Erosion of morals in todays society.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 5, 2003, 2:34 pm

An interesting editorial from a writer here in Toronto.
http://www.canoe.com/Columnists/worthington.html

Although I am likely to be branded further by the fnord and Lap Dog committee I am in agreement with Mr. Worthington's opinion on both the issues he discusses.

Cheers.

Post by **Xouqoa** » September 5, 2003, 2:59 pm

Nothing wrong with thinking that gays shouldn't be able to marry. That is a person's right to believe what they want. I might have a problem with it if you said they were all going to burn in hell for atrocities against human nature or something, but if you don't want them to get married, why would I 'brand' you? Man, you must really think I have it out for you or something.

For what it's worth, I don't care if they marry or not. I don't see what the big damn deal is about letting them marry, but that's my opinion and I don't force it on anyone.

Oh, and the whole Ted Williams thing is completely fucked up. Maybe they should put some screws in his son's head.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » September 5, 2003, 3:16 pm

I'll brand him...biggot

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 5, 2003, 3:45 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:I'll brand him...biggot

Not a biggot, hey if I was you would not be on my friends list.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 5, 2003, 3:51 pm

Why is it that when people want to attack the morality of others, they choose an issue like homosexual marriages? I mean, I'm not gay, and I don't give a fuck what they do, yet it seems to be an obsession in Eastern Canada at this time.

If you want to cite examples of non-existant morality, why not point at the execs at the top of Enron, Bre-X, Arthur Andersen and Worldcom? These individuals impacted thousands if not millions of people with their actions (i.e. investors, customers/clients and employees), not just a select few. The greed in the disturbing story of Ted Williams (I hope the daughter wins and they cremate him just to end that sickening scam) is more in line with the corporate smoke and mirrors than a couple gays trying to get legal recognition.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 5, 2003, 4:01 pm

Wulfran wrote:Why is it that when people want to attack the morality of others, they choose an issue like homosexual marriages? I mean, I'm not gay, and I don't give a fuck what they do, yet it seems to be an obsession in Eastern Canada at this time.

If you want to cite examples of non-existant morality, why not point at the execs at the top of Enron, Bre-X, Arthur Andersen and Worldcom? These individuals impacted thousands if not millions of people with their actions (i.e. investors, customers/clients and employees), not just a select few. The greed in the disturbing story of Ted Williams (I hope the daughter wins and they cremate him just to end that sickening scam) is more in line with the corporate smoke and mirrors than a couple gays trying to get legal recognition.

Well, Wulfran those are fine examples but start your own damn thread.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 5, 2003, 4:12 pm

Of course this is bigotry. The author does not attempt to hide it. He states it clearly - "I am willing to tolerate, but not accept." Toleration is bigotry, just bigotry with less direct actions. In today's PC world, the word "tolerate" has lost most of its meaning, but this author is very clear on its distinctions. To tolerate is to recognize the evil (not with a capital "E") in something or someone and yet agree that it should not be destroyed. That is bigotry as pure as it comes. That someone does not think that gays should be killed or arrested by virtue of doing the acts that define them does not make such a person not a bigot.

Because in the case of marriage (and military service), the parallels are so strong, I'll toss out the examples.

Blacks in the US were, once elevated to the point of "toleration", not permitted to marry whites and were not permitted to join the military. I think there can be little doubt that the same people posting here that gays should not be allowed to marry would both describe themselves as not bigotted, yet would claim to be appalled that identical proscriptions were on the books and enforced in the States as few as 35 years ago against Blacks.

It is the same thing. If you think gays should not be permitted to marry, to serve in the military, to rent a home, to hold a job - even one teaching your children, etc., then you, like the author of this piece, are a bigot. Feel free to pat yourself on the back for not wanting to kill us. You are in fine company with the same group of segregationists who similiarly did not want Blacks killed, but just wanted to make sure they rode at the back of the bus.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 4:19 pm

Very good post. I guess I am a bigot because I 'tolerate' gays, but do not condone their lifestyle. But does that mean I am bigotted towards say a career criminal? Good post, but it creates more confusion than it cancels.

-edit and for the record, I think legally gays should be allowed to marry, I just disagree with it from a religious standpoint.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 5, 2003, 4:39 pm

Its not really that confusing. Career criminals, pederasts, theives, etc. have done things worthy of our condemnation. I am not trying to argue from the slipery slope of moral relatevism. I am arguing that gays have not done anything worthy of your condemnation. That, like Blacks (who, btw, were also scorned by your religious beliefs not too long ago - but arguing this is just going to result on the religious saying how "oh no - its not the religion - its just those few bad seeds" - so I am not going to bother beyond this parenthetical), gays are not, by virtue of being gay, an evil that needs to be tolerated. Like Blacks, they simply are what they are and I would suggest that our difference in sexual orientation should no more be a source for concern between us than our difference in skin color.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 5, 2003, 4:40 pm

It's all because of the wetbacks and niggers.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 5, 2003, 4:42 pm

and jews

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 4:47 pm

I understand your analogy, but one I would pose to you is it's morally acceptable to marry a 12 year old girl in some cultures, but by western standards (at least outside of Kentucky) we consider it to be appalling. However, if someone from another culture came to america with said wife, you would tolerate them even though you do not morally condone it, right?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 5, 2003, 4:51 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Of course this is bigotry. The author does not attempt to hide it. He states it clearly - "I am willing to tolerate, but not accept." Toleration is bigotry, just bigotry with less direct actions. In today's PC world, the word "tolerate" has lost most of its meaning, but this author is very clear on its distinctions. To tolerate is to recognize the evil (not with a capital "E") in something or someone and yet agree that it should not be destroyed. That is bigotry as pure as it comes. That someone does not think that gays should be killed or arrested by virtue of doing the acts that define them does not make such a person not a bigot.

