# Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Demo...



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

So, who would have thunk-it that same-sex marriage would have become one of the biggest deals of 2003? 

Who would have thunk-it that mobs of people who think homosexuality is icky, would have shown up in such great numbers on parliament hill today to speak of nothing but? 

Wow...what a bunch of whack-jobs.







I am Anglican and never thought I would be as embarrassed by Christians as I was by those nutters. They looked like they were POSSESSED, they way they were flailing around with arms out-stretched, praying to their "God" of intolerance. 

But I digress. My "finace" and I are good, honest, law-abiding and responsible adults who pay taxes and want to have a civil marriage. Why shouldn't we? We are just like them! See what I mean!  

When we tie the not, perhaps we could make it an ehMac affair!?! Someone could even DJ the bash with a couple-O- iPods!!! 

I hope you enjoy the "show." It is rated E for Everyone by the motion picture guild of America.









What are your thoughts? Of the protest or just my iMovie skills.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Um, password?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Hi there, VertiGoGo! Sorry to hear that the masses are giving you grief. I've been following this whole situation carefully and have discovered that a comment I made on an older thread dicussion seems to have some validity. I remember wondering whether same-sex contracts could possibly have a slightly different name, to appease those who are trying to "protect" the traditional definition "marriage". (This is a separate issue than the opposition to legalizing same-sex unions.) It seems that many of those who are opposing the equality of same-sex marriages are not so much against the legalization of the relationship and the equal rights as they are against the sharing of the term ("marriage") that has for centuries been used to designate a "traditional" heterosexual union. They don't want that "blur" created. How do you or other same-sex couples that you know feel about this particular argument....is it "marriage" or nothing?..or would you be open to a unique, but legally equal contract name? Do the heterosexual opponents have a valid argument, in your view? I'm not here to hold any disagreement, just wanting to throw this question up for comments as I haven't seen much rational discussion on this point. 
You've always been so open and level-headed while others just become inflamed when discussing gay issues, so I wanted to get your take on this question. All the best to you!


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

We live in a Constitutional Democracy folks where minorities are to be protected to the full extent of the law as defined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document far superior to the US Constitution or what's left of it.

Thankyou, Pierre Eliot Trudeau!

That the religious lobby which has NO business in the corridors of our civil government, wishes to rewrite the Charter is completely absurd. 
Pathetic attendance for the non-event described here ...... pathetic in its insipidity ....about a tenth of Ottawa's gay pride event this year.
What preacher or religious predator wouldn't want to dictate morality to more than their tiny flock?
This was their big power play?
I read not even one remotely intelligent comment from the shepherd or the herd.
That perhaps because no major religious brand was represented.
My favourite







... "He (god presumably) has the patent







on it and he has every right to define how it (what ?) should be lived out," said Rick Reed, Rev.  of the Metropolitan Bible Church. 

The Ten Commandments of course mean little in context given the 28 people executed by the Alabama courts.
Alabama prohibits all consensual sexual acts between persons not married to each other described by the State as "deviate sexual intercourse".

We've searched in vain for the anti-gay marriage commandment unless in #10 according to 10 commandments.org we see:
_TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's._
Oops .... we're bleeding into the "What is wrong with us??" topic.

[ August 23, 2003, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

And the Orville Faubus award — a gold necklace or cuff links, each with a miniature solid-gold baseball bat — goes to all those right-thinking God-fearing folks who took time out from their busy, productive lives (unlike many sinners I can think of) to protest on Parliament Hill against them preeverts who dare to weaken our way of life by wanting to join it.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I find a problem with the Christians who quote the verse in the Old Testament that says homosexuality is wrong, but forget that their are a billion other rules outlined in that same book. It is impossible to keep all those rules all the time. And that is why according to the Christian belief, Jesus came down and died for us fulfilling these rules, meaning that he would pay the price, since we are human and there is no one who could abide by all those rules 100% of the time. They are allowed to have their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, but don't make yourself to be a self-righteous ass who listens to part of the bible, but not all. Or, it is possible those people who call themselves Christians to read the New Testament and remember, oh yeah, the new covenant replaces the old one. Legalism is the worst Christian doctrine ever introduced.  Its things like that, that give clear understanding why if I tell people I'm a Christian, they start walking on eggshells. And TV evangelists blaming 9/11 on us allowing Gay people to live is even worse.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

The password protection has been removed (I forgot I had it there). You may now see how similar our lives are.  



> There are many rational and intelligent people who feel that the word 'marriage' should retain its current definition of a union between two people of the opposite sex.


There were also many rational and itelligent people who felt women should not have the same rights as men (let alone the right to vote), or that native peoples should not have the same human rights as the rest of us, or, or, or...



> 'Why can't same sex couples form a union or create a new word that properly represents their relationship and also allows the original definition of marriage to stay?'


Because the best word to describe the relationship I share with my partner is "Marriage." It is identical, in all respects, to the legal marriages of my opposite-sex friends who are married without kids. Many of whom have no intentions of having children either. 



> How do you or other same-sex couples that you know feel about this particular argument....is it "marriage" or nothing?..or would you be open to a unique, but legally equal contract name?


It's "marriage or nothing," I'm afraid. As I have always told opponents and as the Prime Minister has recently stated, "separate, but equal" is not equality under the law. Nor is it the Canadian way.



> Personally, I don't care whether or not same-sex couples can or cannot get married or how their family units are designed. My only concern is that people enter into this sort of union with love and respect for their partner.


One of the dificulties is that many people don't care one way or the other. So, that gives the vocal minority that opposes gay marriage free-reign to give the impression that all opposite-sex couples oppose it...even though polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support it and that support gets higher as you ask younger and younger people. 

Personally, I find all the whining and protesting against me and my relationship very tiresome at this point. 

Something that should be noted is that same-sex couples have been getting married in two provinces for months now and the sky has not fallen. I also doubt that any of the opponents have felt their own lives or relationships impacted in any way, shape or form. 

In any case...my wedding plans are still in progress and cannot wait to state my vows before my friends and family...and most importantly, before God.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Sorry, folks, the urge to play devil's advocate is too great.....having just read some pretty lame logic along the way here, could the argument not be made that that "marriage" between same-sex and diffferent-sex couples is actually different, yet equal?. A man and a woman are deemed to be "equal", yet they are obviously different and have different names to distinguish them. Could the argument not be made that unions of these two different relation types should perhaps also be distinguishable for clarity? (Do I hear salmon launchers?)


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Just to stir the pot a bit...

Isn't there a benefit in being married?

Your taxes have a married exemption in the first year don't they?

Isn't it easier to get a job and keep a job if you are married?

What if two (Same sex) heterosexuals got married just
to take advantage of the status of being married, With
the law as it stands (Or will stand nationally)...
Who's to say they can't be married?

I can just see it now...
"You may now shake hands with the bride"
________
Footnote:
This is not meant to be in any way shape or form
against same sex marriage or gender preferences, This
is only meant to be a thought and nothing else.
I am an individual that believes in the rights and
freedoms of all human beings and I myself believe that
the freedom of choice is a right that should never be
denied to anyone.

Dave 

[ August 23, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: dolawren ]


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,



> Personally, I find all the whining and protesting against me and my relationship very tiresome at this point.


I agree.



> One of the dificulties is that many people don't care one way or the other.


So, it's a problem if people don't care and it's a problem if people care in a direction that you don't find appropriate?

The reason I don't care is that I've never seen same-sex couples as second-class citizens. Thus, for me anyway, it's a non-issue.



> In any case...my wedding plans are still in progress and cannot wait to state my vows before my friends and family...and most importantly, before God.


Good luck with your marriage. I hope it lasts. My wedding was a civil union and had nothing to do with a god.

Hmm, perhaps the definition of marriage has changed to allow us heathens to get married? Therefore, it should be allowed to change again to support other heathens.









James

PS: Heathen is far too strong of a word, but it was the only one I could think of at the time.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,



> Your taxes have a married exemption in the first year don't they?


There are spousal allowances, if that's what you mean. These apply if you are common-law, too.



> Isn't it easier to get a job and keep a job if you are married?


I don't know if this is true. I don't think you are legally obligated to tell a potential employer of your marital status. From an employer's point of view, there may also be advantages to having an employee who is single - she can work longer hours without having to go home and make dinner for her spouse. (She and her also refer to he and him.)

James


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

What's next? A statue of the 10 Commandments hauled into Parliament Hill? 

Actually, there's nothing wrong with debate and discussion on the topic except that this is a minority rights issue which should not be decided by an open vote. But it does let you know where your MP stands and provides insight into whether he/she is a walking anachronism.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> So, it's a problem if people don't care and it's a problem if people care in a direction that you don't find appropriate?


Oh no, no. You misunderstood. What I am trying to say (less eloquently than I had hoped, mind you), is that the problem is there are more people "who don"t care" one way or the other (and it doesn't bother them either), so they have no reason to protest. This then gives the impression that everyone "agrees" with the vocal minority of detractors. 

That is all. I respect that people have a different opinion than mine, but it bugs me when the impression that gets out is contrary to the reality. And teh reality is that only a very small number of Canadians are "opposed" to same-sex marriage...but they are vocal.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Aside from the debate...how do people like my iMovie?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Vertigogo wrote:


> What are your thoughts? Of the protest or just my iMovie skills.


The production was very well done, The only thing that I
found bothersome was the resolution, It looked like the
window might have been enlarged a bit too much
causing the images to pixelate, A smaller window might
have corrected the pixelating problem.
But other than the pixel problem the scenes were very
well integrated and flowed together seamlessly, Great
music choice by the way.

Dave


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,



> This then gives the impression that everyone "agrees" with the vocal minority of detractors.


OIC. Perhaps similar to the NRA in the USA?

Your iMovie is okay: it shows a lot of nice pictures and a lot of interesting scenery. I'm sure your family and friends will enjoy it a lot more than anyone else here. It did remind me of some of the things that I do and do not like about Southern Ontario. Nice architecture







and no mountains in the background.  

James


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

Not all those people are nutters. There are many rational and intelligent people who feel that the word 'marriage' should retain its current definition of a union between two people of the opposite sex. They might pose questions like these:

'Why should we lose our word, just to respect the ideas of a very small minority?'

'Why can't same sex couples form a union or create a new word that properly represents their relationship and also allows the original definition of marriage to stay?'

Personally, I don't care whether or not same-sex couples can or cannot get married or how their family units are designed. My only concern is that people enter into this sort of union with love and respect for their partner.

James


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> .how do people like my iMovie?


That was a nice slide show. I 'd like to someday get a digital camera and put together nice presentations like that. Am I correct in guessing that you have the blonde hair?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Congratulations on your impending marriage Vertigogo!

A few thoughts:

1. Some reasonably eloquent arguments have been made for and against same-sex marriage, as well as some lousy ones. But the basic fact is that the law cannot differentiate among equals. Anything but equality is discrimination. Separate but equal is a self-contradicting statement.

2. It's my opinion that the churches feel that application of the term marriage to same-sex couples threatens their territory. Many people join churches just to get married. They pay lip-service to the religious instruction and rarely maintain their association with the church after the honeymoon. Many churches accept this hypocrisy in part because it generates revenue and there's at least a chance of recruiting new followers.

3. I fail to see how application of the term to same-sex couples devalues heterosexual marriage. My marriage is defined by my experience. I could have a bad marriage or a wonderful marriage (I am lucky to enjoy the latter) but I don't feel my union is threatened nor diminished by examples of lousy marriages I read about every day.

4. If people's objection to use of the word is simply based on tradition, they need a history lesson. In addition, it is incredibly selfish (but what's new?)

5. If the objectors wish to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of marriage, let's go the whole hog by adding a rejoinder to the word. Let's have church-marriage, non-childless-marriage, financial-marriage, convenience-marriage, non-believer-church-marriage....

6. Isn't this just a thinly-veiled attempt by the church authorities to claim moral supremacy by taking advantage of the fact that some oherwise intelligent people still think homosexuality is a perversion?

This is a defining issue for Canada. It is the flagship test for our suposed belief in the rights of the individual. The rest is just a smoke screen of selfishness and cloth ears.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Gay marriage is by law no-one's right to deny.

The pathetic arguments for somehow making marriage an exclusively heterosexual domain cannot roll back the social progress made by Liberal and Conservative governments since Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality in 1969,
Gay Rights timeline much to the dismay of this same lame crowd.

These hopeless bigots will at least have much to pray for .... or against.

Against this progress? ......... Not a chance in Heaven or Hell


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macello (and others)....your open disdain for the opinions and interpretations of others who do not share your liberal point of view (I'm neutral) is not becoming. VertiGoGo is part of the real debate and he is more open and tolerant to the rights of others' opinions than most. There are many inteligent and principled members of both (three?) sides of the debate. Those who cry out for tolerance are often the least tolerant themselves, at least from my observations. It is a natural occurence to have objections when the "norm" is shaken up. Fuelling the flames of passion with insults doesn't forward the cause, it just makes the sides trench in deeper.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman, "(I'm neutral) "
I sympathize and certainly think that neutral folk should be allowed to marry as well.









The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the basis of how Canadians govern themselves.

If you are arguing as to whether churches should marry gay couples or not ... however genteel .... fine, but I think that is not this topic.

I view the "religious" protest against the secular *legality* of gay marriage a paranoid travesty of human rights.

My distain is open for all who wish to remove the legally entrenched protections and entitlements of persons because they are gay.

If by neutral you simply mean confused I understand.









I look forward to your decision upon descending from this neutral dilemma.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm pretty much in the "neutral" camp as well. Personally I don't give a hoot who marries whom...just as long as they care for each other and try to make a go of it without giving up early and clogging the courts while trying to divvy up the communal goods. (there is enough of that already).

Black and white, Asian and Jew, Guy and guy or Girl and girl...makes no difference to me. Nor should it.

And I also tend to agree with Peter Scharman on one other thing...

Macello, perhaps instead of flying into a rage at the slightest percieved deviation from your cherished left/lib thinking, why not stop and consider...just consider...that others around you might just have valid reasons for their particular ideals and thoughts?

And flinging insults is probably not the best way to gain new converts to your side of the political fence.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt I tend to agree that Macello laces his often insightful thoughts with less than palatable perjoratives.....but SIR....please. Your right wings rants get equally predicatable and tiresome and really takes away from the well thought out and balanced viewpoints that sneak their way through the right wing flak barrage.

"I'm pretty much in the "neutral" camp as well. Personally I don't give a hoot who marries whom...just as long as they care for each other and try to make a go of it without giving up early and clogging the courts while trying to divvy up the communal goods. (there is enough of that already).
Black and white, Asian and Jew, Guy and guy or Girl and girl...makes no difference to me. Nor should it"

That's a terrific summary of what I think most Canadians feel and for all you may not like the Teflon Man from Shawinigan ( and I'm no great fan either tho I admire his ability to stay in power ) he sums it up nicely.

"The Charter is there to protect minorities"
He's absolutely right and is doing his best to abide by the Charter while giving backbenchers the right to vote as they wish.

I find it hard to find fault this particular approach and indeed perhaps he has found his "legacy" in an unexpected but very appropriate place.

•••••
I'm going to swing this off a little bit and ask Vertigogo. 
How can you square the kind of nonsense you are seeing and still subscribe to a dogmatic faith, even one that's as relatively sane as Anglicanism?

Major faiths typically are hierarchical and often patriarchal to a fault and most are very bent of keeping the faithful toeing the "party line".

I would probably exempt the Quakers from this as they seem to have a very interesting social dynamic as do Buddhists to name a couple of approaches I admire. The very nature of those groups seem to prevent the kind of power abuse other religions, cults and political organizations can be subject to.

I'd be interested Vertigogo in your own approach, if you are willing, and wonder if this gay marriage brouhaha has caused you to question your beliefs....or only the sanity of some of your fellow travellers


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macnutt seemed to sum up a popular feeling when he wrote:


> "I'm pretty much in the "neutral" camp as well. Personally I don't give a hoot who marries whom...just as long as they care for each other and try to make a go of it without giving up early and clogging the courts while trying to divvy up the communal goods. (there is enough of that already).
> Black and white, Asian and Jew, Guy and guy or Girl and girl...makes no difference to me. Nor should it"


I'm going to throw the ball out into left field with this thought (my mind works in a mysterious manner). Since "marriage" has up till now always been a heterosexual institution, there have been restrictions as to how close to the blood line you could marry into. Since gay couples cannot procreate, should brothers, sisters, cousins et al be exempt from those restrictions and be allowed to marry if they wish? As long as they love each other, who should care? Your thoughts.......?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Like I said before, I don't give a hoot who marries whom. It's not up to me to decide what someone else does with their life or who they choose to spend it with.

