Homosexuality

[tlnob2@bellsouth.net]

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith! [Excerpts]

Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality

The Canadian government has ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision handed down just days ago in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of Father Alphonse de Valk, who also has cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson had written a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

[Turner Hayes]

I get an anti-phishing warning page when I try to go to that link.

[MEG]

They are working that into the US too, just wait.

> http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

[Joshua]

"Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality"

Moral opposition? It seems pretty immoral to oppose something between
two consenting adults to me. I don't think you can call the opposition
'moral'.

[BlueSci]

On Jun 11, 5:35 pm, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

No one is asking him to renounce his faith. He just can't publish
disparaging remarks about homosexuals (though I agree that it violates
his free speech rights).

Here is the real story from the 'Red Deer Advocate', the paper that
published the letter that started the whole thing
http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/news/provincial/Human_rights_ruling_disputed_1.html:

A former Red Deer pastor will appeal a human rights ruling ordering
him to pay $7,000 in fines and write an apology for an anti-gay letter
published in the Red Deer Advocate nearly six years ago.

The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission issued a written
order on May 30. It stated that Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned
Christian Coalition must pay former Red Deer school teacher Darren
Lund $5,000 in damages.

Another $2,000 must be paid to Janelle Dodd, one of Lund’s witnesses
who spoke at an earlier commission hearing.

“I think the ruling seems quite fair to me,” said Lund, who now lives
in Calgary, on Friday. “I just hope there will be some educational
value to the community — that we can develop a society where everybody
enjoys the same freedoms.”

Boissoin’s letter to the editor was published in the June 17, 2002,
edition of the Advocate. In it, he compared homosexuals to pedophiles
and drug dealers. Boissoin was the executive director of the Christian
Coalition at the time.

Lund, who had launched an anti-prejudice program with students at
Lindsay Thurber Comprehensive High School, filed a complaint with the
human rights commission.

He argued that Boissoin’s written statements represented a hate crime
after a gay teen was attacked in Red Deer shortly after the letter was
published.

Last November, the commission ruled in favour of Lund, saying Boissoin
and the coalition had violated human rights law because the letter
likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt.

The May 30 decision states that Boissoin and the coalition must stop
publishing in all forms of media any “disparaging remarks” about gays
and homosexuals. Similar remarks cannot be made against Lund and his
witnesses.

Boissoin has a website that discusses a “gay agenda” in Canadian
schools.

Further, Boissoin and the coalition are to provide Lund with a written
apology.

“I certainly didn’t request an apology, so that was a bit of a
surprise,” said Lund. “I don’t see the value in an insincere
apology.”

Boissoin and the coalition must also ask the Advocate to publish a
copy of the ruling, and further request the publishing of Boissoin’s
written apology for contravening the Human Rights Citizenship and
Multiculturalism Act.

“No one has requested anything of us officially, yet,” said Advocate
publisher Fred Gorman. “When they do, we’ll look at our options then
and what our decision will be.”

Calgary lawyer Gerald Chipeur said he has been instructed by his
client Boissoin to appeal the commission’s ruling and most recent
order. Boissoin declined comment on Friday.

“We will be filing our appeal this month and then it will be heard
before a Court of Queen’s Bench judge sometime over the next 12
months,” Chipeur said.

Chipeur said they will argue their case on three grounds.

For one thing, he said the panel erred when it said Boissoin had
contravened the Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act.

Secondly, Chipeur will argue the Alberta government doesn’t have the
constitutional right to censor free speech.

He referred to a decision from the 1940s when the Social Credit
government tried to control the free speech of newspapers.

“The Supreme Court of Canada said the Alberta government didn’t have
that power,” Chipeur said. “We’re saying the same laws of 60 years ago
still apply to today.”

Chipeur will further argue that the commission’s ruling doesn’t comply
with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which he said
guarantees freedom of expression.

The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, an independent
body of the provincial government, reports to the minister of culture
and community spirit.

[Dave]

On Jun 11, 5:35 pm, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>

> Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality

Good. Hate filled christians like you, and that asinine preacher,
should be shut up. They should all be put in a prison for life and
then watch to see who gets the "bottom bunk."

[TLC]

tln...@bellsouth,

"moral opposition"?? Is it really MORAL to quote hatred against gays
and then expect to get given tax payers money from the government for
so? You can say, well it's in the bible the words of a god. But, so
are many stupid things. When have you ever heard a priest tell women
they are an "abomination" for wearing jeans, or rant on against peep's
who wear mixed frabrics, or have tattoo's and peeps who eat rabbits,
crabs etc which god doesn't allow it, says so in your the
bible!

Old Testament, (too much hatred to be included). Homosexual acts are
an abomination to God. 18:22 If a man has sex with another man, kill
them both. 20:13 Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an
"abomination unto the Lord." 22:5

New Testament. Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is
the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters
(those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including
homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10 Homosexuals (those "that
defile themselves with mankind") are included on the list of lawless,
disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10 In the last days people
will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that
this refers to homosexuals. 3:3 God sent "eternal fire" on the people
of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8

[tlnob2@bellsouth.net]

I am sorry that you never learned what Apostasy is. 

Apostasy in the Dictionary means:

renunciation (look up Apostasy to find this word - as spell checker says it is not in dictionary) of a religious faith and abandonment of a previous loyalty: defection.

The Jews (which are the ones being talked to in Romans 1:2l and the rest of the chapter) did not receive Jesus as their Messiah.  Therefore, God sets them aside and they descended into the unbelief that you see today.   

The why for Christians is necessary to note - as God will not abandon the Jews forever, but will again deal with them, through the tribulation.  However, right now in this dispensation of time, God is dealing with all of mankind, and not just with a chosen people. 

As a Gentile I have access to God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, which at the end of this dispensation of time will change to having to go through the Jews for salvation.

I know I am deeper into theology than most of you have ever been, but The Berean Bible Society still teaches dispensational theology, and it is interesting to study.

Homosexuality is not talked about in the Bible - because if you will go back and read about Sodom, you will also find that it has to do with a people who would not acknowledge the God of Abraham through his nephew Lot.

To believe that one class of people is forever damned may make for good hell, fire and damnation sermons - but it is not the truth.

thea

 

 

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 13 2008 4:23 am
From: TLC 

[zencycle]

From: "TLC" <tlc.t...@googlemail.com>

>
>
> Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including
> homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10

It depends on which version of the bible you read

The new international, english standard, contemporary english, new king
james, Holman Christian Standard versionsmentions homosexuals but not
effiminate

the king james version mentions effeminate but not homosexuals

the new american standard mentions both

the american standard mentions effiminate but not homosexul, though has a
reference to "abusers of themselves with men", One could interpret this as a
boxer who never wins, I guess.

The today's new international version 'practicing' homosexuals, and
interestingly specifies _male_ prostitutes, where as most other versions
just say prostitutes.

[zencycle]

From: tln...@bellsouth.net

 

> As a Gentile I have access to God the Father

> through the Lord Jesus Christ

 

Good, could you tell him to get his sorry ass down here a fix things? he left it kind of fucked up.

 

> Homosexuality is not talked about in the Bible

 

And which bible do you read?

 

1 corinthians 6:9

romans 1:27

 

 

[Roger Pearse]

On 13 Jun, 12:23, TLC <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> tln...@bellsouth,
>
> "moral opposition"??  Is it really MORAL to quote hatred against gays
> and then expect to get given tax payers money from the government for
> so?  

