| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/10/2008 4:28:14 PM | ^^^^
Almost how I see things.
As far as someone saying that he feels we should kill homosexuals, how about if they said we should kill all jews, or blacks, or Muslims? Would he not get as much press coverage? Just because a book that had chapters that were written over 2000 years ago says something is it not up to us to question if it is right?
The words were written by men and the stories and lessons evolved as society evolved. In the early chapters people made animal sacrifices to their god. Then they cut out offering animals. Now which came first, the word of god evolving or the people who worshiped him evolving?
From what we have to go on I can not say what is 100% right or wrong in God's eyes. I just think if there is a big guy in the sky he is not inclined to waste souls if we are precious to him (or her, actually makes more sense giving birth to all there is).
And I can not see (s)he wanting to kill his/her children for having a relationship with their own sex. It does not make any sense. What harm can the act of loving someone produce? Surely it is not a reason to kill someone. And anyone saying that they feel it should be done seems to miss the concept of being a Christian. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/10/2008 6:08:39 PM |
Surely it is not a reason to kill someone. And anyone saying that they feel it should be done seems to miss the concept of being a Christian. What’s really sad is that so many seem to miss the concept, that we had to pass laws to protect homosexuals from the Christians.
| |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/10/2008 11:36:29 PM |
What’s really sad is that so many seem to miss the concept, that we had to pass laws to protect homosexuals from the Christians
Well put Flyin  ... whatever happend to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" ... or "let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone" . | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 9:50:46 AM |
What’s really sad is that so many seem to miss the concept, that we had to pass laws to protect homosexuals from the Christians. Utter nonsense! No real surprise coming from you considering your past bogoted remarks. I'm surprised that susan cd is giving you a cheer. I alwyas thought she was more tolerant. :-(
We passed laws to make sexual orientation a protected class. That means a heterosexual cannot be refused work on the basis of his or her sexual orientation, a qualified lesbian has the same rights to rent an apartment as a qualified transsexual or a qualified homosexual, and so on. It has nothing to do with protecting homosexuals from Christians. And I'm thankful the same Human Rights code protects Christians from the likes of you.
By the way when did this turn from a "Christians please affirm the rights of homosexuals" to "Christians are bad people" and "the Bible is a a piece of crap" thread?
Maybe I should ask susan-cd and others to affirm that Christians have to right to express themselves is a free society subject only the the laws of that society and should not be disregarded simply because they are Christians (ditto Theists, Buddhists, etc.). Can you state that you are in fact tolerant of those who believe differently? I need to ask because I want to hear it. You know. just how Christians were asked to show that they weren't anti-homosexual. It seems fair. Thank you. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 11:17:27 AM | In response to Flying:
We have had to pass laws to protect all minorities in Canada - including Christians - how's that for a commentary on our society.
In response to susan-cd:
I have not seen a single Christrian poster on this thread do anything but follow the theology you posted...however, you claim to be an atheist...as such, your reliance on scripture is contradictory...as you are once again cherrypicking - the behaviour you wished to condemn.
Might I suggest you rely upon more secular quotations:
We can never judge the lives of others, because each person knows only their own pain and renunciation. It's one thing to feel that you are on the right path, but it's another to think that yours is the only path. - Paul Coelho - Brazilian Writer and Mystic
You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free. - Clarence Darrow - Atheist and Civil Liberties Activist
4/5 | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 11:54:08 AM | RO, I am going to generalize here because there are always exceptions, times change and so do attitudes and the concept of right and wrong.
I think the focus here is more on Christians because they were and are the more numerous of religious flavours here in Canada. Up until the last thirty years Christian and Jewish ideologies were just about the only game in town. Where we were as a society and were we are going has been shaped by these two groups.
The Christian focus is also valid because the thread started out discussing the comments of a MP hopeful who’s concept of right and wrong and the consequences they should entail, goes against what most of our society finds acceptable. If it were a Muslim that made the comment we might not have been taken aback to the same extent because their writings can be more extreme in view.
It may be due to the change in society’s views on homosexuality over the last couple of decades but you seem to forget some of the darker events of our past. We did not pass laws so a lesbian can find an apartment to live in, we passed those laws because gays were getting killed on riverbanks. Gay bashing is not a cute quaint phrase. Back then cops would not even take violence against them seriously, almost like they deserved it.
This coming from a people who in general come from a Christian heritage.
I hope you do not mind me interpreting what your thoughts may have been here, it is definitely a phrasing error, something I have found you do quite rarely.
… Christians have to right to express themselves is a free society subject only the the laws of that society and should not be disregarded simply because they are Christians
Christians do have a right to express themselves in our society but as a society we have written laws limiting the extent that those freedoms cover.
Can you state that you are in fact tolerant of those who believe differently?
I do not know about the others but I am not tolerant to those that say we should kill people for doing something harmless to everyone not performing those acts. Who knows, someone’s god may be right and homosexuals may burn in hell at some point in time. But that is not for us to decide and we definitely do not have a right to kill people for it.
