Hello everybody

[molly bloom]

Labelling my argument as 'spurious' doesn't make it so.

You're quite right- my simply stating it's spurious doesn't make it so- but your putting it forward usually guarantees it is.

[Kidlicious]

Loot at the flock dude...

??? I attend a smaller church with a female pastor. But I think, like most churches, there are more females at church.

[Jon Miller]

That kind of depends whether 'keeping things the same' means that a group continues to have their basic rights trampled on. When that is the case, **** the conservtive mindset quite frankly.

Hey, I happily disagree with them, try to convince them, and vote against them.

Saying that they can't have that view, that they must be bigots instead is showing the same refusal to understand another viewpoint (I don't mean to agree with it or support it) as bigots show.

Trampling the basic rights of one group (saying that those who value 'keeping things the same' are all bigots/etc) is just as bad as trampling the basic rights of another group.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I guess so.

I think that if the title is really irrelevant, there is no logical reason not to allow everyone to use the same title.

I genuinely can't see the counter-argument to that.

If the title doesn't matter, let them have the title.
If people don't want them to have the title, doesn't that mean that they think there is some relevance to the title, so it does matter?

If I think that a drake is a male duck then it does matter to me, although both ducks and drakes can do the same (non-biologically dependent) things?

Of course they think there is relevance to the title, because they view that some aspect of that position (which goes with that title) is male. Just like with husband (as another example).

Just because the husband is the male member and the wife is the female member of a heterosexual marriage does not mean that there is an equality problem. And there is relevance to the title: 'husband'.

Also, you are not conservative. There is a large group of people who for various reasons (and there is evidence that some of them are genetic) value "keeping things the same". I actually see this as logical in a way too, risky behavior can give wins, but also can increase losses, and it is useful for some to be more conservative. To a conservative, there is an obvious logical counterargument.

If we value diversity and value that different people have different genetic/social/etc depositions, why can we not value our conservatives? It isn't like they are pedophiles.

JM

[molly bloom]

Catholicism has had these protections since Confederation.

&

Then perhaps Canada can stop persecuting my faith

Same poster. Gosh, you couldn't make it up. Roman Catholicism is so persecuted a faith in Canada that it has huge buildings where followers of the faith can meet openly and hold services, it runs schools and colleges and seminaries, it has representatives who discuss its tenets in various media and it receives state subsidies.

Yeah, it's just like being a Christian in northern Nigeria or Eritrea.

All those fire bombings, assassinations, grenade attacks, mass shootings... poor oppressed Ben.

[kentonio]

Hey, I happily disagree with them, try to convince them, and vote against them.

Saying that they can't have that view, that they must be bigots instead is showing the same refusal to understand another viewpoint (I don't mean to agree with it or support it) as bigots show.

Trampling the basic rights of one group (saying that those who value 'keeping things the same' are all bigots/etc) is just as bad as trampling the basic rights of another group.

JM

No. Sorry but you're actually using a very old argument there, and one that will be familiar to anyone who was around at the time of the civil rights struggle. It's the argument that says that you can change the minds of bigots through discussion, and that the oppressed group should just deal with it while they try and persuade people to come around to their way of thinking. No. It was bull**** then, and it's bull**** now.

I'm actually very disappointed that you took it that extra step of correlating the oppression of a minority with the hurt feelings of a bigoted group who lose nothing by granting the minority their rights. You're usually a better person than that.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. Sorry but you're actually using a very old argument there, and one that will be familiar to anyone who was around at the time of the civil rights struggle. It's the argument that says that you can change the minds of bigots through discussion, and that the oppressed group should just deal with it while they try and persuade people to come around to their way of thinking. No. It was bull**** then, and it's bull**** now.

You mean, respond to physical force with soul force? You disagree with that? You think that the way to go is through violence and coercion?

[Ben Kenobi]

Roman Catholicism is so persecuted a faith in Canada

Every faith that preaches that homosexuality is wrong is discriminated in Canada - it's not just Catholics, and Boissoin, and others have been targetted by the Human Rights Commission for expressing biblical teachings.

[molly bloom]

Don't you know? Only Kenobi lies.

Okay, so this is clearly some attempt at a Zeno of Elea style paradox. Well it won't work with me, buster.

[Jon Miller]

No. Sorry but you're actually using a very old argument there, and one that will be familiar to anyone who was around at the time of the civil rights struggle. It's the argument that says that you can change the minds of bigots through discussion, and that the oppressed group should just deal with it while they try and persuade people to come around to their way of thinking. No. It was bull**** then, and it's bull**** now.

I'm actually very disappointed that you took it that extra step of correlating the oppression of a minority with the hurt feelings of a bigoted group who lose nothing by granting the minority their rights. You're usually a better person than that.

I don't think that conservatives are (necessarily) bigots, and you repeatedly saying 'bigots bigots bigots' is you not understanding them just like many conservatives don't understand homosexual marriage proponents.

My goal on the abortion discussion front has usually been trying to increase understanding, and not repeatedly saying 'murderer, murderer, murderer'. I still think it is more useful to do that, despite the fact that I got a much larger response when I tried 'murderer, murderer, murderer' recently.

JM

[Zevico]

Probably not as we are a secular country who pay little or no attention to religion. I wouldn't have the first idea which counties are majority catholic, muslim or protestant.

George Galloway would. Maybe you should read up about him and his latest electoral victory. Ken Livingstone would know too. The United Kingdom has a serious problem with Islamism. Those are just of two of the "beneficiaries" of that unfortunate ideology. Other "beneficiaries" blew up your train system in 2005.

[molly bloom]

You do know I'm a convert, right?

Hell no!

With your liberal social attitudes, I thought you might be someone who'd grown up in the Roman Catholic faith post Vatican II. Not someone who'd fit in with the worst aspects of Roman Catholicism exhibited in the Spain of Torquemada....

[molly bloom]

I'm not sure why you are obsessed with my sex life.

You (like many other like-minded Christianistas) seem quite obsessed about the sex-lives of gay men and lesbians. Honestly, we do other things besides have sex.


Occasionally, I have a break to eat and drink.

[kentonio]

George Galloway would. Maybe you should read up about him and his latest electoral victory. Ken Livingstone would know too. The United Kingdom has a serious problem with Islamism and those are just of two of the "beneficiaries" of that unfortunate ideology.

George Galloway is a horrible human being. Please explain what you mean by 'a problem with Islamism'.

I don't think that conservatives are (necessarily) bigots, and you repeatedly saying 'bigots bigots bigots' is you not understanding them just like many conservatives don't understand homosexual marriage proponents.

I'm a UK conservative so I'm very aware that conservatism does not equal bigotry. Being a conservative does not make you incapable of understanding that refusing a minority equal rights is bigotry. The onus is on those people to realize that their viewpoint is outdated and revolting, not on the oppressed group to somehow prove they have the right to be treated as human beings.

Seriously, how can you draw a parallel between someone feeling offended by another person being allowed to marry, and someone actually being denied the right to marry. The idea that those things are equal is obscene.

[molly bloom]

Why do you think Elizabeth I was excommunicated?

To pass the time. The Vatican was having a hard time finding charitable things to do.