And...for that matter... I don't think that anyone who is contemplating ANY sort of relationship should be at all concerned with what _I_ or anyone _else_ has to say about it.

Because that's not what it's all about.

It's about finding someone you truly want to be with and making a commitment to them.

And anyone who says "NO you can't DO that" is just displaying their own ignorance for all to see.

My advice? Ignore 'em. Be happy.   

(BTW...this comes from your resident "******* right wing conservative"...and he has a whole bunch of "*******" buddies who think the very same way. Enjoy your life and make the best of what you have. Turn your back on the idiots. They won't matter in the long run.)

Trust me on this.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt asks: "just consider...that others around you might just have valid reasons for their particular (anti-gay marriage) ideals and thoughts?"

*Please show me where such a valid argument has been posted! .......Okay?* (in any or all of the above posts?)

Je reply: I have seen no valid reason in this discussion for the withdrawal of the constitutional rights of a minority enjoyed by a majority. 

Religion has no part in the discussion of gay rights, be it marriage or otherwise except unto itself as it legally has no say whatsoever in the governing of civil life in Canada. 

Peter Scharman's "that marriage between same-sex and diffferent-sex couples is actually different, yet equal" is precisely what is illegal in the eyes of the constitution and the courts.
If Scharman means different but equal on the basis of sex orientation it is called apartheid.
Non valid reasons such as appeasing religious bigotry are not worthy of consideration!

Peter Scharman's questions were succinctly and eloquently answered by Vertigogo who seems righteously indignant towards those who say they don't care one way or another and then have the temerity to think that they contribute to the discussion.

Now .... for those using the term "neutral", I can't be sure if you have not yet decided to support gay rights or whether you abstain in order to inadvertently or not give credence to the religious bigots.

As for the other possible meaning for "neutral" being "not in gear",  what would our formidable contingent of heterosexualists think of a solemn vow not to boink at all?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are being a bit ethnocentric in assuming unrelated single pair heterosexual patterns for marriage - it's really not all that common  

Egypt, INca and Hawaii ALL had royal brohter sister marriages - it was part of the culture. They COULD NOT marry others.

of course we had this one for a while and perhaps still in Utah

"Plural marriage was the nineteenth-century LDS practice of a man marrying more than one wife. (See 
Doctrine of Plural Marriage) Popularly known as polygamy, it was actually polygyny"
http://www.polygamy.com/Mormon/History-of-Plural-Marriage.htm

Now bear in mind homosexuality was NOT openly accepted in European society AFTER perhaps the Greek Golden age and early Roman tolerance

Meanwhile in mediaeval Europe
"Cousin marriage in Europe was common. Travel was difficult. Neighbor married Neighbor through out generations. Political alliances were secured by the marriage of both parties families. Wealth, and the power it provided, was invested in a few people. The rulers of the time were concerned that the concentration of wealth in the hands of few would lead to anarchy. *To break up these vested families and redistribute the lands and monies of these families they prohibited cousin marriages* . At the same time they exempted the Royal Family from that same prohibition. " 

Now here's the big figure  
83.5% of world's population permits polygyny.

"However, in most of Africa, and large parts South America, and Asia, divorce isn't always an option. Here, what is more common than serial monogamy is polygamy, meaning "many spouses," or "many mates." Under the umbrella of polygamy are three basic arrangements. They are: 1) polygyny—one (or more) male mating with at least two females; 2) polyandry—one (or more) female mating with at least two males; and 3) polygynandry—at least two females mating with (and sharing) at least two males. Of the 853 societies surveyed by George Murdock in 1967 around the world, only 16% are exclusively (and often legally) monogamous. A whopping 83.5% of the world's societies permit polygyny, and a minute fraction (0.5%) permit polyandry. Monandry occurs where polygyny occurs, since a woman may be married to a single man but have many co-wives. And monogyny occurs where polyandry occurs. In the United States, monandry and monogyny occur together (monogynandry). Polygynandry (group mating) is the rarest mating form, right behind polyandr"

Here's the entire interesting article
"http://www.jolique.com/social_structure/so_you_want_harem.htm"
and the definitions









Variety has and does make the world go around


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Perhaps my previous comments on this subject have been taken in the wrong context. If so...then allow me to clarify my position without ANY SORT of doubt on the subject.

Hear this...I DON'T CARE what ANY of you do as individuals!! HONEST!!

Go out with, swap spit with...or MARRY anyone who pleases you!! It is not relevant to my opinion! I have NO say in this!!

And why SHOULD I??!!??

Why should YOU...as individuals in Canada...even CARE what the rest of us think about your personal relationships??

It doesn't MATTER!

Live your life. Be happy. Or not. 

It's not my place to judge you. Whatever you choose. 

This is basic stuff.

(And Vertigogo... I wish you all the best. In every possible way. Honest.)

Also....from the most ******* right-wing member of EhMac...

Let's all be tolerant and cognisant of our other fellow ehmac members here.

Further to that, I would say....

Best of luck Vertigogo. You seem like a decent person to me. I hope that all goes well for you.

And....for what it's, worth...you have my every blessing.

Good luck!!


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Thank you to all the well-wishers re: the impending marriage!







Oh, and for the record, I am not "the blond one." Hehehe That is my dear, sweet and wonderful partner! I am the the guy with the goatee (in most pics). 



> How can you square the kind of nonsense you are seeing and still subscribe to a dogmatic faith, even one that's as relatively sane as Anglicanism?


Quite simple really...while the Anglican Church is currently on the verge of implosion because of debate about blessing same-sex couples' relationships...my individual parish is extremely open and nurturing. My church takes an "all people are God's children" approach to theology and is an integrated community that includes gays and lesbians, people of different faith communities (we have a lot of reformed Catholics) and is generally accepting of people for who they are, not who they sleep with. 

Our parish embraces gays and lesbians, holds an annual Gay Pride Eucharist, holds special worship for people living with or concerned about HIV and/or AIDS; hosts The Well/La Source women's shelter in the basement, runs a second hand shop for under or less privileged people, and a host of other things. 

So, what I am saying, I guess, is that it is easy to be a member of an organized faith when the leaders make God accessible to ALL and not just a few people. 

While I am not a bible thumper...I love God and I know that God loves me. I am a good person that is full of love and compassion...despite the fact there are many faith communities that show me very little in return. IMHO. 

Thanks to everyone who has commented on my iMovie. Keep it coming...the feedback will help the next installment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh yeah - congrats Vertigogo. 

Als good to see progressive elements in the "establishment" - there always was an air of "practicality" in the Anglicans amongst the pomp and circcumstance - I mean look at the origins.  

and Macnutt - why I dare to think ....no it's true...you sound exactly like

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"
.......reallllllly......and I'm sure you know WHO that was.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

Sorry that I'm coming into the conversation so late.

1) Wicked iMovie.... The music really tells the story of the photos. It had me watching it right to the end.

2) The debate over same-sex marriages. Why is it such a big deal? As long as two people love each other they should have the right to get married. Marriage is only a piece of paper and a vow to love and take care of each other as long as they're both alive. It's not like giving someone the keys to heaven.... but that is another discussion.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

So, the term, 'Screw 'em all" is more than just an expression.


> A whopping 83.5% of the world's societies permit polygyny


Should that have been "83.5% of the world's population live in societies that permit polygyny"? Or is most of the developed world considered only a few societies?
Regarding inter-family marriages, I do believe there is the problem of birth defects (mental, and physical), hence the disallowment. It's for the good of society as a whole, or is it discrimination?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why indeed


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Given the time-line for human rights in Canada, it looks quite hopeless for the anti-same-sex marriage crowd. 

Who wants to even discuss the merits of betraying their millions of gay friends, neighbours and professional colleagues to such a hopeless cause?

Who's going to tell them that they are less than others for the sake of one word and not deserving of marriage to their faces?

You won't find that question in a poll!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Who's going to tell them that they are less than others for the sake of one word and not deserving of marriage to their faces?*


In defense of those who only object to the "hijacking" of the meaning of marriage, their objection is not to deny gay couples legal relationship equality, but rather to maintain rights to the term "marriage". The dictionary definition of _ marriage_ is "the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Webster adds to this, "....for the purpose of making a home and raising a family". To these objectors, gay couples are not man and woman (husband and wife), so either the definition must be changed or another word must be used to describe a gay union. They may not win the debate, but they have, in my opinion, the right to defend the status quo, just as the gays have the right to challenge it. There is also nothing wrong with having religious conviction and defending it, as long as it's done by democratic guidlines. Both sides can be acused of shoving their beliefs down the other's throat. No one here has exclusive rights to opinion infalibility.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> The dictionary definition of marriage is "the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Webster adds to this, "....for the purpose of making a home and raising a family".


Given that many gay and lesbian couples have already become married by making legal and/or religious commitments and that many of these same couples also have children...it would seem to me that they already satisfy the definition of marriage (minus the gender bias of the definition, of course). 

Personally, I just don't see what the big deal is with the term "marriage." It is the best word to define the type of relationship that these couples have opted for. If anyone has any valid arguments against gay marriage that are based on rational thinking and not religious dogma, I am more than happy to listen and consider that point of view. 

As a practicing Christian, I will not listen to bigots twisting the word of the Lord.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Re: neutrality and apathy, to the people who don't think they need to take a stand (you know who you are), here's a letter from Monday's Globe and Mail:

By LARRY TKACZYK
Monday, August 25, 2003 - Page A10 

Vancouver -- As a gay man, I know one quick way to reduce voter apathy. Take away some of the basic rights of the most apathetic group, leaving this group's equality up to the whims of society at large. That is a sure way to get them to the polls next election. I look forward to the day when I can afford not to give a damn.

Here, here!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well the definition of women used to be "chattel".
Slaves used to be "property".
Get past it - it's the founding law of the nation and has not the least affect on you.
If the Churches don't like it they have that right protected by the same Charter and they don't have to perform the ceremony.
It just shows what they are, hide bound dinosaurs rooted in the past and of increasingly less relevance.........by their own devices.

Some, like Vertigogo's congregation, ARE dealing with it in a progessive and responsive manner but getting flak from the powers that be.
'Course the earth used to be flat and the centre of the universe - they had some difficulty with that too.  
Poor Galileo........how different is now???

What happens when ET arrives ....I shudder to think.

••
BTW it's "Hear, hear"...... and I get that wrong all the time too


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ha, ha!









Good point about living by word definitions.... To do so is to live in a frozen world, devoid of change (for better or worse...). Progressive Conservatives is my favourite oxymoron, but progressive Catholicism is even more adept.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"To do so is to live in a frozen world, devoid of change".....therein lies the problem.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Here are a couple of Globe And Mail articles regarding the split of opinion on this issue. They touch on points brought up in our discussions, both pro and con.
First article 
Second article


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

On the banning of intra-familial marriage, Peter is correct that this is based on increased incidence of genetic abnormalities. Although our chromosomes are "shuffled" to some degree during the meitoic divisions within our sex cells this is relatively minor. It does mean every gamete is unique but each is also far more similar to its fellow gametes than to everyone else. We all have two copies of every gene. One consequence of this is that mutations in one can often be compensated or made up by the other. These mutations are therefore silent, but are shared in a family. Such mutations have a much higher probability of being "revealed" in the off-spring of close marriages because of the genetic similarity. The genetic distance falls off very abruptly such that first cousins are sufficiently distinct to have "robust" off-spring.

Having said this, we are 99% identical in our coding DNA to apes and we are each 99.9% identical to each other (in other words, out of 3.1 billion DNA units, we have about 3 million differences with anyone else on the planet, of any ethnic origin, height, weight, etc.).


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

So we should consider opposite-gender apes as potential mates to solve the same-sex marriage? Gotcha! 
















Totally kidding. 

As an aside, I got a huge kick out of the Bible thumpers that last week suggested allowing gays to marry would lead to people marrying their pets. I am more annoyed with the media for not exercising better judgement by filtering that pap out.

Although...I was playing with my (gasp!) pussy in bed last night.







He has soft fur!


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

My daughter is a dog...
She was on the voters list last year, So I suppose since
she can vote...I guess she can marry too.
Although...She has a thing with our other daughter...
Our cat.

I wonder how they feel about mixed marriages?

Dave


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

dolawren, you cannot marry your pet daughter....









As the naysayers get more desparate, so their arguments will get more ridiculous... I'm glad the press reported on the "marrying your pet" quote. People aren't stupid and will see how weak the true argument against same-sex marriage is.

Gee, how do you turn down a marriage proposal from Rover without breaking his heart? Reminds me of the crappy Chrysler "event" advert where he bride looks to be a bit of a dog (a guy steps in to her dress while the bride-to-be is at the dealership...).

Which reminds me of a poor joke. "Doesn't all marriage result in "same sex"?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> you cannot marry your pet daughter....


No...But I can marry her off.
(The cat and the dog are already sleeping together).

Dave


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Re: neutrality and apathy, to the people who don't think they need to take a stand (you know who you are)*


To quote a famous movie line, "Are YOU talkin' to ME?!!" Firstly, neautrality and apathy aren't the same. A person may be able to live with either outcome without feeling affected, and maybe being uncertain which is the best decision, making him/her somewhat neutral. If he/she were apathetic, then he/she wouldn't bother following or partaking in the discussion at all. So, by partaking and asking questions (I like play devil's advocate), I'm hardly apathetic. _Pathetic_, maybe, but not apathetic.  People's/society's attitudes and beliefs sometimes take some time to adjust to new ways.

On a side note, this issue has come to a head fairly quickly and with some heavy pushing. People have the right to feel what thet feel and follow their conscience, even if it may seem backward to some. People who find reward, comfort, inner strength, or whatever through organized religion, cults, Tony Robins, or whatever, needn't have to take flak and ridicule of the supposed liberal, "enlightened" crowd. We've been talking about equal rights, have we not. My mother is Dutch. Their society is among the most liberal today and labelled as progressive. The churches are mostly closed or half empty, the kids are allowed more freedoms at an earlier age, prostitution has been legal for years, drugs are openly for sale, and of course gay marriage is already legal. Her reaction to all this is mixed and open-minded (she knows and is friends with a number of gays and has no problems with the issue), but she feels that the overall "social decency" has really been eroded. Theft, vandalism, unruly behaviour, lack of respect, rudeness, dress code, apathy towards others, etc., etc. have hit rock bottom in her 80 years of personal experience. How much of this is to be blamed by any particular change of social rule is hard to know, but if "progressiove" change is seen by those who have lived through it all as being possibly negative ("Ah, the good old days"), then you can appreciate why some don't accept change without really scrutinizing it. Education, discussion and empathy for the other's viewpoint are the best way to convert the non-believers. View bashing and belittling other's beliefs or feelings gets you no where, and certainly very little credibility or respect. That, of course, goes for both sides of the discussion. Cudos to VertiGoGo (the taller one with the goatee) for practicing what he preaches and having the ability to remain cool and level-headed in his persuit for social change. (I think I still owe him a couple of beers from an earlier thread discussion  )


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman:
_"they have, in my opinion, the right to defend the status quo"_ 

The status quo is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ..... duh ... 

_"as long as it's done by democratic guidlines"_

The Charter states that no majority can deny any minority the rights and freedoms of ALL Canadians.

_"In defense of those who only object to the "hijacking" of the meaning of marriage, their objection is not to deny gay couples legal relationship equality, but rather to maintain rights to the term "marriage"._

Your careful wording (spin) _"those who only object to the "hijacking ...." _ is like clothing bigotry in a thong.










Is "hijacking" your term or are your objectors closing in on gay terrorists?









It still smells separate but equal .... like apartheid,







a non-starter.

The word marriage is in the public domain. 
Legally that means that anyone can use it for any desired purpose ..... sorry  

When in history has a sexually identifiable group sought exclusive right to the use of a word?

The arbitrary use of a dictionary definition is the weakest of all arguments.

_"The dictionary definition of marriage ........"_
According to which of many dictionaries or is there only one?
_"Webster adds to this, ...."_
Webster is the most outdated of all and is an American as opposed to English dictionary.

Word meanings derive from usage. 
Dictionaries tell us of usage and changes to usage. 
Webster 1913 is 1913 usage.
We do not live in 1913. 
Webster 1913 is useful if I want to know how a word was used in 1913.

If I refer to your mom as a ho, that is a gardening implement in 1913 usage. 

Time to move beyond 1913 .....eh?

