The last bastion of hope and true Christian conservatism on the brink of defeat.

[dontsnitch]

Bill 89 is an absolute joke. I don't support empowering CAS any more than they already have, and I don't like it where the government thinks they are the primary care givers. They are there to supplement only. The less authority these asshats have the better we will be.

Good to leave off with on some common ground, cheers.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Good to leave off with on some common ground, cheers.

We have common ground on a lot of things. Some things we disagree on, but that's okay. I think people have the right to their own opinion and in no way am I a moral authority on anything.

That's why I sometimes jump in on these biblical justifications. I don't like it when people claim to have a moral authority over me as well. I think people like to drop the biblical quotes like it's some sort of trump card.

 

[Starman]

Did you just learn non-sequitur? Is this word of the day or something? I mean you've dropped it in every post.

Because you keep doing it in every post.

You used Matthew to say "Jesus said"... I pointed out that you can't make a claim of Jesus saying anything when the person who wrote that wasn't even a witness to what was said.

If you don't think the bible accurately recorded the words of Jesus, then how can you argue what he said or didn't say, or what he believed or didn't believe?

Look at your logical inconsistency. The bible isn't a reliable source for what Jesus said, but let me offer you my opinion on what I think he meant when he said [X].

I mean if you're okay with that then guess what.... I just said that Jesus said that being gay is okay. He came and told me himself.

There is as much validity to my claim as some guy who may or may not have known some guy that Jesus hung out with.

Okay, if no one can make claims on what Jesus said or didn't say, then stop telling me what you think he meant when he said something he never said based on a book you think isn't reliable.

 

[dontsnitch]

We have common ground on a lot of things. Some things we disagree on, but that's okay. I think people have the right to their own opinion and in no way am I a moral authority on anything.

That's why I sometimes jump in on these biblical justifications. I don't like it when people claim to have a moral authority over me as well. I think people like to drop the biblical quotes like it's some sort of trump card.

I respect you. You're Canadian, you're a family man, and we've likely crossed paths before given that I used to work in the same intersection as you. I sincerely hope that I don't come off as holier than thou, but I do disagree with you on your Biblical interpretation of homosexuality. I just can't agree that Christ would have condoned it given everything we know. Respectfully, @Starman said it best: within the context of the Jewish religious view on homosexuality, it is pure fiction to assume Jesus or any other religious Jew at the time would have condoned it.

At the end of the day, this should be immaterial if we agree not to infringe on each others' rights. Most of my friends are atheists, and I've never had a problem with them because of these disagreements. But holy hell if Canada has not lost it's way.

 

[Starman]

I respect you. You're Canadian, you're a family man, and we've likely crossed paths before given that I used to work in the same intersection as you. I sincerely hope that I don't come off as holier than thou, but I do disagree with you on your Biblical interpretation of homosexuality. I just can't agree that Christ would have condoned it given everything we know. Respectfully, @Starman said it best: within the context of the Jewish religious view on homosexuality, it is pure fiction to assume Jesus or any other religious Jew at the time would have condoned it.

At the end of the day, this should be immaterial if we agree not to infringe on each others' rights. Most of my friends are atheists, and I've never had a problem with them because of these disagreements. But holy hell if Canada has not lost it's way.

Thank you. And as I've already said, I am not personally against gay marriage. I just think it is absurd to start in with the "gay Jesus" talk. There is just no evidence for it.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Because you keep doing it in every post.



If you don't think the bible accurately recorded the words of Jesus, then how can you argue what he said or didn't say, or what he believed or didn't believe?

Look at your logical inconsistency. The bible isn't a reliable source for what Jesus said, but let me offer you my opinion on what I think he meant when he said [X].



Okay, if no one can make claims on what Jesus said or didn't say, then stop telling me what you think he meant when he said something he never said based on a book you think isn't reliable.

I don't think the bible accurately records what he said or didn't say or what he believed or didn't believe which is why I will play devil's advocate and say he could have said anything... Does that follow? or should I say does that sequitor? I don't even know if that's a word but I will use it anyways.

