marksman

The only thing worth noting about your post is that you completely avoided any response that would back up your point of view. As others have pointed out you're so far incapable of showing how homosexuality is evil. That puts you on par with the crazy drunks you sometimes hear yelling from street corners. You can upgrade your status by trying to post something other than nazi comments or your opinions that you try to disguise as facts. Prove domestic violence is more prevalent in homosexual relationships. I'm not expecting an actual answer from you given your posts in this topic.

Actually they'd agree with your views on homosexuality not with mine. Others have pointed out it's more than just your use of the word sin. But even if it was only the use of that word then it's a religious viewpoint. Sin is a religious concept. Step 1: Show that homosexuality is harmful and destructive. Let me know when you pass that step. Until then you're assuming its harmful and destructive without any reason which is intolerant. Your argument is irrelevant until you deal with step 1. But Canada isn't a failed experiment when it persecutes anyone other than Christians?

You're intolerant for viewing a legitimate lifestyle as evil and a sin. You've offered no reason why homosexuality should be considered evil by society other than a religious viewpoint only held by some members of that society. Some people's religion tells them that interracial marriage is evil and a sin. They don't become tolerant just because they use the words evil and sin. If we did things your way someone could call Christians evil and pass laws that prohibited Christian churches and it would have to be acceptable to you because they're opposing evil. There's nothing wrong with opposing evil right?

You do like your strawman arguments and arguing against things that noone else said. Noone said you're on drugs or that people are forced to read your nonsense. Only that what you post is nonsense. Like thinking that hitting the add reply button more times than someone else makes a difference to anything.

Oh look another made up myth that you can then argue against to make yourself feel better. I suppose trolling on the internet is cheaper than a drug habit.

Only a complete idiot would think that taking an interest in world events means that you don't take interest in domestic events or that you consider domestic events meaningless.

You mean like the evil and sin of judging others? Looks like you don't have as much problem with sin as you claim. So not being a hypocrite is evil and sinful? Evil and sin work through intolerance and seeing others as inferior which is what you're doing with homosexuals. And yet you engage in sins that the Bible says is wrong. You're judging others and probably wearing clothes of mixed fibers. All that pesky evidence that shows sexual orientation is not a choice doesn't count then according to you. And don't be stupid you're condemning homosexuals. All of your posts talking about their evil and sin is condemning them. Watching people like you argue for intolerance and inequality isn't amusing at all. Watching your hypocrisy is slightly more amusing but only because it shows how weak all of your arguments are.

I'm sure you made your hand very happy. But you're right this has nothing to do with Canada. So why are you trying to make this about Canada? Trolling with quotes can be fun but next time quote the whole thing The comment is showing the exact opposite of peaked interest. Looks like since Bush and Cheney couldn't run again you've got to take your frustration out somewhere even if you've got to make up stuff to argue against.

Her response is amusing. She's calling these aides jerks because they apparently took her comments out of context. Meanwhile she spent most of her campaigning doing things like taking Obama's relationship with Ayers out of context. Not just out of context but creating a whole new context so that it would seem worse than it was.

If it was the norm then it wouldn't be considered deviant. Ancient Rome doesn't help this discussion. Reality seems to disagree with you. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1171196,00.html And just because a church is burnt doesn't necessarily mean hate crime http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...es/churches.htm Crimes aren't defined based on the religious views of some individuals. Otherwise if I believe assault happens when someone smiles at me I could go around charging lots of people with assaulting me. Even if you think making the world evil is a crime you'd have to prove that gay people living the same as hetero people actually makes the world evil. For crimes you've got to show that beyond a reasonable doubt so good luck with that. Don't make up facts. There is domestic violence within the gay community but that doesn't mean there's only a handful of incidents of violence against gays and definitely doesn't mean that violence is mostly done by other gays. In 2004 15.6% of all hate crimes with a single bias were because of sexual orientation. Of that number only 33 of the 1200 incidents were anti hetero. And that's just hate crimes. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_re...rime/index.html That statement is misinformed at best. It's like saying the college lifestyle is all about sex. No matter how many people want you to think that it's true it isn't. They're not talking about laws they're talking about equal rights. Rights shouldn't change based on mob rule otherwise they mean nothing.

Were you that kid in class that thought because the pretty girl/boy smiled at you they were in love with you? Many in Canada are happy that Obama was elected. And some might wish we had someone with his oratory skills here. But that's no different than the Americans who claimed to want to move to Canada after 2000 and 2004.

Time to remove the tinfoil. If noone looked into Obama what was going on for over a year while he was running for president? All the talk of you don't know Obama was pathetic especially because it was coming from someone that noone had ever heard of before. If they didn't know Obama after over a year then it's totally reasonable that Palin get investigated since she came out of nowhere only a few months before the election. To say there was no effort to look into his past is hiding from reality. Even Clinton raised the Ayers issue long before Palin showed up. Anyone who wants to run for VP and thinks they can hide from the media and never answer a question is fooling themselves. Palin tried and it wasn't unreasonable for the media to vet her. Someone had to since McCain didn't bother.

Palin could easily return. Has everyone already forgotten that it's McCain that lost the presidential election not Palin? I do hope you're kidding about comparing Palin to Edwards. If you think someone with over a decade of legal experience is less qualified than someone who can't name major continents then you're taking anti intellectualism to a new level. She couldn't even answer a question about what magazines she reads. I think with 2 years of coaching Palin will be back but to call Edwards unqualified because of a successful career is dumb.

4 years is a long time to prepare someone to sound like they know what's going on. Don't be surprised at all if Palin comes back. Although it's probably only 2 years before this whole things starts up again. For the Republicans anyway. But even 2 years is enough to teach basic geography and learn how to make it through a Katie Couric interview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter