Obama's call for gay rights makes history

[JGPS]

I know people who support gay marriage who also think that's a good idea.

Yeah it definitely needs some tweaking, but I think that'd probably be a good compromise between the two sides. For some reason politicians and the media never seem to have even considered it, at least not very vocally. I wonder why that is.

It would be a functional compromise, but it's also quite a libertarian approach. The media generally hates libertarian approaches from what I've seen. Both of your parties seem bent to increase the size of your government and bureaucracy. When our Tories first got in they where on a limiting spending and reducing obtrusive laws platform, but after a few elections they've gone back to expanding too, and the other three major parties are big governemnt as well. It often winds up being a choice between more governemnt oversite here or more oversite there, never a more freedom option.

 

[JGPS]

So if marriage became purely religious and the government handled it own form of unions would you still be opposed to gay couples? Is it onlybecause the word attached to it is marriage?

It wouldn't have any affect on my stance whatsoever. It would however quell a lot of the controversy surrounding the issue.

Removing the governemnt form marriage would also benefit me and my family considerably, but not many people are in my corner.

 

[Batman007]

It would be a functional compromise, but it's also quite a libertarian approach. The media generally hates libertarian approaches from what I've seen. Both of your parties seem bent to increase the size of your government and bureaucracy. When our Tories first got in they where on a limiting spending and reducing obtrusive laws platform, but after a few elections they've gone back to expanding too, and the other three major parties are big governemnt as well. It often winds up being a choice between more governemnt oversite here or more oversite there, never a more freedom option.

Yeah, one or both of the parties have to gain something for congress to even consider it. Even then, it probably won't pass.

American politics are so screwed up these days, in BOTH parties.

 

[JGPS]

I've seen that too. There isn't really any good way to change things either.

We have much more powerful third parties and more independents up here, but even they have a very hard time getting in office and even then having any influence.

Unfortunately politics have been thriving on polarizing the population and making people who support the other party a villain. Our politics have been horrible for smear campaigns in the last few elections, and thats on all sides. When you hold power by vilinizing the other side its very hard to come to these kind of functional compromises like we're talking about here.

 

[Batman007]

That's very true, because as soon as you agree to something the "other side" supports, you're just like them, a villain like you said. It's pretty messed up yet so commonplace. Even my mom, who I tend to agree with on most issues, says she'd only ever vote for a democrat.

"But don't you think you should examine all issues and vote according to what you believe, not what the party believes?"

"Don't care, I'm not voting for a republican."

Ugh. It's frustrating, especially when I point out the hypocrisy and she either doesn't understand or doesn't want to. My sister does the same thing.

"People will find an issue and only vote for the side that supports it, regardless of other views!" (like someone who will only vote for a pro-life candidate, even if they disagree with all their other political views). "It's sickening!" she says.

Then our next conversation: "I'd never vote for someone who is pro-life. Keep your hands off my body." I point out the hypocrisy and she gets angry.

It's unbelievably annoying, but almost everyone does it!

 

[JGPS]

It's a big problem that you have to vote for a set of ideals rather than individual ideals. Every candidate embodies a block of stances and no one in their right mind would agree to all of them if they actually knew them all. We have a further problem of vote splitting. I've had to decide between voting for the major party that has a good chance of getting in that hold stances I can somewhat tolerate, or the third party thats closer to what I want but has a very slim chance...

I suppose you have the same option there, you can vote for third parties, its just they never do get in in the US as opposed to only rarely getting in in Canada.

It makes so much of voting an attempt to vote for the least of several evils. It's not even compromising with people who hold other ideals, everyone ideals are comprised as only bad options are presented to us.

I've had a Member of Parliament for my area that I really respected, but the job actually drove him to a total breakdown as he attempted to get anything done. Now I have a 'generic guy' MP who just does what his party says. I don't exactly feel represented .

I do believe that people could come to good fair comprimises about these issues in the past. But both your system and mine are getting very run down. Your checks and balances by and large don't exist anymore. They've been stripped away one by one. And the few that do still stand don't have the power to keep corruption in line.

