OT: American Politics

[MindzEye]

Well, it's a whole different matter when it's your child being denied equal rights. One of the most eye opening short stories I've ever read was called something along the lines of "it's only immoral when it's not my abortion" where an abortion clinic nurse talked about the numerous, numerous Christians, many of whom she had personally seen boycotting her clinic, come in for abortion services and they all had a story for why they were different than "those other" people who had come in for abortions.

A major reason why my political beliefs are what they are is that I was born and raised in poverty (or what passes for it in our society). There will simply never be a time in my life where I look at my tax dollars the way that someone who hasn't seen the other side of the social spending that I have, will. I understand their value in what they can do for someone else, and as long as they're managed as competently as we can expect government to manage them, I'll very rarely mutter a complaint.

 

[Wayward DP]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Daniel Dale will not be charged

Police say they have found “no evidence” that Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale — publicly denounced as a lurker, stalker, peeping Tom and potential “sicko” by the Ford brothers — went onto the mayor’s property or peered over his fence last week.

On Wednesday afternoon, Dale was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing when Toronto police ended their investigation and announced they will not be laying charges.

“I closed off the investigation,” Det. Tricia Johnston told Dale in a phone conversation. “There’s nothing left to do.”

“You’re not being charged.”

...

The investigation was closed Wednesday afternoon, after police accepted Dale’s invitation to view relevant photos, videos and emails on his BlackBerry, which had been in police custody since the night of the incident.

In the presence of Dale and his lawyer, police analyzed the phone and found no photographs or videos taken the night of the incident.

The sole photograph Dale recalls taking — which he said would have captured trees in the park behind Ford’s house, along with the mayor’s back fence — failed to save on his BlackBerry because the battery died as he was snapping the photograph.

...

“No (there is no evidence you were doing those things). Because if you were, then you would’ve been charged,” Johnston told Dale. “I didn’t find any evidence to substantiate a charge.”

 

[corksens]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Of course he won't be charged.

But what terrible reporting.

 

[Wayward DP]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Of course he won't be charged.

But what terrible reporting.

Heaven forbid somebody go investigate the piece of land they are going to write about... what a terrible reporter.

 

[zeke]

Here's what Jesus had to say about the great sin of homosexuality:

 

[hockeylover]

Please Mr Santorum, tell us more about Jesus' views on gay marriage and the Dutch Health Care System.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said Thursday that President Obama is wrong to suggest that Jesus Christ would be on his side in his newfound support for gay marriage and predicted the president's shifting position will motivate social conservatives to head to the polls this fall.

"I assume people are entitled to their Christian beliefs, but they are not entitled to take the Bible and twist it to where it is unrecognizable — and that is certainly what the president did yesterday," Mr. Santorum said during an appearance on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show.

 

[MindzEye]

I would love to see him quote non OT scripture on the subject to prove this.

Love to.

 

[mbow30]

no, it's NOT "pretty despicable", and lacking logic and reason. of course i don't want to marry my 15 year old neighbour, or my aunt, or my cousin. i use those examples to point out that society has drawn reasonable lines around relationships, so we are perfectly able to do that now. it many cases it's taken many, many centuries to draw those lines, those lines were drawn for perfectly valid moral, social, and religious reasons, and if we try to erase them now, we damn well better do so very carefully and not be so arrogant as to assume our own "personal morality" is able to trump the collective wisdom and morality of hundreds of generations before us.

those lines are drawn for biological or sociological reasons. biologically it's not good to mate with close relatives as it can create genetic problems. sociologically it is improper for an adult to date a child based on power relationships and the fact that the average 12, 13, 14, 15 year old is simply not equipped to make a rationale and responsible decision when it comes to marriage.

you cannot say the same of gays marrying.

society took a long time to erase the lines around bi-racial relationships, for example, and with good reason. i think much of modern western society is able to come to terms with erasing the line around LGBT people being in relationships. but how DARE anyone smugly sit back and call anyone else "despicable" or "stupid" or a "bigot" for saying that, no, marriage as sanctioned by religion and the state is between a man and a woman.

are you saying that taking a long time to eliminate the stigma (or at least chip away at it -- i would argue that it still exists amongst many) of bi-racial relationships was a good thing? or that those lines were erased 'with good reason'? based on your sentence structure it is unclear. hopefully you meant the latter.

with that said.. yes.. bi-racial couples is a perfect example to compare gay marriage to. at one point it was stigmatized and the law was manipulated to prevent or prohibit it. but over time people fortunately came to the realization that it was bigoted, and stupid, and had no effect on the world outside of the relationship and it because at least more socially acceptable.

