disease for me please? (In case you can't, a completely worthless one would do.)
The gays prevented science to cure cancer. I didn't know.


Are you trying to tell us the homosexuals are suing your church to force it to accept them?
The catholic church is busy with child abusing and gay priests and shaking off their scandalously moralistic members and therefore not yet available for being sued by homosexuals - queue up!

[Eugeenie]

I am sorry, this is one of those topics that you either get or you don't. It is either an innate understanding of why it is bad, or it is not; as one can intellectualize anything, even murder.



There is no *innate* understanding involved. Your sort of hatred is learned behavior rather than something innate. People might have a certain proclivity towards xenophobic hatred in general, but the specific choice of target is entirely learned.

It is not a matter of "intelectualizing" the issue (or better put rationalizing) because your blanket condemnation blurs any distinctions in terms of moral equivalency. There is truly no reasoning involved in an attempt to justify murder because murder is a clear violation of one's basic human rights -- the "do unto others" template for evaluating what is and is not moral behavior. Pederasty is immoral behavior for the same reason -- because the object of the behavior is too young to make that choice and becouse of the inherent intimidation involved. It is the use of intimidation that creates a clear example of perpetrator and victim, and that is what makes the act immoral.

In the case of two adults engaging in certain acts, if there is no force involved, no intimidation or coercion, then you would be hard pressed to define the behavior as immoral without resorting to the same sorts of specious rhetorec in which you have already engaged. Much like the Arab apologists who justify murder of Israeli civilians through the creation of false moral equivalencies -- ie, that intentionally killing innocents and inadvertant death resulting from the attempts to bring these murders to justice are equivalent actions, therefore one is justified to continue the murder -- all you have shown is an inability to reason clearly and a willingness to create links between different behaviors that should be judged on their own merits.

The world cannot so easily cleave into two, with one world being "liberal" and the other "conservative". Instead of this sort of idealoguery where one decides on a position and then works their arguments back from there (always guaranteed to hit snags in terms of intellectual honesty), why not base your world view on something that is truly moral? If you wish to base that moralty upon the Christian bible, there is plenty of good stuff there. It's not a big book of hatred, though, and so you need to make a conscious choice to ignore quite a bit in order to confirm your hatred. Sounds to me that you are following something besides Jesus -- perhaps a pastor who is filling your head with this stuff, or maybe friends who purport to be Christians.

People may respond negatively to the all too familiar catch phrase "What would Jesus do", but if you were to seriously consider the question, it sure wouldn't be what you are doing. Morality isn't something derived from a set of finite rules, and by following your rationalization, you could just as easily claim that wearing blended fibers in one's clothing is immoral (you might need to look that one up). No, morality is based upon an understanding of the concept of morality, and this was one of the consistant themes in Jesus' teachings. It isn't the dogmatic adherance to proscribed sets of rules that makes one moral -- it is understanding of the underlying reasons for the creation of the rules.

[Oh Jerusalem]

you could just as easily claim that wearing blended fibers in one's clothing is immoral (you might need to look that one up).
Let me help you: Shatnez (http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/Wool_and_Linen_=_Shatnez.asp) :)

[Eugeenie]

Let me help you: Shatnez (http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/Wool_and_Linen_=_Shatnez.asp) :)


Thanks for the link, and the terms.

Chok. A question I might ask you, since you are Jewish rather than Christian, and my approach to you might be different accordingly. As stated, chok is a law whose logic is not evident and by my reasoning, anyway, homosexuality should be considered chok -- the reason might be evident in one way, but that reason is no longer really logical. Taboos against homsexuality might make sense when viewed from the perspective of societies struggling to produce enough children to survive in their environment, but in today's world, there are far more potent threats to society based upon overpopulation rather than under. Therefore, I would conclude that this taboo is chok. It doesn't make true logical sense.

But is morality involved? Does that which is considered Chok fall within the realm of morality? Does the consideration of whether or not it qualifies give the indication that one is at least attempting to understand the rules (God wishing us to use our intellect and all)?