 

[FrankensteinGirls]

Nautilus,
i see no connection between racial equality and the gay agenda.
one is human beings created in God's image treating each one as human beings, not animals, not using skin color as a cover for barbarism.
the other is the representative of an entire nation making a declaration on behalf of that nation that sexual sins condemned by God are good, and to be encouraged.

they are apples and oranges.

we are not in any way helping the homosexuals by telling them what they want to hear now.
if you don't know what God has said about it, maybe you should look.

i don't vote and am not politically active. i won't be opposing anything.
i'm just watching, and suggesting we be prepared to be persecuted for trying to remain within God's plan for sex and marriage and male and female.
and that we be ready to give an answer to any who are called out and seek God.

gays aren't happy, naut.
you know they're not. that's why they act out constantly. all the drama and activism.
drunks aren't happy. drug addicts aren't. adulterers aren't.
it's all real slavery.

and they're just being used to advance a program. everyone who takes part in this rebellion will lose in the end, naut.
read Psalm 2
love zone.

That's quite the generalization, there are many non heterosexual individuals who are very happy.
Drama is acting out, but heterosexuals do just as much of it, activism however is not acting out.

 

[zone]

SEXUAL SABOTAGE
Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D.

"Dr. Reisman successfully spent much of her career laying the foundations for deconstructing both 'soft pornography' and 'Kinsey myths'. Her work, uncovering and documenting systemic perversion by well-funded efforts in academia, politics, business and media, sheds light on what spawned the 'sexual from birth' dogma and helped to launch the global pollution of classrooms and institutions, our print and broadcast media and, indeed, the internet."

""Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."
Charles E. Rice, Professor, Notre Dame Law School"

Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. - Institute for Media Education < click

extensive documentation that this is an agenda.

War Without End

"....To bring about the total disintegration of postwar European and American society -- which, he argued, was the precondition for the defeat of the authoritarian impulse -- Adorno insisted that all forms of beauty had to be purged. Instead, he argued for a steady cultural diet of "Top Forty" pop music and other degenerate forms of "mass culture," which, he argued, over time would trigger various forms of mental breakdown on a mass scale. Adorno itemized these:

De-personalization, the loss of connection to one's own body
Hebephrenia, which he defined as "the indifference of the sick individual towards the external"
Catatonia, "a similar behavior is familiar in patients who have been overwhelmed by shock"
Necrophilia. Adorno declared, "Universal necrophilia is the last perversity of style."

Adorno summarized his case for the exploitation of "Top Forty" music: "The authoritarian character of today is, without exception, conformist.... In the final analysis, this music tends to become the style for everyone, because it coincides with the man-in-the-street style."

Adorno had practiced what he preached. During the 1940s, he had ventured to Hollywood, where he teamed up with Igor Stravinsky to compose motion picture scores. In Hollywood, Adorno and Stravinsky were part of the "British Set," a collection of avant-garde cultural degenerates which also included:

Aldous Huxley, whose fictional and non-fiction writings propagandized for the use of brainwashing and psychotropic drugs to pacify whole societies, and create "concentration camps without tears"

Christopher Isherwood, author of the Berlin Diaries (later adapted for the stage as Cabaret), which promoted that degenerate Weimar culture of drugs and perversion that helped usher Hitler into power.

Alexander Korda, protege of Frankfurt School founder Georg Lukacs, later a leading figure in Britain's wartime Special Operations Executive (SOE) and a leading Hollywood movie producer.

The "British Set," particularly Isherwood, were the "Hollywood connection" for British literary perverts W.H. Auden and Stephen Spender, who would play pivotal roles in the CCF, and, later, in the 1960s Counterculture project, in league with such Frankfurt School cultural icons as Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm.

Adorno had written his Philosophy of Modern Music prescription for producing a society of necrophiliacs through the perversion of music and culture while also working with Horkheimer on The Authoritarian Personality. This effort was, at the time, the most ambitious mass social profiling of the American public ever undertaken. The project, part of the larger Studies in Prejudice series, financed by the American Jewish Committee, aimed at "proving" that the American people, despite their heroic sacrifices to defeat Hitler and Mussolini, were intrinsically fascist and anti-Semitic, and that advanced techniques of psychological manipulation were vital and justified for purging the populace of these evil, "authoritarian" impulses. The two key weapons for this cultural lobotomy: Conformity and Eros, or what is known today as the tyranny of "political correctness...."