Um, are they really asking for government money? Churches usually
don't get that.

And, is it really MORAL for governments to use taxpayers money to
promote such controversial matters either way?

> New Testament. Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). ...

Indeed, which rather makes the point. We seem to be fairly clearly in
the realm of religious persecution here, if the teachings of the
world's largest religion, the basis of all western civilisation, are
described as 'hate'.

I seem to remember that sodomy was legalised on the basis that it was
no business of the state what two people did in private. How far we
have come from that! Far from being something to be tolerated in
private, it seems that anyone who dares to express any hostility is to
be demonised, assaulted and abused, and subjected to all the processes
of compulsion known to modern governments, overt and covert. It seems
that anyone who opposes the most public expressions of this detestable
vice will be lucky not to be arrested.

Perhaps legalisation of this particular vice was indeed deeply unwise
-- indeed of anything --, if tolerance of it has now become an excuse
for the sort of persecution that we associate with the inquisition.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

This argument -- that bible does not condemn unnatural vice -- is
merely a ploy of the sodomite lobby during the transitional phase
between being barely tolerated, and being in a position to persecute.
Sodomites who gain power promptly reverse their position and demand
that the bible should be banned for condemning their vice.
TLNwhateverhisnameis merely hasn't kept up with the times.

[Dave]

On Jun 13, 7:04 am, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> I am sorry that you never learned what Apostasy is.
> Apostasy in the Dictionary means:

> renunciation (look up Apostasy to find this word - as spell checker says it is not in dictionary) of a religious faith and abandonment of a previous loyalty: defection....

With a religion as asinine as your's, it's apostates are to be
praised. To be a christian apostate is a good thing. Sadly, I cannot
claim to be one. I never believed in the silliness of that religion.
Look how it has warped your mind. That's a sad thing.

[Dag Yo]

Why should anyone care what the bible says about homosexuality if the
bible isn't true?

[Roger Pearse]

You must be a very sad person. What kind of loser sits around in
religion groups bitching, instead of going down the pub?

[MEG]

You can call it what you want but I think playing in some one's "shit"
'literally' has got to be sick. Would you let your child play in a
cess pool? Just because it is between to compatible sicko's doesn't
make it any less sick. Homosexuality was considered a mental disease
until in the 70's the Homosexual lobby pressured the industry to take
it out of medical books. Maybe we can cure cancer the same way?

On Jun 11, 5:35 pm, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

[Dag Yo]

Don't be a moron Meg, homosexuality stopped being considered a mental
disease when people realized that it wasn't.

[tlnob2@bellsouth.net]

As I said before when reading the Bible, you must pay attention as to who is being spoken to.  Our salvation is Romans 10:9.  There is nothing that comes before that verse or nothing that comes after that you have to know about.

Once you accept Romans 10:9 as being possibly true.  Then Ephesians 1 tells you your place and position  in the here and now.  Your home going is at the Rapture -- because God will not bring wrath upon himself -- and if your salvation is based on Christ in you the Hope of Glory - then you have to be out of the way before the tribulation comes.

This is dispensational teaching -- and to me it makes better sense than to try to get me into Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which Jesus taught while on earth - because that is what You live under when he rules the earth for 1,000 years after the tribulation.

Dispensational teaching again.

Since when is what you do so much better than what every one else has done.  I understand that from the first little fib I ever told - I was going to hell.  I now know that Christianity is based on what I believe not on who I am, what I am, where I am, where I am going, but on the fact that Jesus said if I would believe that he existed I would be able to go to heaven.

I cannot condemn someone else for being a human being -- this is why I don't go to church.  I watched Swaggart make a mess of things.  Had a theologian tell me at the time that it would be interesting how Swaggart got himself out of the mess, since he hadn't been teaching God's grace, and his denominational church didn't teach God's grace either.  [Swaggart isn't Baptist]

This is like, I haven't travelled in your shoes and until I do, I don't know what I would do.  I do know that I have no right to keep someone else from getting the benefits of freedom in America just because they don't dress like I do, talk like I do, or do as I do. 

But so help me I am scared of what is happening in America because I don't want to have to pray to the East three times a day on a prayer cloth on my knees on the ground.

Christianity is a belief system.

thea

 

 

 

Homosexuality
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 13 2008 7:33 am
From: "zencycle" 

From: "TLC" <tlc.t...@googlemail.com>
>
>
> Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including
> homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10

It depends on which version of the bible you read

The new international, english standard, contemporary english, new king
james, Holman Christian Standard versionsmentions homosexuals but not
effiminate

the king james version mentions effeminate but not homosexuals


the new american standard mentions both

the american standard mentions effiminate but not homosexul, though has a

reference to "abusers of themselves with men", One c ould interpret this as a

boxer who never wins, I guess.

The today's new international version 'practicing' homosexuals, and
interestingly specifies _male_ prostitutes, where as most other versions
just say prostitutes.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 13 2008 7:59 am
From: "zencycle" 

From: tln...@bellsouth.net

> As a Gentile I have access to God the Father

> through the Lord Jesus Christ

Good, could you tell him to get his sorry ass down here a fix things? he left it
kind of fucked up.

> Homosexuality is not talked about in the Bible

[MEG]

Sticking your Johnson is your buddies ass hole doesn't sound too
stable to me. Neither does taking turns shoving different objects up
each others rectum sound very mentally stable either. Just because
you change the way something is written by lobbying doesn't change
what it is.

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM, MEG <ekru...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sticking your Johnson is your buddies ass hole doesn't sound too
stable to me.  

I hardly think you're an authority on mental stability. And 'Johnson'? Seriously? Are you in 4th grade?
 

Neither does taking turns shoving different objects up
each others rectum sound very mentally stable either.  

...What does this have to do with homosexuality?
 

Just because
you change the way something is written by lobbying doesn't change
what it is.

Just because you write something doesn't make it true.
 

[Drafterman]

What "sounds" metnally stable or unstable to you aside, what "makes"
an issue of mental instability?

> > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 13 Jun, 15:59, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: tln...@bellsouth.net

>
> > As a Gentile I have access to God the Father
> > through the Lord Jesus Christ
>
> Good, could you tell him to get his sorry ass down here a fix things? he left it kind of fucked up.
>
> > Homosexuality is not talked about in the Bible
>
> And which bible do you read?
>
> 1 corinthians 6:9
>
> romans 1:27

This argument -- that bible does not condemn unnatural

In what way is homosexuality "unnatural"?
 

vice -- is
merely a ploy of the sodomite lobby

Hahahahahahah "sodomite lobby"
 

during the transitional phase
between being barely tolerated, and being in a position to persecute.

Yeah, those vicious gays are going to come after us poor straight folks. We need protection!
 

Sodomites who gain power promptly reverse their position and demand
that the bible should be banned for condemning their vice.

I suppose asking for evidence supporting your wild paranoia would be met with <contempt>, huh?
 

TLNwhateverhisnameis merely hasn't kept up with the times.

Says the asshat stuck 2000 years in the past.
 

[zencycle]

From: "MEG" <ekru...@gmail.com>

>
> Homosexuality was considered a mental disease
> until in the 70's the Homosexual lobby pressured the industry to take
> it out of medical books. Maybe we can cure cancer the same way?

