TreeBeard

What specific teachings happening in the real world are you objecting to?

It’s not equivocating to point out that your objection is inconsistent with reality. Gay sex is a lifestyle, premarital sex is a mistake. God disapproves of gay sex because it can’t produce children like natural sex. Neither can the sex of old people and infertile people, but that sex is ok. Your reasons just don’t follow. I am pointing out the inconsistencies. If you don’t care that it’s inconsistent , then ok.

Maybe the courts can decide the matter?

Trump is not guilty because Hunter Biden smokes crack? Hmmm…. Not the soundest of arguments. I think that crack was planted on Hunter Biden by the FBI.

It’s not a lifestyle to have premarital sex? But homosexual sex IS a lifestyle. That seems inconsistent and contradictory to me. So elderly people having sex, or infertile people having sex must be forbidden too then? If that’s the rationale for forbidding gay sex, I guess those others MUST be forbidden, or it would make your reasons why inconsistent, at best.

So homosexual sex is the “lifestyle “… Since your objection seems to be rooted in Catholicism, i assume you oppose people having premarital sex too? Do you think the premarital sex lifestyle is as bad as the homosexual sex lifestyle?

You advocate the USA going to war with Iran? I doubt there’s much appetite in having another war in the Middle East. It certainly wouldn’t be a NATO effort. Diplomacy seems like the better path.

What is “wokism”? Calling something a “lifestyle” implies that the person is making a choice, does it not? Are you leading a “straight” lifestyle? What about gay people who one would never know are gay? Are they still leading a “fringe lifestyle”? I guess I am wondering…. What about being gay is a “lifestyle”?

@Nationalist’s argument, framed differently. Conservative: “what is so great about Trudeau’s policies?” Liberal: “What are your intentions, you lying Conservative sack of shit”? You seem obsessed with making everything personal. I think it’s to try and hide the fact that you can’t come up with a coherent argument about what is problematic that is being taught.

You find that hilarious,eh? Apparently, @Infidel Dog would like to see legalized rocket launchers, because cars kill more people.

You honestly don’t see the difference between explosives and cars? Do you think Canada should legalize the ownership of hand grenades?

Knives can clearly do horrific damage, but guns could potentially do much more, no?

If woke means trying to target a larger audience to make more money, then I guess the answer is yes?

You don’t think being gay should be affirmed as being acceptable in Canadian society, when it didn’t use to be in many ways?

Do you think this is how a corporation should work with workers cowing in terror of their superiors?

Didn’t you post an article about America becoming the new Sodom and how evil that was? That gays like to stuff gerbils up their bums? That God is going to punish these wicked sodomites? So this leaves me a bit confused…. Do you want God to strike them down? Or would you prefer everyone be treated respectfully and equally?

I don’t disagree. However, marriage laws aren’t going anywhere, so should be available equally to keep the “social engineering” to a minimum.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…. USA has wars, but it just fights them elsewhere. Except when they fought Mexico…. Or the indigenous nations. You also ignore USA fighting Britain over Canada. (1812) I think you’re cherry picking your data.

If God didn’t approve of Lot offering his daughters up to be raped, why did he let him flee Sodom? Would you really consider offering up your own daughters like Lot did?

If you’re an extreme social conservative who considers abortion murder and that people shouldn’t be able to end their own suffering, then I agree…. The USA is morally superior. However, most Canadians don’t share that view.

Please…. Stop…. Learn from someone. It has only been used that way for some 600 years, off and on…. Yes, it fell out of favour, but it’s nothing new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century,[3] about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error.[4] Its continued use in modern standard Englishhas become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language.[5][6] Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing,[7][8] by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun.[9][10][11][12] No, you don’t have a graduate degree in literature. You can’t. Or you went to the shittiest school on the planet. Trump U.?

Why should we go by your definition of marriage and not the legal definition?

You’ve never thought about a hypothetical before? I think you’re just avoiding the question. However, it should really be a simple decision. Anyone who is willing to give up their daughters to be raped by a mob for any reason is an immoral monster. Why do you think God spared Lot by letting him flee the city? Do you think He approved of trying to save the angels by sacrificing his daughters?

If you want perfect legislation where there can never be any mistakes, then I can’t help you. You’re beyond discussing the topic with. I think the legislation is better than no legislation. If you want to discuss not allowing it, then fine…. That’s your opinion, but it is against the Charter and against what most Canadians want as well. Good luck with that. Canada has moved beyond regressive opinions like that.

Lot offered up his daughters to be raped instead. What do you think of that? Would you do that?