War Without End :: View topic - Schizophrenia and Necrophilia < click

 

[zone]

[this is an agenda.[/B]

Nietszche Goes to Hollywood

by Jonas E. Alexis

"...Most people go about living their lives without caring or even being aware that people like Plato or Aristotle ever existed or that their ideas largely constitute the fabric of Western Civilization. So this level does not appeal to many people and has attracted mostly intellectuals.

The second level is the art. It is where ideas are morphed into images (including music) and images in turn shape perhaps half of our lives, whether we are aware of it or not.

Tom Hanks admitted, “I think that when the film industry can capture an idea and make it glamorous and gorgeous, so that the audience isn’t even aware that they’re embracing something they never would have embraced before, then, yes, the film as a social motor can inaugurate some kind of change.” Lenin also learned that very quickly. “One quick way to destroy a society,” he said, “is through its music.”

In other words, a person can learn about Nietzsche through the arts without being aware that there was such a person named Nietzsche, and a person can inject a Weltanschuung in his art without even telling his viewers.

This was one reason why Aristotle declared that music ought to be regulated, for he knew that it could be used as a powerful weapon in bringing about cultural changes. Plato himself declared in his famous work Laws,

“Through foolishness they [the people] deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong way in music, that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave… [As it was,] the criterion was not music, but a reputation for promiscuous cleverness and a spirit of law-breaking.”

David Cronenberg
Fast forward thousands of years later, the most revolutionary individual in Hollywood who has harnessed the revolutionary power of the “art” in order to implicitly attack Western Culture is arguably Jewish director David Cronenberg.

He is revolutionary in the sense that he uses pornography in nearly all his films to get his point across. For Cronenberg, what is up is really down, and what is down is actually up.

Evil is good, and good is evil. “The minute you say evil,” Cronenberg told one Rolling Stone interviewer some years ago, “I think Christianity. I don’t throw [the word evil] around, and it may not be something I even believe in.” If Cronenberg does not believe in evil, then destroying lives through pornography is a good thing.

Then Cronenberg dropped the atomic bomb, a bomb which seems to be the quintessential philosophy that makes up all of Cronenberg’s films—including his recent film Cosmopolis, starring Robert Pattinson of the Twilight saga. He said:

“I’m positing art as a means of coming to terms with death. Yes. I´m putting art in opposition to religion [Christianity, of course]—or as a replacement of religion, in the sense that if religion is used to allow you to come to terms with death, and also to guide you how to live your life, then I think that art can do the same thing. But in a much less schematic way, in a much less rigid and absolute way.”

Where did Cronenberg get those ideas? Well, as E. Michael Jones would have said, the metaphysical and categorical source of those ideas came from the rejection of Logos (Jesus Christ), who is the source for order, harmony, good art, logic, and reason.....

Nietszche Goes to Hollywood | Veterans Today < click


“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing them into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” – 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

 

[zone]

AMORALITY - THIS IS AN ANTICHRIST AGENDA

resist unto the shedding of blood.

say NO.

~

cont....

Nietszche Goes to Hollywood

But there was some honesty in Nietzsche. Unlike Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or (the late) Christopher Hitchens who keep postulating that moral values can exist without God, Nietzsche made it clear that if God is dead, anything is permitted.
If God is dead, you can slash your mother in law with a kitchen knife, you can rape and torture little children for fun, you can destroy people’s lives with fabrications, and that would be all right. In some sense, Richard Dawkins indirectly ends up saying the same thing in River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life.

Richard Dawkins
Dawkins declares, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference…DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

According to the logic of this principle, Stalin or Hitler or Mao didn’t do anything wrong; it was good that they had to execute millions of people. They were just dancing to their DNA.

But in The God Delusion, the book that made the Oxford don a celebrity, Dawkins violates his own principles by postulating that “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Unpleasant? Petty? Unjust? Ethnic cleanser? How did those moral judgments subtly slip into the equation? Why is Dawkins so judgmental? I thought there were no good and no evil? Could it be that the God of the Old Testament was just dancing to His DNA?

Why is Dawkins so jealous in not letting the God of the Old Testament have His way? Moreover, if He doesn’t exist, why would a person of Dawkins’ caliber be mad about someone who doesn’t even exist? Could it be that Dawkins was implicitly appealing to a transcendent moral law that is independent of what he and others like?

The only difference between Dawkins and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche got guts, and Nietzsche should be applauded for that. But to return to our point, if God is dead, it is all right to lie to your friend, even though that big or small lie might lead the person to his or her own her death. As Nietzsche put it,

“To be truthful means using the customary metaphor—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.”