And now we can accurately diagnose _your_ affliction.

[zencycle]

From: tln...@bellsouth.net

But so help me I am scared of what is happening in America because I don't want to have to pray to the East three times a day on a prayer cloth on my knees on the ground.

 

Another one who thinks gay marriage leads to america becoming a caliphate........

[Turner Hayes]

Seriously, where is that shit coming from? Do they think Muslims love gay people or something? Are they not aware that Muslim countries tend to be even harder on homosexuals than the US? Well, except for Iran, of course, since there are no gays in Iran.

[zencycle]

From: "MEG" <ekru...@gmail.com>

>
> Just because
> you change the way something is written by lobbying doesn't change
> what it is.

Yes, MEG by any other name is still an ignorant homophobe.

[MEG]

Typical homosexual response, don't answer the question but attack the
person saying it.

On Jun 13, 11:58 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

[zencycle]

From: "MEG" <ekru...@gmail.com>

>
> Sticking your Johnson is your buddies ass hole doesn't sound too
> stable to me. Neither does taking turns shoving different objects up
> each others rectum sound very mentally stable either.

Well, ladies you can be an asshole too
You might pretend you ain't got one on the bottom of you
But don't fool yerself girl
It's lookin' at you
Don't fool yerself girl
It's winkin' at you
Don't fool yerself girl
It's blinkin' at you
That's why I say
I'm gonna ram it, ram it, ram it
Ram it up yer poop chute
Corn hole
Ram it, ram it, ram it
Ram it up yer poop chute
Fist fuck
Ram it, ram it, ram it
Ram it up yer poop chute
Wrist-watch: Crisco
Ram it, ram it, ram it
Ram it up yer poop chute
Pud!
Don't fool yerself, girl,
It's goin' right up yer poop chute
Don't fool yerself, girl,
It's goin' right up yer poop chute
Don't fool yerself, girl,
It's goin' right up yer poop chute
(Ay ay ay ay)
Don't fool yerself, girl,
It's goin' right up yer poop chute
(Ay ay ay ay)
Don't fool yerself, girl,
It's goin' right up yer poooop chute
(Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay)
Don't fool yerself, girl,
It's goin' right up yer . . .

From Broken Hearts Are For Assholes by Frank Zappa

[zencycle]

From: Turner Hayes

Hahahahahahah "sodomite lobby"
 

 

Where do you think the 'sodomite lobby' is? The sodomite hotel

 

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM, MEG <ekru...@gmail.com> wrote:

Typical homosexual response,

You know what happens when you assume, right MEG? You make an ass with a Johnson in it. Wait...that's not how it goes...
 

don't answer the question but attack the
person saying it.

Wow, the hypocrisy here is outstanding. Dismisses me as a homosexual (and therefore not worthy of responding to, then criticizes me for an ad hominem. Conveniently ignoring my other responses. Also, what question did I ignore? I didn't see any question in your post, do you? Are you seeing them right now? Do the voices tell you to do bad things?
 

[zencycle]

From: "MEG" <ekru...@gmail.com>

>
> Typical homosexual response, don't answer the question but attack the
> person saying it.

You didn't ask a question, you brain dead twat.

[Turner Hayes]

*sniff* That's touching. Frank is such a poet.

[Turner Hayes]

Ask the sodomite concierge for directions.

[zencycle]

A genius beyond reproach.

 

http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/wiki/Main_Page

[Roger Pearse]

On 13 Jun, 20:10, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > This argument -- that bible does not condemn unnatural
>
> In what way is homosexuality "unnatural"?

(snip)

Apparently it makes those who approve of it dishonest also.

[Dag Yo]

> Sticking your Johnson is your buddies ass hole doesn't sound too
> stable to me.

Whats unstable about it? Lots of people do just that and live happily
and lots of animals do that and live happily as well. And you might
not know this but lots of straight people stick their penises in lots
of strange places too. It doesn't bother me, nor should it.

[Dag Yo]

Is there some reason you're avoiding my question to you?

On Jun 13, 10:20 am, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> As I said before when reading the Bible, you must pay attention as to who is being spoken to. Our salvation is Romans 10:9. There is nothing that comes before that verse or nothing that comes after that you have to know about.
> Once you accept Romans 10:9 as being possibly true. Then Ephesians 1 tells you your place and position in the here and now. Your home going is at the Rapture -- because God will not bring wrath upon himself -- and if your salvation is based on Christ in you the Hope of Glory - then you have to be out of the way before the tribulation comes.
> This is dispensational teaching -- and to me it makes better sense than to try to get me into Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which Jesus taught while on earth - because that is what You live under when he rules the earth for 1,000 years after the tribulation.
> Dispensational teaching again.
> Since when is what you do so much better than what every one else has done. I understand that from the first little fib I ever told - I was going to hell. I now know that Christianity is based on what I believe not on who I am, what I am, where I am, where I am going, but on the fact that Jesus said if I would believe that he existed I would be able to go to heaven.
> I cannot condemn someone else for being a human being -- this is why I don't go to church. I watched Swaggart make a mess of things. Had a theologian tell me at the time that it would be interesting how Swaggart got himself out of the mess, since he hadn't been teaching God's grace, and his denominational church didn't teach God's grace either. [Swaggart isn't Baptist]
> This is like, I haven't travelled in your shoes and until I do, I don't know what I would do. I do know that I have no right to keep someone else from getting the benefits of freedom in America just because they don't dress like I do, talk like I do, or do as I do.
> But so help me I am scared of what is happening in America because I don't want to have to pray to the East three times a day on a prayer cloth on my knees on the ground.
> Christianity is a belief system.
> thea
>
> Homosexuality
> == 1 of 2 ==
> Date: Fri, Jun 13 2008 7:33 am
> From: "zencycle"
>

> From: "TLC" <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com>
>
>
>
> > Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including
> > homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10
>
> It depends on which version of the bible you read
>
> The new international, english standard, contemporary english, new king
> james, Holman Christian Standard versionsmentions homosexuals but not
> effiminate
>
> the king james version mentions effeminate but not homosexuals
>
> the new american standard mentions both
>
> the american standard mentions effiminate but not homosexul, though has a

> reference to "abusers of themselves with men", One could interpret this as a

[Turner Hayes]

Just as I thought, you have no answer so you're dispensing ad hominems out of your ass. Thank you for admitting that you're full of shit.
 

[zencycle]

From: Turner Hayes

 

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:

Apparently it makes those who approve of it dishonest also.

Just as I thought, you have no answer so you're dispensing ad hominems out of your ass.

 

which makes sense since he's an ass HAT.

 

[Turner Hayes]

It's all so clear now! Truly God is great because he made things make so much sense like this!

[Roger Pearse]

Don't be stupider than you were born. It stopped being considered a
mental disease in response to systematic politicking, all done without
a popular vote.

I suppose, being an atheist, that's enough for you to believe in it,
however nasty it might be.

[Roger Pearse]

On 13 Jun, 21:50, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

> wrote:
> > On 13 Jun, 20:10, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Roger Pearse <
> > roger.pea...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > This argument -- that bible does not condemn unnatural
>
> > > In what way is homosexuality "unnatural"?
> > (snip)
>
> > Apparently it makes those who approve of it dishonest also.
>

> Just as I thought, you have ... (lies, dishonesty snipped)

Feel free to foul yourself as badly as you like. If you have to lie
like this in defence of your favourite vices, you know what you're
doing.