In any case, I brought this up to indicate that while some Christians give inordinant attention to homosexuality, they could just as easly turn their crusade against something else with a similar degree of validation.

[Harry]

Canadian socialism is at its high-water mark. They've begun to envy the US, particularly our health-care system (as messed up as it is, it's still the world's best), our economy, our freedom, functional federalism, and so on. So be a little bit patient and you will see the pendulum in Canada swing away from its current travesty (a government so dysfunctional it can't even grow pot) and towards some form of liberty-based society.


Hi David:

Re the above letter wht u r saying Is B/S . Have u ever lived in Canada ?? :c

Well i do & was born here Also the U.S is more socialistic in many ways then Canada is .

Just look hoe u guys messed up the wold in all the wars u have fougt & lost by helping out the other side ur borders r almost close to us So we just work around them Tarrifs u iimose as u guys know it bu ur consumers dont .

Canada has a great Democray its not a Meltying pot Where can have just produce anything u guys have to Run To china or cuba & Mexico & use yourstrin dollar & of course other countryspeople to Fight wars . I am sure the U.S service men r not as well loked after as our Canadian VETERANS who did Fight Well but not Written about in ur coutry :(


WW2 Canadian army Veteran

[Alfred]

Hi David:

Re the above letter wht u r saying Is B/S . Have u ever lived in Canada ?? :c

Well i do & was born here Also the U.S is more socialistic in many ways then Canada is .

Just look hoe u guys messed up the wold in all the wars u have fougt & lost by helping out the other side ur borders r almost close to us So we just work around them Tarrifs u iimose as u guys know it bu ur consumers dont .

Canada has a great Democray its not a Meltying pot Where can have just produce anything u guys have to Run To china or cuba & Mexico & use yourstrin dollar & of course other countryspeople to Fight wars . I am sure the U.S service men r not as well loked after as our Canadian VETERANS who did Fight Well but not Written about in ur coutry :(


WW2 Canadian army Veteran


The Canadian Snipers that helped us in Afghanistan are bigger heroes here in America than they are in Canada....where they were almost thrown in jail. Canada has changed, old chap, from the Canada you fought for. But as David says, perhaps the tide is changing.

And we do know about Canadian actions in WW2....Dieppe, Normandy etc. The Canadians fought very well in WW2. I wish they were on our side in this current war, instead of teaming up with the French.

Very dissapointing you know....

[Kev]

I wish they were on our side in this current war, instead of teaming up with the French.



Same here, but it is more of an issue of gaining votes politically and/or ignorance.

[takeo]

I came to realize early in my life that I was born anti-Gay. It took me awhile to accept myself and my situation. But over the years I have come to better understand my feelings and I realize that God made me anti-Gay. I remember Liberal kids laughing at me and my orientation. But I could not lead a double life...a life of lies. I had to come out of the closet.

It is not my fault. I hope you can accept me as "An American Anti-Gay" and realize that I was born this way....there is nothing I can do about it. You need to be tolerant and accepting. There are many anti-gays in America and in fact, in the world. Anti-Gays should not be criticized or ostracized. We are people too.

There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.

Again, please be caring, tolerant and progressive by embracing my anti-gayness.


lol

I think you have to move since the oppressive tolerance in the West will eternally clash with your anti-gay nature, the Middle East might be a good destination.


Kind of like other social taboos....incest, murder, rape, stealing, kids should have a Mom and a Dad, boys don't hit girls, girls should not be in combat, dad should work and
moms should raise kids, parents should stay together while their kids are still at home, men should marry a woman and not just sleep around with 100 women, men should not bugger little boys or barn animals etc. It is called SOCIETY.

