CANADIEN

This one belongs in a category of its own. Not really, actually... Sounds like... A Black man and a white woman have the same right as anyone else to marry... as long as they don't marrry each other. A Black woman can sit in the same bus as a white woman... as long as she sits at the back. Quebec Anglophones have the same rights as Quebec Francophones... the same right to use French that is. The "gays have the same right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex" is an insult to gays, an insult to the debate, and an insult to intelligence.

We're talking about marriage, not beauty pageants or country clubs. That this is the best you come with says a lot, and it's not flattering. Frankly, a question of curtesy? Please, please don't use the word marriage because it would really really hurt us? I for one prefer saying things as I see them, that a marriage is between a man and a woman and that calling anything else a marriage doesn't make it so, even if some were to call me a bigot for it. I will not degrade the issue by crying "mommy, mommy, they're not nice to me".

Meaning you, for example.

And what make you think that I was doing anything other than using your comment as a way to make fun of betsy?

Nobody. This is not about pleasing anybody. Feel free to make up things about me about this as well. Don't worry, you won't get me angry but merely provide more hilarity.

We are not talking here about the FACT that marriage was instituted by God, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, so that they would sanctify each other and provide the best environemnt to bring life. We are talking about you CLAIM that something is being taken away from married hetorosexual couples, or any Christian, because there'a a gay couple down the street with a sheet of paper saying they are marriage. No married couple I know is less married because of that. I for one, do not feel myself forced ibto not being a Christian because of that. I haven't changed my opinion about what marriage is because of that. Nothing has been taken away from me. And why do you keep LYING about me? I have said clearly I believe marriage is between man and woman. Three times now. I have said (I've stopped counting the times now) that nothing is being taken away from me, or any married couple I know, because civil law includes a definition of marriage that I do not accept. Nothing complex about that. Nothing relativist about that. Your false claim that I am handing over anything to anyone has no basis in anything I have written here. That is exactly what you are trying to do,no matter how you want to convince yourself otherwise.

As someone who believes marriage is, and should be, between a man and a woman, I am still trying to figure out what exactly SSM is allegedly taking from me or from any married heterosexual couple. Perhaps you can tell me, because neither Betsy or anybody else making that claim can back it up.

The real issue is not whether or not moral relativism is a bad thing - I for one think it is a weak substitute for a belief certain things are right and other are wrong. It's just thatI find... shall we say... interesting that some people think that one of Jesus' key teachings is merely "not a wrong thing to do". That I call relativism. Along with false victimhood.

I didn't know that Jesus' command to treat the poor, the hungry, the foreigner like if they were Him was relatvist. Thanks once again to enlighten me. AS for the fact that I have a hard time considering false victimhood a form of love and compassion - nothing relativist in that. And, needless to point out, such falsehood is contrary to the call tob e witness to the Truth.

You mean like... Using a condescending tone, adopting an hollier-than-thou attitude, spreading false claims of persecution, harping the same non-sense again and again, misrepresentating others opinions and ocasionnaly lying about them?

Mark the day. You get something right... almost. But then, we get this. I didn't realize that a successful boycott was not disruptive to a business. Thanks for enlightening me.... And for entertaining me with the laughable notion that the targets of a sit-in are forcibly made to lose sales or that a peaceful process intimidates people. On the other end, perhaps you are right. Thinking of it, the first sits-in were staged by opponents of segregations. What a bunch of bullies.

Nothing wrong with those? NOTHING WRONG WHITH THOSE? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me". These are not things that are nice to do. Treating others like we would treat God itself is a fundamental part of what we are called to be as Christian. Sorry, but false victimhood is not love and it is not compassion.

Just that I am sure here, are you talking about calls for boycotts of and sit-ins at chick-Fil-A? Because then, logic would dictate that you denounce the ahem persecution of Starbuck by the National Organization for Marriage. link Me, I do not consider either to be persecution.

Nope. you won't ignore the name-calling. You will keep engaging in it when ever it suits you, along with the "ingratiationg tone". And I'll keep find it amuzing.

Thanks for demonstrating that, no matter how you put it, fighting to re-define marriage is not bullying. Unless those who fought to re-define the legal definition of marriage to include multiracial couples were bullies ;-)

Bullying, right? As much bullying as when those pesky women were fighting for the right to vote. Now, just that we are clear here. As a Christian,, i consider that marriage i between a man and a woman. It,s just that somehow i don't feel bullied, or threatened, or denied my freedom of thought and religion because others think otherwise and the the Government thinks otherwise. And btw, let's not fool ourselves here. A lot of the most adamant oponents of same-sex marriage don't want to hear talks of any kind of civil union status either.

FACT - Troy existed, and there is evidence that it was destroyed as a result of a war. Somehow, it must mean the Olympian Gods existed FACT - Mayan murals depicting scenes from the Popol Vuh have been found recently. Somehow, it must mean the Popol Vuh is a true account of the history of the world. FACT - Some of the battles mentioned in the Mahabharata did actually occur. Somehow, this proves the existence of the Indian Gods. FACT - Some of the places described in the Gilgamesh story did exist. Somehow, those stories must be fact, not fiction. And I could go on and on. Thank God (truly) He gave me faith. Because it is through faith one discovers God's truth, and understand the true meaning of His Word. If all I had was statements like "A seal bearing the name Bethlehem was discovered, therefore the Bible is the Word of God", I'd be an atheist.

As the Mayor of Toronto, he is the official representative of the city. He wants to spend the long week-end with his family (meaning he won't be in town for Canada Day celebrations btw)? Fine. The Pride festival in 10 days.

Unfortunately, Lictor err I mean doitwell is not the only person who holds those views. That being said, his posts are pretty much consistent in contents, and I am not just talking about the drivel.

Nope, he wasn't a Christian. Liberty ios a Jewish name?

Unless, of course, we're talking about a Franco-like dictatorship, right?

Interestingly, most Jews I know are white-skinned. But well, when was the last time FACTS got in the way of making a fool of yourself, Lictor?

Don't you know? Luther, Torquemada, Tsarist Russia and Hitler were all agents of the big jewish conspiracy. What better way to ensure the Jew's triumph than by murdeing lots of them.

The program is not on the Grade 9 curriculum.

Oh well. At least the Councillor is honest about this having nothing to do with Wlebster's qualifications or performance, but everything to do with bis refusal to peddle non- sense.