[Keith MacNevins]

In the U.S., The American Psychological Association and the Psychiatric Association stopped listing homosexuality as a mental illness decades ago. A little funny maybe to some, but the main reason is, "Because it is too prevalent."

On 6/13/08, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Don't be a moron Meg, homosexuality stopped being considered a mental
disease when people realized that it wasn't.

On Jun 13, 9:47 am, MEG <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can call it what you want but I think playing in some one's "shit"
> 'literally' has got to be sick.  Would you let your child play in a
> cess pool?  Just because it is between to compatible sicko's doesn't
> make it any less sick.  Homosexuality was considered a mental disease
> until in the 70's the Homosexual lobby pressured the industry to take
> it out of medical books.  Maybe we can cure cancer the same way?
>
> On Jun 11, 5:35 pm, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Government to pastor: Renounce your faith! [Excerpts]
>
> > Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality
>
> > The Canadian government has ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.
>
> > In a decision handed down just days ago in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.
>
> > According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of Father Alphonse de Valk, who also has cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.
>
> > Boisson had written a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."
>
> >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Dag Yo]

> It stopped being considered a
> mental disease in response to systematic politicking, all done without
> a popular vote.

Not that you haven't demonstrated time and time again your inability
to think, but this is simply incredible Roger. The reality of a
factual claim is NOT something decided by a popular vote.

And just wtf is wrong with "systematic politicking" it seems like a
really good way to get things changed when there is a problem; it says
nothing at all about the truthfulness or the goodness of what was
changed one way or another -- so bringing it up is just plain
fallacious.

> > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704-Hide quoted text -

[Turner Hayes]

Anyone can see our exchange and can see that you made no attempt to answer my question, which makes you a dishonest, moronic asshat. It's all there for everyone to see, so I can't figure out why you'd claim I was lying, when that is clearly and demonstrably false. My theory is that you have some sort of degenerative brain disease. Maybe advanced syphilis?
 

you know what you're
doing.

I wish the same could be said of you.
 

[Dag Yo]

yup

On Jun 13, 3:32 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

[Greygirl]

So now in addition to voting on the civil rights of other people, you
also want to vote on what goes in the Diagnosic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders? What else, Roger? My grandmother has diabetes,
would you like to vote on her diagnosis? How about my friend's
Lupus? There's lots of people with bipolar disorder, do you want to
have a vote on whether that's a legitimate illness or if they're
really possessed by demons? Once upon a time, the female orgasm was
considered an illness. Do you want to vote on whether or not women
are allowed to enjoy sex?

There are lots of things that are done without a popular vote. That's
because there's a lot of thing that are none of "the people's"
business.

> > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704-Hide quoted text -

[Turner Hayes]

The disturbing thing is, that suggests that he has had sex sometime in the past.

[Turner Hayes]

Exactly. You've had the pleasure of meeting one of resident arrogant, syphilitic prick (unless this is not your first time here, I just don't recognize your name).

[Greygirl]

No, you're right. I've been lurking for quite a while, but that was
my first post.

On Jun 13, 4:45 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly. You've had the pleasure of meeting one of resident arrogant,
> syphilitic prick (unless this is not your first time here, I just don't
> recognize your name).
>

> > > > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704-Hidequoted text

[Turner Hayes]

Well, welcome to the spotlight!

[Dag Yo]

Rock on Greygirl, your response was superior to my own.

> > > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704-Hidequoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Jun 13, 6:00 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the U.S., The American Psychological Association and the Psychiatric
> Association stopped listing homosexuality as a mental illness decades ago. A
> little funny maybe to some, but the main reason is, "Because it is too
> prevalent."

Actually there was more to it than that.

It was noted that the "rehab" programs that existed at the time to
"restore" people's sexual orientations didn't work and many
homosexuals were reporting that they had always been attracted to the
same sex.

So, there were strong indications that their sexual orientation was
fixed and not "created" by bad childhoods, poor parenting, etc. which
up until then had been the predominant theory.

[Trance Gemini]

Nice first post and welcome Greygirl.

> > > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704-Hidequoted text -

[Dev]

Quit acting like a Christian. Sex between most people is gross--that's
why you make it none of your damn business and think about something
else.

On Jun 13, 11:47 am, MEG <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can call it what you want but I think playing in some one's "shit"
> 'literally' has got to be sick.  Would you let your child play in a
> cess pool?  Just because it is between to compatible sicko's doesn't
> make it any less sick.  Homosexuality was considered a mental disease
> until in the 70's the Homosexual lobby pressured the industry to take
> it out of medical books.  Maybe we can cure cancer the same way?
>
> On Jun 11, 5:35 pm, tln...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > Government to pastor: Renounce your faith! [Excerpts]
>
> > Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality
>
> > The Canadian government has ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.
>
> > In a decision handed down just days ago in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.
>
> > According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of Father Alphonse de Valk, who also has cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.
>
> > Boisson had written a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."
>

> >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Homosexual: someone, like Roger Pearse, who is obsessed with what gay
people do nekked.

[JohnN]

On Jun 13, 11:36 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 13 Jun, 15:59, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: tln...@bellsouth.net
>
> > > As a Gentile I have access to God the Father
> > > through the Lord Jesus Christ
>
> > Good, could you tell him to get his sorry ass down here a fix things? he left it kind of fucked up.
>
> > > Homosexuality is not talked about in the Bible
>
> > And which bible do you read?
>
> > 1 corinthians 6:9
>
> > romans 1:27
>

> This argument -- that bible does not condemn unnatural vice -- is
> merely a ploy of the sodomite lobby during the transitional phase
> between being barely tolerated, and being in a position to persecute.
> Sodomites who gain power promptly reverse their position and demand
> that the bible should be banned for condemning their vice.
> TLNwhateverhisnameis merely hasn't kept up with the times.

>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse

I'm OK with your god condemning homosexuality, that's its
prerogative. But WTF does that have to do with how the government
treats gays?

JohnN

[Shot In The Dark]

Welcome to the discussion.

On Jun 13, 6:52 pm, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:

> > > > >http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

You are a clown. Of course there was\is more to it. But you are downright silly to suggest that it was deemed to not be abnormal just because homosexuality was apparently innate in some.

[Keith MacNevins]

Weird. I think serious Christian scholars have written some enlightening commentaries on what the Sodomites of the city Sodom committed, and of Gomorrah. Inhospitality is one of the major sins they were guilty of. Other words in place of that would be unkind, uncharitable, and selfish. In addition they were lustful, vile and godless. They were guilty of promiscuity, and rape, yes, but homosexuality in and of itself? It was not why they were destroyed.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Greygirl]

I assume, then, that you only have a problem with male homosexuality,
since lesbians generally don't have anal sex? And you have no problem
with gay men who *don't* have anal sex (they most certainly exist)?
And you also think heterosexual people who have anal sex are every bit
as "sick" as homosexual men?

[Roger Pearse]

On 13 Jun, 23:39, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It stopped being considered a
> > mental disease in response to systematic politicking, all done without
> > a popular vote.
>
> Not that you haven't demonstrated time and time again your inability
> to think, but this is simply incredible Roger.  The reality of a
> factual claim is NOT something decided by a popular vote.
>

> And just wtf is wrong with "systematic politicking" .... (etc)

Boy you're a good little slave! Someone says you've got to jump, and
your only response is "how high?"!