Everyone lives his own life and has his own values, which are the principles of liberal democracy and both the American and French revolution, these are the foundation of the Western thinking which has only shortly been interrupted in Europa in the 30's and 40's. (in the Iberian peninsula a bit longer)
This values are still forced upon everyone however in more archaic societies such as in the Muslim world.

it reminds me of the UN conference about preservatives where the Bush-administration together with Saoudi Arabia and Iran opposed the promotion of condoms.

ps: I'm not in favor of gay-marriages, I don't think gay-relationships can ever attain a similar status as hetero-relationships since they're incapable of generating offspring. I think especially France and Western-Europe has become a bit too gay-friendly, especially the promotion of gay-relations in schools or media and the fuss gays make out of nothing forcing their values upon society (demanding gay-beaches for example, or a gay-parade in every city...). But I'm not born anti-gay, I think anyone has the right to explore his own sexuality, but do so in his own personal modest and discrete sphere. I won't even hold hands or kiss in public with my girlfriend, it's nobody's affair, and the same goes for homosexuals.


Same here, but it is more of an issue of gaining votes politically and/or ignorance.

it's because canada is more democratic than the US, and the influence of the big weapons/oil lobbies on the media, government and public opinion is much smaller. Canada respected the will of the majority of the population.
canadians are also generally smarter and better informed, they knew Saddam didn't had any relations with terrorism or 11th september and they were very doubtfull of the whole WMD-story, as were the large majority of Europeans.

[Semsem]

<<I hope you can accept me as "An American Anti-Gay" and realize that I was born this way<<

You were not born "anti-gay." Your parents and society made you anti gay. Coming especially from an Arab country I was influenced like everyone around us as being "anti-gay."

However as I matured and met these so called "evil" gays I realised they were no different than everyone else and after many years I discovered even gay cousins and a second cousin who died of Aids.

Fortunately society is becoming more tolerant but it will still take many more years as there is room for improvement.

[Semsem]

<<I don't care what they do behind closed doors....you notice I say behind closed doors. As long as it doesn't involve children,<<

You actually make it seem that heterosexual perverts don't exist; only gay ones.

[Semsem]

<<I'm not in favor of gay-marriages, I don't think gay-relationships can ever attain a similar status as hetero-relationships since they're incapable of generating offspring. <<

Oh I see then women who can't have offspring should not get married either. And how do you know about gay relationships Takeo? Are you gay?

[KettleWhistle]

And how do you know about gay relationships Takeo? Are you gay?
I wouldn't be surprised if she is. :D

[takeo]

Oh I see then women who can't have offspring should not get married either. And how do you know about gay relationships Takeo? Are you gay?

They have the theoretical possibility to have children, gays have none, gay relations remain an abnormality in nature, altough this abnormality exists and isn't harmfull.
hey I live in Paris, need to say more...
my sexuality concerns noone on this forum, but according to my girlfriend I'm not...

[Semsem]

>>my sexuality concerns noone on this forum, but according to my girlfriend I'm not...>>

Takeo having a girlfriend does not mean that one is not gay. The Governor of New Jersey had 2 wives and he's gay. Don't worry! Nothing wrong in being gay.

[Canajew]

So tell me....if homosexuality, homosexual marriage and abortion are NOT moral issues, what are?? Are Gulags next for Canadian anti-pagans? And it appears that Canada is even more "progressive" on this issue than is Europe. :)
------------------------------------------------

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Christians face threat
pushing Bible beliefs
Churches to lose tax-exempt status
for denouncing same-sex marriage?

bunch of things. First, these things are not moral issues. These are individual liberties far more fundamental than general social intolerance. While what lesbians do is cool, and what guys do is ... well gross, ultimately it's just none of my business. They will not destroy society and there is no justification for denying them to do whatever they want with each other.

And this is more fundamental than letting some religious figure inculcate hatred. And think about it. This law makes sense. If this sort of policy is extended to other religious institutions, say wahabbi mosques, it would have the potential to make significant headway against the inculcation of hatred there.

On that basis alone, you should be wanting a law just like this for your own country. We probably don't have this policy for this particular reason, rather because we belive in "multiculturalism" and the like and a sort of collective live and let live to contrast with your individualistic live and let live ideal, but for security reasons how could you justify not adopting a law that restricts the ability of religious institutions to demonize or target any group of people.

As for gay people getting married, really none of my business either. They want to call it marriage, they want to call it something else. If people do married stuff and function as married people, the law treats them the same regardless of the mix. Seems just. To deny people choice options when there is no legitimate justification for doing so, other than a bunch of religions (which are all made up) don't want them to have it, seems wrong.