At this time several thousand non-hetero-sexualists have been married as fully sanctified wedded couples in churches and town halls across Canada and are raising families second to none. 
That's usage! 
The meaning of the word marriage has changed forever.
Get used to it!

Today, the internet through WordNet, Wikipedia and the Hyperdictionary gives us resources that early lexicographers like Webster could only dream about.
It is commonly known as well that *Noah Webster*, who was intent on forging a distinct identity for the American language *changed the meanings and pronunciation of numerous words*.

Welcome to Canada.









Since 1913 we have become free the yoke of religious bigotry and have the following variety of widely used meanings for the word marriage to pick and choose from:

HyperDictionary: Marriage
 
[n]   the act of marrying ;the nuptial ceremony ; " their marriage was conducted in the chapel "
[n]   two people who are married to each other ; " his second marriage was happier than the first "; " amarried couple without love "
[n]   state of being husband and wife ; " along and happy marriage "; " God bless this union "
[n]   a close and intimate union ; " the marriage of music and dance "; " a marriage of ideas "


WordNet: marriage 

Synonyms/Hypernyms (Ordered by Frequency) of noun marriage
3 senses of marriage 

Sense 1
marriage, matrimony, union, wedlock -- (state of being husband and wife)
=> marital status -- (the condition of being married or unmarried) , 

Sense 2
marriage, married couple, man and wife -- (two people who are married to each other)
=> family ,family unit -- (primary social group; parents and children; "he wanted to have a good job before starting a family") , 

Sense 3
marriage, wedding -- (the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony)
=> ritual ,rite -- (any customary observance or practice) ,


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Well, I dunno... I guess I'll abandon this thread....it's going nowhere. I've tried to stir intelligent yet respectful dialogue on a very important issue to both sides. I've declared a non-biased stand but am defending the rights of the opposite point of view because they don't seem to be engaging in this thread (I wonder why?







 ) . 
Macello, either you didn't read the latter part of my last thread or you have just proven my point (or both). I have no inclination to persue discussion with word spinners and eye pokers. (I'm not a "sore loser" or chicken...I just can't be bothered) It's like trying to play clean hockey with Bobby Clark....it's futile unless you like to be abused....no thanks! I'm hard enough on myself and don't need outside help.
VertiGoGo, I wish you all the best and long happiness....you come accross as a really decent guy and I have great respect for you and the way you have handled all the same-sex discussions. Others could learn much from you. See you in another thread. Cheers! (The beer offer still stands  )


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Is neutrality defined as believing that both sides have merit and both get your vote, which is therefore neutralized. Or is neutrality being aware of the issue but not wishing to become involved? Either way is as much as a cop out as those that can't be bothered (the apathetics).

One one side we have people who are fighting against a change in the literal definition of a word. On the other, people who are fighting to be treated equally. In my opinion, the latter trumps the former every time. I'd like to hear a good argument against.

Iconoclasm is not a defense unless you think the world is perfect as is.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Being "devil's advocate" for a religious faction must have been tough indeed.
You got in there and slugged it out .... nothing wrong with that.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> (The beer offer still stands


I forgot about that offer! I will hold you to it one day!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macello,

The opposition is not only a religious faction. Over 60% of Canadians are against same-sex marriage when asked. That's why it needs discussion. Their MPs are running scared. How many of those "polled" have thought carefully about this? How many see this as a minority rights issue? It's not a vocal minority but a quiet majority. The more this is actively debated, the more informed people will be. The worst outcome is one based on ignorance, no matter what the decision.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

used to be jwoodget

The civil debate concerning gay rights has gone on since 1969. Our elected government seeks closure by giving religions the option to marry persons of their choosing. 
I think that further discussion surely will rage on within religious congregations for decades to come.

I doubt that 60% majority of Canadians will be able to challenge the Charter that forbids majorities from denying minorities the rights of all Canadians.

Please post sources to back up statistics.

Where and by whom is your 60% figure published?

Depending on the wording of questions you can find or buy poll results to suit your demands.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macello,

Statistics, damn statistics. Here's one poll that overall finds the split about 47:53 (against:for) but check out the breakdowns....

http://sympatico.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20030809/POLLMM

Of course, the dang Liberals MPs are split something like 60%:40% (amongst those who declared their intentions).

It's too close to call for something that is a rights issue. There's underlying unease and bigotry and pressure from the churches. I'm against a referendum and I don't think it should go to a vote. The law is the law.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter here is the problem. It's clear now that being gay is genetically determined just like being left handed, or blue eyed......it comes in the mix.

If you accept that then there is no argument at all, gay couples are due exactly equal status with non-gay couples under law.

The problem arises when the genetic determination is NOT accepted - which the churches for some reason seem unwilling to do. Not surprising of course given their history.

You would never support an organization that treated those who were blue eyes or left handed as "second class" or unworthy yet that is exactly what those who are opposing gay rights are doing.

The government has chosen NOT to confront the churches on this even tho many of us feel that it's treading very near the line of hate crimes - for instance if someone was banned from a publicly accessable organization on the basis of race alone the uproar would be phenomenal....and yet the government is letting the churches do a very similar thing in allowing them to discriminate against gays.

People speak of compromise.....there is a compromise, the government is not forcing the churches to be non-descriminating which they are required to be by law - but you can bet there will be some lawsuits against the church by individuals.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks macdoc. Very succinct! Nothing left to add.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

The original IPSOS-REID poll that jwoodget refers to can be found, here. Be sure to check out the other questions that respondents were asked. Also, take a look at the breakdowns between gender, age, and education levels. Of course, the poll also holds a ±3.1% margin of error at the 5% level of significance. Thus, it is possible that the true proportion lies outside of the 95% confidence interval.

James


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - I was under the impression, that for a while it was considered that "gayness" (what a horrible term) was determined by genes, was proved to not be true. I've seen sites going point and counter-point on the issue, with the general conclusion that the tests end up being inconclusive, as they can't prove it either way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Used to be thanks........I re-read it and it was not half bad for a summary of the problem. Guess the old subconscious was chewing on the issue for a bit as it's so front and centre in all the newspapers etc.
I'm proud of Canada for this.  ......so far


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Damn!! I had to stick my nose back in the door. Really quick......I'm getting responses to points and issues I never raised in my postings...typical and not surprising. I had no intention of arguing on behalf of the churches... just anyone (religious or not) who has a concern for this turn of events. For what it's worth, my church-going friends have no problem accepting homosexuality as being genetically occuring. The fact to them is that the sexual orientation is definitely different. Some have a religious objection to _practicing_ sex with the same gender, others accept it as the way it is. Those that accept it don't have a problem with a commited relationship, but think it should have a different title than heterosexual unions so that there is no confusion when you say you're married and the other party asks, " Do you have a wife or a same sex mate before I ask if you have kids?". They can have all the same rights and the same ceremony as far as they're concerned. Dave, you mentioned blue eyed and brown eyed...they're equal but still individually defined. 
That's _their_ view on this matter and I was just bringing it into the discussion so that all may understand each other. The rest is history. 
The non-acceptance of a dissenting view and the tone of some responses show more intollerance to rights and free speach than one would expect from such an enlightened group. Macello, I can think of a few "public domain" words and expressions that I as well could use "for any desired purpose" here.   I guess FU could mean "I love you" if I could get the useage up. 








Carry on and I'll try to stay out of the debate this time, although I can be weak.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

awwwww ur no fun

BTW you ask about a partner as that's gender and marital status neutral or "are you with anyone these days".
There is no issue about asking about kids other than you could hit a sensitive spot for any married or co-habiting pair that they may not want to discuss. But that's universal......not hard to get hoof in mouth disease if you bring kids up into a stressed situation that you are unaware of. 

Blue and brown, right handed, blonde hair are descriptions and are exactly what is NOT to be discriminated on according to the Charter.

A criminal record on the other hand CAN be the basis for discrimination in certain circumstances. Long hair can be a factor but only where safety is concerned. Fireman have to be able to perform a certain workload - those are all "reasonable" bases upon which to base differentiation.
But just because she's female you can't bar a girl from being a fire fighter - if she passes the test she's up for the job and the coursts have said the tests must be realistic to the job..

Private clubs etc have more leeway than public institutions but even there it's getting dicey for anything obviously socially unacceptable such as anti-Semitism.

There are some odd hangovers - like why can an engineer sign a passport








••••••
Regarding the topic at hand.
Now had anyone broached the concept of separation of male and female competitions an argument MIGHT be crafted from there  

Clarence Darrow was a hero of mine


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

Why is the fact that engineers can sign passports an "odd hangover"?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I think that Peter Scharman has described very well and tried so valiantly to sort out the confusion (what do I say at a party?) that surrounds the gay marriage issue on the side of the objectors. 
One can well understand that argument from the p.o.v. of socially isolated folk in awkward situations who would not know how to behave. The social problem has been exploited by the recent "sexy" sitcoms. 
We can learn ... eh?

It is certainly obvious that amongst those who support gay marriage unconditionally and live and work with people of all persuasions there is no confusion.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jfp - I shouldn't have just mentioned engineers but they stick in my mind. The guarantor aspect of the passports rings of a class society and it's amusing to search and see who is and who isn't allowed - like a clergy is okay but now NOT a retired clergy, but an engineer who may never have engineered ANYTHING somehow qualifies for life but a Nobel prize winning physicist MIGHT not unless he's a department head but the mayor of Podunk Ont can but the Fire Chief might not.......get the picture..









The application itself states

"The list above is not a recognition or endorsement by the Passport Office of professional status or superior qualifications"......duh then why the list????

and then goes on to opt out entirely by offering a "Declaration in lieu of guarantor"

It would be interesting to chart over time the change in the list and you can see in the wording the awkwardness the government has in dealing with who is and who isn't.

That's why I say a hangover from the "gentry" of bygone eras.

FYI a Chiropracter is listed but not a Naturopath







and what about the owner of a Canada Post franchise ...is he a Postmaster..or is that only a he not a she and just where ARE the nurses in this.........ad infinitum ad nauseum  
Hangover I think sums it up


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MasterBlaster....

Now THAT was a truly interesting example. One that deserves further study. If true (and I have no reason to believe that it is not) it is a perfect example of why we, as Canadian citizens, should _not_ be inflicting our preconcieved ideas or odeals upon others in this country when it comes to whom we choose to spend our lives with.

It is _no one's_ business but your own! Choose well...try to choose wisely...but do NOT let anyone tell you who you can be with, or who you CANNOT!

(and macdoc...I agree that the Government...or anyone else, for that matter...has no place in the bedroom. None at all). 

Oddly enough, a bunch of my right wing "*******" buddies and I have had some pretty serious discussions about this, of late. And, for once, we are all in agreement on this subject.   

We speak with one voice on this. Choose your own partner. 

And you certainly WON'T see any of US marching with signs condemning your choice...whatever it might be.

Promise.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Right on..MasterBlaster!   

NONE of us has the right...or even the semblance of a right....to make any sort of decision, or to have any sort of opinion ...one way or another...about WHO any other Canadian citizen spends their time with.

Because it's none of our _business!!_  

Simple as that.

And...by the way...WHY the HECK is anyone even asking this question?

Do they think that OUR opinion actually matters?

If so....WHY?

Do what feels comfortable to YOU.
We won't interfere. In ANY way. We won't march in any protests...we won't stand in your way when you want to rent an apartment. We will not stand inyour way when you want to buy a house...in ANY neighborhood. We will...even though we are considered "right-wing" by a certain segment of the population..treat you as the equal members of society that you truly are.

In EVERY SINGLE WAY! 

Promise.   

(BTW..this comes from the so-called "Right Wing" segment of ehmac. Despite any sort of preconcieved notion of where we stand....I would just like to say this...)

We are all equal members of this society!

And...anyone who says different is an idiot!!

We wish you all the BEST!! Honest!!   

[ August 26, 2003, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MasterBlaster,

You is 'ave Mac are belongs to who?

Ali G 

Click on "sounds" ( Linguistic Anarchy 101)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ali G is well funny!!!! 

Know if you can get any of his material in Canada (apart from the HBO show)? That is, that's compatible with NTSC?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Ali G is stoopid !


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Anyone who can extract the following dialogue with James T Baker is not stoopid.....

Ali G: Isn't there a real danger that someone give a message over the radio to one of them fighter pilots, saying, 'Bomb Ira----' and the geezer doesn't heard it properly and bombs Iran instead of Iraq? 

MR. BAKER: No danger. 

Ali G: How does you make countries do stuff you want? 

MR. BAKER: Well, the way you deal with countries on foreign policy issues . . . is you deal with carrots and sticks. 

Ali G: But what country is gonna want carrots, even if it's like a million tons of carrots that you're giving over there---- 

MR. BAKER: Well, carrots -- I'm not using the term literally. You might send foreign aid -- money, money. 

Ali G: Well, money's better than carrots. Even if a country love carrots and that is, like, their favorite national food, if they get given them---- 

MR. BAKER: Well, don't get hung up on carrots. That's just a figure of speech. 

Ali G: So would you ever send carrots? You know, is there any situation---- 

MR. BAKER: No, no. 

Ali G: What about if there was a famine? 

MR. BAKER: Carrots, themselves? No. 

Or in an interview with former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Ali G: "When should a nation nuke another one?" 

"That's a very good question," replies the retired general in all seriousness. "Only if very vital interests are involved." 

Ali G: What about nuking Canada? 

"We don't want what they have," says Mr. Scowcroft.

Sorry for getting off topic.....


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

used to be jwoodget,

You could not resist ..... the therapeutic LOL's come loud and thick. I will ask my cockney barber where he got his tapes.

Peter Scharman, it is definitely not for prudish folk! I should have warned you. ....sorry  

Some will wonder how Ali G got onto this topic with his hilarious pretense to incorrectness but we know that the hip-hop crowd is laissez-faire at worst and gender anarchic at best.

My younger colleagues, friends, neighbours, nephews and nieces are horrified that the anti-gay-marriage protesters are not ashamed of themselves ....... and even show up in public.

This topic started with Vertigogo's dismay at the _attention given_ to the religious rancour surrounding a specific event on August 22, 2003.

Thank God Ottawa ain't Alabama!

"OTTAWA (CP) - Religious leaders used Parliament Hill as a pulpit of sorts Friday to preach against the Liberal government's proposal to legalize same-sex marriages in Canada." CJAD Montréal


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

A few months ago, when this issue first surfaced in the mainstream press, my wife and I were genuinely surprised--we honestly thought that this matter had been dealt with long ago via the Charter. Gay or straight, a civil marriage is a personal matter to be decided by consenting adults. It comes down a matter of fairness. All citizens have the right to access the same public services deserve to be given standing without consideration of orientation. 

Granted, religious institutions are entitled to their opinions on the matter, but they must remain mindful that Canadian civil law is not an extension of religious doctrine.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

> ...they must remain mindful that Canadian civil law is not an extension of religious doctrine.


Amen.... I mean... true.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Peter Scharman, it is definitely not for prudish folk!*


Remember the new term for "I love you" that I noted earlier. Well, it applies here again. I'm not a prude, as any of my close friends will tell you and I have a keen sense of humour, albeit sometimes corny. I really wish you could post without always throwing jabs. Do you have an inferiority or a supiority complex? (my turn) I don't know much about Ali B, but what I saw seemed "stoopid", not funny to me. Maybe I need to read more of his brand of humour to appreciate it, whatever it is. Curious,...do you consider Tom Green to be funny?

[ August 26, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Sorry jfpoole .... some things come as a shock to us when we expect "comfort".

I know that hiphop is pretty crazy







but who can blame that crowd for fair comment on the post-ironic  world in which we live.

I'm trying to encourage a bit of cultural resilience (a good quality n'est ce pas?) on this topic.

You have actually inspired me as I am moving the Ali G matter to a new topic ..... where we can discuss cultural tolerance.

Yo dog! See ya there.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Hip-hop, shmip-hop...Ali G is a lame @ss. 

As is most of the hip hop scene...and those ridiculous cars they drive! Lose the spoilers and under-carriage lighting. I mean...who actually thinks a Honda Civic is a "sports car" anyways? It's just a poor man's Prelude. 

As for marriage, PGant said it best. Amen to that.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Oh...and I want all to note that I am closing in on the elusive 1000 posts point. Stay tuned.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macello wrote:
_Sorry jfpoole .... some things come as a shock to us when we expect "comfort"._

What post of mine are you referring to?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman wrote:

"People who find reward, comfort, inner strength, or whatever through organized religion, cults, Tony Robins, or whatever, needn't have to take flak and ridicule of the supposed liberal, "enlightened" crowd".