Facts, little man, are not decided by the activities of a pressure
group. And in a democracy, laws don't get passed solely to benefit
one tiny and obnoxious pressure group without the vote of everyone
else. It should be unnecessary to tell anyone this.

[Roger Pearse]

On 13 Jun, 23:52, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
> So now in addition to voting on the civil rights of other people,

You mean instead of criminalising others by secret political deals?
You really must hate democracy.

> ... you also want to vote on what goes in the Diagnosic and Statistical Manual
> of Mental Disorders?  

You want it decided by the dirtiest kind of backroom politics? Oh
dear.

> What else, Roger?  There are lots of things that are done without a popular vote.  That's

> because there's a lot of thing that are none of "the people's"
> business.

Hitler would have said the same. <contempt>

[MEG]

NO, just because I say something doesn't mean it is true, but that
goes for you too. I think most people would agree however, that
playing in 'shit' literally, is sick. Shoving thing up your 'buddies'
butt isn't a damn bit better either. Why don't you explain to
everyone what "fisting" means? Would you allow your child to do a
little "fisting" of their own? do you wash your hands after a little
"fisting" episode or do you lick your self 'clean' and if you have to
'clean' yourself after this, does that mean it is dirty? What does
"felching" mean. You can tell us. If there is nothing wrong with it
than it shouldn't bother you to tell us about it.
>
> Just because you write something doesn't make it true.

[Trance Gemini]

I don't even know what those terms mean MEG. However, it doesn't matter.

Why? Because I don't stick my nose into other people's sex lives.

What consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is none of yours or my business.

Why do you care so much if a couple (whatever their gender) enjoy anal sex?

I'm sure you must realize that homosexual men aren't the only ones who engage in that practice?

If you don't like it no-one's forcing you to do it.

Who made you judge and jury on other people's sex lives?

 

>
> Just because you write something doesn't make it true.

--
--------------------------------------------------
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
-- Thomas Henry Huxley

Whose God Do You Kill For?
--Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Dag Yo]

> Facts, little man, are not decided by the activities of a pressure
> group.

Nor are facts, as it seems you would prefer, decided by a majority.

> And in a democracy, laws don't get passed solely to benefit
> one tiny and obnoxious pressure group without the vote of everyone
> else.

I don't understand, are you saying that laws never get passed which
affect homosexuals? Because that is obviously wrong.

[Dag Yo]

Meg's got quite the fixation on butts don't you think?

On Jun 14, 1:34 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dag Yo]

On Jun 13, 11:18 pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 23:52, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
>
> > So now in addition to voting on the civil rights of other people,
>
> You mean instead of criminalising others by secret political deals?

Who the hell are you suggesting got "criminalized" by secret political

deals?

> You really must hate democracy.
>
> > ... you also want to vote on what goes in the Diagnosic and Statistical Manual
> > of Mental Disorders?
>
> You want it decided by the dirtiest kind of backroom politics?

Knock off the conspiracy theory bullshit Roger, unless you actually
have proof that this happened no one should believe that what goes
into the DSM was decided upon by way of a thoughtful examination of
evidence by professionals.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Meg's got quite the fixation on butts don't you think?

Seriously. Makes one wonder?

Why such an obsession with other people's genitals and what they do with them? Lol.

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini

[Rupert]

On Jun 11, 7:59 pm, Joshua <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality"
>

> Moral opposition? It seems pretty immoral to oppose something between
> two consenting adults to me. I don't think you can call the opposition
> 'moral'.

It's immoral to use coercion to prevent a voluntary interaction
between two consenting adults. It's not immoral to express the view
that the interaction is morally wrong. A friend of mine whom I met
when I was sixteen started using heroin and prostituting herself to
support her habit. I saw her buy a small bag of heroin from a man for
$50. It's immoral of me to use coercion to stop the transaction. It's
not immoral of me to express the view that what the man is doing is
morally wrong.

It's unfortunate that some individuals try to perpetuate the stigma
against homosexuality, but they have a right to freely express their
sincerely held moral views and it's actually morally wrong for the
government to try to stop expressing them. That's just as morally
wrong as the government trying to stop voluntary sexual interactions
between consenting adults.

Bigoted and outdated moral views will not thrive in a free marketplace
of ideas. People like Stephen Boisson should be left free to express
themselves.

[Trance Gemini]

Rupert:

Bigoted and outdated moral views will not thrive in a free marketplace
of ideas. People like Stephen Boisson should be left free to express
themselves.

Trance:

This statement I agree with. 

The problem in Canada is that we have Hate Speech laws that Stephen Boisson has violated and been charged and convicted for.

His option now is to take his case to the Supreme Court and argue that his right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights has been violated.

There is currently pressure in Canada to get rid of those laws as well mostly from the religious community who have finally clued in that their Cult Fiction novel, the Bible, can very easily qualify as Hate Speech.

Now that a Preacher has been charged ....

> ;-)

[Turner Hayes]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 5:14 AM, MEG <ekru...@gmail.com> wrote:

NO, just because I say something doesn't mean it is true, but that
goes for you too.  I think most people would agree however, that
playing in 'shit' literally, is sick.  

I agree. But as long as they are not doing it in my house (it would be a bitch to clean that up) and no one is forcing anyone else to play in shit, I'm not going to try and stop them.
 

Shoving thing up your 'buddies'
butt isn't a damn bit better either.  

I disagree.
 

Why don't you explain to
everyone what "fisting" means?  

"fisting" means inserting your entire fist into your partner's vagina or rectum for the purpose of sexual stimulation.
 

Would you allow your child to do a
little "fisting" of their own?  

If I had a child and that's what they wanted to do with another consenting partner, sure.
 

do you wash your hands after a little
"fisting" episode

I wouldn't know, I've never had such an episode. If I had, though, I would clean my hands. I also clean my hands after handling certain animals, although that may be just me being paranoid. Nevertheless, I don't think it's immoral to handle those animals.
 

or do you lick your self 'clean'  

...You've got some sick fantasies, MEG. They're probably better suited to some sort of sexual fetish newsgroup.
 

and if you have to
'clean' yourself after this, does that mean it is dirty?  

It means that there's a chance you got some fecal matter on your hand, yes. And yes, fecal matter can carry many germs and so is not sanitary. I still don't see what that has to do with its morality or immorality.
 

What does
"felching" mean.  You can tell us.  

It sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember what it was exactly, so I looked it up. I used urbandictionary.com, because I didn't want to Google it and wade through the inevitable mass of porn sites.

"

The act of sucking semen from any human orafice, eg. anus, vagina, it can be done with a drinking straw when semen is deep inside the rectum.

"

If there is nothing wrong with it
than it shouldn't bother you to tell us about it.

There you go. I don't know why you are so fascinated by felching, though. Again, you might be better suited to some sex NGs.
 

[Dag Yo]

Joshua didn't say there was anything wrong or immoral with expressing
one's views. He did however say that those in opposition to
"something between two consenting adults" was not moral (presumably
because of the position itself NOT because they expressed that
position).

In other words, you are confused as there are two different arguments
being expressed; one which Joshua brought up and one which you brought
up, and you are claiming that Joshua is in the wrong for an argument
that he is not even making.

