kengs333

I'm still not sure how you can conclude that being opposed to evil and sin equals "hatred and intolerance". Am I "intolerant" and a "hater" for viewing pedophelia as evil and a sin? "Absurd old book," you say? You mean the book upon which the most modern and advanced civilization in history is based, the book which is still the basis for how you view the world--whether you want to admit it or not? If you hate Christians because of their "absurd old book," the you must really really really hate Jews. Of course you'll never admit to that for fear of being labelled an "anti-Semite," so... Absurd as in what? Believing that evil and sin are wrong? Well, I guess you would have issue with that being a trained killer... So people should be "free" to live their lives? Does that go for pedophiles, polygamists, satanists, communists, etc. ? Oh, okay, "non existent [sic] argument..." Is that the best you can do?

Too bad that the Canada that so many of these men and women fought and died for no longer exists.

Well I don't think that the "agenda" is all that secret... Because it results in evil and sin existing in a society that I have to live in, that's why. I never claimed that you are an intelligent person... Not in a physical sense, but guaranteed there was a period when you stuggled with the issue and concluded that you really had no choice but to accept the gay rights dogma because you'd essentially be a hypocrite not to. That's how sin and evil works. I've never read Grimm's Fairy Tales, so I don't know if it promotes hate, but according to the Bible, sin is evil and wrong; if you believe that condemming sin is "hate" then you've got some serious problems. Ever taken drugs, assaulted someone, had anal intercourse, oral sex, impure thoughts about a child or sibling, lied, stolen, cheated???? Do you engage in that kind of behaviour on a continuous basis? I'm sure you do with some, so that would mean that you have no moral basis for refusing to accept homosexuality as normal. That's how sin and evil works. That's the thing, I'm not condemning anyone. That's a typical gay rights movement sham argument. They condemn themselves; they possess a free will, and they choose evil and sin. I don't find you or this issue at all amusing.

Well I don't think that the "agenda" is all that secret... Because it results in evil and sin existing in a society that I have to live in, that's why. I never claimed that you are an intelligent person... Not in a physical sense, but guaranteed there was a period when you stuggled with the issue and concluded that you really had no choice but to accept the gay rights dogma because you'd essentially be a hypocrite not to. That's how sin and evil works. I've never read Grimm's Fairy Tales, so I don't know if it promotes hate, but according to the Bible, sin is evil and wrong; if you believe that condemming sin is "hate" then you've got some serious problems. Ever taken drugs, assaulted someone, had anal intercourse, oral sex, impure thoughts about a child or sibling, lied, stolen, cheated???? Do you engage in that kind of behaviour on a continuous basis? I'm sure you do with some, so that would mean that you have no moral basis for refusing to accept homosexuality as normal. That's how sin and evil works. That's the thing, I'm not condemning anyone. That's a typical gay rights movement sham argument. They condemn themselves; they possess a free will, and they choose evil and sin. I don't find you or this issue at all amusing.

Oh, yeah, my agenda... It really must be difficult for people like you to accept that there are still people in this world who prefer it to be free from evil and sin. You see, I've never made that suggestion about gays, so looks to me like you're actually more "intolerant" than me. If you think a person wanting a society where people aren't evil and live free from sin is not "healthy," then it only speaks to your own nature.

Every year when Remembrance Day rolls around I can't but think about what Canada has become and what the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice would think if they knew that the Canada that they were fighting for would be systematically changed and they themselves largely forgotten (except maybe for a day, or week during the year). Postcolonialism, radical feminism, socialism, homosexuals, globalization and neoconservatism have all turned Canada into something radically different, and possibly even steering the country towards non-existence. These men and women were of a breed that one rarely sees nowadays, and those that remain are rapidly being lost. There is but one Canadian veteran of the Great War left, and from the Second World War they number, I believe less than 100,000. Not only should we honour these men and women, we should reflect upon the fact that Canada needs to be won back from those who are dragging it down--before it is too late.

Oh, so she was never intending to really die for her convictions. No wonder nobody gave a shit.

You mean this?

Sure you have. You buy into their arguments, whether it's through fear or guilt I can't say; but one way or another their arguments have gotten to you and forced to believe that you have to accept their lifestyle because of issues in your own life. Oh what was that? Didn't you just say you weren't "fooled or brainwashed" by them, yet you use one of their sham arguments. Whether you want to admit it or not, whether you recognize it or not, you're simply helping out with there recruiting. So anyone who expresses an "anti-gay" opinion may secretly be gay and hasn't come to terms with it? It would seem to me that this would actually be the case for people who defend the gay lifestyle.

Actually, I believe I've already stated that I've "known gay people" and this is the reason that I don't buy into their lifestyle. try using valid logic in your arguments. I have no need or reason to associate with people who engage in deviant behaviour, and there is nothing to "understand" about them and their lifestyle. Sinful behaviour is sinful behaviour, whether its being gay, a pedophile, or a mass murderer. Do I need to associate with mass murderer before I have the right to consider them evil? Must I "understand" them first? If you would have been able to talk with real died-in-the-wool Nazis on an individual basis you probably would have found them to be "nice" people, but that doesn't change the fact that they represented an evil ideology. Just because on the surface gays are "nice" or "good bunch to hang out with" doesn't mean that their lifestyle isn't what it is: evil.

