Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[MrFun]

I hear that a lot, but it really doesn't translate well to Christians as a whole. The message has long been lost to most Christians.

I haven't lost the message of Christian compassion and acceptance of outcasts and others unjustly maligned by their society.

[MrFun]

What does that have to do with the merits of Starr's lawsuit?

Never mind - I don't think you and DD get the point that this legal proceeding involves real people with real families.

Besides this, as others have pointed out here, Starr's bigoted move has no merit.

[Asher]

Hey, don't ignore Nikolai.

He's a softcore version of Ben. Many of the same mental deficiencies, but he has a kinder heart.

[DinoDoc]

Besides this, as others have pointed out here, Starr's bigoted move has no merit.

Based on what legal arguement?

[Ben Kenobi]

Costs time and money, and it's a waste of time. It's an overwhelming consensus on campus.

Wow, what did you conduct? A survey of one?

If there is such consensus then why would you fear a referendum?

As for running again, the student union will cave and reinstate the club, as has happened everywhere else this garbage has been tried. I'm surprised they haven't read up their history.

That's not what's happening, you mental midget.

The student union admitted they have never done this before for any other club, and that it was unique and unparalleled. Says it all to me.

All clubs ARE to be treated equally.

Then why did they single out the prolife campus club?

Just like how the GAY clubs had to alter their signage in the name of public decency,

They were forced to change their advertisements. They weren't banned from hosting gay porn sessions or getting their messages out, "use a condom", "it's ok to be gay", and "christians suck AND blow."

Oh, and I forgot, "the pope is a nazi!"

The university even made a concession and let them KEEP their offensive, graphic signage so long as they arranged the display such that only people who wanted to see it did.

Again, this is viewpoint discrimination. The university has no right to censor the signs, which they have said, by their own admission, are protected by the charter of rights and freedoms.

While the GAY club played ball, the PRO LIFE club thumbed their noses to the students union AND the university administration -- even when faced with direct and explicit warnings for the consequences.

The university charged them with trespass on their own student grounds. The student union should have challenged these bogus charges that have no merit whatsoever. Please, tell me Asher, how it consitutes trespass? This is their campus. They have a right to demonstrate.

[quote[
The playing field is level here, Ben. All of the groups have to play by the same rules. The Pro-Life group thinks they're special, but they're not. They're the ones asking for an exception.
[/quote]

Please explain to me how this action constitutes trespass. That is what the group has been charged, and not convicted. That the student union would sanction them without them being convicted, is also complete garbage. If they are being sanctioned for breaking rules, it's not yet been proved that they have broken the rules of the university.

Your guarantees mean nothing. You are never, ever right.

I've been through this many times Asher. Campus clubs have been banned, and it's always the same process. They get banned. Enormous backlash results. Campus club actually puts out bigger displays on campus. Student Union realises that they made the club stronger not weaker, and recants. Student club reinstated and life goes on.

Remember your "Star Chambers" thing? Where you guaranteed that Macleans would lose the HRC trial about hate literature? And I told you I'd doubt it? And in the end, Macleans won? This is the same ****.

Yeah, they actually won after three years of trial, and the HRCs got clamped down. They are still Star Chambers. I don't see how a private company having to go through three years of trial is a victory.

You've no concept of public fairness or equity, you've no concept of what is right or wrong. You are blinded by your Christian bloodlust and epic stupidity, you don't have a solid grasp on reality.

Cite it or shut the **** up.

University of Victoria for one. Banned, and then reinstated. Look it up, since you say you are so informed on this issue.

That's precisely why the pro-life group is in trouble. They've emotionally assaulted passersbys for years with their offensive and graphic displays then broke university policies to do it. That defines a bully to me.

Right, saying that you disagree with someone is 'emotional abuse'.

[Asher]

Ben, shut the **** up.

Face it: The SU's democratically elected caucus voting on and deciding an issue is an example of "democracy in action".