And more of a fundamental libertarian society than the United States.

We control guns, rather than the private lives of citizens living their lives. It's all about what actually casues harm to the rest of us and what does not. That's why the strong leaning towards decriminalizing pot. Should really be legal, but not really a swing issue that would get somebody elected to run on, though it would surely be a firestorm to bring up

[takeo]

Takeo having a girlfriend does not mean that one is not gay. The Governor of New Jersey had 2 wives and he's gay. Don't worry! Nothing wrong in being gay.

lol, you want a date?
No, sorry, I can't imagine having sex with guys but if others like it it's none of my business.
two questions, how did he manage to satisfy his 2 wives or were they frigid?
And if being gay is accepted in the US why such a fuss and why does he have to resign? In France this belongs to the private life, we have an openly gay maire and most of our politicians have a fiancée... it doesn't mean they can't be good politicians. I notice a lot of hypocrisy in the US (cfr. the monica-affair).

[Semsem]

<<lol, you want a date?
No, sorry, I can't imagine having sex with guys >>

You know Takeo without us even asking, you seem to be so uptight and so defensive that you are not gay, that one has to wonder. I never even asked as it's none of my business and I don't care a hoot. However please note that there is nothing wrong in being gay. It's usually people like you who are defensive that really are closet gays but again, there is nothing wrong in being gay.

<< how did he manage to satisfy his 2 wives or were they frigid? >>

He was an ACTOR I suppose. One wife left him and the other may have suspected but it's nice to be the wife of a powerful Governor. He was able to get both wives pregnant so he deserved the OSCAR for BEST ACTOR.

<<And if being gay is accepted in the US why such a fuss and why does he have to resign?<<

There is a lot more than that involved. A lot of hanky panky.

>>In France this belongs to the private life, we have an openly gay maire and most of our politicians have a fiancée... it doesn't mean they can't be good politicians. I notice a lot of hypocrisy in the US (cfr. the monica-affair).>>

I agree with you Takeo for the first time. A lot of Americans especially in the South are very religious, hypocritical and uptight about sex. But they are supporters of Israel so I am grateful. But I don't agree with their Social policies.

However the young are more tolerant and open than the older generation.

[Mediocrates]

In France it is much more acceptable to have a publically acknowledged "White Marriage" or one of covenience or politics or power whether the people actually live with one another or have other partners in public or not.

[KettleWhistle]

And if being gay is accepted in the US why such a fuss and why does he have to resign? In France this belongs to the private life, we have an openly gay maire and most of our politicians have a fiancée... it doesn't mean they can't be good politicians. I notice a lot of hypocrisy in the US (cfr. the monica-affair).
Life in Western societies is too easy and worry-less. There aren't many political issues to fight over. So in the U.S. politicians fuss over sex, and who shags whom, and how. In Europe, and France in particular, they fuss over Israel and what happens there.

But regarding gays and what have you, I agree with my hero, Rodney Dangerfield: "If sex is a pain in the a$$, you're doing it wrong."

[takeo]

Life in Western societies is too easy and worry-less. There aren't many political issues to fight over.

do you think so?????????



So in the U.S. politicians fuss over sex, and who shags whom, and how. In Europe, and France in particular, they fuss over Israel and what happens there.

here the fuss is about "chewing gum or softdrinks in schools" and sometimes more important issues like migrant issues, safety of the roads etc.


But regarding gays and what have you, I agree with my hero, Rodney Dangerfield: "If sex is a pain in the a$$, you're doing it wrong."

:D

[KettleWhistle]

Life in Western societies is too easy and worry-less. There aren't many political issues to fight over. do you think so??????Yes. If there were more important political issues to debate, chewing gum and Israeli politics wouldn't be making headlines.

[takeo]

Yes. If there were more important political issues to debate, chewing gum and Israeli politics wouldn't be making headlines.

There are more important political issues such as jobs, terrorism, etc. but somehow people love to discuss about more trivial subjects.