There are better sources than the book of Matthew. Paul for example. At least he wrote it, or it was taken from letters of his. I mean yeah, I have to believe that he wasn't hallucinating on the road to Damascus... or that he wasn't suffering from hysterical blindness but it's still better than Matthew.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I respect you. You're Canadian, you're a family man, and we've likely crossed paths before given that I used to work in the same intersection as you. I sincerely hope that I don't come off as holier than thou, but I do disagree with you on your Biblical interpretation of homosexuality. I just can't agree that Christ would have condoned it given everything we know. Respectfully, @Starman said it best: within the context of the Jewish religious view on homosexuality, it is pure fiction to assume Jesus or any other religious Jew at the time would have condoned it.

At the end of the day, this should be immaterial if we agree not to infringe on each others' rights. Most of my friends are atheists, and I've never had a problem with them because of these disagreements. But holy hell if Canada has not lost it's way.

You don't. You have an opinion and you voiced it. I don't think that you want to force me to me to live with your beliefs. You're always reasonable, and kind. That's cool, and you're one of the best posters in here. I don't need a cookie cutter world where we all think the exact same way. For the most part I just come in here to read and occasionally I try to be a smart ass or get a laugh.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Thank you. And as I've already said, I am not personally against gay marriage. I just think it is absurd to start in with the "gay Jesus" talk. There is just no evidence for it.

Hey man... it's not my theory... don't shoot the messenger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus

I'm not saying he was... just that if he wanted to marry a dude... I'd be cool with it.

 

[Starman]

I don't think the bible accurately records what he said or didn't say or what he believed or didn't believe which is why I will play devil's advocate and say he could have said anything... Does that follow? or should I say does that sequitor? I don't even know if that's a word but I will use it anyways.

Of course. Anyone could have said anything. But you have to prove they did if you want to claim they did.

There are better sources than the book of Matthew. Paul for example. At least he wrote it, or it was taken from letters of his. I mean yeah, I have to believe that he wasn't hallucinating on the road to Damascus... or that he wasn't suffering from hysterical blindness but it's still better than Matthew.

Again, your opinions on the reliability of what is written in the bible do not bolster your initial argument. If everything that was written in the bible is true, your claims regarding Jesus's opinion on homosexuality are demonstrably wrong. If the bible is wrong, it is impossible for you to prove your claims. Either way, you are at an impasse.

 

[colby25]

If you're against gay marriage you're an asshole.

The rest of the nonsense going on is absurd, is madness (ex. trannie bathrooms, forcing custom orders for gay marriage cakes, 17 genders, child reassignment surgery, etc.) but you're just a complete asshole if you oppose gay marriage.

Jesus didn't.

Jesus did not condone gay marriage. Get your facts right. What you can't decipher is gay marriage, trannie and all that other crap go together. It's called sexual immorality- and if allowed will steep to the lowest depths possible.

That should be obvious by the turn America has taken since it passed gay marriage

 

[Tycho]

Can someone give me the rundown on why its important for gays to get married? Why do they need it?

I always thought marriage was a contractual thing to encourage couples into staying together to take care of children. Seemed more a practical idea based around societal stability. So why do gays need it?

 

[hillelslovak87]

I thought Russia was the last bastion of christian conservatism....

I mean, does this not scream Jesus Christ to you?

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Of course. Anyone could have said anything. But you have to prove they did if you want to claim they did.

Funny... I feel like I am making that exact same argument.

Again, your opinions on the reliability of what is written in the bible do not bolster your initial argument. If everything that was written in the bible is true, your claims regarding Jesus's opinion on homosexuality are demonstrably wrong.

That would be correct

If the bible is wrong, it is impossible for you to prove your claims. Either way, you are at an impasse.

I'm not really claiming anything. I'm merely pointing out that it could be wrong, and thus shouldn't be used as some sort of moral authority to stop people from getting married.

I will be honest. I'm fine with what Christians "Believe". I get testy when they claim to "Know".

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Can someone give me the rundown on why its important for gays to get married? Why do they need it?