From this principle, it follows that morality is an illusion, truth a myth; and a lie is perhaps the best “truth” that will liberate mankind from the shackles of morality, most specifically the morality that stems from Christianity. This madness was a call to overthrow all values, wherever values are found—whether they be tribal or universal. To paraphrase Nietzsche, it is the transvaluation of all values.

Nietzsche declared in The Birth of Tragedy:
“Yes, my friends, believe with me in the Dionysian life and in the rebirth of tragedy. The age of the Socratic man is over; crown yourselves with ivy, take the thyrsus stalk in your hand…You are to lead the Dionysian celebratory procession from India to Greece! Arm yourselves for a hard battle, but have faith in the miracles of your god!”

Who, then, was Dionysus?
It was the Greek god of wine and revelry, and Apollo was the god of the art. And Nietzsche’s choice of Dionysus and Apollo as figurehead to his new religion was a specific one—as god of drama, music, poetry, theater, etc., Nietzsche knew all too well that this would bring about the transvaluation of all values. He later declared that “the fight against Christianity is merely a special case.”

Lastly, Nietzsche declared in The Anti-Christ:
“This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found…I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.”

The Wachowskis declared, “It’s all there in Nietzsche, man. We dwell in the dominion of truth and are marshalling our armies of metonyms and anthropomorphisms into our future work.” Marshalling our armies? Are we in a war? Well, for the Wachowskis, we are.

At the end of the Matrix Revolution, the third movie, Agent Smith declares that truth and love are “vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning and purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although it’s only a human mind that invents something as insipid as love.” This is Nietzsche in a new garb.

Don’t forget the principle here, if God is dead, then man is in charge. What do we see at the end of The Matrix? Neo, the inversion of Christ, died to save “Zion.” And The Architect said when Neo died, “It is done.” This was Christ’s last words when He died on the cross. The Matrix is littered with biblical languages, but as Joe Schimmel pointed out, at their eventual root those languages are Gnostic inversions of Christianity.

But this is not just happening in The Matrix. For example, in V for Vendetta, when the main character V is introducing himself to Evey, he says, “The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.” Sounds poetic.

But who wrote the comic book upon which the movie was based? The legendary Alan Moore, a devout follower of Aleister Crowley. Moore declared that “the actual religion Christianity is obviously something that is completely soul-destroying.” And who were the screenwriters and producers for V for Vendetta? The Wachowskis. And once again in the movie V keeps telling Evey that “lies can be used to tell the truth.”

Nietszche Goes to Hollywood | Veterans Today < click

 

[Batman007]

It's a big problem that you have to vote for a set of ideals rather than individual ideals. Every candidate embodies a block of stances and no one in their right mind would agree to all of them if they actually knew them all. We have a further problem of vote splitting. I've had to decide between voting for the major party that has a good chance of getting in that hold stances I can somewhat tolerate, or the third party thats closer to what I want but has a very slim chance...

I suppose you have the same option there, you can vote for third parties, its just they never do get in in the US as opposed to only rarely getting in in Canada.

It makes so much of voting an attempt to vote for the least of several evils. It's not even compromising with people who hold other ideals, everyone ideals are comprised as only bad options are presented to us.

I've had a Member of Parliament for my area that I really respected, but the job actually drove him to a total breakdown as he attempted to get anything done. Now I have a 'generic guy' MP who just does what his party says. I don't exactly feel represented .

I do believe that people could come to good fair comprimises about these issues in the past. But both your system and mine are getting very run down. Your checks and balances by and large don't exist anymore. They've been stripped away one by one. And the few that do still stand don't have the power to keep corruption in line.

Yep!

Exactly. If you're not apart of the democratic or republican party, you won't even be in the debates. I believe I read somewhere that our founding fathers were very against the split-party system for this reason, although I see no chance of it changing any time soon. It's too popular.

And of course no matter how many parties there are, it is likely that any candidate will have some beliefs opposed to your own. The only problem is now in our countries, there are only two options. Many just pick the lesser of two evils. If you like a candidate that's great! If you don't tough love, you have to pick one. That won't go away with more than two candidates, but the people will be much better represented. Again, I think this goes back to labeling the opposing party the enemy. Even if you wanted to create a new party with some of the ideas of both, you won't get many voters because they're afraid to compromise.