 

[theREALkoreaboy]

lol.... isnt the divorce rate close to 50% ?

yes, because the 2oth-21st centuries have done a whole lot to undermine traditional families and traditional marriages.

 

[theREALkoreaboy]

And the "virgin" birth. She was clearly a lying whore.

this is a ridiculous, ridiculous comment, and way, way over the line.

you're "tolerant" if you support gay marriage. you're "despicable and intolerant" if you support traditional marriage. but you're still "tolerant" if you call the mother of god what you called her as long as you still support gay marriage.

 

[theREALkoreaboy]

Frankly, when you're arguing against inclusion, against equal rights, it's hard to not tip toe into the realm of bigotry, whatever your personal motivation is.

you have lost all right to talk about "bigotry" and "intolerance" here. the level of bigotry and intolerance you have shown repeatedly to people of faith in this thread and elsewhere far surpasses any "intolerance" that i have shown defending traditional marriage.

 

[theREALkoreaboy]

those lines are drawn for biological or sociological reasons. biologically it's not good sociologically it is improper

thank you. what you did there was draw a line over which you think relationships shouldn't go for biological or sociological reasons. i happen to agree with the lines that you drew in your post, and i just happen to take it further when i draw a line around traditional marriage.

if we both agree that certain relationships just don't warrant being called "marriage", then you should be able to accept the logic and reasoning behind my position.

what has become crystal clear in this thread is just how shockingly INtolerant many of you are, while pumping yourselves up as paragons of tolerance. it's really shocking. if people disagree with you, they are viciously attacked and insulted. religious people are, according to some of you, total scumbags. apparently, hundreds of millions of indians now are stupid, dumb, non-toilet-paper-using savages because most of them would disagree with your own "enlightened" views around morality.

you people really, really, really need to read "lost in transition". your moral compasses in many cases are seriously flawed. seriously flawed.

 

[Leafovic]

Until you start responding to the many posts that made you look silly, don't expect great responses back.

I made a joke, maybe a tasteless one, but if you continue to use religion in your reasoning, with no ability to think for yourself and answer others when they call you on your statements, then people will think you are bigoted.

this is a ridiculous, ridiculous comment, and way, way over the line.

you're "tolerant" if you support gay marriage. you're "despicable and intolerant" if you support traditional marriage. but you're still "tolerant" if you call the mother of god what you called her as long as you still support gay marriage.

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

 

[SundinsTooth]

Can you explain your tolerance position a bit? How are people pro-equal rights intolerant?

And please get your facts straight - you are not despicable for being pro-traditional marriage - you are despicable for comparing gay-marriage to child bondage. A lot of your aggravations come up due to a basic inability to comprehend people's comments and arguments.

thank you. what you did there was draw a line over which you think relationships shouldn't go for biological or sociological reasons. i happen to agree with the lines that you drew in your post, and i just happen to take it further when i draw a line around traditional marriage.

if we both agree that certain relationships just don't warrant being called "marriage", then you should be able to accept the logic and reasoning behind my position.

what has become crystal clear in this thread is just how shockingly INtolerant many of you are, while pumping yourselves up as paragons of tolerance. it's really shocking. if people disagree with you, they are viciously attacked and insulted. religious people are, according to some of you, total scumbags. apparently, hundreds of millions of indians now are stupid, dumb, non-toilet-paper-using savages because most of them would disagree with your own "enlightened" views around morality.

you people really, really, really need to read "lost in transition". your moral compasses in many cases are seriously flawed. seriously flawed.

 

[SundinsTooth]

 

[hockeylover]

Would Mary not have been around ~12-15 when she was betrothed to Joseph, according to the traditions of those moral/righteous generations before us?

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]