Goddess
-
Posts
10,058 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
93
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Goddess
-
Not flexible - vague. It's vague enough that you can make it mean anything you want it to.
-
I think the first rule of religion should be the same as Fight Club.
-
-
1
-
- Report
- Show previous comments 1 more
-
First rule of Fight Club is we don't talk about Fight Club.
-
-
Because most times men who are revolted by male homosexuality are not revolted by female homosexuality. I was just curious if you were one of those. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
-
This jerk does not speak for me.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3567893/justin-trudeau-jealous-immigrants-ctv-interview/
-
-
2
-
- Report
- Show previous comments 12 more
-
@hot enough Your narrative is not based on fact, so stop spreading lies. Canadian gov might be guilty of cultural genocide (residential schools) but they didn't try to kill all aboriginals. Go read a history book.
-
-
1
-
- Report
-
Genocide is destroying your enemy, slaughtering them, burning them in ovens or piling their heads up outside their cities. All Canada tried to do was teach the indians how to live in a modern world so they didn't have to spend their lives in poverty in the bushes. Too bad it didn't work.
-
The fact is, Canada has engaged in cultural genocide for well over a century, and then years of covering the crime up.
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "
-
-
Just curious, but do you feel revolted at the thought/sight of 2 women kissing or having sex?
-
Sorry, I had thought you said you were confused by it all. When it's 2 women getting married, they are both Brides. 2 men, they are both Grooms. The wedding I was talking about was 2 women, so both are Brides. I was born and raised in a religion that believed homosexuality was a choice and that the sex act was perverted and sinful. Having been lied to by the religion about other things, I checked that out too. I found out that being gay isn't a choice people make, like belonging to a certain religion. Your religion is a choice. Your sexual orientation is not. Anyways, I understand the situation differently than you do. As long as you aren't harrassing/beating up gay people or discriminating against them, you are entitled to your feelings, as I am to mine. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts though.
-
I still think you're confusing romantic love and love for another human being. It's okay that you are confused about romantic love between gay persons. Maybe you could educate yourself on the science behind it and that would help. I've been to a few gay weddings and have quite a few gay couples as freinds. There really is no difference in their relationships. They have the same struggles and joys. On a side note, one wedding I went to, they had a sign posted at the ceremony for which side to sit on: I thought it was cute.
-
I think you're confused between what constitutes a "rommate" and what constitutes a "lover".
-
I disagree. There are taxation issues that come into play, there are medical decisions that can only be made by marriage partners, there are psychological reasons for wanting to get married (same as for heteros - some want that legal commitment), there are legal issues that can arise when a couple is not married.
-
And let's not pretend that they are not forced to do so in Canada. Here was another comment from that same discussion I'm having:
-
Straight people have always been allowed to marry. It's never been illegal to be straight. Think about that for a minute. Do you only have sex for purposes of procreation? Or do you do it sometimes just for pleasure? Which island would you send infertile couples to?
-
Straight people have never needed a Pride parade. They've always been accepted.
-
No. That would be unreasonable. Sort of like equating women forced to wear burkas, to a person's choice to wear a hat.
-
You think a burka is like a hat? Really?
-
Really good article on Tolerance and what it means. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 .
-
One example: Provinces notify clinics if one of their patients is getting opiod scrips from more than one doctor. Not every doctor wants to work with a patient who does that. I have a friend that's a nurse practitioner. The only difference between her and a doctor is that she can't prescribe opiods. And she's Okay with that.
-
Maybe overthere s a male and in no danger of ever being forced into a burka, so tolerating it would be super easy for him. Why can't the rest of us? Oh, yeah, cus we're intolerant bigots.
-
There you go! Now you're thinking like a radical. Note #4.
-
Doctors can choose not to see a certain patient, too.
-
Yes. I'm of the mind that you can see whichever doctor you are most comfortable with.
-
Not like on this forum. Mind you, we all are like-minded people over there and know each other well, so there is no "assumptions" on the other side either that anyone else believes "ALL" Muslims think a certain way. We don't have to put it in every post we make.
-
I didn't include those kinds of comments. However, I do think it's fairly safe to assume that people who are this fundamentalist in adhering to a religion, also agree with what the religion teaches in other areas. Not all, obviously.
-
Here are some thoughts and feelings from Westerners about burkas/niqabs/hijabs. I know that the pro-Islam people will argue that their feelings are not valid and these people are just racists and Islamophobes. But I think they make some really valid points.
-
Diversity and Tolerance are Canadian values. But just because something is of a different culture doesn't mean that it has to be respected or that it holds any merit. It's not wrong to hold abhorrent and be repulsed by cultural norms that harm and oppress others. Part of the problem with Islam is that it's not reciprocal as far as cultural tolerance. I don't think "My religion says so" is a good reason to accomodate and perpetuate archaic, stone-age beliefs. And then when you get ones who advocate that Muslim preferences take precedence over Western preferences in Western countries - well, culture clashes are inevitable. Society has a difficult task in balancing the interests of people to be free to choose their own world views, with the need to be free from harmful actions and practices of others.