That's really too bad I bet a lot of people who would love to run for office are too afraid to these days, even if they'd be great! You can't win. You'll be labeled horrible things from the opposing side (terrorist, child-murderer, communist, nazi, socialist - which is for some reason a bad word, religious nut, teabagger, etc.). If you mess up or make a mistake or make a bad political move, then you're side turns against you. If you say something too controversial, your political career is ruined.

It's sad times. Hopefully it can get better before it all collapses.

 

[JGPS]

The split party system always was too popular, thats how you've had it ever since Washington left office. But I have read Washington himself didn't like it.

We have three (technically 4, but one is way behind) major parties. Lesser of three evils is no better here than lesser of two there

We used to have a something called 'instant runoff voting' where you'd vote for your first pick, and if they didn't get in your vote would go to your second pick and so on so people would be better represented. That was great for our democracy, and great for third parties who you could vote for much more readily. It was, however, horrible for the large centralized parties that where forming, so they took that option out as soon as they got enough power too.

But just recently, like the last decade, the 'other party' has become the enemy. It's a really bad trend in politics. I know members of different parties never got along swimmingly, but that wedge between them is being constantly aggravated by media and other institutions. Even your news networks are segregated between hard right bias and hard left bias... It's hard to find decent news reporting that attempts to be objective nowdays.

Socialist has been made a bad word in America (and to a much lesser extent parts of Canada) due to cold war propaganda that the generation before us had shoved down their throat... It kind of drives me nuts that people can't often have a decent conversation about that.

But yeah, we do need a change. Corruption and shortsightedness have to be reduced or the next generation will not be able to enjoy the things we have. But its hard to get so much as a city council that isn't blatantly corrupt...

I'm sure there are a lot of things that can be done, but the only thing I can think of worth mentioning here is to fight the polarization. You've seen it. Paint the other side as evil and don't hear them out. We've got to oppose that.

It's been said that Tolerance is the last true virtue of a dying society. Eventually true tolerance becomes another kind of apathy, then we're in trouble. Tolerence has to mean hearing out the other side and reasonably expressing disagreement without becoming enemies. As soon as it means 'do what you want I don't care' it isn't tolerance anymore.

 

[Batman007]

The split party system always was too popular, thats how you've had it ever since Washington left office. But I have read Washington himself didn't like it.

We have three (technically 4, but one is way behind) major parties. Lesser of three evils is no better here than lesser of two there

We used to have a something called 'instant runoff voting' where you'd vote for your first pick, and if they didn't get in your vote would go to your second pick and so on so people would be better represented. That was great for our democracy, and great for third parties who you could vote for much more readily. It was, however, horrible for the large centralized parties that where forming, so they took that option out as soon as they got enough power too.

But just recently, like the last decade, the 'other party' has become the enemy. It's a really bad trend in politics. I know members of different parties never got along swimmingly, but that wedge between them is being constantly aggravated by media and other institutions. Even your news networks are segregated between hard right bias and hard left bias... It's hard to find decent news reporting that attempts to be objective nowdays.

Socialist has been made a bad word in America (and to a much lesser extent parts of Canada) due to cold war propaganda that the generation before us had shoved down their throat... It kind of drives me nuts that people can't often have a decent conversation about that.

But yeah, we do need a change. Corruption and shortsightedness have to be reduced or the next generation will not be able to enjoy the things we have. But its hard to get so much as a city council that isn't blatantly corrupt...

I'm sure there are a lot of things that can be done, but the only thing I can think of worth mentioning here is to fight the polarization. You've seen it. Paint the other side as evil and don't hear them out. We've got to oppose that.

It's been said that Tolerance is the last true virtue of a dying society. Eventually true tolerance becomes another kind of apathy, then we're in trouble. Tolerence has to mean hearing out the other side and reasonably expressing disagreement without becoming enemies. As soon as it means 'do what you want I don't care' it isn't tolerance anymore.

What are the three parties?

Hmm that instant runoff thing sounds really interesting! I've never heard of something like that.

Yeah finding a good news source is next to impossible. I refuse to watch any television programs like Fox or MSNBC here in the states, and if for some reason I do I fact check anything I would want to repeat to anyone else.

Yeah I hear ya. America is capitalist and I have never met anyone who wants to really change that. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't good to have some ideas from socialist countries. I think they should look at what WORKS and not what category it falls under.

