betsy

Oh we've been there....Christians had already tolerated quite a few blasphemous insults...and the curious thing is we've not seen these kind of reactions from indignant sympathizers of the rioting lot. It's even more than just bloody satire cartoons we've dealt with.

Exactly.

That's good news! I stayed away from Mike Duffy today since Jane taber (who's filling in for Duffy) seems to want to insist on dragging the Emmerson case...even after some talk radio guys said that their listeners had already moved on.

August and Theolonius, I've scrolled back down and have not seen one about this issue. Or probably I've missed it. Actually I even thought the forum is avoiding this issue. I hardly go to the other areas in the forum since most of the time I don't have enough time to sit and pore through. I just resent the tone of Black Dog. One can point out something without being unnecessarily rude.

Must be mostly Liberals.

Although I've yet to see these cartoons....I do believe that they're just being used to fuel anger towards the west. I think either Syria or Iran was even telling their people to go out and protest. Btw, One placard from a protester had a caricature of a man wearing a turban made out of bomb...is that one of the cartoons? If it's so blasphemous that they're not allowed to show any images of their prophet, then why was he waving and showing it around?

Or you could back off with your pointless thread proliferation. If you find this topic pointless, then stay out of it! It's as simple as that. What's your problem? Btw, are you the moderator?

I was trying to remove the other post but can't. No, I was not thinking about that. It's just something that just "amaze" me (can't find the right word).. not confined to politics in particular....but just the overall way of thinking and attitude. But now that you've mentioned it, it's an example. I have wondered what if fate had had it the other way...that the suicide planes did not hit the Twin Towers but instead obliterated downtown Toronto or Ottawa. How would we have reacted then? What if the US proceeded to do Afghanistan and Iraq because of Canada...would we still have the same hostile reactions towards the US? I guess this topic just meant to point out. I'm sure the other side will have something to say too about the Conservatives.

I'm not talking about the party....but the liberal way of thinking....the attitude. When you try to figure them out by what they're called, "liberals"....one can easily assume that this way of thinking/attitude is quite "easy-going". That it is about "live and let live" philosophy. But when you really look closely....it is exactly the opposite. It is about "control". And they even interfere with the cultures and laws of other foreign countries, or at least try! They are busy-bodies! If there aren't too many busy-bodies bossing others around...chances are, there wouldn't be too many wars!

I'm not talking about the party....but the liberal way of thinking....the attitude. When you try to figure them out by what they're called, "liberals"....one can easily assume that this way of thinking/attitude is quite "easy-going". That it is about "live and let live" philosophy. But when you really look closely....it is exactly the opposite. It is about "control". And they even interfere with the cultures and laws of other foreign countries, or at least try! They are busy-bodies! If there aren't too many busy-bodies bossing others around...chances are, there wouldn't be too many wars!

No. It doesn't have to be. It's talked about and it's part politics!

Wait til someone from here tries to go in and get refused. Maybe that's when you'll hear some complaint. So far I guess no one is interested to go in a gay bar?

That's why I'm so against the smoke ban! If there's a warning that warns that it is a smoking place, then people can either choose to go in or take their business elsewhere.

Well...you knew by the title this is about those cartoons. Nobody forced you to click in. Back off with your censorship.

As some commentators had said, and which I believe is true, fundamentalists are using the issue in fueling this religious war against the west. And it's about fredom of speech and expression. Remember Salomon Rushdie? Some journalists talk of offensiveness and responsiblity. Where were they when a slab of meat hung on a cross was passed off as "art" in an art gallery? Or when movies depict a blasphemous version of Christ? Sure there were protests from Christians....but I hardly saw any articles preaching about responsibility and offensiveness. But I digress.... I, for one, am curious as to what these cartoons are all about. I've not seen one yet. If Muslims are saying it is blasphemous and offensive to them....I want to see for myself and form an opinion based on what I see. That is what these magazines are doing. Bringing it to us to inform us what the uproar is all about. Those who bowed out and refused to print them....I think they didn't do it out of principle. They're just got scared.

The Western Standards will publish some of the cartoons that caused bloody riots all over the world. Do you think they should or not?