[ August 27, 2003, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macello,

I didn't write that, <a href=http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001100;p=4#000047">Peter Scharman did</a>.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

(Off-topic) Hey congrats on closing-in on post #1000, VertiGoGo! Judging from the posts required to make the ehMac Hall of Fame...you'll still have another 1400 or so before you catch the current fifth-place winner, Macdoc! LOL 

What you need is a thread that rivals Dr. G's legendary Shangri-la Clubhouse...now THAT would generate the posts like nothing else!


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Dunno, but I bet she could have a same-sex partner. 

Straight boys start your engines!!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vertigogo, Ali G parodies the hip-hop scene. The guy is a Cambridge graduate (as if that mattered - except that the Monty Python crew were from Oxford). 

His brand of humour is years ahead of shockmeister Tom Green (my kids like em both...).


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

jfpoole,

I stand corrected ... I have edited it with apologies to you for misdirecting it.

Vertigogo,

Fair comment .... your critique may fall on deaf ears though as their aesthetic code is probably quite unaccommodating. Neither car you mention would qualify as a sports car. 
Some think that this is one:
LA shopping cart 
Ya jus' gotta let go and let live.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Was that a young Maria Schriber standing in front of that yellow Hummer?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Vertigogo et al,

You might enjoy this Freeware Desktop Movie Player for Mac OS X 10.2.
It runs movies on the whole screen (pixel-schmixel) behind the icons.
I enjoy running short loops as a screen saver. 
Visitors say "Mac ....eh?"

http://www.monkeybreadsoftware.de/Freeware/DesktopMoviePlayer.html


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I could never get to see the movie ether my old slow mac couldn't handle it or the telephone company's (Aliant) high speed service doesn't like your "stream" as I keep getting disconnected









The issue of marriage is a minority rights issue for all Canadians as well as the Gay and Lesbian community and for members of churches.

Even the apparent monolith of the Roman Catholic church is after all nothing but a group of individual members, at any given location, wishing to gather together and practice their religion. 

To me religion is a relationship between the individual and her/his higher being. Churches are for people a club or clubhouse if you will.

I view the issue of same sex marriage” with more than a passing interest. I think it is a fundamental right of human being to enter into this social contract.

To have the same value it must always go by the same name. The Nova Scotia initiative to call it something else in order to sidestep the reactionary back lash is in MHO not good enough.

Churches must retain the right to allow or not allow same sex marriages. After all it is their club they must retain the right to their beliefs.

As for the "good" christians in Ottawa. It seems to me the hardest chest thumper declaring their Christianity always quote from the old testament, and are “quick to cast the first stone.”  

As I understand it Christ challenge only folks without sin to stand in judgment. I thought we find salvation if we follow Christ's teachings . I thought, to be a Christian, meant you looked in the New Testament not in the Old Testament.

But what do I know, I have my relationship with God directly and I don't go to the clubhouse.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

BigDL,

Stop making sense!  ...... in human history the concept of cruelty is fairly recent. Traditionally cruelty is how the pious deal with the sinners.

"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."
Stephen Dedalus in _Ulysses_ by James Joyce


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi BigDL

This is a debate I'd rather stay out of for the flaming and hateful comments I'll get but I have to challenge your assumption that it is unChristian to oppose gay marriage.

I agree, for many (not all) people their church is nothing more than a clubhouse. It has little or no effect on their life or the decisions they make, nor has it built their faith. Its like going to Walmart, its a nice place to go if you need something but it doesn't change your life. They pick and choose what they like and discard what they don't. Christianity a-la carte. Some of Jesus' own followers left him because they couldn't accept his teachings.

I also personally agree that we find salvation by follow Christ's teachings. Christ himself reaffirmed the teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. Matt19:4-6 Thats New Testament. There are many other passages in the New Testament that also confirm that teaching. As far as stone throwing goes, the bible doesn't forbid you from telling someone they are making a mistake. The apostles were constantly correcting their followers when they strayed from the will of God. Read Corinthians. Being a Christian doesn't require you to be silent when you see something wrong.
If you have some bible references that you would like to share that support homosexuality or gay marriage feel free to post them. I've not seen any. 
I agree that when (not if) this passes Churches must retain the right to allow or disallow same sex marriage based on their freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter however I don't think that will last. People have already vowed to take the churches to court to force this on them.

Cheers BigDL

MacGuiver


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm sorry, but the "marriage" Christ "reaffirmed" is NOT what we call marriage today - what we call marriage is a relatively recent concept, it certainly does not date from biblical times. 
Remember, too, that the bible in English is a TRANSLATION, and many terms therein are approximations at best, or "interpretations" based upon cultural and/or political biases.

As for living a Christian lifestyle, I would strongly argue that NO-ONE today lives a "Christian" lifestyle in the purely biblical sense - EVERY church, EVERY society and EVERY individual, picks and chooses what to practice and what to ignore - as has been asked before, when was the last adulterer publicly stoned, when were you last able to legally buy/sell a slave ... ?

Sorry for raising my voice, but I'm peeved ... 

Mike McHugh


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

A Christian only has to read Romans to learn that unrighteousness and uncleanness are two different things. The New Testament makes it clear that unrighteousness is inherently wrong, while uncleanness is not. And Paul clearly identifies homosexuality as uncleanness (Romans 1:26-27). We cannot honestly conclude from scripture, then, that homosexuality is wrong. This is only a small part of the Biblical evidence and all the evidence leads to the same conclusion. 

With this information available, why do well-meaning Christians still argue that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? I suggest that there are at least four reasons. First, the Bible has been mistranslated, and second, we read what we've been taught into scripture. Third, many Christians don't understand important Biblical concepts, such as uncleanness. And finally, people cling to their opinions so zealously that they even end up reinterpreting God's Word to avoid changing their own minds. 

"So-called" Christians should be clear as to why they believe what they do, and stop imposing their own views on scripture. It's time to be honest about what the Bible says.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Mike.

My intention was not to peeve anyone off, just to challenge a biblical argument with a biblical argument. I am truly sorry if I've offended you in any way.

Now I have to challenge your biblical argument.

The marriage Christ reaffirmed is what millions of Judeo-Christians, Muslums and even athiests call marriage today. The Judeo-Christian definition of marriage has always been between two people of the opposite sex. Even Communist countries like the Soviet Union defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. no?

Yes it is true that some passages have been mistranslated or misinterpreted. If this has been mistranslated please explain the translation error, or are you throwing out this argument because you personally don't accept what Christ said?

As for stoning people for adultery, that is forbidden. Jesus himself said let ye without sin cast the first stone when a woman was caught in adultery. 
As for slavery, St. Paul directed a Christian man to treat his slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. Slavery hasn't been truly abolished anyhow, got your tax bill or paid your mortgage lately? Our masters are wearing pinstripes 

Hi Vertigogo
I read the Romans passage you referred to and I'm puzzled how you interpret this as anything but a condemnation of homosexuality? 
"Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their persons the penalty for their perversity. They did not see fit to acknowledge God, so God delivered them up to their own depraved sense to do what is unseemly."
I agree that we read what we want into scripture. If you can explain how the passage you quoted is an endorsement for homosexuality please explain. I agree people could be clinging to their opinions (accepting same-sex marriage?) so zealously that they even end up reinterpreting God's Word to avoid changing their minds.
And VertiGoGo, please don't assume I'm a hateful bastard because I don't support gay marriage. That could not be farther from the truth. You seem like a pretty nice guy and you've been the most civil person in these threads despite how close you are to the issue. I may not agree with your theology but I respect your opinion just the same.
Have a great day,









MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Happily, in the context of human rights, biblical argument is a load of crap!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Happily, in the context of morality, the Biblical arguement is paramount for followers of Christ.


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

MacGuiver,

It wasn't you personally who ticked me off, quite honestly I'm just tired of having to deal with this stuff (I know that no-one coerced me into replying to this thread, but I hope you see what I mean)...

For the record I was raised Catholic, but I do not believe in any kind of "higher power". The ONLY issue I have with people who do is that they should not judge me because of that, or try to force me to adopt their belief system (I guess that's 2 issues, but who's counting .

It's been too long since I read the bible to trade quotes, MacGuiver, but I re-iterate that you can find support or condemnation for just about anything you wish therein. As I wrote in another thread on the same-gender marriage issue, people read the bible selectively, ignoring the things they don't like, and from my perspective such a person completley lacks credibility when they try to impose upon me those few things they do accept ...

This is - supposedly - a secular society, MacGuiver. That being the case interpretation of religious dogma cannot form the basis of civil law. This whole debate is about the CIVIL ceremony of marriage. The basis for the religious ceremony of marriage is not under threat, though, conveniently, such a "threat" is being used to inflame the issue. 

Similarly, the red herring of floodgates rushing open resulting in the further "debasement" of marriage is just that.

My partner and I just celebrated our 10th anniversary. As far as I am concerned, my emotional relationship with him is EXACTLY the same as that between the heterosexual couples I know. It is NOT the same as my relationship with my siblings, nor is the same as that with a close friend, or a room-mate, or our pets. Thus, a "separate-but-equal" categorization of our relationship is just not going to cut it, in my book. 

Glad this debate is remaining civilized (it could be worse, we could be debating the vlaue of a used G4 desktop ;-0 )

Mike

PS the supreme irony of my participation in this discussion is that neither my partner nor I are remotely interested in getting married ...


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MacGuiver,

You have seen the Light and the Light is Heterosexual?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yes, its great to have a civil discussion on the matter. Makes for great reading, to hear all sides of the argument without getting all  . 

Will try to post more of my thoughts soon.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*MacGuiver,
You have seen the Light and the Light is Heterosexual?* 

Not the greatest example of civil discussion.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I know that Mars is getting close...But what planet are you guys really on?
The bible was great for an owners manual in biblical times...But...This is the 21st century...Left handers are allowed now!!! (I was forced to be right handed)
Get over it...Humans can rewrite history...There isn't a right way or a wrong way to live life in peace and harmony, If you want to rock the boat...Then get out and drown. (I might have been a little loud here...Was I?)

dolawren


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

dolawren, the Bible for many is just a relevant today as many years ago. Your comments show a great deal of insensitivity and do nothing to help foster open discussion.  Your entitled to your viewpoint and opinion and to express them here, but comments like "what planet are you on" is just flamebait.

By the way, was does being left handed have to do with the bible?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Sorry...Maybe I should have put some more smilely's in after the Mars comment...Errr...Left handed...Yes...I was forced to be right handed as a child because it was regarded as sinistra...sinister...I almost failed grade one, Thank God (Or the Heathens) that my British left handed father yelled at them into submission and forced them to pass me on into grade Two.

As for the Bible...I'm sorry that some people still use it as an owners manual.

P.S.
There is no baiting involved here...I believe that the bible had it's time and the time that it had isn't now.
P.S.S
My favourite description of God was...
God created Mankind so that he could play hide and seek with himself.

D.

[ August 29, 2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: dolawren ]


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Eeek the comments about the Bible and God open a can of worms. Beware!  

Personally, I agree that any text should be only read as a guideline and not as dogma.

But you have to realize that your perspective is defined by where you live and how you were raised. Indeed, there are a lot of Christians and Muslims around the world who disagree with your viewpoint.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

ehMax,

"You have seen the Light and the Light is Heterosexual?" 

Not entirely an original comment.
It was taken from the Toronto Star's LOL editorial cartoon of August 28 depicting Ernie Eves at prayer ... (Patrick Corrigan)
"Lo, I have seen the Light and the Light is Straight"
To be fair to me, I hope you will also register your protest with the editors on the public's behalf.

McGuiver's caricature of christianity would justify a new sexual Inquisition.









Those that choose a literal reading of biblical scripture and proselytize such obscene and revolting drivel such as that gleefully posted by McGuiver above should gloat over it privately. 
That kind of language in the bible has lead to countless acts of religiously justifiable barbarity and homicide against sexual minorities for centuries! 

Matt19:4-6 looks to be like the basic breeding manual to deepen the gene pool for humans to me.









I find my liberal views saintly by comparison.









As it happens, just today the Preeming Minister of ON has announced that his prayer was answered and that the Light indeed shines on ALL!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

CC "But you have to realize that your perspective is defined by where you live and how you were raised. "

??? with the amount of information readily available how can you justify this statement. Choosing to examine "taught" beliefs is a rite of passage all humans generally go through as they mature and a robust philosphy or religion should encourage that examination not supress it.

Oragnized religions are NOT standing up to scrutiny and are becoming increasingly irrelevant as the statistics clearly indicate over the past few years.

And if you got past the "lip service" crowd those figures would be even more indicative of an increasingly secular society.

We got past phlogiston and alchemy..... still have a ways to go in ............ other areas.  
Civil enough for you yur honur.  

Some may not LIKE what the link stats show but the WHY should be thought about.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

[ August 29, 2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *I believe that the bible had it's time and the time that it had isn't now.*


Yeah,... and self control, a working conscience, honour of your fellow man, clean living, respect and all that other stuff preached in the Bible has had its time too as can be seen by looking around. Today's common mottos are "If it feels good, do it" and "That's not my problem". How many would pick up dropped mopney and give it back to the owner, hold a door open for a lady or elderly person, give up their seat on the bus for someone else, pick up trash from a public area, give a homeless person some spare change, and on and on??? Who needs an "owner's manual" anyway? Modern society has it all figured out, the majority have found a purpose to life, the family unit is stronger than ever, no one has to lock their doors ( just like back in the old days) and the kids can play freeely in public places without fear and no one will cheat you knowingly.
I have no idea where I'm going with this, but it was a knee-jerk reaction to such an empty statement. And no, I'm not a religious prude or fanatic,,,just one who thinks the world is in its worst mess and some "owner's manual" guidance wouldn't be a bad thing.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> * QUOTE: CC "But you have to realize that your perspective is defined by where you live and how you were raised. "
> ??? with the amount of information readily available how can you justify this statement.*


Ask Ernie Eaves...a full grown man who was voted to Premier, How did he ever make it??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm Peter

"According to the Skeptic magazine vol.6 #2 1998, in multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By Franzblau's 1934 study,* there's a negative correlation between religiousity and honesty. * Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.
"
Japanese society has very strong strictures against theft etc and that society has had just about zero influence from western tracts. I'd toss my wallet in Tokyo and get it back before I hit the hotel. That type of honesty is a social viture in Japan,not a religious one.

Crime is DOWN, not up. Same old misconceptions and yearning for a good old day that simply never ever existed.









•••
as to Ernie Eves, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about  Someone "enlighten" me please


----------



## jmac (Feb 16, 2003)

I believe that our current Premier, Mr. Eves, actually, has not yet had he pleasure of being voted into office as the leader of the government, however I do believe that time will rectify this insignificant detail.

How do you rate the government's performance? Will they be hailed yet again, for a third straight (unintended pun here) majority?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Interesting segue . 
My feeling is Ontario is really looking for a change but the Libs are not a great alternative - McGuinty is not appealing, I think he ranks below Eves as a leader in the polls but the Libs are higher as a party.
Maybe a minority government in the wind. 
Ontario can punish and shift very very quickly as Peterson and Rae discovered - 
Bob woke up to an NDP MAJORITY - I'm sure he was the most shocked guy on the planet - closely followed by ex Premier Peterson who called the unecessary election.
Nasty bunch here when they get riled and I'm thinking it's not a happy electorate right now and not likely to be bought off by Eves pork barrelling.  










With a nod to Macello perhaps this is even better


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Civil enough for you yur honur.* 

Yes, as always Macdoc.  

I believe I'm a down to earth, open minded guy and after many, many years of having a open mind and asking myself lots of questions and struggling with different ideas I still believe the Bible is 'valid' and is God's word. I haven't experienced, read or heard anything that would convince me not to believe otherwise. There are lots of embarrassing examples of 'religious' people's actions and words, but I don't think its indicative of the belief. 

I'm not a posterboy for Christianity by no means... but I try and I think my heart is in the right place. 

Just a couple of points... MacGuiver, the verse from Romans, talks about men and women who abused and defiled each other. Another translations talks about "all lust, no love." I don't think couples who want to commit to each other really fit that description. And he's talking about a group of people that also murdered etc... 

Its ironic the next verse says: "Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. Judgmental criticism of others is a well-known way of escaping detection in your own crimes."  