You're already proven yourself to be wildly wrong regarding the Pro-Life issue so it's no longer up for discussion. I've only read the very last line of your post and again you completely misrepresent my post through either your gross stupidity or malice. The emotional assault wasn't that someone disagrees with me, it's clearly the vivid and graphic images of decapitated infants being shown to people without their consent in an exploitative way, which I've mentioned at least a dozen times in the past week. Are you ****ing stupid, or are you ****ing evil?

Let's focus on you deciding that a democratically-elected government voting on and deciding issues is not an example of democracy. Defend that stupidity in 200 words or less.

[Ben Kenobi]

So when a majority of Americans no longer supported the war, why didn't Bush pull out of Iraq?

Was there a referendum conducted?

And why was it right for the Supreme Court to appoint Bush as President when he didn't have a majority of the votes?

There is no direct election of the president. You are assuming that Bush still would have lost had there been a direct election of the president.

Look at it this way, if republicans in California know that their votes are just as important as say the folks in Nebraska, then they will vote differently.

Bush won according to the rules of the game. If Al Gore could have convinced his home state to vote for him, he would have won, and you'd not have had 8 years to bash Bush.

[Asher]

Was there a referendum conducted?



There is no direct election of the president. You are assuming that Bush still would have lost had there been a direct election of the president.

Look at it this way, if republicans in California know that their votes are just as important as say the folks in Nebraska, then they will vote differently.

Bush won according to the rules of the game. If Al Gore could have convinced his home state to vote for him, he would have won, and you'd not have had 8 years to bash Bush.

Oh holy ****.

Ben, you are the proof every atheist needs that there is no God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's get one thing straight. I may not be a believer anymore, but Christianity is, at its root, a religion of peace, respect, and love.

The **** Ben says, thinks, and does, is hardly Christian. More Christianist, in the same way Ted Haggard's fatwas against the gays were issued.

So you believe that Christ would bless sodomy? I think he made his views on marriage very clear.

As for fatwas, that's quite a bit of hyperbole and overblown rhetoric. I don't believe that gay marriage is a good thing. I think gay people should have the right to tell me to piss off, and that they think I'm an idiot, etc. That also means I get to reject their ideas too. Such is freedom of speech.

Doesn't mean I think all gay people should be slaughtered... you'd have to talk to the Muslims if that's what you want.

[Ben Kenobi]

If that's the case, then he should just accept legal abortions. There is greater support for them than banning them outright.

Ain't democracy a *****?

I was unaware that abortion became legal after a referendum in the States.

Sure, if they want to hold a referendum on whether there should be legal abortions, I say go ahead. It's far better then penumbras and emanations.

[MrFun]

Based on what legal arguement?

I argue that any legal suit that seeks to deny a group of people their civil rights has no merit.

The Supreme Court pretty much declared that the freedom for two loving people to choose to marry one another is a civil right when they said that prohibition on interracial marriage is unconstitutional.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't matter. If only the bigoted Christians make their voices heard, but hte rest of Christianity is silent, it's as good as silent acceptance.

I'm glad you said that asher.

Are you trying to stir up a backlash?

[Asher]

I'm glad you said that asher.

Are you trying to stir up a backlash?

There isn't going to be much. You're too much of a perfect example for my case. I don't see DinoDoc calling you out, for example.

Even your fellow Christians have backed away from you on this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Supreme Court pretty much declared that the freedom for two loving people to choose to marry one another is a civil right when they said that prohibition on interracial marriage is unconstitutional.

Actually, no it doesn't.

Am I allowed to marry my grandmother now, Mr Fun?

All Loving vs Virginia says is that race has no bearing on the institution of marriage, ergo, there is no reason to bar interracial marriage.

Sex on the other hand, is essential to marriage, as it's explicitly said, that only one man and one woman can marry.

You'll have to find another precedent, Mr. Fun.

[Ben Kenobi]

Even your fellow Christians have backed away from you on this one.

You really are a piece of work Asher.

I hope QCubed understands what you are saying here.

Look, there's only one big guy in the sky that I have to answer to when I'm all done here, and it ain't QCubed.

You'll have to answer to him too. All I know is what he's said and he's very clear that marriage is explicitly for men and women only.

It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who believes that and all those who call themselves Christians believe otherwise.