TreeBeard

I did, actually. I said “how they choose to love each other physically”. Which makes me think…. Is the act of gay people holding hands a sin? Kissing? Or is the line at sexual intercourse where it becomes a sin?

The first mention found so far of the term “Catholic” was in 110 AD. So, isn’t the most you could say that somewhere in the 1st or early 2nd century, the Catholic Church was founded? Is it important to you that there were no other churches prior to Catholics?

I never claimed that if it’s not illegal, then it’s good. Why would you think that I do? Not true at all. I can make a moral distinction without thinking that the immoral action should be illegal. I think it’s immoral to tell gay people that they are an abomination, or even how they choose to physically love one another is abhorrent, or a sin…. and yet, I think you have a right to say it.

Thank God we’ve realized that individual liberty is more important than legislating Catholic doctrine. It doesn’t hurt you, so again…. thank God people have the choices to do what they want without being hit on the head with a bible while they’re dragged off to jail for loving someone you don’t approve of. Nonsense. They’re not opponents anymore because the religious are active participants in birth control, abortions, gay sex, and all the other things you mentioned. Just like they always have been. The difference is that when they’re caught, their only consequences are to the people in their own religion who may judge them for what they’ve done.

You completely redefined what is normally meant by the phrase “diversity of life”. You took a term we all learn in grade 8 biology class referring to biological diversity and mangled it to fit some social construct you happen to like. Although, I would point out that in our N.American culture we tend to jam our old folks into communal living apartments when they become a pain to deal with. Don’t tell posters here you admire the Chinese treatment of elderly family, or you’ll be called a commie. Why do you feel the need to redefine terms?

So you think people should be arrested for the sexual positions they prefer with their consenting partner? Do you also think forms of birth control, like the run-of-the-mill pill, should be banned? What about divorce? Ban it? Sex before marriage? Arrestable offence? What a dark-ages view of individual liberty.

Oh please…. Every legitimate judicial system in the world takes time to make decisions.

I agree, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, are fundamental rights enshrined in our Charter. I’ve never claimed otherwise. You ignored my questions. Do I need a god to tell me that arresting gay people for being gay shouldn’t be allowed? Where would I find that value in any of the Abrahamic gods? This state overreach stopped, not because of a god telling people it was wrong, but from people’s own consciences telling them that.

Why does the authority need to be a magical being? Can’t the authority be one’s own conscience? Do I need a god to tell me that arresting gay people for being gay shouldn’t be allowed? Where would I find that value in any of the Abrahamic gods? This state overreach stopped, not because of a god telling people it was wrong, but from people’s own consciences telling them that.

What country has a court system that enforces laws before they’re even brought to them for trial?

I’m not sure. But I like the feature.

Agreed. Foolish. Letters to your MP would work better. But, is it any more foolish than praying to a god who’s not there? Assuming you think most people are praying to the wrong god, or praying incorrectly to the right god, aren’t they even more foolish?

It seems most people who post on the internet claim stuff like this.

It combines your replies within a thread if they’re made within a certain timeframe of each other.

It’s also a lie. No one chooses to be gay. Clearly this clown would be a failure as a parent even if his child were straight.

Are you going to address my question of freedom of conscience and thought and how that squares with the tenets of Christianity? Let’s deal with that first before we talk Hammurabi.

In the primaries? No. I’d love for him to win. It’s the most entertaining option!

Any thoughts on the secular moral value of freedom of conscience? Can we agree that it is a tenet of our Charter? Freedom of religion and conscience. Is this a biblical moral value? I contend that it is not. How could the bible hold freedom of thought as a moral tenet when it preaches things like coveting as a sin? It’s a thought-crime. The bible obviously says that not believing in God is also a sin. Another thought-crime. Can you show me that I’m wrong, instead of merely asserting it?

Which liberals on this forum thought Trump would lose?

That’s an assertion by you…. But looking at the Old Testament, clearly there is chattel slavery allowed and the New doesn’t directly refute slavery, unless it’s a trick of interpretation. Are you saying there was no slavery in Christendom? What is being able to sell your daughter (not sons) other than treating women as property?

I think it’s silly name-calling. It’s not a cult by any normal definition of the word.

You just described the bible. The Middle East during the advent of Christianity was no less advanced about slavery and women as property than Rome was. And they certainly didn’t do away with slavery or treating women as chattel. You’ll deny that because you need it to fit your narrative about biblical morality saving the west, but it’s simply not true. Slavery was practiced up to the 1800s justified by the writings of the bible. I’ve never denied that they were important to the founding of wester; culture and laws. But it’s also true that we have gone way beyond what is biblical teaching in terms of rights of the individual. One instance is freedom of thought/religion. It was never a tenet of Christianity that people should have this freedom. In fact, the church killed blasphemers, Canada had blasphemy laws on the books until recently and the commandments even impose punishment for thinking the wrong thing; coveting and whatnot.

The decision is from a lower court. It will be appealed to Federal Appeals Court by the government. I don’t think this will be the final word by any stretch. It’ll likely need a SC decision as the final determination.

I doubt this ruling will have much effect on the average voter. The Cons and their trucker allies will cheer, of course. But the average Canadian won’t care what legal mechanism was used to remove the boneheads from the city, just that they were removed.

All Western democracies do this. Other than murder, what Commandments are contained within our legal system? Even with murder, our system of law doesn’t take the definition of it from the bible. The founders of both countries realized freedom of religion, something completely antithetical to religion should be the basis of our individual freedoms. So, no…. You’re simply wrong about that. Other than our laws based on the Charter. That secular document prevents Canada from becoming China, or any other country that doesn’t respect those individual rights/freedoms.