"fight the polarization. you've seen it. paint the other side as evil and don't hear them out. we've got to oppose that." I love you

Yes! Yes yes yes! Tolerance isn't bending over backwards for those you disagree with. Tolerance is acknowledging differences and knowing that just because someone views the world through a different lens, they're not bad people. They probably have good ideas that they genuinely think will help. People these days don't LISTEN.

 

[zone]

Yes! Yes yes yes! Tolerance isn't bending over backwards for those you disagree with. Tolerance is acknowledging differences and knowing that just because someone views the world through a different lens, they're not bad people. They probably have good ideas that they genuinely think will help. People these days don't LISTEN.

can tolerance be legislated Batman?
should it be?

 

[JGPS]

What are the three parties?

Right now its the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party, with the PC holding office. The NDP being far left, Liberals being centrist left, and the PC party being centrist right. Before that the NDP where a non-entity fedrally and it was the Liberal party, the Conservative party, and the Tories which where far right. The Tories and Conservatives merged to beat the Liberal party. But now the Liberal party is almost gone after a blowout last election and it's the PC vs the NDP in most cases.

Hmm that instant runoff thing sounds really interesting! I've never heard of something like that.

That's quite an old system. The liberal and conservative parties worked together to get rid of it in 1951.

Yeah finding a good news source is next to impossible. I refuse to watch any television programs like Fox or MSNBC here in the states, and if for some reason I do I fact check anything I would want to repeat to anyone else.

The BBC used to be great for world news. I don't find it to be as good anymore though. Once in a while I've seen some good reporting though. Ever checked the news the Wii news channel gives you? It's actually quite impartial world news.

Yeah I hear ya. America is capitalist and I have never met anyone who wants to really change that. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't good to have some ideas from socialist countries. I think they should look at what WORKS and not what category it falls under.

That's a good way of looking at it.

"fight the polarization. you've seen it. paint the other side as evil and don't hear them out. we've got to oppose that." I love you

Well thank you.

Yes! Yes yes yes! Tolerance isn't bending over backwards for those you disagree with. Tolerance is acknowledging differences and knowing that just because someone views the world through a different lens, they're not bad people. They probably have good ideas that they genuinely think will help. People these days don't LISTEN.

That sums it up nicely. Too many people refused to have meaningful conversations in the name of tolerence. It drives me crazy...

 

[Batman007]

can tolerance be legislated Batman?
should it be?

Hahaha how on earth could tolerance be legislated??

 

[Batman007]

Right now its the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party, with the PC holding office. The NDP being far left, Liberals being centrist left, and the PC party being centrist right. Before that the NDP where a non-entity fedrally and it was the Liberal party, the Conservative party, and the Tories which where far right. The Tories and Conservatives merged to beat the Liberal party. But now the Liberal party is almost gone after a blowout last election and it's the PC vs the NDP in most cases.



That's quite an old system. The liberal and conservative parties worked together to get rid of it in 1951.



The BBC used to be great for world news. I don't find it to be as good anymore though. Once in a while I've seen some good reporting though. Ever checked the news the Wii news channel gives you? It's actually quite impartial world news.

Ok cool! I need to learn more about Canada. I know about a lot of your laws but not so much the politics.

Yeah I've used BBC. I haven't, although sadly I don't have a Wii.

 

[KCKID]

Did we ever determine why gay marriage is bad for society? Did we ever determine where God clearly states that gay marriage is 'sinful'? Chapter, verse ...please.

 

[Red_Tory]

Did we ever determine why gay marriage is bad for society? Did we ever determine where God clearly states that gay marriage is 'sinful'? Chapter, verse ...please.

Why rely only upon scripture?

The case isn't just that gay marriage is is sinful. It's that marriage as an institution is rooted in Natural Law, and exists as a result of the complementary being of male and female within creation. So I would say it's not "gay marriage is sinful", it's "actually, gay marriage is oxymoronic and doesn't exist according within the Law of Nature."

The assertion that marriage is derived from the complementary nature of creation is supported by scripture, but we needn't necessarily rely upon it for the argument.

 

[Nautilus]

Following the law of nature is only applicable if you follow john lockeif im not mistaken. Regardless of that though..someone else's homosexual relationship has no application towards my lifestyle as a christian