[Shot In The Dark]

You are a sick and disturbed poster. You are responding to
inflammatory rhetoric that is designed to assault your sensibilities.
You have obviously surrendered your psyche to the fear-mongerers and
the intolerance as morality set. It is very subjective and personally
pertinent, sexual relations. To sit there and overthink what your
"children" are involved in sexually, you really have to stop. That is
a level that is a bit out of parental "control" after they reach an
age of consent. Anything below a consenting age is illegal on top of
any moral issues. So I don't know what you're getting at. I don't
care what positions my mother is into, and she has no interest in my
sex life. She had prepared me with the tools to make adequate
decisions during our rearing. Now, as an adult, I exercise those
options to my liking, and with no detrimental results to report. My
daughter is only seven months old, so I have quite a long time to
repare for these discussions with her. Now if you are under the
illusion that things are "clean", I've got news about microbes and
bacterium that may surprise you. There are little organisms living on
your skin right now!! And your mouth, daily brusher or not, is a
veritable cesspool of both harmful and benign bacterium, viruses, and
parasite organisms. Inside you, the same story. And human fecal
matter is not nearly as malignant as you are presenting it. I am not
advocating "playing in" poop. However, some adults do it and they
haven't seemed to harm me in any verifiable way. I would suggest you
stop worrying about things that don't directly affect you. There
seems to be an ample amount of real and credible threats in this
world. Stop misappropriating your disgust and start seeking out
INFORMATION.

> > Just because you write something doesn't make it true.- Hide quoted text -

[Shot In The Dark]

Good point. The same can be applied to the opposition of those
views. That is, wherever free speech is protected in a real and
substantive way. It is a very good point to bring up, and one I
strongly agree with.

[Greygirl]

On Jun 14, 12:18 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 23:52, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
>
> > So now in addition to voting on the civil rights of other people,
>
> You mean instead of criminalising others by secret political deals?
> You really must hate democracy.

Oh, I've got to hear this! Tell me, please, whose civil rights have
been criminalized by secret political deals?

> > ... you also want to vote on what goes in the Diagnosic and Statistical Manual
> > of Mental Disorders?
>
> You want it decided by the dirtiest kind of backroom politics? Oh
> dear.

No, I want medical decisions and diagnoses made my medical
professionals. Call me crazy, but I just don't think Billy-Bob in the
trailer park is qualified to decide whether I'm mentally ill or not.
If you want to leave your health care up to someone with a 5th grade
education, be my guest.

> > What else, Roger? There are lots of things that are done without a popular vote. That's
> > because there's a lot of thing that are none of "the people's"
> > business.
>
> Hitler would have said the same. <contempt>

And we have Godwin! Debate over, folks! Nothing more to see here!
Roger has officially lost this internet argument!

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 15:41, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Facts, little man, are not decided by the activities of a pressure
> > group.
>
> Nor are facts, as it seems you would prefer, decided by a majority.

Whoever said they were? Your literacy skills seem to be failing you
again.

> > And in a democracy, laws don't get passed solely to benefit
> > one tiny and obnoxious pressure group without the vote of everyone
> > else.
>

> I don't understand...

Dishonesty noted.

Do explain to me how atheism involves endorsing vice and sleazy
politics.

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 18:31, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 12:18 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jun, 23:52, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
>
> > > So now in addition to voting on the civil rights of other people,
>
> > You mean instead of criminalising others by secret political deals?
> > You really must hate democracy.
>
> Oh, I've got to hear this!  Tell me, please, whose civil rights have
> been criminalized by secret political deals?

Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 10:34, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't even know what those terms mean MEG. However, it doesn't matter.
> Why? Because I don't stick my nose into other people's sex lives.
> What consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is none of yours or my
> business.

Oh please. Spare us this crap. If that was all that was going on, no-
one would care. The facts are that this dirty little group of
perverts can't tolerate the slightest criticism, and are more than
willing to pass laws to criminalise anyone who utters any.

As for what people do to each other being of no business to anyone
else... ever heard of AIDS?

Wake up.

Roger Pearse

[Greygirl]

You seem to have this view of yourself as a skilled debater that
simply isn't warranted. If you don't have any evidence of your claim,
just say so.

[Turner Hayes]

It's a vain hope, Greygirl. This is why Roger has earned the nickname "asshat" here. He makes broad statements with no support, and then refuses to elaborate when people call him on it. He then tosses in a couple of "dishonest"s and "ignorant"s and some emoti-tags and then whacks of to what he perceives as his profound rebuttal of those stupid atheists. I think he needs to be added to the steadily growing list of posters to simply ignore.
 

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 14 Jun, 10:34, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't even know what those terms mean MEG. However, it doesn't matter.
> Why? Because I don't stick my nose into other people's sex lives.
> What consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is none of yours or my
> business.

Oh please.  Spare us this crap.  If that was all that was going on, no-
one would care.  The facts are that this dirty little group of
perverts can't tolerate the slightest criticism, and are more than
willing to pass laws to criminalise anyone who utters any.

Actually, Roger, the Hate Speech laws in Canada which Boisson is being charged with were pushed through by both Christian and Jewish theists. I believe the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews lobbied quite hard to have them put in place mainly to deal with  Right Wing extremist organizations like the Western Guard and KKK who were active and promoting anti-semitism in a big way at the time.

Now, I happen to object to those laws and did so at the time as well.

I believe in Free Speech for all, including theists and I'm an atheist.

Now the bind that these same theists who advocated these laws into existence in the first place have got themselves in is this:

One of our three homosexual Members of Parliament, Svend Robinson, got homosexuality included as a protected group under the Hate Speech laws. I think it was approximately 10 years ago but I'm not sure of the timing.

Lately (I guess since fundamentalist Christianity is becoming more vocal in Canada in recent years) it has occurred to the Christians here that those Hate Speech laws they advocated so heartily for in the 70s and won can now be used against them particularly in regard to Homosexuality and the Bible can now be considered Hate Speech.

Now, they are lobbying to remove those same Hate Speech laws. So the issue is simply going to be who has the more powerful lobby, the Jews or the Christians or do the Jews even care now if the Hate Speech laws are removed.

Frankly, I'm sitting on the sidelines laughing at this absurdity.

As for what people do to each other being of no business to anyone

else... ever heard of AIDS?

Ever heard of Condoms?

Okay, if you think it's our business, then tell me all the personal details of your sex life and I'll tell you whether you're doing it right or wrong according to my standards.

 

Wake up.

Roger Pearse

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini

[MEG]

Gee, I'm surprised you don't know the meaning, get used to it, they
will probably turn up in your child’s spelling lesson in the near
future. The BFers have WEB sites with all sorts of new definitions,
you ought to check them out. No, I really don't care what 'they' do
in the privacy of their own bedrooms but it hardly stops there. I
don't suppose you have been to a "gay rights" parade? They are not
doing that to say they want it kept in the privacy of their own
bedrooms.