Interesting verse regarding Macdoc's comments on crime rates as well: "When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth. They show that God's law is not something alien, but woven into the very fabric of our creation." (Just don't display it in front of a court house.  )

Anyways... I should start another thread for bible thumpers.







Just another plea for everyone on every side of the fence on ehMac to at least respect others having different opinions and beliefs. 

Anytime my opinions, ideas and beliefs have been changed, its ALWAYS been changed by someone considerate, thoughtful and logical. My opinion has never EVER been changed by someone rude, insulting and generally obnoxious. Some food for thought.  

Now off to watch Lord of the Rings, II Towers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth. They show that God's law is not something alien, but woven into the very fabric of our creation."

That's about the most arrogant co-opting of ALL other moralities I've ever come across.  Wow talk about taking credit where credit is NOT due. Yow!!









C'mon ehMax - the finger's not writing in the sky. Humans have to learn to get along by themselves.
The sooner we get on with that without the baggage the better.
Just remember "Adam Smith was wrong"


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macdoc, I expected a retort from you. An impressive list of sources named. As always, there is a study or poll to support any point of view. Polls and studies hold limited relevance with me. It really depends where the sampling came from and I guess where you live on this planet. A 53 year old study of atheists vs. deeply religious means little to me if what I experience is different. An atheist can have a very solid ethical code and be an example to many a proclaimed religious person, no argument there. Many "deeply religious" people are hypocrites and revolting. In between lies the real test subjects. In 1969 there wasn't that much evident child crime around here to even be concerned about. Kids will be kids, whether they tag along to church with the parents or not...some will learn, some will not. The influence of the conscience will make the difference. A "users' manual" code of conduct doesn't have to be a religious one. It can be entrenched in society as in Japan and I'm sure that will slowly be eroded in time. All I know is that all the undesirable people I've met along the way had no relationship with a faith or a God that I could tell, that relatively few people I know give very much to charitable causes unless badgered by a telemarketer, that many of the world charitable organizations are religious based, and that there's a lot more theft and home entering and the streets are a lot less safe than when I grew up. We never locked our doors, or had simple locks. Half my block neighbors have been broken into and had belongings stolen in the past ten years. 
You know, many people talk about and analyze the state of the world, relatively few actually do something to make it better, even with very simple efforts. I'd like to know the profiles of these people.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's hardly a single study Peter - it's an entire group of studiesover time all indicating the same trends. And don't pull out the it's all relative to your point of view .
These are large studies conducted over time of the efficacy or not of religion in fostering ethical behaviour and the conclusions are either neutral or negative with regard to religious belief and moral behaviours.

LOOK at the results and ask yourself why those indicators are present and THEN ask yourself if religious belief is a positive factor for humans on this planet and ANY kind of reliable predictor of moral behaviour.

It's not.

Why is there an intelligence/education versus religious belief curve that is increasingly inverted over time.?
Relevance and respect..........and organised religion in many areas, is losing both battles in the public perception. This issue with gay marriage hasn't helped their cause.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow...this is really good stuff, people. Please continue!  

I should note here, that I do believe in a higher power. And I honestly think that the overall religious beliefs of any nation can have a great influence on how that nation conducts itself. Both inwardly, towards it's own citizens, and outwardly to others.

And I agree with Peter Scharman that things don't seem to be quite as "nice" around here as they used to be. Kids always used to beat each other up at school, but I sure don't recall anyone stabbing or shooting anyone else when I was a youngster. That sort of thing seems to be a rather recent development. As are metal detectors in the elementary grades.  

I sure don't recall the phenomenon of "teenage swarming" when I was a young lad, either. But it sure seems to be happening a lot these days.  

When I was a teenager we drove fast cars and raised all sorts of hell...but I don't recall anyone being killed other than a very few car accidents (usually after a lot of drinking). Mostly we got a lot of tickets for speeding and our parents (the World war Two generation) would just shake their heads at our choice in music and clothes.

(They weren't too crazy about the long hair either.)

And most of us...heck, nearly ALL of us..had attended church every sunday from birth until we were adults.

Is there some sort of correlation between our semi-religious upbringing and a set of personal morals and limits which we set for ourselves? One that seems to be sadly lacking today, when most kids do NOT attend any sort of church on any regular basis while growing up?

Don't know.

(BTW...the church I went to as a kid was torn down. Apartments now occupy that spot. Two more churches on the same street are also gone these days)

Do Christian-inspired morals, taught from an early age, contribute to a better society of adults?

Again...I just don't know. 

But I would like to point out that, in my many years in South and Central America, I observed many societies that are even MORE religious than ours in Canada (was).

Catholic Christianity is a pretty big part of every society in our southern hemisphere. BIG time.

But...oddly...some of the most religious (Catholic/Christian) countries that I have lived in also seemed to be some of the most crime-ridden. Mexico is pretty devoutly catholic...and crime is at epidemic levels there. Has been since I first arrived way back in 1978. It's even worse today.

Venezuela is also very religious...and crime of all sorts is pretty much everywhere you look. Bad crime. Nasty, nasty stuff.   

Even in Cuba...which is studiously egalitarian (means no one has much of anything worth stealing)...where religion has seen a big upsurge recently (it's no longer illegal to worship publicly) and where the government keeps a tight reign on all of it's subjects...er..citizens. Even in Cuba there are bars on most windows in all but the smallest towns. I was told that "it prevents unwanted intruders" when I asked about them.

This, in a country where most people who are charged with a crime go directly to jail. Not much of a real court system at all. But they are rather Christian, by nature.

Odd, eh?

I have no real answers here. And, as much as I would like to draw some sort of a correlation between how Christian a country is, and how well the citizens of said country actually treat each other...I just can't.

Too bad. Cause I'd sure like to.   

Anyone got any other thoughts on this? Anything to add?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*That's about the most arrogant co-opting of ALL other moralities I've ever come across. Wow talk about taking credit where credit is NOT due. Yow!! * 

T'was just a snippet Macdoc, somewhat out of context but a little relevant. You would probably argue that laws and rules are a result of our evolutionary history. I believe that in the absence of any outside influence, we still have a conscience that is part of our fabric as a result of being created by God. I don't think that's arrogant or anything. 

But I'm sure you have a poll or a study to answer that.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Here's one more arrogant verse regarding God's law:

"When you love others, you complete what the law has been after all along. The law code - don't sleep with another's spouse, don't take someone's life, don't take what isn't yours, don't always be wanting what you don't have, and any other "don't" you can think of - finally adds up to this: Love other people as well as you do yourself. You can't go wrong when you love others. When you add up everything in the law code, the sum total is love."









Please understand, I'm not trying to impose my belief on others. My behavior and belief are not always coherent with each other. Just more or less standing up for what I do belief.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well...it's not a bad philosophy ehmax, when all is said and done.  

It's pretty much what I have used to govern my life so far. And it's working pretty well...overall.   

"Don't screw anyone out of anything if they are radically uninformed about its true value" (profit is one thing...ripoffs are another thing altogether)..."don't try to take away another guy's wife or girlfriend"..."don't steal from others"..."don't kill anyone" (unless they are trying to kill you) etc. etc. etc.

Like I said...it's not a bad philosophy. And anyone who follows this particular set of ideals will...at the very least...be able to look themselves in the eye when shaving.  

A clear concsience helps when you want to sleep, as well.   

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"laws and rules" " law code" ????
Oh you mean the Shariya, foolish me, or was it Hammurabi's who at least wrote his down - specially the bit about how to treat slaves, or maybe that was the Samurai code of behaviour, maybe the honour among thieves, or maybe Buddha's Law of Dependent origin.
Or maybe this experiment in human relations

"During the seventeenth century the combined New England colonies formed practically, if we except Rhode Island, one great Puritan commonwealth. They were under separate governments; but their aims and hopes, their laws, for the most part, and their past history were the same. 

The people as a whole were liberty-loving in the extreme, but the individual was restrained at every step by laws that no free people of today would tolerate for an hour. Paternalism in government was the rule in the other colonies and in Europe, but nowhere was it carried to such an extreme as in New England. 

Here the civil law laid its hand upon the citizen in his business and social relations; it regulated his religious affairs, it dictated his dress, and even invaded the home circle and directed his family relations. One law forbade the wearing of lace, another of "slashed cloaths other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back." The length and width of a lady's sleeve was solemnly decided by law. It was a penal offense for a man to wear long hair, or to smoke in the street, or for a youth to court a maid without the consent of her parents. A man was not permitted to kiss his wife in public. Captain Kimble, returning from a three-years' ocean voyage, kissed his wife on his own doorstep and spent two hours in the stocks for his "lewed and unseemly behavior." 
http://www.USAHistory.info/NewEngland/Puritans.html 

" absence of outside influence"







 good trick

Creation myths and stories abound through out human development and provide and interesting and useful insight into human development of societies and relationships both within their own culture and in conflict with other cultures.
The DON"T provide the basis for dealing with a inter-related planet of 6 billion and growing that is rapidly doing an Easter Island on itself.








Easter Island 










all that's left, no people, no forest, no biodiversity  

Ethno-centric platitudes are NOT going to create a peaceful and sustainable world population.
Informed, relevant decisions....might.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

""Don't screw anyone out of anything if they are radically uninformed about its true value" (profit is one thing...ripoffs are another thing altogether)..."don't try to take away another guy's wife or girlfriend"..."don't steal from others"..."don't kill anyone" (unless they are trying to kill you) etc. etc. etc."
That's ethics (personal ) not religion or morality ( societies or populations have mores) Macnutt and it's interesting that you paraphrase one of the critical distinctions between Judiasm and Christianity.....the subtle and very important difference between the memes of

Don't do unto others........
and
Do unto others.....

The latter imposes and therein lies an incredible difference.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MasterBlaster perhaps painting with too broad a brush but it's interesting that your specific and personally experienced anecdotes reflect the conclusions of the larger studies.

•••

Seems the Shrub's policies had a similar result in Texas and he's exported them to the national stage.

web page 

quick summary
"Texas’ faith-based program created so many problems that, in 2001, the Texas legislature chose not to renew the state’s accreditation program for church-run childcare providers. "
oops 

[ August 30, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Statement:
People with a healthy self image and self confidence do not become Gay, only mentally and emotionally ill people and those that are raised in disfunctional families. I trust heterosexuals much more thank you very much.
Diagnosis: Homophobia
(Pretty offensive and unfounded)

Statement:
People with a healthy self image and self confidence do not become Christains, only mentally and emotionally ill people and those that are raised in religious families. I trust aetheists much more thank you very much.
Diagnosis: Religiphobia
(Pretty offensive and unfounded)

If the first one sounds awful to you the second should be just as bad. The top line is not my statement, I am merely substituting MasterBlasters own words to make a point of how phobic it is. 

I would love to know how he knows that everyone that steals from him is a Christian? Do they have to wear a cross on there arms to shop at his fleamarket?

Have good day.
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Sorry, macdoc, I have read so many poll and study results over the years that can give credence to just about any desired outcome that I really take them with a grain of salt. Counless studies are heavily contradicted by other later studies by different statistics assemblers.
As for religion not having any relevance to overall behaviour, I'm not so sure about that. Our society was heavily based on Christian principles, either by social influence or by law. Many non-religious people have been influenced when young or as an adult by religious ideals. Some of that is bound to have some influence, good or bad.
Broad brushing ALL religious (or even parishes for that matter) as the same is also not fair...there are so many variations of practice and tolerance that they can hardly be thrown into the same kettle. Your world is very different from mine and neither would likely trade with the other. Your constant dissing of people like myself or ehMax who admit to some faith tendencies is not appreciated. I'm honest, charitable, reliable, have integrity, and yes, I spend an hour each Sunday contemplating my existence and my "world" within the walls of a denominational church. That's the way I like it and I think it makes me a better person, therefore it's good for society. It works for a great many others as well. You got a problem with that?? Or should we all stop wasting our time because a study determined that we would be the same if we stayed home, slept an hour longer and didn't ponder our values or give thanks for what we have?
Anyway, this is it til Tuesday. I'm going to spend some time camping in the solitute of the Pinery and be one with nature (wherever it originated from). You guys can squabble by yourselves til then


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was also a bit disturbed by masterblaster's rather extreme post. I'm not quite sure exactly what to make of it.....  

It does seem rather phobic.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

To clarify my POV, I speak of religion as an impersonal institution which like politics, warfare or corporate culture seeks power over civilian life as such.
One's personal spiritual relationship with their Creatrix ... whatever, I don't question.

I haven't has so much fun with religion since Stockwell's Day (RIP) in the Light.

How I miss the "Reform in pantyhose on a sea-doo" that died such a humiliating death on the long march through Tory Ontario.

The last time Mars came this close to ...... wait! .... check your bible! ... Light was not yet "and let there" been!









And Lo! The pious Day was rent asunder by his own heathen bean counters.

I do not believe that anyone on this planet is closer to their Creator than anyone else. That includes all the pimps for religious dogma who ply their bogus trade amongst us. 

We've had enough of that 

Anyhoo, the dark admonitions of the pious are entertaining to say the least.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MBs comments were painted in far too broad a brush and the language smacks of bigotry but it does agree anecdotally with other much larger studies and IS from his own experience.

What I find distasteful is attempting to compare sexual orientation which is genetically determined with spiritual choices which for an adult are determined out of training, education and examination.
It's a CHOICE, sexual orientation is NOT.

Paralleling the two is just plain wrongheaded.  

The term is sophistry, I believe.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

In defense of MasterBlaster who qualified his passionate declaration:

What has religion done for "the future of this planet and the environment" lately?!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi MacDoc

You keep telling us homosexuality is genetic. Chealion challenged that statement earlier too but you didn't address it. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been irrefutably proven by science. If you have some other info that does please share it. 
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/gaygene990422.html 

I find the studies done on twins very interesting. If homosexuality were a genetic trait like blue eyes or green as you say, then identical twins should have the same sexual orientation. Fact is only 52% of identical twin brothers of gay men were also gay. So if identical twins are genetically identical they should both be gay, no? Scientists seem to think Environment — family, friends, society — could be an important influence. I tend to agree. Watched the MTV music awards lately?
Some say, why would someone choose to be gay with the social stigmatism attached to it? Who would choose that? It must be genetic. We'll, who would choose to dye there hair green and tattoo there entire body with the ridicule they'd have to endure? Strange thing is people make choices everyday that they know they'll be persecuted for. The fact that I'm posting on this forum is proof of that. (I must be a mosaicist)  

Many gay people don't even accept this notion. This lesbian writer find the theory insulting and makes some great points.
http://staffweb.lib.uiowa.edu/ktonella/oob/features/Biology.htm 

Genetic evidence is the 500lb hammer that would convince most everyone that homosexuality is not a choice. Most people think this has already been proven but thats not the truth. The jury is still out on that one so its probably premature to swinging that hammer.

Can a person choose to be gay? At this time, I believe so.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello,

I have to agree MasterBlaster's statement was passionate but religiphobic just the same.

What has religion done for the future of this planet and the environment?
Well some religions have certainly made a valiant effort to assure the survival of it's inhabitants. 
-Christian Children's Fund
-World Vision
-Development and Peace
-Salvation Army
-Shepherds of Good Hope
-Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity
etc. etc.

There are plenty of other groups more concerned about the spotted owls and the trees.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MacGuiver: 
"There are plenty of other groups more concerned about the spotted owls and the trees."
Snide and condescending ..... your true colours? .... god gave men dominion over women and nature? .... we've been there, seen it, and regretted it. The biblical ruse for unspeakable cruelty.
There are plenty of other groups more concerned about the survival of the planet itself and human dignity without condition. 
Religion has little to show in either department as suggested in the recent World Council of Churches press release Central Committee of 26 August 2003: 
_"In a society torn apart by brokenness and hopelessness, people are looking for hope and meaning in religion." However, *"In some countries, religion is exploited for political ends, and in others it is used to advocate false ideologies and perpetuate unjust structures."* He (His
Holiness Aram I) also spoke of the new challenges of globalisation, which is "drawing people together irrespective of religion, race or culture," and said, "In the 'global village', we must all live together."_
http://www.wfn.org/2003/08/msg00325.html

Such an approach might cool MasterBlaster's jets.  