I always thought marriage was a contractual thing to encourage couples into staying together to take care of children. Seemed more a practical idea based around societal stability. So why do gays need it?

No one needs it. They want it. And in a free society if someone wants something that isn't hurting anyone then they should have it. Also I guess some places have different tax protection for married and unmarried people.

I always thought marriage was a public display of love and commitment to your spouse. I suppose it can be anything for anyone depending on what they want to take out of it.

 

[tramendous]

If you're against gay marriage you're an asshole.

No we just know what marriage is.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

The last true Christian Conservative Leader Angela Merkel gave her permission for a vote on Gay marriage in Germany.
Looks like it's going to pass gay marrige as well. Did her Party the Christian Democratic Union just sold out to the Marxists agenda?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40416126

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opened the door to a free vote in parliament on legalising same-sex marriage, after signalling a shift in her party's position on it.

Mrs Merkel surprised the German media by saying she favoured a "decision of conscience" on gay marriage.

Her conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) have previously opposed it - unlike the rival Social Democrats (SPD), Free Democrats (FDP) and Greens.

Stalin was not a cultural marxist you idiot. He also wasent pro gay marriage or tranie stuff.

If you're against gay marriage you're an asshole.

The rest of the nonsense going on is absurd, is madness (ex. trannie bathrooms, forcing custom orders for gay marriage cakes, 17 genders, child reassignment surgery, etc.) but you're just a complete asshole if you oppose gay marriage.

Jesus didn't.

Gay marriage is a disgrace to marriage.

 

[TheGreatA]

But things never go back to the way they were. You have to try and find the best way forward.
Now I do agree on the refugee crisis that was bad very bad. A serious but still solvable situation.

Obviously you do not need to explain such a simple concept to me. That's precisely what I said. Things don't go "back", they go "forward". To go "back", one must radically alter the narrative that is being told. That is why it requires a lot of willpower to hold on to an ideal that you have, without compromising it, in the way that Merkel has done. She lacks will-power, she lacks decisiveness, she lacks the attributes that make up a true conservative. She's a leaf in the wind, while a conservative is a solid rock on the ground. At the sight of a Muslim horde at the gates, a conservative cares not for how he or she will "look" to the coming generations. He or she does what must be done. That is why true conservatism will never truly be a popular position to hold.

Yes, we have to find a way forward. But do you prefer to steer a steady ship which knows its destination, or would you rather give yourself away to the currents, not knowing where the ocean's waves lead you?

If you're going to try to compete with Beijing or Delhi, on their own terms, by filling Germany to the rafters with third worlders, you're never going to win. Europe is never going to win that battle. We will never be more numerous, and by god, we best hope that we never will be.

What we can do is innovate and automate, to the point where we (and the world at large) no longer need to be dependent on sheer man-power, but rather rely on our intellect and our innate, individual qualities that have developed throughout the centuries. That is our game. That is a game we can win. EU proposes that we ought to emulate the Chinese, but the end result will only be an inferior slave market, one that will never match the unity, the productivity and the ruthlessness of China.

What Europe needs to emphasize is our sovereignty, our distinct qualities, our different ideals. No European nation is the same. Those are our strengths, that is where our capacity to create spawns from (while the Chinese can only copy our work) and I'd prefer that we stick to our guns in that regard. Once we embrace our internal diversity, without trying to repress it in the name of a "union", we need not import the external.

 

[Tycho]

No one needs it. They want it. And in a free society if someone wants something that isn't hurting anyone then they should have it. Also I guess some places have different tax protection for married and unmarried people.

I always thought marriage was a public display of love and commitment to your spouse. I suppose it can be anything for anyone depending on what they want to take out of it.

There are plenty of ways to express public love and affection, marriage is about money, or at least it should be.

 

[Lex Bigelow]

How often do married gays have sex with other guys? Would you say that if they do much more frequently than straight married couples that there is something different about those relationships?

 

[Roaming East]

'Christian Conservatism' is an oxymoron. Christianity is the ultimate in liberal religions.
loving without question
adherence to charity
sacrifice of personal comfort for societal good.