Now they are demanding their medical insurance to apply to the other
like a married couple. I can think of no better way to get and spread
diseases than sticking your dick, your tongue, objects of all sorts up
someone’s ass and I really don’t want to pay for ‘their’ undiagnosed
problem. What if I’m cooking up some biological disease in my
bedroom to spread around? Is that legal, do I have a right to be
concerned? There is proof out there this is a mental disorder but for
some reason we have decided to ignore that. Ellen Degenerate admits
she was molested as a child by er father for example. Guys are born
with inhibited male sexual organs, and your right there they don’t
have a whole hell-of-a-lot of choice. Just another example But it
isn’t a goddamn choice, ‘they’ have problems but I don’t think we can
fix the problem by declaring it ‘normal’ to be gay just like we can’t
cure cancer be declaring it is natural to have cancer. We spend half
our lives trying to be different, to stand out in the crowd, but that
is because we don’t. No one wants to admit they ‘ARE’ different and
they ‘DO’ have a problem.

On Jun 14, 2:34 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 19:05, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

> wrote:
> > On 14 Jun, 10:34, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't even know what those terms mean MEG. However, it doesn't matter.
> > > Why? Because I don't stick my nose into other people's sex lives.
> > > What consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is none of yours or my
> > > business.
>
> > Oh please.  Spare us this crap.  If that was all that was going on, no-
> > one would care.  The facts are that this dirty little group of
> > perverts can't tolerate the slightest criticism, and are more than
> > willing to pass laws to criminalise anyone who utters any.
>
> Actually, Roger, the Hate Speech laws in Canada which Boisson is being
> charged with were pushed through by both Christian and Jewish theists. I
> believe the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews lobbied quite hard to

> have them put in place ...

No, these laws were NOT passed by Christians, and are being used to
persecute them now. If you tell me Jewish lobby groups were involved,
I have no idea but more fools them.

> ... mainly to deal with  Right Wing extremist organizations like the Western Guard

> and KKK who were active and promoting anti-semitism in a big way at the time.

Rather in the way that Mugabe arranges to 'deal with' those he
dislikes, who also have no real power? <disgust>

> Now, I happen to object to those laws and did so at the time as well.
> I believe in Free Speech for all, including theists and I'm an atheist.
>
> Now the bind that these same theists who advocated these laws into existence

You need to address these supposed theists, not me. Christians do not
bring hate laws into existence. Jews do; no doubt politically correct
churchmen who care nothing for Christianity do as well.

> Frankly, I'm sitting on the sidelines laughing at this absurdity.

I take it, then, that you don't think you're at all likely to be
locked up. You wait. All so-called 'hate laws' are passed by those
who hate as a tool to silence those they hate.

> > As for what people do to each other being of no business to anyone
> > else... ever heard of AIDS?
>

> Ever heard of <evasions snipped>

No answer? I thought not. Best of luck in not dying from what "isn't
your business".

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 18:54, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:37 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>
>

> You seem to have this view of yourself ... <snip>

No answer? I thought not.

If I was Hitler in person, indeed if I was some creep peddling
unnatural vice, it would hardly justify your argument or refute mine.
Stick to the argument, and be more honest next time.

[Turner Hayes]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 14 Jun, 18:54, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 10:37 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>
>

> You seem to have this view of yourself ... <snip>

No answer?  I thought not.

> > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>

THAT ISN'T A QUESTION, YOU DUMB FUCKING ASSHAT.

 

[Turner Hayes]

Did you forget your meds today?

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM, MEG <ekru...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gee, I'm surprised you don't know the meaning, get used to it, they
will probably turn up in your child's spelling lesson in the near
future.  

My children are adults and have educated me on some of the terms.

I, however, don't really feel it's necessary to police their sex lives.

Not that they would let me get away with that...

 

The BFers have WEB sites with all sorts of new definitions,
you ought to check them out.  

No Thanks. Not really interested.

Just interested in what my partner likes and what we might or might not have in common in terms of those likes.

Frankly I don't care what anyone else does. If they're consenting adults, it makes them happy, gives them pleasure and they're enjoying whatever sexual practices they're engaged in, it's all good as far as I'm concerned. 

No, I really don't care what 'they' do
in the privacy of their own bedrooms but it hardly stops there.  I
don't suppose you have been to a "gay rights" parade?  

No but I've watched the one here on TV. I just don't like big crowds so I don't go to parades of any kind.

They have one the largest most spectacular parades in Toronto, second only to the Caribana one.

I quite enjoy it.

 

They are not
doing that to say they want it kept in the privacy of their own
bedrooms.

It's a parade, get over it. Why should they have to hide the fact that they are gay?

Psychology and Society now understand that homosexuality is natural. It exists not only amongst humans but other species as well.

It's not a crime.

 

Now they are demanding their medical insurance to apply to the other
like a married couple.  

They're a couple. Why shouldn't they have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples?

 

I can think of no better way to get and spread
diseases than sticking your dick, your tongue, objects of all sorts up
someone's ass and I really don't want to pay for 'their' undiagnosed
problem.  

Wow, Dag's right. You really are obsessed with asses....

 

What if I'm cooking up some biological disease in my
bedroom to spread around?  

Like what? What biological diseases have Homosexuals "cooked up" in their bedrooms?

 

Is that legal, do I have a right to be
concerned?  

Well, you might want to provide some evidence that Homosexuals have "cooked up" biological diseases in their bedrooms first.

 

There is proof out there this is a mental disorder but for
some reason we have decided to ignore that.  

What proof? Feel free to provide it. I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

Ellen Degenerate admits
she was molested as a child by er father for example.  

And? There are a lot of Lesbian women and Homosexual men who weren't molested. It doesn't explain homosexuality.

 

Guys are born
with inhibited male sexual organs, and your right there they don't
have a whole hell-of-a-lot of choice.  

I didn't say anything remotely along those lines. Where did that come from? And what is your point?

Nobody knows why people have different sexual orientations. They just do.

 

Just another example   But it
isn't a goddamn choice, 'they' have problems but I don't think we can
fix the problem by declaring it 'normal' to be gay just like we can't

It is normal to be gay for the person who is gay.

 

cure cancer be declaring it is natural to have cancer.  

It is natural to have cancer for the person who has cancer.

 

We spend half
our lives trying to be different, to stand out in the crowd, but that
is because we don't.  No one wants to admit they 'ARE' different and
they 'DO' have a problem.

They're not different. They are who they are.

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 14 Jun, 19:05, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

> wrote:
> > On 14 Jun, 10:34, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't even know what those terms mean MEG. However, it doesn't matter.
> > > Why? Because I don't stick my nose into other people's sex lives.
> > > What consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is none of yours or my
> > > business.
>
> > Oh please.  Spare us this crap.  If that was all that was going on, no-
> > one would care.  The facts are that this dirty little group of
> > perverts can't tolerate the slightest criticism, and are more than
> > willing to pass laws to criminalise anyone who utters any.
>
> Actually, Roger, the Hate Speech laws in Canada which Boisson is being
> charged with were pushed through by both Christian and Jewish theists. I
> believe the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews lobbied quite hard to

> have them put in place ...

No, these laws were NOT passed by Christians, and are being used to
persecute them now.  If you tell me Jewish lobby groups were involved,
I have no idea but more fools them.

Roger. I'm Canadian and I was an adult when those laws were passed. They were passed under exactly the circumstances that I described. If you google Canadian Council of Christians and Jews you may find some archival information online.

 

> ... mainly to deal with  Right Wing extremist organizations like the Western Guard

> and KKK who were active and promoting anti-semitism in a big way at the time.

Rather in the way that Mugabe arranges to 'deal with' those he
dislikes, who also have no real power?  <disgust>

I agree with you. It was wrong to pass those laws in the first place and they shouldn't exist today either.

