Ontario Loyalist

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationwor...0,5835374.story

Well, no, because apparently the vast majority of people "support" gay marriage, gay rights, and the "equality" of the homosexual lifestyle, but the issues of self-hate and self-destructiveness among homosexuals persists.

Homosexuality is self-destructive behaviour, and people who engage in such lifestyles are much more likely to engage in other self-destructive behaviours, such as suicide.

Nope. That's a very disingenuous misinterpretation of what he's saying. True Christians value all life, which is why they are concerned about people engaging in sinful lifestyles and following false prophecies. But one can only invest so much concern for people who obstinantly engage in those behaviours.

Actually, if you look at the Book of Revelations for one, it clearly indicates that there will be wars, and by implication it clearly shows that the events that take place in the world are something that the Christian has to be resigned to accepting. Suggesting that the two side can go kill each other is perhaps a little blunt, but essentially because the two sides seem to be intent on doing just that to each other, then so be it. Both sides--Muslim and Jews alike--know of Christ's teaching, and both refuse to abide by them. In their truest sense, if all people who abide by Christ's teachings, then the world would be peaceful, and this probem/situation wouldn't exist.

There is a noted indifference in the "gay community" towards spreading HIV/AIDs, though. Needless to say, homosexuality is the manifestation of an inner self-hate, self-destructive tendancies, and this is just one way in which it works corrupt and undermine others.

Think about it, though, she's siding with the woman for obvious reasons... she's playing the game, too...

Good-bye, good ridance... charter.rights had hijacked the thread, anyway...

It clearly doesn't dawn on you that the problem here originates with the woman, not him. She's the one who engaged in infidelity, she's the one who sired children while married to him. These girls are now a daily reminder of his cheating wife, and so it should only be expected that he would have difficulty maintaining a relationship with them. Not that it was easy in the first place, his cheating wife having divorced him and reducing his "relationship" with them to support payments an occasional contact. Seriously, you sarcastic, smiley-face-ladden comments aren't exactly examples of "maturity".

Not sure what you mean--and not just because of your typos... I think it's actually rather ironic that you accuse others of "producing suce [sic.] brainless drivel".

Well, let's see... Levine... Jewish name, Birk... Jewish name, Sheps... Jewish name, Yarmolinsky... possibly Jewish name. This seems to be a highly biased source that you keep referring to/promoting. Oh, and Thornhill is Peter Kent territory, and I'm not sure if anyone caught him on the news the other day giving a rousing speech to a bunch of Israeli flag-waving people... If it werent for the odd Canadian flag, one could easily assume this didn't occur in CANADA...

How is he being selfish and cold-blooded. He has a fundamental right to expect children he raises to be his biologically. What the court is essentially saying is that it is okay for women have affairs and introduce offspring into the family which are not biologically those of her partner. The court therefore in a way is sanctioning female infidelity. I guess it should come as no surprise that the "Madam Justice" is a woman, and probably a feminist. In all honestly, I think women are too emotionally invested in "family issues" and should not be ruling in this cases. If you're a man and were in his shoes, you'd be talking MUCH differently...

Well, you're not a man so you really have no right or ability to understand what it really would be like to feel like you've been deceived for SIXTEEN years about who your children are, and now on top of that now he has to keep paying has though the deception had never been revealed. Yeah, whatever, the money in itself is not what the issue is about. He's rightfully entitled to the money because he has to support himself and the money that he has spent as a parent/income source to these children, and will have to pay now could (have) be(en) used for other purposes, such as starting or in vesting in a business...

nice double etendre...

Laws were put in place to protect wives from husbands who were truly abusive and vindictive, but what has happened is that the courts have become a means for women to manipulate and exploit men under the pretext of being victimized. This guy was already not awarded custody of the children, and now that he knows that they are not biologically his, the courts are still ruling that he is the father and that he has to continue to pay. There is NO logic to that. Since it has been determined that he is not the biological father, then it for HIM to decide whether he will continue to be the "father" to the children. It is his right to say "no".

They're NOT his kids... he has every right to not want anything to do with his, and for the courts to rectify the wrong that was committed against him. The"mother" will have to continue raising the kids on her own, thus are the consequences. Besides, since she's equal and liberated, she's had every opportunity to receive a post-secondary education and should be able to find a job that pays well enough to support her children. Isn't that what feminism was all about, anyway???

The relationship between the father and those (not "his") children was put in jeopardy by the women in first seeking a divorce and then in the revelation that the children are not biologically his. Why does the woman get off scott free in this discusion because the problem clearly originates with HER? And what is his role exactly since the divorce? Is paying child support and occasional contact with the children really anything remote to being a "father" anyway? Women need to be held equally accountable by the law, and all this case shows is that there is still a double standard in the legal system in that respect.

Doesn't get "turned on and off" does it? All the time by the courts and the manipulative women that the courts side with. Paying child support is not being a father; it's nothing more than being a source of income. And this is a problem largely created by the court system and feminism. Yes it does have a lot to do with it, actually. He should get the children, and should be compensated financially for what he had to go through because of that woman.

Yes it is exclusionary, and it's about power and control. Power and control is something that feminists harp about incessantly, and it's completely absurd to think that women when they obtain positions of power to not misuse and abuse it.

Nonsense.

LOL

And that makes you who? Reinhard Heydrich?

Then I suppose they should become male nurses... So in other words you use texts recorded by white men.

By the time one complete's their education in the Canadian public school system, they should have developed the ability to think critically. That applies to both "oral" as well as written works. Which I guess is why much of Indian knowledge of their heritage is based on written works such as the Jesuit Relations, and that legal actions by SN are based on written documentation. I dare you to say those exact words in front of a university lecture hall filled with history students/faculty. Laughable, just plain laughable.

In your dreams...