• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

I don't care about who marries who....

I do care about the politics and this is going to push some independents to the right. Good news. This is going to be a tight race and everything helps.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
We're getting a little off topic but I actually think that many Jesuits in New France acquitted themselves quite honourably at a period in history when European explorers viewed the Natives with contempt. The Jesuits learned their language and customs, lived with or alongside them for decades in many instances, and made a conscious effort to educate and teach them.

Heck, we've all seen that Heritage Minute about the maple syrup!

[video=youtube;INFlGrcdSeg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INFlGrcdSeg[/video]
Click to expand...

they weren't all bad but they were still zealots who thought they had to convert, but then again, I saw the Mission and the Jesuits there were decent people


have to admire them to some extent with the way they were at times tortured like Brebeuf and took it like men
 
Talking about religion......and door knocking....

A couple of days ago I had a pretty hot Johova knock on my door at 9:30 in the morning. Sadly, she was with man. Too bad....because I can go for some "oh on, oh God, oh yes"...... :smilewinkgrin:
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

HabsAddict said:
You should be screaming. The NDP is burying your Liberals.
Click to expand...

Me?

I've voted PC, Liberal, and I'll gladly vote for the NDP.

I know some people thought I was in bed with the Liberals but that was never the case. I respect many of the things the Liberals stand for and if they get a solid leader I might vote for them again. But overall, I'm not a partisan person. I have my stands but I'm very practical.

I'm one of those people that can be emotional and cause all kinds of issues but when things get serious, important, or I'm left in a position of power I become one of the mose reasonable people and usually lead well. I care a lot more about getting things done than my personal opinions.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Modern individual rights are not based on those antecedents, they are not. Descartes tonked the whole scholastic school. As did the the Protestant reformation, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Great Reform Act of 1832, etc. Our values are not absolute and never have been.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry, but your argument just isn't supportable by facts. to say that our present society and its moral and legal frameworks aren't products of thousands of years of history and evolution is ridiculous. its preposterous. you rightly point out important historical transformations that brought change, but you completely miss the fact that those changes didn't just happen in a flash, completely divorced from the societies they came from, driven by just a few people, and they certainly didn't completely eradicate everything that came before them. they were evolutionary stages in social development. history comes in ebbs and flows. there are reactions and counterreactions. i believe that there is an organic wisdom in conservative societies that generally bends those changes towards positive ends. problems occur when societies or states get highjacked by small groups who feel they know better and try to bend things to fit their own narrow ends.

many, even most values, aren't absolute, and of course they can change, but some values ARE absolute, and those that arent better change slowly and incrementally, not quickly, or arbitrarily, or to suit knee-jerk, narrow public opinion.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
i'm sorry, but your argument just isn't supportable by facts. to say that our present society and its moral and legal frameworks aren't products of thousands of years of history and evolution is ridiculous. its preposterous. you rightly point out important historical transformations that brought change, but you completely miss the fact that those changes didn't just happen in a flash, completely divorced from the societies they came from, driven by just a few people, and they certainly didn't completely eradicate everything that came before them. they were evolutionary stages in social development. history comes in ebbs and flows. there are reactions and counterreactions. i believe that there is an organic wisdom in conservative societies that generally bends those changes towards positive ends. problems occur when societies or states get highjacked by small groups who feel they know better and try to bend things to fit their own narrow ends.

many, even most values, aren't absolute, and of course they can change, but some values ARE absolute, and those that arent better change slowly and incrementally, not quickly, or arbitrarily, or to suit knee-jerk, narrow public opinion.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't think your misty metaphysical handwringing is relevant. But if you want to talk about the wisdom of the crowds, I'll put my Enlightenment-driven rights of the individual, within the confines of rational social mores, as the great emancipation of humanity against anything you talk about. Competent and consenting adults should have their rights fully guaranteed as a matter of justice if they are doing no harm. You on the other hand, are advocating for coercive restrictions based on you narrow set of values that have nothing to do with laws regarding property and health issues.

This philosphical wanking is irrelevant anyway. In our legal system, you advocating undue discrimination. Period.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Nice to see blacksheet turn and run with his tail between his legs on the suggestion that Ford had a "media campaign" against the TRCA. What an idiot.
 
Okay. Compromise time.

We "let" gays marry (their loss anyways), but we don't force churches to marry same-sex couples. Further, gay rights parades are allowed to continue, but only women are allowed to wear assless chaps.

Rollerblades and waterguns for all.
 
Believe me, if I could control the man-ass you saw..you'd cum in two seconds.

corksens said:
Okay. Compromise time.

We "let" gays marry (their loss anyways), but we don't force churches to marry same-sex couples. Further, gay rights parades are allowed to continue, but only women are allowed to wear assless chaps.

Rollerblades and waterguns for all.
Click to expand...
 
sir pyscho sexy said:
kb, I still haven't seen you deal with this point.

Not allowing gays to marry and enjoy the same legal, financial etc protections under the law is discriminatory. We're saying gays are less equal than non-gays, and denying them rights we grant to everyone else in society solely on the basis of their sexuality. How do you reconcile this with your 'morality'?

Second, nothing you have brought forward has identified any potential harms, either to you personally, or society at large, from allowing gays to marry. Instead you've spouted off about morality, made appeals to religious authorities, and talked about your cousin and a 14-year old.

How is it moral to allow gay people to be second class citizens under the law simply because they are gay? (something which I'm glad you have not argued can be fixed, so credit for that)

And as leafman has pointed out, appealing to historical precedents doesn't really make you look tolerant or ethical.
Click to expand...

fair questions. let me deal with them. first, i have never argued that LGBTs shouldnt have the same rights as everyone else. they deserve to live, love, make a living, be happy, and share their lives with whomever they want to without being harassed or persecuted by anyone. i am simply saying that their loving relationships should not be given religious or state sanction because those relationships by definition CANNOT produce the positive outcome for society, namely, having children. human children are extremely difficult to raise, they require decades of care and attention to reach maturity, and society has produced a construct that allows that to happen- marriage between a man and a woman. we could cite studies all day long that show us how beneficial it is for children to have two parents with them for as long as possible. it is in the state's interest to facilitate, promote, and support marriage between a man and a woman. before the rise of the state when religion played the dominant role it was in religion's interest to promote marriage between a man and a woman just like it was in its interest to promote "though shalt not kill". LGBT relationships cannot produce children (adoption notwithstanding), so they aren't being "discriminated against" by not being "rewarded" for something that by definition they can't do. it'd be like asking for a gov't tax credit that other people get for something i don't/can't do. the state sets up incentives and supports for behaviours that benefit the greater good. if you have children and i don't, is it right for me to say i'm being "discriminated against" because you get a child tax credit and i don't? no.

second, i have clearly identified the "harm" to society of degrading and debasing marriage. we have already done that to a very large extent by making divorce something as easy to get as a new set of dentures or a library card. we have done that through mountains of media messages that marriage isn't important, that men don't really count, that single parenthood is something to be celebrated, and yes, that "marriage" can be anything that we want to call it. is it any wonder then that broken families pile up by the millions and we have the kinds of social problems that we are seeing more and more of today? none of you (i don't think, other than maybe the count, but he actually profits from this) work in a field where you can see the damage that this does. i deal with the young wreckage that results from broken homes. i could literally sit here for a week and tell you story after story about how f*cked up kids get when families and marriages fall apart. it is something we have to try to stop. it is awful. it is a horrible price to pay for opening up marriage and making it meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top