Because in the case of marriage (and military service), the parallels are so strong, I'll toss out the examples.

Blacks in the US were, once elevated to the point of "toleration", not permitted to marry whites and were not permitted to join the military. I think there can be little doubt that the same people posting here that gays should not be allowed to marry would both describe themselves as not bigotted, yet would claim to be appalled that identical proscriptions were on the books and enforced in the States as few as 35 years ago against Blacks.

It is the same thing. If you think gays should not be permitted to marry, to serve in the military, to rent a home, to hold a job - even one teaching your children, etc., then you, like the author of this piece, are a bigot. Feel free to pat yourself on the back for not wanting to kill us. You are in fine company with the same group of segregationists who similiarly did not want Blacks killed, but just wanted to make sure they rode at the back of the bus.

Nice attempt at drawing a correlation between changing the defination of marriage and shooting gays on site. Nowhere in the article did the author state he felt that way. Although your attempt to sensationalize the editorial is quite laudable. No one is asking you to ride at the back of the bus. I do believe that gays have the right to work and all the other rights afforded to "breeders" so don't write something that is not there.

However, how long will it be before your lifestyle infringes on the beliefs of Christians?

I have no problem with gay people, each to his or her own. Imagine attending a church that believes it is sinful to participate in homosexual activities and then having the state legislate marriages must be held in churches and gays cannot be turned away because of sexual orientation.

Once again I have no issues with gays having some form of civil ceremony but as far as I know marriage is an institution of the church. So infringe on others rights to further the gay agenda. I think not.

Tolerance the virtue of those people who don't believe in anything.

Cheers

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 5, 2003, 5:00 pm

Legally, the states would be bound, through force of treaty and principals of comity to recognize that marriage.

At any rate, I think you are going to have to do better than 12 to get anything other than acceptance from me. Heck, in the US, there are several states with no absolute minimum ages (though in those States, 15 is often a threshold below which a court must approve of the marriage. In many many states 14 is the minimum age - a mere two years older than your hypothetical foriegners.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 5, 2003, 5:11 pm

I do believe that gays have the right to work and all the other rights afforded to "breeders" so don't write something that is not there.

Yes. I completely accept that you beilieve this. I find this to be a very common understanding - including with marriage - of most straights. Unfortunately, the belief is a product of your ignorance, rather than a product of fact. It was ammusing during the long period of time whie trying to get my boyfriend his visa here, how many straight people marvelled why we didn't just get married. heh.

However, how long will it be before your lifestyle infringes on the beliefs of Christians?

Umm, never. Unless Christians believe that it is an infringement of their beliefs when others do not believe and act as they do.

I have no problem with gay people, each to his or her own. Imagine attending a church that believes it is sinful to participate in homosexual activities and then having the state legislate marriages must be held in churches and gays cannot be turned away because of sexual orientation.

Again, I can only marvel at the ignorance displayed here. I have yet to see anything about Religious instistuations being forced to perform cerimonies by the State. I am not familiar enough with your laws up north, but in teh United States, any attempt to do so would be clearly unconstituational. Gay marriages have nothing to do with any church. Nor, by the way, do straight marriages. My firend had to wait over a year to get married in an Orthodox church while the preists were interviewing him and annuling his prior marriage (the state certificate of divorce for which had been issued long long ago). Churches have the right to marry or not marry people on their own criterion. No one is asking that be changed - for gays or straights.

Once again I have no issues with gays having some form of civil ceremony but as far as I know marriage is an institution of the church. So infringe on others rights to further the gay agenda. I think not.

Umm, again, no. Churches can go around practicing what ever cerimonies that want. None of them matter to the law. This is not about the right to for a pederast - I mean a priest - to conduct some cerimony. Gay marriages are about the right to go get a certificate from a public body and have the State recognize the union exactly as it does a union between straights.

I'd reccommend you do at least a tiny amount of research on teh subject before you go spreading the misinormation campaign of your local parish. It would be difficult for you to be more wrong about your facts on this matter than what you have stated.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 5:12 pm

So in other words, you see my point...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 5, 2003, 5:18 pm

Atokal wrote:Once again I have no issues with gays having some form of civil ceremony but as far as I know marriage is an institution of the church. So infringe on others rights to further the gay agenda. I think not.

Are you a fucking moron? (don't answer that it was rhetorical)

Marraige is a state sponsored union and it is entirely the government's domain.