For my part your peculiar brand of literal religious dogma which you express with such benign and patronizing arrogance towards others smacks of all that drives people away from that which you hold so precious.
Your whole approach reminds me much of the dark robed church elders who beat (etc.) their wives, children and animals in the time of my youth while holding a bible open at chapter and verse.

oh! ......cheers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Catholic diatribe in all it's glory  
Homosexuality rages against god's will 

Unbeleivable, what a pompous ill-informed ass ( with apologies to genus equus asinus which surely has better sense)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macello I think you meant to say "avuncular" not benign - it's far from benign.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MacDoc,
Uncular avuncular ... somewhere between Noblesse Oblige and Droit du Seigneur.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The latter I think


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MB like most large enduring organization the CC has it's moments of glory and moments of blackness.
The monasteries were generally the only "islands of knowledge" preserving ealrier learning that was destroyed or forgotten once Rome fell and the "Dark Ages" began.

You get humans like St. Abelard - a credit to France and the world and then his treatment by his fellow churchmen.

Faiths and beleifs that "invite" and "show by example" have an important role to play whether religious or secular.
Abuse of power and position is common in all types of organizations - secular or not.

It's partly the santimonious nature of many religions and the predatory, exclusionary or proselytizing nature that I find distasteful and destructive.
Invititation is one thing, proscription is another.

Many many humans desire and enjoy "guidelines" by which to conduct their lives and enjoy the participation a "congregation" brings.
In some respect ehMac fulfills that role in a virtual manner.
Hey, I "hang on to the past" - I'm sure every Mac OSX user considers me a dinosaur for using OS9  
There is a a strong inherent tendency to resist change and "tradition" plays a huge role in most religions.

Religious memes are very powerful and can can be comforting or damaging. Like all "ideas", handled with sensitivity and compassion they can be wonderful..used to brutalize - they can destroy whole peoples.

Orgainzied religionis facing a rapid disillusionment by it's body politic. Rants like that above will hasten the process.
We don't do human sacrifice anymore either


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Well some religions have certainly made a valiant effort to assure the survival of it's inhabitants.


I agree with that. Here are some examples of striving to ensure survival.

• The Christian Children's Fund: These scam artists, along with Childreach and Children International, were exposed by the Chicago Tribune in a long, detailed series of stories. Among other frauds (where is Sally Struthers now?) are letters from children dead for years to their "adoptive families," using children from middle- and upper-class families as models for their "feed-the-starving children" propaganda and outright theft. You can read the Chicago Tribune exposé. Its website says the search is free but you'll have to pay to retrieve it from its archives. There is, however, plenty of references to it on the web. Search for "christian children's fund" fraud

• Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity. The hag who replaced that old fraud (a big fan of Haiti dictator Papa Doc Duvalier, his son Baskethead and their money) was prosecuted for torturing children — burning them with hot knives. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/140/55.0.html

• Salvation Army. Militaristic, puritanical mid-19th-century mean-spirited, bigoted blockheads, more free with their condemnation of anyone not adhering to their cardboard morality than that gold-encrusted reprobate running his city-state empire. Unlike other Christian creeds, the Salvation Army's hatred is more focused: Most of the web-based complaints against it are about its anti-gay stance. But pedophilia is no stranger to God's Army, either.

" The report noted: "The Salvation Army's role (if exposed) will be a surprise to many in the media." Members are urged to "minimize the possibility of any 'leak' to the media."

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/faith26.htm
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,216478-1-7,00.html
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,214406-1-9,00.html
http://www.windycitytimes.com/0outlines/2000927/whis.html

The rest of the "good works" list by MacGuiver can be as easily shot down, but it's tedious and what's the point? Defenders blame the litany of lapses on a few human beings making up the organization — as though it could be anything else. They never defend the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations it is safe to condemn by saying that only a few people within them are killers. The few within them mirror the entirety no less regarding religion than the mob or the KKK.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Anyone seen the "Magdalene Sisters"??...while we are on the subject










Pretty scary stuff I understand. Getting excellent reviews as well.

••

Part of what irks me is the tax exemptions and special treatments accorded to these organizations.

The French Revolution certainly did a number on the Catholics property and Henry VIII something similar in England.

It's not like these arguments are very new







England in the Age of Discovery 









Times are changing and in New York the Senate is moving to tax Churches

"A package of seven bills, dealing with the taxation of churches and other non-profit organizations, is moving through the New York State Senate. These bills would tax real estate owned by churches and non-profits. Five of the seven bills would affect churches or religious organizations. " July 2003

If the anti gay marriage noise keeps up in Canada, churches may find themselves with unwanted attention in this regard. Couldn't be too soon IMHO.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster - I'm sorry that humanity sucks.

I'm sorry some people have it hard wired into their system, that because they are "Christian" (or any other belief, but it seems to usually be predominantly Christian) they are well, simply holier then thou. The basis for Chrisitianity was to be nice, but in the years, and the evolution of society since that time, people have used it as a cop out. Some churches (in my limited experience most Catholic churches, though this most likely is not the case in all churches) are often for those who feel a moral obligation that they should pay reverence to God. Or as my youth pastor once put it: (paraphrased) "Many people come to church, and say they are just fine. Even if their life is falling apart, they come to church put on a happy face, say they are fine and come to get a feeling that they are worthwhile." In every social group, you'll have those who are extremists, those who are rather passive, and those who take the middle road. 

The extremists are the bible thumpers, who get on their soapbox and call for the damnation of the world. Though in most cases, they get off the soapbox and are human and screw up, even though they try to lay a guilt trip on anyone who could hear. (Guilt trips go a long way in getting work done in the church. It makes people feel obligated to do stuff, but in reality it ruins the entire experience).

The passives, usually are those who either say they are Christian (the Easter/Christmas goers and those who go to church on Sunday because they feel obligated). These are the people who usually are those who don't believe totally in the faith (eg. Don't believe in Jesus or just simply do not know anything because it is not taught).

The middle road, are usually the best people to get to know. These people and their churches most often have questioned what they believed and saw what ehMax has come to see. God is love, the old Testament is over, and that although we are forgiven, going out and being a heel, does not make you better then anyone else. Love everyone else, and try to be civil in short.

After the church began (as chronicled in Acts) we saw the church tried to follow what Christ had instructed them, but they were human, and some cheated. Two specific people sold their plot of land, saying they would give all the money to the church but instead kept some for themselves. Needless to say, the church leaders found out, and when asked about it, and after lying, God killed them.

As time went on, various offshots of the original church began, and well some were very confused at times. Take the church in Corinth (remember this is somewhere between 0 and 100 A.D) was rather extreme. They took the idea of communion as a ticket for every Sunday to go get loaded with meat and wine in the name of God. Paul wrote to them, explaining that this was not the case, trying to keep these churches from going astray. (This is where we get the book in the Bible 1 Corinthians).

This consistently happened as time went on, as people would distort the truth to suit there means. Catholicism, believed that you must worship Christ through Mary, although one verse (I will go find it and post it, I didn't memorize it) says that his own mother (Mary) is not more blessed then you. In the Middle Ages, with the Crusades happening and it being required for everyone to be part of the church. The belief in Christ was not one a person came to choose, but was forced to accept. This, in my belief is where Christianity went astray. They lost the basic requirement for a group (belief in a common cause), and thus you would get people who were part of the culture, but had no intent to follow the ideology of such a religion. This has just become increasingly worse over the years, and the only way to fix things has been to get back to the source of everything and read the Bible. (Not perfect scientifically, but religion is not scientific, and neither are emotions.) 

I'm sorry much of this is about generalized and stereotypic sociological groups. With such large amounts of people its hard to give specifics. But most of it irons down to the basics of group and how groups function. Not all Christians are bad, but like one joke I heard "99% of lawyers give the 1% a bad name", you shouldn't lambast anyone because of their stereotype (and neither should they be an a$$hole). I know this post isn't perfect, and there most likely are some glaring mistakes, I'll try to answer and fix them if you want to point them out.

I believe what I believe, and you are free to believe what you believe. Its a matter of choice, and according to the Bible, God gave it to us, and so he can't make us choose Him, or any other way.

My long winded 2 cents.

And to address previous posts:
Contradiction is the shame of any organization, but let us remember that everybody involved is human. So just like any business/product good research and asking questions is a good thing. I know many here (like macdoc) have asked such questions and are unhappy with the answers provided by such "institutions". Organizations have to keep a firm hand on keeping actions with their ideologies, but the actions speak louder then words, nullifying any good that may have or could have become because of the good honest work by the majority of the people who work at such places.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Chealion...what can I say. Again you amaze me.   

(BTW...I didn't think it was long winded at all. I read it three times, as a matter of fact. Good stuff!)


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Oh, I forgot something, I am only 17, so my experience isn't the best, but I'm seen more then some, and a lot less then others. 

But largely I know I for one, have questioned what I believe, and because I've questioned and looked into it I believe what I believe so much more. If you can't question your belief system and whether it is the best or not, something is wrong. You should be able to question what the "church" believes, and especially in democracy, we can question what we have done.

EDIT: (No need adding another post for another sentence in response to Peter Sharman's post) If you wanna hammer away, go ahead. Its your right. I'll enjoy reading them.

[ September 01, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Chealion ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Well said, Chealion. You know you're gonna get hammered from the less empathetic crowd here. It seems the more "liberal and open-minded" some become, the less tolerant and more beligerent some become as well. Go figure!!?? I asked members of the group I camped with this weekend some unbiased question pertaining to this whole discussion. I don't have time to get into any discussion right now, but will post the results maybe tomorrow. Till then, peace!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Chealion,

For one so young you speak with great wisdom and humility. Great post! 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'll second that! Outstanding, chealion!  

I'll also second Peter's very astute observation that some of the more "liberal and open-minded" among us seem to be the very first to hurl abuse and derision at anyone who doesn't agree with their particular view of the world.

Too bad...they might just learn something.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello wrote:
"There are plenty of other groups more concerned about the spotted owls and the trees."
Snide and condescending ..... your true colours? .... god gave men dominion over women and nature? .... we've been there, seen it, and regretted it. The biblical ruse for unspeakable cruelty.
There are plenty of other groups more concerned about the survival of the planet itself and human dignity without condition."

Sorry Macello, 
I guess I was being condescending. My apologies if I offended you. I guess its just that environmental charity comes a distant second for me compared to a human life. Truth is if I had $10 in my hand and it could save the last spotted owl or a Third World Child from starving to death, the owls dead. 
I personally contribute to both third world causes and environmental ones but people come first. When I see a teary eyed Kelsy Grammer asking me to send $30 a month to help Fluffy the cat in Toronto, I can't help but think that the same $30 would feed, educate and cloth a child in the 3rd World and help change the world, Sorry cat lovers.
I guess your concern for churches not doing anything for the planet and the environment seemed of less importance to me compared to the work they do for the poor and less fortunate. 
And yes Christian Children's fund did scam people as I've been informed, I didn't know. Shameful! But I don't see this as a black eye for Christianity as you do but quite the opposite. The fact that Christians cared enough to send them millions of dollars thinking they were helping the less fortunate speaks volumes for their compassion for humanity. Its a shame people take advantage of their generosity for personal gain.

Macello wrote:
"Your whole approach reminds me much of the dark robed church elders who beat (etc.) their wives, children and animals in the time of my youth while holding a bible open at chapter and verse."

I do have a black bathrobe and a bible but I do love my wife and children more than anything and slapping them around is something I just don't do. If I had a pet, he'd be safe from my wrath as well. Especially a golden lab! 









Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Chealion, you never fail to amaze me with your youthful wisdom. We can also count on Peter to put things in perspective and lead us to a more sensible conclusion.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

McGuiver,

You confuse who posts what above. Sort it out if only for yourself.

I am amused by religious diatribe in civil context. I take no personal offense.

Perhaps you could pray for this planet; there is only one.

The abysmal ignorance shown by prioritizing one aspect of nature over another is more tragic than amusing given that we live in an air bubble that religion cannot fix but can certainly admonish and shame those responsible for the poisoning of all life on this planet. 

At issue here is the dignity of all without exclusion. I like to include all of nature's creation and the planet which acts as a good host; the same planet of which there seems to be only one.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MacDoc,

I'm not aware of mentioning the Catholic religion in the course of this topic. I don't question the good work of some remarkable individuals of that and other faiths. 

Religious dogma per se and the denial of criminal and abusive behaviour by religious hierarchy get my hammer. 

Once religion fesses up and pays back taxes ... we'll see.

A suggestion to the Pope: Pray for this Planet and
*watch carefully MacDoc's graph above and prepare for a Critical Mass*.







(google that!)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The catholic church has much to answer for. No doubt about it at all. (I was baptised catholic, BTW).

But that doesn't pre-suppose, in any way shape or form, that ALL catholics...or any others of the Christian faith..should be tarred with the same brush.

Far from it.


And...I would just like to point out to anyone who publishes graphs showing radical changes in our planet, a few simple facts:

For more than a quarter of a century I spent my life drilling deep into the crust of this green earth and analysing both the gases and the rocks that we drilled through. (with some seriously cutting edge one-off gear like multiple-readout gas chromatographs and mobile mass spectrometers)

And guess what?

The earth has gone through all sorts of rapid massive temperature and climactic swings in the past! Hundreds of them, in fact. Thousands, actually...if you go wayyy back. (Oil is from wayyy back...long before the dinosaurs. Natural gas is a little more recent. Coal is from practically yesterday. Only a few million years ago)

One of the markers that we use to determine "where we are" on the timeline when we're drilling is microfossils. The fossilised bodies of tiny creatures (usually marine life, if we're looking for oil)...and we would often have a micro-paleontologist working with us in the mobile laboratory.

As we drilled down through each meter, he would often remark "Wow! We just switched from arctic to full tropical!" And...when pressed...these 'micro-bug' guys (as we called them) would carefully explain how the planet has gone through extremely rapid climate changes in the past. Going from tropical to arctic to temperate and back to tropical...all in the space of a few years.

They also pointed out that this has happened as recently as twenty thousand years ago. (That's practically yesterday, when you are dealing with a timeline that goes back three hundred and fifty million plus years.)

When I was working on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic, a micro-paleontologist showed me fossilised tropical hardwood trees that were exposed on the _surface_! That meant that this dry and frozen arctic desert was once a lush tropical jungle.

And it wasn't that very long ago, either.  

It also wasn't terribly long ago that the Sahara desert was a very wet tropical rainforest. In fact...it was that way so recently that an earlier version of our ownselves probably trod in that lush forest.

The earth's climate has changed many, many times in the past. Very quickly and very rapidly. This is established fact.

And you know what?

We had absoloutely NOTHING to do with it! (most of the time, we weren't even HERE!)

And...if we are responsible for whatever changes have happened to our climate since we started to industrialise, and burn fossil fuels (the graph that macdoc published shows a sharp gain long before we started doing this, by the way) then I just HAVE to ask....

Why the HECK did the whole planet actually get COLDER from the early forties until the late seventies??!?

That was a period when we had NO polloution controls on any of our industries. For more than a generation... and, by the way, we fought a massive world war and industrialised ourselves at a furious pace during this period. But the whole planet got COLDER. Every year.

Interesting,eh?

The earth may be heating up...or it may be cooling down. Depends on where you live. Certainly with our modern system of communications we are _hearing_ about it a lot more...and seeing the pictures on TV. Makes for good news copy, and a sensational story. For sure.

But is it unprecedented in the history of the planet...even before we humans showed up?

Nope. Not a chance.

It's actually 'business as usual" for this particular planet.

Can we, somehow, manage to alter this climate by our actions? Can we maintain a set temperature and climate in any given area no matter what sort of natural forces are controlling the final result? The same forces that have made the climate change so very radically on this planet in the past?

Don't know. 

But I suspect that we can't really affect it...either positively or negatively...in the end. We only occupy a small part of the surface, after all. Two thirds of this world is devoid of human beings (it's actually open ocean ) and 98% of the land area that we DO occupy has no industrial installations on it.

Are we "killing the earth"?

Again...don't know. But I seriously doubt it based on the evidence that I have seen from the past.

Too bad nobody made any graphs during the past few million years. They would proably show similar bell curves as the ones that are being published on this forum, and elsewhere, to "prove" how we are killing the planet.

But...we really _couldn't_ have made any graphs during the wild climate swings of the past...and we couldn't have been "killing the planet' back then...

Because we actually _weren't THERE_ at the time. Humans are a fairly recent phenomenon on this planet. So...we really couldn't have had anything to do with all of those previous climactic changes, could we?

But...then again...if you actually factored in all of those previous planetary climate changes, and realised that it was normal, then a whole lot of "study groups" would suddenly lose their lucrative Government grants to study the "phenomenon".

And a whole BUNCH of people from a certain side of the political fence (the very same ones who seem to have been wrong about pretty much everything during the past few decades) would have absolutely nothing to crow about (now that socialism is no longer seen to be a viable alternative by most voters).