I see no threat to having Christians speak freely or anyone else for that matter.

However, they brought this on themselves. Sorry but that's the sad reality.

 

> Now, I happen to object to those laws and did so at the time as well.
> I believe in Free Speech for all, including theists and I'm an atheist.
>
> Now the bind that these same theists who advocated these laws into existence

You need to address these supposed theists, not me.  Christians do not
bring hate laws into existence.  Jews do; no doubt politically correct
churchmen who care nothing for Christianity do as well.

I'm just giving you the history. You responded to my post, so I'm explaining what happened.

 

> Frankly, I'm sitting on the sidelines laughing at this absurdity.

I take it, then, that you don't think you're at all likely to be
locked up.  You wait.  All so-called 'hate laws' are passed by those
who hate as a tool to silence those they hate.

I agree. Those kinds of laws are a threat to everyone. They shouldn't exist. 

 

> > As for what people do to each other being of no business to anyone
> > else... ever heard of AIDS?
>

> Ever heard of <evasions snipped>

No answer?  I thought not.  Best of luck in not dying from what "isn't
your business".

Like I said, if you think it's my business then tell me all the details of your personal sexual practices and those you engage in with your partner and I'll be judge and jury on your sex life and tell you whether it'll cause diseases or not, whether the practices are healthy or not, etc.

 

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[BlueSci]

On Jun 14, 2:14 am, MEG <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NO, just because I say something doesn't mean it is true, but that
> goes for you too.  I think most people would agree however, that
> playing in 'shit' literally, is sick.  Shoving thing up your 'buddies'
> butt isn't a damn bit better either.  Why don't you explain to
> everyone what "fisting" means?  Would you allow your child to do a
> little "fisting" of their own?  do you wash your hands after a little
> "fisting" episode or do you lick your self 'clean'  and if you have to
> 'clean' yourself after this, does that mean it is dirty?  What does
> "felching" mean.  You can tell us.  If there is nothing wrong with it
> than it shouldn't bother you to tell us about it.

You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this. Have you
ever asked yourself why? Do you go into as much detail when imagining
what heterosexuals do in bed? I don't think most of us spend much
time, if any at all, imagining the sex lives of others, so why do
you?

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 20:10, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Jun, 18:54, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 14, 10:37 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > > > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>
>
> > > You seem to have this view of yourself ... <snip>
>
> > No answer?  I thought not.
>
> > > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>
>
> THAT ISN'T A QUESTION, YOU DUMB FUCKING ASSHAT.

Don't shout. It's rude, and rather silly to highlight your own
illiteracy.

You do seem to have worn out your welcome as 'Zencycle'. How long do
you reckon "Turner Hayes" will last? Smile.

[Roger Pearse]

On 14 Jun, 20:27, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

Smile. I love it when atheists start trying to lie. It doesn't work,
incidentally. I have only a slight idea of which particular
misrepresentation you're trying to pull, but it hardly matters.
Christians don't get to pass hate-laws, and never have had the chance
to do so, since they don't possess political power. The very
terminology belongs to the politically correct left.

> If you google Canadian Council of Christians and Jews you may find some archival
> information online.

Quite why such a body -- obviously not a Christian body, as bodies of
that name are always PC -- would advance your argument you fail to
explain. Oh hang on, you're going to try to play games with the word
'Christian', and pretend secularised unbelieving lefty churchmen are
Christians.... <chuckle>

Those are precisely the sort of scum who are persecuting now. Jeering
at Jesus for the actions of Caiaphas is a bit sick.

> > > ... mainly to deal with  Right Wing extremist organizations like the
> > Western Guard
> > > and KKK who were active and promoting anti-semitism in a big way at the
> > time.
>
> > Rather in the way that Mugabe arranges to 'deal with' those he
> > dislikes, who also have no real power?  <disgust>
>
> I agree with you. It was wrong to pass those laws in the first place and
> they shouldn't exist today either.

Well at least we can agree on that much. I don't belong to any
organisation that has the power to silence its sectional enemies by
use of state power, and therefore I naturally don't care for any that
does.

> I see no threat to having Christians speak freely or anyone else for that
> matter.

Except in time of war.

> However, they brought this on themselves. Sorry but that's the sad reality.

Try not to snivel in your mock sadness. It's a lie, of course.

> > > Now, I happen to object to those laws and did so at the time as well.
> > > I believe in Free Speech for all, including theists and I'm an atheist.
>
> > > Now the bind that these same theists who advocated these laws into
> > existence
>
> > You need to address these supposed theists, not me.  Christians do not
> > bring hate laws into existence.  Jews do; no doubt politically correct
> > churchmen who care nothing for Christianity do as well.
>

> I'm just giving you the history...

Of course you are, dearie. Sadly for you I am much too well-educated
and much too experienced in the ways that atheists lie to fall for the
little deception that you are trying to pull.

> > > Frankly, I'm sitting on the sidelines laughing at this absurdity.
>
> > I take it, then, that you don't think you're at all likely to be
> > locked up.  You wait.  All so-called 'hate laws' are passed by those
> > who hate as a tool to silence those they hate.
>

> I agree. Those ... <evasion>

No answer? No...

> > > > As for what people do to each other being of no business to anyone
> > > > else... ever heard of AIDS?
>
> > > Ever heard of <evasions snipped>
>
> > No answer?  I thought not.  Best of luck in not dying from what "isn't
> > your business".
>

> Like I said... (reiteration snipped)

Run as hard as you like. Those who won't learn morals from Moses can
do so from a microorganism.

[Trance Gemini]

I see now why everyone calls you AssHat, AssHat ;-)

[Turner Hayes]

AHAHAHAHAH

There's one for the quote list. Thanks, Asshat!
 

[Turner Hayes]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 14 Jun, 20:10, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Jun, 18:54, Greygirl <greyg...@punkass.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 14, 10:37 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > > > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>
>
> > > You seem to have this view of yourself ... <snip>
>
> > No answer?  I thought not.
>
> > > Once you have to pretend to be ignorant in order to uphold your
> > > position, of course, the argument is over. <smile>
>
> THAT ISN'T A QUESTION, YOU DUMB FUCKING ASSHAT.

Don't shout.  It's rude, and rather silly to highlight your own
illiteracy.

You do seem to have worn out your welcome as 'Zencycle'.  How long do
you reckon "Turner Hayes" will last?  Smile.

Well, at least you've stopped using emoti-tags. Maybe, if we're very lucky, you'll soon stop hitting the "Reply" link.
 

[Trance Gemini]

On Jun 14, 4:28 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

Pretty priceless isn't it ;-).

I wasn't reading his posts and sort of wondered why everyone was
pissed off at him and calling him Asshat.

Well, it took exactly three posts for me to find out why :-).

He's a real gem, this one.

[Turner Hayes]

I remember him from long ago, and he was just as intolerable then. However, he used to seem to at least TRY to debate. He seemed to get a hard-on from it. Now he just ignores what he can't answer.
 

[Trance Gemini]

Or makes somewhat paranoid accusations. Too funny. 

[Turner Hayes]

You know, I often wonder how many theists here (and MEG) are posting from a room with rubber walls. What perplexes me is how they can type with a straight jacket on.
 

[Trance Gemini]

They probably don't need the strait-jacket if they're locked up their rubber room.

The problem I see is that their meds don't seem to be kicking in.