Ladies night as far as I know doesn't bar men from entering. Heterosexuals are barred from entering certain clubs in Toronto. If that's not discrimination then what is ? You can't open a restaurant with a sign that says 'no gays' can you ? Years back there was a case about a gym that caters to women only. A man went in and was denied admission. He made a fuss about it...I don't know though what happened to that case.

What platform is it available? Playstation 2? X-Box?

Marriage had always been and still is, a religious institution. And we're not just talking about Christianity here. Even pagans had their own celebration of the union of a man and a woman, as a marriage. The state wants to take over from religion. The union recognized by the state is not a marriage. It is co-habitation. The only reason marriage had been connected with the state is simply for the purpose of legal benefits (pensions, death benefits etc..,). Almost everyone seems to be agreeable that homosexuals co-habiting together should be entitled to those same benefits. So, why this persistence from the gay groups to crack on marriage? If various religions are practically unanimous in not only regarding homosexuality as a sin...but also look on it as against the law of nature.....it will be almost impossible to change society with the way they view this union. Since we live in a tolerant society, we have come to become tolerant. Even to the point of wanting to see some legal protections for this group. But tolerance does not mean acceptance.

And it didn't! What equal rights have been denied??? Gays have the right to marry as every one else under our traditional definition of marriage. As long as they adhere to its definition. One man and one woman.

Don't adopt any. Create your own.

I'm not arguing that marriages recognized by law is not valid under the law. I'm not saying it isn't binding. What I meant by that word "validation"....is the full acceptance by society to recognize it as a "marriage." Since most religions do not accept homosexual relationships as normal....the large segment of society will never accept this marriage as one and the same with the traditional marriage that we know of. I will always see it as a union...not a marriage! Whether it's government-approved and government-endorsed. And no democratic law can make me change my belief or opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will dig in my heels deeper. That is why you see these little "testing" and challenges of religious laws and beliefs slowly being challenged. Gay groups know that for them to be fully recognized, they would need to break down religion and churches that stand in their way. As a Christian, I feel I have a duty to try to protect my religion and the teachings of my God.

This seems contradictory - on the one hand, you are willing to recognize unions of men and women not joined by a church as marriages, but on the other hand you are saying that religion is the only way to validate a marriage. Personally, I don't care if any religion ever recognizes SSM, as their acceptance or rejection is meaningless to anyone who doesn't subscribe to their dogma. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term, so as long as the law of the land recognizes SSM, the marriages are valid. Maybe it's the wrong term or I have not explained fully. Common-law is not fully accepted in some religions. Unless things have changed, RC is also firm on that. RC does not approve of divorce...they do have annulment. My own priest refused to give me holy communion when he learned I was just living with my then-common law spouse. I knew the rules...I didn't go off spouting they have to change their outlook on these sort of things just because. My point is I don't care whether my friends prefer to marry or not. That is their life. I accept them as individuals. The same way that I accept gays as individuals. I don't care whether they want to live together and have a union. My problem is the way they want to be included in the traditional definition of marriage. Whether it's a legal term or not makes no difference. Whether liberals or gays argue that it's not a religious term makes no difference. Whether the law says it is valid makes no difference! Yes it may be valid under the eyes of the law.... ...but the kind of validation that the gay groups are demanding will take a long time to happen....if it ever happens at all! There will still be that invisible wall separating our belief of what a traditional marriage should be from that type of a so-called "marriage!"

I understand....and I do would like to see gay couples have the same legal protection that all couples have. So, what's wrong about having a state-issued licence without using the word marriage? What's the point of going through this big hurdle....since no matter what, even if SSM remains recognized by law....validation does not come with it, unless it becomes recognized by religion. Why can't you just settle for something like...common-law union? Or coin your own word? Wouldn't it be more preferable to have something gays could call their very own?

Are you consistent with family and friends who are not married in a church -- that their union is somehow invalid and/or less than yours? I've got a lesbian cousin living with a woman...and this was at least thirty years ago when I was a little girl. So I'm not immune to these. I've also got a gay cousin on my dad's side...a very open, flamboyant gay. I guess the family just kept a stiff upper lip dealing with this. And yes, I've got my fair share of relatives and friends who were or are not married in church...but they were/are unions of men and women. That is just the difference, isn't it?