And...they would have no real basis to demand radical changes in the economy to "prevent further damage".

Gee...go figure. 









[ September 02, 2003, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - the earth has done it before.........OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS........not 100 years.   

"Climate and Choices 
Climate is the result of the exchange of heat and mass between the land, ocean, atmosphere, ice sheets and space. As long as changes to the land, ocean, atmosphere and ice sheets stay below the thresholds I have just described, climate changes will happen slowly. But the climate will change rapidly if those thresholds are crossed. So rapidly that it would be impossible to rearrange agricultural practices quickly enough to avoid stressing world food supplies. So rapidly that many species would not be able to adapt, because their habitat, already greatly reduced by human activities, would be eradicated.
Human ingenuity would most likely allow us to adapt to a rapid change in climate, * but we would pay a larger price than our civilization has ever known.* Imagine the economic and social cost of moving, in a 20-year period, most of our agricultural activities 500 miles south of their current locations. Imagine the social cost and famine if agriculture could not be relocated quickly enough. Even a short-duration event such as the Dust Bowl years in the 1930s had a large influence on American society. The Little Ice Age, which caused major resettlement in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries, is a more likely analogue of where we might be headed." 
Three Climate Modes 

And you're concerned about an aging population  , how about a wilting earth.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

What was the topic of this thread again??








Some interesting stuff Macnutt. Regardless of knowing the full cause/effect (by the time we know it will be too late) of human actions vs. natural cycles, the world surely needs to wake up and take notice. And this has NOTHING to do with religion or the topic at hand, although an interesting sidetrack. All because a comment was made that given a choice of giving an only donation to a humanitarian or a nature charity, the choice would be obvious to that person. Maybe another thread on this is in order.


> *Macnutt, Peter's not being astute he's being thin skinned and while you will go with the give and take of an argument you really shouldn't toss a rock about derision as you've had a salmon or two tossed your way.*


Thank you for once again pointing out our shortcomings. I wish I could be less sensitive and more like the people I made reference to....NO! , wait a minute that's not what I want to be like at all! I didn't realize that making an easy observation of attitudes was being "thin-skinned" Damn, where's my Websters again??


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello wrote:
"The abysmal ignorance shown by prioritizing one aspect of nature over another is more tragic than amusing"

If valuing human life over that of nature is tragic and amusing and shows I'm abysmally ignorant, then so be it. I take your insult as a complement.


MacNutt:
Great post! Puts things in a bit of perspective. However there are things we can and must do for the environment. Our cod fisheries are a good example of how mismanagement of a resource can go wrong. 
However, when some environmentalist makes a claim that over 200,000 species go extinct every year, I can't help but think of the story of chicken little. I bet it gets you lots of free sound-bites while you're on the book tour. 
Then you have clowns like Maurice Strong and Gorbachev with ambitions to rule the world in the name of environmentalism. http://www.earthcharter.org/
Environmentalism and religion can both be used by corrupt people for there personal gain. There's good and bad to be found in both. Its always a good idea to challenge what your being taught but the broadly condemn one or the other is unfortunate.
And yes Peter, this has gone way off topic.









Have a good one,
MacGuiver


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Thank you everyone for your praise, although it could of been less ethnocentric as macdoc put it, but I'm restricted due to lack of experience. At least reading everyone's posts are showing ways to think different.

macnutt is right, in that what is happening is normal, and in all honesty much of the environmental doomsaying is exaggeration. Sure, the changes that have happened are at an accelerated pace, but there were times in history where such changes took place even faster. Although much of the industrialization is not the most effecient from what I've seen and read we haven't hit critical yet. We are getting there if we don't turn on the brakes a little (for the increasing pollution). We have an effect on the earth, but we have to remember that the earth is a n ever evolving biosphere which will adapt to the changes that occur. Its always safer to walk softly and carry a big stick. (Though in this case I don't know what the big stick is).

macdoc - You said that some species will die because they will not be able to adapt, but this is the basis for Darwin's evolutionary theory. I think that the changes happening now aren't the best, but we aren't on the brink of massive destruction yet.

I have to echo much of what MacGuiver has just said. I believe it is a story of chicken little at the moment, but the sky will fall if we don't change our ways or improve them environmentally over the next decades.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Aside from being ethno-centric ( there were religions and belief systems long before "THE church began" Chealion ) there is nothing in particular to "hammer" in his post, it's simply a cautionary tale about stereotyping and his own view of his religion.

My concern would be why none here other than perhaps Macello choose not to "hammer" the Catholic diatribe. I was interested that a Star letter today suggested that the writer should be charged under Canada's hate laws and I couldn't agree more.

Why is "liberal and open minded" supposed to be associated with tolerating injustice - just where did that association come to be.  

Macnutt, Peter's not being astute he's being thin skinned and while you will go with the give and take of an argument you really shouldn't toss a rock about derision as you've had a salmon or two tossed your way.  

Macello - you do the planet proud - it and the rest of the biosphere needs staunch defenders. In any language human beings right now are a plague upon our only home










Disease, war and famine WILL reduce our numbers, it's just a shame we're going to take so many other species out of the universe in the "go forth an multiply" binge **** sapiens have undertaken in the last few hundred years.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

As the builders of the atomic bomb counseled the grunts on the testing ground: "look the other way".

Nice to see the "classic of the genre" argument again coming from Ralph Klein's famous dinosaur farts via macnutt, a neo-con boiler plate which begs us to ignore human activity.

Macnutt's paranoia about financing the health of future generations rings a bit hollow given that his former employers are arguably the major polluters on the planet.

Let's not even think about the 4,200 kilograms of plutonium that was discharged into the atmosphere over three decades and will reside in our food chain for a half life of 250 years. ....... and some are worried about gay marriage!









Peter Scharman:
"given a choice of giving an only donation to a humanitarian or a nature charity, the choice would be obvious to that person." 
That's okay, the financially destitute  need not make a donation at all.

I know the concept of a holistic approach is viewed with suspicion by the right-wing as much as is carrot bread, coming from the socially conscious.

Holistic: Definition: [adj]  emphasizing the organic or functional relation between parts and the whole. 

A lesson on orchestration sadly would be wasted on the tone deaf.

macnutt: "the more ""liberal and open-minded"" ...... yadayadayada ..... hurl abuse and derision .....yadayada."

MacDoc, the closed mind is easily threatened (it must be hell!  ) by any opening.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter - you predicted and warned Chealion about getting "beat up" for his views. You are the one that thinks being argued with is "getting beat up" and that = thin skinned.

I don't think Chealion thinks it's getting "beat up" in fact he welcomed the argument and discourse even if it might make him uncomfortable. Ask him.

BTW 
Chealion there is certainly no time in "history" when anything like this occurred except perhaps during the Little Ice Age which if occurred today would be catastrophic. Even it was somewhat gradual from 1380 to 1850 with some very severe spots in the 1600s that WERE castrophic to the relatively lightly populated Europe at the time and would be unbelievable if it occurred now. It makes for interesting reading.

The only other rapid events were the K/T Event in the Yucatan about 65 million years ago and an earlier one that came close to eliminating life entirely about 250 million years ago. "About 251 million years ago, Earth’s greatest mass extinction event wiped out more than 90 percent of all marine plants and animals and up to 70 percent of all land species"
There were a couple of "smaller" ones in between....but that's "pre-historic".....but we knew what you meant.

The huge danger is that human activity pushes climatic systems over thresholds that will then cause very rapid and wild swings in unpredictable directions - the worst immeidate possiblity is the melting of the ice caps which would stop the ocean currents that modify weather - then Macnutt would ge the winter his latitude deserves.

We ARE the 6th major cataclysm the biosphere is faced with.

Slow Gulf Stream 

Climate change Directory


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - I welcomed Peter's "warning" as it was obvious hes trying to look out to see no one gets too hurt, although such a job often gets flamed more then any other side. And thanks for knowing what I meant when I said history, I'm working towards becoming much better at articulation. Reading those links you provided, I still stand by my belief that the problems are a chicken little story for now. The sky will fall if we don't change our ways, but its not falling tomorrow. But we can't deny that the pollution that has happened has sure helped out humanity for the time being.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

McGuiver, 
" ...... However there are things we can and must do for the environment."
Most heartening ........ cheers!









Your remark on the environmentalist clowns







........
understood .... This EarthCharter FAQ entry does indeed threaten religious conversion missions by it's holistic approach given religion's historical social imperative:
_"In the Earth Charter there is a special emphasis on the world's environmental challenges. However, the document's inclusive ethical vision recognizes that *environmental protection, human rights, equitable human development, and peace are interdependent and indivisible*."_
http://www.earthcharter.org/innerpg.cfm?id_menu=38

Here's some serious ammunition for macnutt's type of argument about what in BC is are called "widowmakers".  : Silent Killers 
"Years ago, Ronald Reagan tried to warn us about trees, and he was ridiculed for his honesty. 
After opining in August 1980 that ""trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,"" Reagan arrived at a campaign rally to find a tree decorated with this sign: ""Chop me down before I kill again""." 

*"Trees kill. Their bite is worse than their bark."*









Doesn't the objection to gay marriage seem absurd in this context?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello wrote:
Your remark on the environmentalist clowns ........
understood .... This Earth-Charter FAQ entry does indeed threaten religious conversion missions by it's holistic approach given religion's historical social imperative:
"In the Earth Charter there is a special emphasis on the world's environmental challenges. However, the document's inclusive ethical vision recognizes that environmental protection, human rights, equitable human development, and peace are interdependent and indivisible."
http://www.earthcharter.org/innerpg.cfm?id_menu=38 

Hi Macello,

The earth charter is merely the candy coating on a rotten apple. Its a feel good sales job for a more sinister plot. Read up on the ambitions and history of Maurice Strong (future Commander and Chief of Planet Earth?). Its about world government and power where an elite group off individuals and special interest groups will enforce there will on us without even being elected. More than just religions have to fear these men. Anyone who enjoys democracy and liberty should too.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/articles/gunter/Strong_Martin_2.htm 
I guess we should have started a new thread here.









Cheers
MacGuiver

[ September 02, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Thanks McGuiver, 

I love the link to the politically pathetic Ezra Levant , one of the dimmer bulbs amongst the alienated and an embarassment even to the heathens that now run the Alliance of alienation.  

I am not thankful for the leads to a number of psycho-sexually sick sites that McGuiver has perhaps unwittingly led us via his enjoyers of "democracy and liberty" link.
The *"Fathers for Life"* et al certainly embody raging alienation from their bunker in Bruderheim, Alberta. 
They *are also a portal to a rabid and deranged nest of misogynist ex-husbands.*









http://www.angryharry.com/index.html (a feminist's nightmare)

http://www.angryharry.com/tgDawnoftheFeministPoliceState.htm (feminazis)

http://niceguy.dearingfilm.com/ (Women Suck)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/verismo/ (ManoRama; "Little girls only do one thing wrong: they grow up to be women!")

Thanks to McGuiver, my lexical horizons are broadened by the inclusion of the terms *"Religiphobia"* and now *"Heterophobia"*
"The National Organization of Women (a heterophobic and family-hostile organization ) http://www.fathersforlife.org/chldimpt.htm

[ September 02, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion
a few pieces of sky for you
Tropical Diseases spread north 

Mont Blanc closed 
"The conditions have been so extreme, say glaciologists and climate experts, and the retreat of the Alps' eternal snows and glaciers so pronounced, that the range - and its multi-billion-pound tourist industry - may never fully recover."

This NOW

"Posted on Wed, Jul. 30, 2003	
Alaskan warming is disturbing preview of what's to come, scientists say
By Seth Borenstein Knight Ridder Newspapers

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska is melting. July 30 2003

Glaciers are receding. Permafrost is thawing. Roads are collapsing. Forests are dying. Villages are being forced to move, and animals are being forced to seek new habitats. 

What's happening in Alaska is a preview of what people farther south can expect, said Robert Corell, a former top National Science Foundation scientist who heads research for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment team. 

"If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of the world 25 years from now, just look at what's happening in the Arctic," Corell said. ...continued
web page 

And from our own Queens University last April

50 Arctic Lakes Show Dramatic Effects Of Climate Warming; 'Bellwether' Of What's To Come Farther South, Say Queen's Researchers

Dramatic clues to North American climate change have been discovered by a team of Queen's University scientists in the bottom of 50 Arctic lakes.

Arctic Lakes

Published on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times 

Global Warming
Glacial Melting Takes Human Toll 

by Usha Lee McFarling

The entombment of a Russian village under 3 million tons of ice and mud from a collapsing glacier is a sign of the gradual yet vast climatic changes sweeping the world's mountainous regions, scientists say. 

The disaster on the slopes of the Caucasus Mountains on Friday left more than 100 people missing and at least nine dead. Researchers maintain that the avalanche is part of a subtle chain of events that has transformed once-frozen mountains and is altering the course of nearby human settlements in unexpected, and sometimes disastrous, ways. 
Global melting takes human toll 

The sky hasn't fallen..yet.......but some pretty decent sized pieces are atumble.

Better get to Kilimanjaro quick if you want to see the famous snows., maybe a decade left.  

BTW humour disarms hurt every time  
One of the most vibrant parts of university life are the intellectual battles and discourses. Like gaming you learn to win and lose gracefully and vow to play better next time regardless.

You were praised which is encouraging to you...to a point...but did't you perhaps feel much was a "pat on the head"...with all that implies??.
It's being critiqued that strengthens you. 
Muscles both physical and mental are built by exercising and most important ..resistance.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MasterBlaster,

Thank McGuiver. They're his links. One link behind his "Fathers for Life" link. 
How surreal!
Frankly I was horrified by the "Father's" gross and miscogynistic moral depravity. 
It's like watching the sickening pawnshop basement scene in Taratino's "Pulp Fiction". You don't want to believe that people are like that.

I don't think that McGuiver intended this nor did he check the "Father's" credentials given their links to this revolting agenda concerning women.

Here, from Bruderheim Alberta is a sample of the defective mentality of those that shout their hatred of women. gay people and all human rights activists by the owner of "Fathers for Life", Walter Schneider:
_"The work that made Alberta and Canada what it is and that enabled these women to be able to gain their goals was done by MEN.  Everything that these women used to promote their message: paper, telecommunications, roads, railroads, ships, typewriters, pens, cars, trains, their houses and whatever else you can imagine — including their kitchen sinks — was invented, made and constructed by men.  Even the food that these women ate was grown and paid for by men."_

One must be ever vigilant concerning links that trap the innocent into the dens of filth and foul iniquity.

Welcome to Bruderheim Dearie!









Lurking script writers N.B.









cheers


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - Well I guess those links you provide show that the need is there, but I don't think the sky will start truly falling until a major centre is affected and it can be squarely pinned on the environmental change. Our society is pretty bad at prevention.

Peter - I never thought you're compliments were patronizations at all. Plain text can be so misleading sometimes. I took them at face value and saw that you liked what I said. Though, if the sharks had not been so kind and cut apart my argument I would have been fine with it. As the only way I've learnt to get the most out of forums is to take all criticism constructively (harder said then done, and I"ll be the first to admit that). If I post something, I'm all for getting another side of the issue (provided its not complete flame bait... then its hard to stay civil). Thank you for your kind words. I'm sorry I caused you're words of wisdom to me to cause macdoc to well attack you. Either way, whatever happens is fine with me, I'm here to learn and discuss. I really appreciate everyone's opinions. I'm 18 in 3 days, and so I know that come next federal election I'll be hearing a good assortment of ideas and opinions for what our next federal government should be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You didn't object you "pre-objected"..........on behalf of someone else!!!!  
Chealion is quite capable on his own.
Opinion without passion is boring.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Wow.  I go away for a little while (death in the family) and my little thread explodes to epic proportions!









There are so many things that I could respond to, but I would be here all day writing. So, I will just address this: 



> You keep telling us homosexuality is genetic. Chealion challenged that statement earlier too but you didn't address it. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been irrefutably proven by science.


There have been several studies into this and many of them have pointed in the direction of homosexuality being genetic. Findings have included similar brain chemistry and size among gays and lesbians, as well as a few others. Despite the best efforts of science, there has not yet been "definitive proof" this is the case. 

However, as a gay man (and a Christian  ) I believe I am more than qualified to speak to this matter and can say, with some degree of certainty, that it is genetic. 

I am from a good and stable home, with a good, moral upbringing. My parents were conservative and reserved. Yet, from the earliest moments of my sexual development as a child, before I even knew what "gay" is, I was attracted to people of the same gender. It was not a choice. It was not something I did consciously. It was who I was born to be. 