The guy's an idiot. There are 100s of posts made by him on this forum to attest to that fact.

Every human being has fundamental human rights. Engaging in deviant sexual behaviour is not a fundamental right, and if the majority wish to consider it unlawful then that's how it is.

Just goes to show how warped our society has become if someone who defends the gay lifestyle considers people who disagree to be insane. So Agnes thinks that whoever doesn't agree with his/her opinion is "stupid". How quaint. No. Because I think that that some "hetero couples" have the same warped perception of love and marriage that gays do. In part it usually has to do with the confusion caused by deviance that exists in society. So if gays "love" one another, that means all people of the same sex who claim to "love" one another are in fact gay? What about gays who engage in pederasty? Is that "love," too? Yes, several--which is why I don't buy any of the nonsense surrounding the gay rights movement. I don't associate with anyone who engages in any form of deviant sexual behaviour. Don't tell me that you actually consider it some sort of criteria or qualification that one has to associate with people of deviant lifestyle in order to be what? modern? progressive? cool? not stupid? If you're such a ball-less twit that you have to conform to whatever society dictates, that's your problem; I make up my own mind based on my own assessment of an issue or situation, and nothing that I've seen about the gay lifestyle or gay movement indicates that there is anything good or right about it. In fact, the fact that they've latched onto legitimate civil rights issues and have managed to coerce people such as yourself into accepting their deviant lifestyle as legitimate just goes to show how evil these people are.

You're bonkers if you think that GWB is a "great President". The further we move along, the more abstract and theoretical the debate comes over his presidency--just like that of presidents from generations that have now passed. Nothing short of revisionist history will change the fact GWB is extremely unpopular and is held in probably the lowest esteem by the international community than any other US president.

The gay lifestyle is all about sex. Whatever the case, though, the fact remains that the majority in California voted against SSM and the majority rules. And this is California, of all place, where morality--in some parts--is unheard of. It's funny how these people (gays) believe that if the laws are changed in their favour, these laws for some reason are set in stone and should never be changed; that's not how it works.

Sexual deviance was the norm in Imperial Rome, so you could look there for starters. Most minority groups don't engage in behaviour that could lead to a backlash, so it's just a matter of Christianity being reduced to a status where they will be victimized as they were in Imperial Rome, or other parts of the modern world. Look at Christian minority groups in India or Iraq, for instance; they are routinely murdered, but it rarely makes the news. Also, there have been a number of instances of widespread arsons against churches in North America, and it NEVER gets characterized as a hate crime; so my guess is that deliberate attacks by gays against Christians are either not openly revealed as hate crimes, or are just not reported as such. Also, one could also look at it this way: since homosexuality is a sin, the fact that homosexuals engage in their lifestyle and actively try to promote and normalize it, thus making this world an evil place, they are from a Christian standpoint engaged in hateful activities. You not being a Christian simply don't recognize it for what it is, therefore you can claim that you are not "aware" of such behaviour. Only a handful of gays are victims of violence, and many of them are at the hands of other gays. Domestic violence within the "gay community" is something that is not made an issue of, largely because the gay community doesn't want to make known just how extensive the problem is.

So if he starts pushing his agenda too far then he turns into another GWB--I find that highly unlikely. Obama is much more savvy, and no doubt he will want to stick around for eight rather than four years.

One thing is for sure, there is absolutely NO indication that he will be worse than GW Bush--that is certainly an impossibility...

Bush is extremely unpopular, and his policies have nearly ruined America's standing in the international community. McCain tried to distance himself from Bush, but to no avail--in the end, a Republican is a Republican, and enough people were tired of the Republicans to vote for change. Actually, there's substntiated evidence to indicate that there was tampering in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. If my facts are bogeymen to you, you need help. Thirteen. And don't forget the 25 years or so that he was in politics before that. I think he was about 27 years old when he started to learn English, and despite that and some facial paralysis, he was and still is without doubt far more articulate than George W. Bush.

Too bad he is really starting to show signs of his age...

It's interesting looking at the results; the country is practically divided up the way it was in 1861 if you ignore the northern midwestern states that at the time were still "Indian territory". The North sides behind one candidate, the South behind another; states like Virginia and Kentucky are divided, Missouri is so divided that it hasn't been called yet. The only minor differences are that South Carolina might go to Obama, Maryland went to Obama, as did Florida (not by much). I'm wondering how much of a resurgance there will be in the South in an interest in a Confederacy, or at least Confederate heritage.

Yeah, my "agenda"--whatever... Age, health, physical appearance are all significant factors in how people choose leaders. Granted, in American politics, most people have such ingrained party biases that most people who voted Rep would have done so even if the candidate was a sack of potatoes. Palin was a huge mistake, but McCain will never admit it out of respect for that woman.

Yeah, unlike Bush who simply won because of rigged voting machines.

Yes, McCain was too old, and if anyone cared to notice how some days he looked stiff as a board.

So what? How much did Bush win by, and under what questionable circumstances both times? Bush did McCain in--Eight years of Bush are not easily forgotten.