You can get married without involving any type of church whatsoever. You cannot get married without a marraige liscense from the government.

It is the government that acknowledges two people as lawfully married, not any type of church. There is absolutely, completely, totally, 100% nothing to do with any type of religion in a marraige except for what the people involved consent to.

In your response do tend to reply to the issues I just brought up instead of totally ignoring them, ranting in all caps for six paragraphs about a random word you picked out of my post and then going "OWNED!"

The "gay agenda?" you sound like a fucking nazi.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 5, 2003, 5:32 pm

My mother recently got remarried.

A judge performed the ceremony. In a courtroom. There were absolutely no religious officials present, nor was the marriage sanctioned or involved in any religion whatsoever.

Let us assume that Aaem and his partner do the exact same thing. How exactly are they infringing upon any religion?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 5:36 pm

Whether they are infringing upon a religion is not relevant from a legal standpoint.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 5, 2003, 6:03 pm

That is also true.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 5, 2003, 6:07 pm

Yeah I was okay with the article till he started in about the gay marriages. If Ted Williams wrote in his will he wanted to be cremated then he should. I don't have a problem with the freezing of his head...just that his last wishes weren't obeyed...

-=Lohrno

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 5, 2003, 7:32 pm

I do see your point, Klaw, I am just warry of it. There is a tendancy/strategy to put sex on a continuum. On one end is the Missionary possition practiced by loving couples married under the eyes of god and on the other side is child rape. Homosexual adults engaged in consentual sex acts fall somewhere in between and the arguement progresses that by legalizing/sanctioning same-sex couples (through, marriage - for instance), we are heading down the slippery slope that leads to child moslestation being sanctioned as well (outside the confines of the bishop's chambers I mean - it's already accepted there).

I am pretty sure that is not what you are getting at (though I am equally sure that is exactly what the author of the linked piece IS getting at), so I am cautious in replying that I do see your point. Your point is that there is a moral relativism among cultures and that sometimes we tolerate other cultures while finding them abhorant. I agree that is true.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 5, 2003, 8:33 pm

Kyoukan, first of all thank you for acknowledging my existence for the second time in as many days. Second thank you for turning a debate into another of your inane name calling sessions. Yes I sound like a Nazi for making that statement. HAHAHAHA. Third you lost your rights to defend the downtrodden with your repeated and decidedly racist comments on these boards so kindly stfu.

Aaeamdar I see the points you are making. I also concede I may have been ignorant of all the issues at hand. The slippery slope you speak of is probably at the very core of the fear felt by many over this issue. My statement was simply to say it is not a fantastic notion to think that at some point gay people will petition the law makers of the land to force churches to allow gay marriages to be performed in their places of worship. To do otherwise would constitute discrimination or worse.

Cheers

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 5, 2003, 8:49 pm

Atokal wrote:Kyoukan, first of all thank you for acknowledging my existence for the second time in as many days. Second thank you for turning a debate into another of your inane name calling sessions. Yes I sound like a Nazi for making that statement. HAHAHAHA. Third you lost your rights to defend the downtrodden with your repeated and decidedly racist comments on these boards so kindly stfu.

kyoukan wrote:In your response do tend to reply to the issues I just brought up instead of totally ignoring them, ranting in all caps for six paragraphs about a random word you picked out of my post and then going "OWNED!"

Yes I know I'm totally wasting my time, and I know you're going to further deflect the argument away from how wrong you are by bringing up semantic bullshit like you didn't say anything in caps and you only wrote one paragraph and not six. No I don't know why I fucking bother with a fucking shithead such as yourself.

But hey here's an idea.

ARGUE THE FUCKING ARGUMENT. No seriously for once in your life argue the argument. I really want to see if you can even do it.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 5, 2003, 10:44 pm

god what a load of bullshit why do they always target the homosexuals ... its the hitler with the jews ... LETS BLAME IT ALL ON THE JEWS SCAPECOAT ! WOOOOOO what a fucking retard i swear people like him make this world a bad place

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 5, 2003, 11:21 pm

Because they can, Drasta. If you make derogatory jokes/statements refering to niggers, kikes, spics, etc. you will be (justifiably) shouted down as a bigot and your opinions will be largely ignored. Faggots aren't there yet, so we remain a popular target for those needing an avenue of hate, but who don't have the balls to direct that hate towards a group society protects.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 6, 2003, 2:03 am

Aaeamdar wrote:Because they can, Drasta. If you make derogatory jokes/statements refering to niggers, kikes, spics, etc. you will be (justifiably) shouted down as a bigot and your opinions will be largely ignored. Faggots aren't there yet, so we remain a popular target for those needing an avenue of hate, but who don't have the balls to direct that hate towards a group society protects.

Huh??

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 6, 2003, 2:43 am

Surely it is not that confusing. Drasta asked why these people always seem to go after gays. The answer is that gays remain an acceptable target for this sort of hate. For other minorities, that is no longer the case. Not that you can't descriminate agaist racial minorities, but you can't get many people to sympathize with your views if you put it in print. For gays that is still not the case. Hence, the answer to Drasta's question is - "because they can."