Knowing the level of homophobia and hatred towards gays and lesbians in the world, I surely would not have "chosen" to be gay. However, this is not something someone can just turn off or be "counselled" into thinking has gone away. It is a God-given, sexual identity...and I choose to believe that God does not make mistakes when it comes to such matters. Thus, my non-scientific conclusion is that being gay or lesbian is genetic and absolutely normal in every way. 

Therefore, to deny same-sex couples to unite their lives in the bonds of matrimony, something taken for granted by straight couples, based on their natural and genetic sexual identities is wrong and discriminatory. 

Further, I challenge those opposed to allowing same-sex couples the right to civil marriages to explain with facts, not religious rhetoric, how the institution of marriage would be harmed or destroyed by these marriages. Given, of course, that same-sex couples have been getting legally married for months now and the sky has not fallen, nor have straight couples' marriages come apart at the seams.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

VertiGoGo, as always, a cool-headeda and intelligent response. My condolences on your family loss. 


> *You didn't object you "pre-objected"..........on behalf of someone else!!!!
> Chealion is quite capable on his own.*


Macdoc, again you twist the events. If you re-read the posts, the "attitude and conduct" I was objecting to was well in place and had already been objected to by some of the participating posters. My friendly alert to Chealion was just that. He's a smart young man and was new to this discussion, so a word of warning is hardly objecting on his behalf. It's no different than alerting the new kid on the block to watch out for the bullies. "nuff said. This has been beaten to death, so lets get back to the topic at hand.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello

The article appeared in the Edmonton Journal, the site that hosted it and your opinion of the author don't lesson the fact that Strong is an eco-extremist, read his own words:
"Strong romanticized, "that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? ... Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" 
Brilliant idea Maurice! They should cast this guy as "Dr. Evil" in the next Austin Powers. Bankrupt nations and destroy the economy so everyone can't afford food and shelter and die in the streets. You've rid the world of those pesky breeders and saved mother earth in one shot. Since you and your billionaire buddies will be left standing with your mansions intact, you can step in and become our King. We best head down to the local outfitters to get a coleman tent and some emergency rations. Maurice is on his way to becoming our senior economic and environmental advisor to our PM in waiting.









Thanks to your posts I too have learned something others already knew:
"the more "liberal and open-minded" some become, the less tolerant and more belligerent some become as well" 
 

MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Chealion, the compliments offered were sincere, not "pat on the head" patronizations. The sharks were kind to you this time, but watch your toes (they go "snick-snack")


> *Peter - you predicted and warned Chealion about getting "beat up" for his views. You are the one that thinks being argued with is "getting beat up" and that = thin skinned.*


Macdoc, you can be so full of **** sometimes.  I draw a thick line between discussion (aka respectful dialogue) and argument. Out of argument comes attitude, and sometimes rudeness or intolerance. Objecting to that is NOT thin-skinned, it's standing up for respect and decorum. Verbal bullying may be fair play between the knock-'em-down debaters, but it must not be imposed on the whole membership. I know we don't agree on this point and I hate to spoil yours and especially Macello's fun, but I'm speaking on behalf of those who object to that. I don't think anyone here has all the answers or is omniscient, so no one has a monopoly on being "right" and declaring so. It's about thought sharing and learning, not intimidation, IMHO. I'll say no more tonight. Peace.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vertigogo, 

Welcome back and my condolences to you and your family. Thanks for answering my question (with truthfulness and dignity I might add) Got lots of work on the go today but I'd like to further explore this issue with you later. Unfortunately, chatting in these forums doesn't pay the bills.  

Have a great day
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry to hear about your loss, vertigogo...but it's great to have you back!  

I won't de-rail your thread with anything further about the fallacy of "Global Warming' (whoops...they've changed the name to "Global Climate Change" because of the record cold winters of the past few years)

But I will invite any who are interested in further reading on this subject to check out the following link.

It is a petition that has been signed by no less than 17,000...yes that's seventeen _thousand_ scientists...and every last one of them thinks this whole scam is based on junk science.

Here's the link:  The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (note: yet again, a URL has not worked when I posted it here! Do a Google search for the Oregon Petition and see it for yourself, if you're interested) 

And, macdoc....these changes do not necessarily take millions of years. They can, and have, taken place in a matter of years. Even months. The physical record of these previous rapid swings in climate is right there below your feet. It's written in the rock.

(But some people are so certain of what is true and what is not, that they can't even see what is before their very own eyes. Or beneath their feet.)


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Re: Homosexuality genetic or not?

I don't think that homosexuality is necessarily genetic; in identical twins, if one twin is homosexual, then there's roughly a 50% chance the other is homosexual, too. If homosexuality was determined entirely through genetics, then presumably if one twin is homosexual, then the other twin should be homosexual, too. 

There have been studies that suggest that sexual orientation might be determined or influenced while the fetus is in the womb. A study conducted recently showed that the more older brothers a boy had, the more likely he is to be homosexual (the theory being that male fetuses trigger an immune response in the mother, which in turn influences future male fetuses).

Of course, it's entirely possible that there's more than just one cause of homosexuality (be it genetics or environmental) so searching for one root cause might prove futile.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Veritigogo - glad you are back. My sympathies and thanks for the insight. 

JFP - you bring up a good point - certainly timings of hormone "flushes" with the womb have been shown to have significant effect on fetus development - in fact I believe there is a critical timing for boys in particular.

Whatever whether genetic or hormonal in the womb it's not a choice and the point stands.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that JFP also mentioned that there seems to be a considerable amount of evidence to show that environment and societal influences could also be a part of it.

Otherwise, why would identical twin boys...one of whom is gay... be only 50% as likely to become homosexual like their twin brother? That's right in line with the odds of pure chance.

And it sort of negates the "hormonal flushing of the womb" argument, eh? (they're both in there together and are subject to the very same 'hormonal flushing', after all.)

Just my dos centavos worth.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No not necessarily as the hormonal influence depends on a variety of gene timing and while identical twins have the same genetic structure there are variations in development, nutrition etc, blood supply to the umbilicals, position in the womb all of which do have impact.

Quit flogging dead horse MacN.

       "And in the case of identical twins, there are also some genetic differences that are surprising. Schizophrenia is clearly influenced by genes, for example. But if one identical twin has schizophrenia, the chance that the other also has it is only about 45 percent to 50 percent.
       Not even physical traits like height and weight are perfectly duplicated between pairs of identical twins, Plomin said. Height is among the most heavily influenced by genes, but “you get identical twins who differ by four inches,” he added.
       Studies show that, in general, the correlation between identical twins is strong for height, less strong for IQ, lesser still for weight and then personality, Plomin said. 
"

They don't even have identical fingerprints

"Identical twins generate a lot of curiosity. And a lot of misconceptions! Parents of multiples have probably not given a great deal of thought to their childrens' fingerprint patterns, but the general public has spent a lot of time wondering about this topic.

So, do identical twins have identical fingerprints? The basic answer is NO. Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception. Because they form from a single zygote, the two individuals will have the same genetic makeup. Their DNA is virtually indistinguishable. 

However, fingerprints are not an entirely genetic characteristic. Scientists love to use this topic as an example of the old "nature vs. nurture" debate. Fingerprinting, along with other physical characteristics, is an example of a phenotype -- meaning that it is determined by the interaction of an indivdual's genes and the developmental environment in the uterus. 

The ultimate shape of fingerprints are believed to be influenced by environmental factors during pregnancy, like nutrition, blood pressure, position in the womb and the growth rate of the fingers at the end of the first trimester. Thus, you will find similar partterns of whorls and ridges in the fingerprints of identical twins. But there will also be differences -- just as there are differences between the fingers on any individual's hands."

any excuse not to face reality .........- IT"S NOT A CHOICE


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmmm... latest poll suggests an even split for and against same-sex marriage - BUT there is a clear and distinct age effect. The older you are, the less likely you are to support it. Seems old prejudices are still with us..... (CBC News)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's an amazing wild card in the election results















It must be driving the pollsters crazy


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Macdoc,

Macdoc wrote:

"Quit flogging a dead horses MacNutt."

I think its early to say the horse is dead. Even Vertigogo acknowledges the reality that "definitive proof" does not exist to prove biological origins however he believes his same sex attraction is genetic. It may well be, but science has not proven this. I can't in all honesty with any degree of certainty say that my heterosexuality is genetic. I have no idea what environmental factors or genes made me heterosexual. Not all scientists and homosexuals support the genetic argument either.
http://www.queerbychoice.com/

The REALITY is that nobody has definitively proven the origins of homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) so his questions and theories are perfectly legitimate until they do. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Even Vertigogo acknowledges the reality that "definitive proof" does not exist to prove biological origins however he believes his same sex attraction is genetic.


And to play devil"s advocate a moment, I also acknowledge the reality that "definitive proof" does not exist to prove the existance of God, however I believe in God just the same. 

The REALITY is that nobody has definitively proven the existance of God, so questions and theories about "God's laws" as they relate to homosexuality and same-sex marriage are perfectly legitimate until there is proof.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Hmmm... latest poll suggests an even split for and against same-sex marriage - BUT there is a clear and distinct age effect. The older you are, the less likely you are to support it. Seems old prejudices are still with us..... (CBC News)


I saw that too, last night on The National. It was an unsponsored poll that puts overall support of same-sex marriage at an even split of 46% for and against. However, younger Canadians support a new and more inclusive definition of marriage...to the tune of 61%. Only 28% of the over 65 crowd support it. 

In 15 years we will all be saying, "what was the big fuss about?"


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The fact that people of faith are willing to demand scientific proof that homosexuality has a genetic component would be hilarious if it wasn't so ridiculous.

I like to think we are a tolerant society that recognizes that equality cannot be qualified. It seems from the polls that we may be becoming more tolerant but we're not exactly a poster child for equal rights (except for Quebec).


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Vertigogo

quote:
And to play devil"s advocate a moment, I also acknowledge the reality that "definitive proof" does not exist to prove the existence of God, however I believe in God just the same. 

My point exactly. Macdoc's conclusion that same-sex attraction is biological (end of story) is as much a leap of faith as mine or your belief in God. There's evidence to support the beliefs and you feel its right in your gut but no definitive proof exists. Its more faith than science.

quote:
"The REALITY is that nobody has definitively proven the existence of God, so questions and theories about "God's laws" as they relate to homosexuality and same-sex marriage are perfectly legitimate until there is proof. "

I'm confused here Vertigogo. 

You could conclude from my statement that if definitive proof supporting biological homosexuality is found then debating it is redundant (As macdoc implied). Example: We know the earth is round beyond a doubt so to argue otherwise is pointless.

If we could prove the existence of God, I can't conclude the questions and theories regarding his laws and homosexual acts would stop. The fact that we have thousands of Christian denominations that all believe in God yet interpret his laws differently is proof of that.

Have a good one,
MacGuiver


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Hiya,

I just re-read my post. It should have written "illegitimate." This would make that paragraph make more sense. 

Sorry for any confusion. Oh well...c'est la vie.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" Macdoc's conclusion that same-sex attraction is biological (end of story) is as much a leap of faith as mine or your belief in God. "

Absolutely wrong. Faith does not require proof.

Scientific determation is a process of thesis and anti-thesis and is based upon repeatable phenomena that can be acted on the physical world.
Science doesn't pretend to have definitive answers, it has cumulative observations that explain the physical world - it does not deal with the meta physical world - that's for philosophy and religions to deal with.

So the Theory of Gravity may be an on ongoing effort to integrate indentifiable, observable forces in the universe so it remains a theory ulike say the Laws of Thermodynamics which are fully understood, but gravity is also a reality upon which we build our dwellings, fly our planes, orbit our planets and our body builds our bone structures.

The commonly held thesis that sexual orientation was a choice has been thoroughly examined and declared an incorrect conclusion based on the evidence.
The laws of Canada reflect that new understanding of the biology involved. 
People in this society are understanding this and accepting it just as they've accepted that we are all equal humans despite our skin colour, eye colour, hair colour or gender. 
Understanding changes, societies laws change.

Debate metaphysics all you want.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Thanks Vertigogo

I see your point now. Truly to those that are not Christian all of our bible jousting must seem ridiculous. Like watching Windows users debating the superiority of windows XP over windows 2000 when you've seen the light and its MacOSX.  

Have a good day
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Truly to those that are not Christian all of our bible jousting must seem ridiculous."

Now there's a statement I'll whole heartedly agree with.  

BTW there is a far more difficult issue which is related indirectly to this discussion and that is "fetal alcohol syndrome".
How does society deal with a growing number of it's citizens who due to the imbibing of alcohol by their mother are left without the "inhibitors" that the larger population have against what is considered criminal activity. Some of the stories are heartbreaking both for the foster families and for those who suffer FAS.

I think this is a far harder issue for society, laws and people to deal with.
Anyone got any insight??


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macdoc

Faith was a bad choice of words. Belief would have been more appropriate. I stand corrected. I could argue your last statement but what's the point. 
I think I'll take your advice and agree to disagree and stop beating this dead horse. Obviously the trenches are pretty deep on both sides of this issue and nobodies crossing over.









Glad you were finally able to endorse one of my statements whole heartedly.  

As for FAS, I've heard about it but can't recall a link to criminal activity from it. Sounds like an interesting issue. I look forward to reading more.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macdoc uttered:


> "Now there's a statement I'll whole heartedly agree with."


Really??!!







I could never have guessed that. VetiGoGo, you've been both defended on and dissed for your beliefs in the same thread. We love ya, of course.  



> *BTW there is a far more difficult issue which is related indirectly to this discussion and that is "fetal alcohol syndrome".*


I suggest that topic be started up in a new thread, insted of confusing the direction of this thread any more than it already has.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Faith does not require proof.


Fear not! I still have faith in the fact that I am, indeed, gay.   



> VetiGoGo, you've been both defended on and dissed for your beliefs in the same thread. We love ya, of course.


Thanks! Um...I think.







Actually, I do not feel that I have been dissed in any way. In fact, I am quite impressed how smoothly this emotional debate has moved forwards. Sure, we get side-tracked sometimes, but that is alright too. 

While I don't think those opposed to gay marriage will have changed their minds because of this thread, I do believe it has given them cause to stop and think a moment about what they are "afraid" of. By approaching this issue with dignity and humanity, I think detracters may see that gay people are not entirely a bunch of screaming queens, biker ***** and leather daddies on parade floats (not that there is anything wroooong with that).  

So, I am still waiting for someone to explain how same-sex marriage will destroy the whole institution of marriage. Any takers? ...he asked humbly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FAS is pretty close to this topic as it deals with a situation where a person has impulses - usually theft or casual misuse of others property without their permission.
Basically they stay very immature in this regard when most would get past the "stage" as they grow older.

Many kids go through the stage of minor theft etc and a combination of social pressure and maturing gets them past it.
FAS suffers stay stuck and cannot mature past that impulsive stage.
No question it's a disability.
Why it's on topic is gay lifestyle makes some people uncomfortable but in most respects they are separate worlds, law abiding citizens with a somewhat different lifestyle. Their sexual orientation is different by birth.

The FAS person tho is also that way by birth and must be carefully monitored depending on severity and the activities may not be law abiding or socially acceptable.
How is that situation handled by the public and courts.
I am asking the question not that I have any clue how it should or COULD be dealt with.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/feature/magazine/2000_08/fas.htm 

http://www.come-over.to/FASCRC/ 

There are other issues of the same kind and goes back to the nature nture issue.
Criminal activity has long been suspected of having SOME genetic component because of "families" but study after study has discounted it.
Recently however a "double whammy" of a genetic variance combined with being abused as a child has very strong indicator for later criminal activity. Neither one alone shows any criminal proclivity outside general population percentages BUT combine the two and numbers rise dramatically.
Aside from asking judges and social workers to play Solomon how does society treat this kind "variation" which IS demonstrably socially destructive 









This "acceptable range" of behaviours is the fundamental question underlying this discussion and this range has changed over time as perceptions have changed.

To some degree we make the same "judgement calls" with our kids. Just how outrageous, piercing, tatoos etc do we tolerate as parents.....but of course these are "choices"???
What if they had no choice in the matter?? How would our "tolerance" or acceptance change..........especially if was our own child??

To some degree also I guess I'm curious to hear from gays how their parents reacted.

Certainly difficult human issues









•••• Later

Hmmm seems this thread has just about run it's course...I was hoping for a nudge

[ September 06, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------