We have a generally tolerant society at the moment but that is only because we expose intolerance. There may be some out there that have views that do not fit in with society’s views. Their views do not take root because of people exposing them for all to see.
Just my opinion. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 12:19:08 PM |
I'm surprised that susan cd is giving you a cheer. I alwyas thought she was more tolerant. She’s a HE… and what does that have to do with tolerance?
Maybe I should ask susan-cd and others to affirm that Christians have to right to express themselves is a free society Romanticoptimist, you and David Pescue both have the right to express your views, no one has told either one of you to stop.
We have had to pass laws to protect all minorities in Canada - including Christians 80% of Canada is Christian (including me), that’s hardly a minority… Who do the Christians need protection from? Is there a bunch of pissed off Romans running around Canada, looking to feed their lions?
If it were a Muslim that made the comment we might not have been taken aback to the same extent because their writings can be more extreme in view. Muslim writings are no more extremist than Christian writings… It’s all about the interpretation, and who’s doing the reading… it’s funny how the Media has swayed our perception of Muslims, especially since 911.
| |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 1:08:33 PM |
If it were a Muslim that made the comment we might not have been taken aback to the same extent because their writings can be more extreme in view.
Muslim writings are no more extremist than Christian writings… It’s all about the interpretation, and who’s doing the reading… it’s funny how the Media has swayed our perception of Muslims, especially since 911.
Yes but their writings are more recent which makes them more relevant to some. You do not get as many extreme actions from current day Christians. We do not cut off peoples hands or stone people as a punishment for crimes committed. Mind you if homosexuality was a crime we probably could find a passage in the bible allowing us to stone them.
If lions were not as endangered we could reintroduce them as an alternative sentence. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 2:41:54 PM |
I said: Christians have to right to express themselves is a free society subject only the the laws of that society and should not be disregarded simply because they are Christians
printer2 asked: Christians do have a right to express themselves in our society but as a society we have written laws limiting the extent that those freedoms cover. As I said. See the bold section below. Is it any clearer now? What I'm saying is that EVERONE has the same rights. That includes homosexuals, heterosexuals, Christians, Atheists, and assorted other humans.
Christians have to right to express themselves is a free society subject only to the laws of that society and should not be disregarded simply because they are Christians (ditto Theists, Buddhists, etc.).
Yes but their (Muslim) writings are more recent which makes them more relevant to some. You do not get as many extreme actions from current day Christians. We do not cut off peoples hands or stone people as a punishment for crimes committed. Mind you if homosexuality was a crime we probably could find a passage in the bible allowing us to stone them. The Koran is 'newer' than the Torah or the NT, but I would hardly regard it as 'new' - about 600 AD means it's been around for 1400 years. That's a long time. Regarding your examples of 'extreme actions', the NT (the 'Christian Bible') makes no mention of cutting of hands or stoning people as punishment. The only 'legitimate' stoning mentioned - that of the woman caught in adultery - was stopped by Jesus. Further stonings mentioned are by mobs killing Christians to shut them up. As for homosexuality being a crime, in just about every modern nation it only ceased to be criminal in the past 50-100 years. that's not about "Christianity". That's about "society treating different as dangerous".
Muslim writings are no more extremist than Christian writings… It’s all about the interpretation, and who’s doing the reading Well, now we have something we can agree on. You said it before I could.  | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 2:53:12 PM | We passed laws to make sexual orientation a protected class. That means a heterosexual cannot be refused work on the basis of his or her sexual orientation, a qualified lesbian has the same rights to rent an apartment as a qualified transsexual or a qualified homosexual, and so on. It has nothing to do with protecting homosexuals from Christians. And I'm thankful the same Human Rights code protects Christians from the likes of you.
What does my being heterosexual have to do with my job? Why are these people who are looking for apartments placing their sexual preference on the application form? What makes one a qualified lesbian and where do i sign up for that?
By the way when did this turn from a "Christians please affirm the rights of homosexuals" to "Christians are bad people" and "the Bible is a a piece of crap" thread?
I think that started in the 70's
I do have a couple of questions on these topics.
1) Why is someone who is against homosexuality or unaccepting of it considered homophobic? Does the phobic part of that word not mean a fear of homos? I can be unaccepting without fearing them, if i were to be unaccepting.
2) Why are we considered to have separation of church and state but only if we refuse Christian views access to the schools? We allow turbins and daggers for the seikh religion, face covers (can't remember the name of them, birrkah or some such) for islamic followers or muslim wich ever. I get them mixed up. If we can allow kids to take daggers to school why not allow others their prayer.
3) There are others but i can't think of them and am in a push for time. Maybe someone can help out a backward outside the perimiter redneck muthu by providing an answer or two. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 3:07:50 PM | This thread has gone wildly off topic...
Susan's original question posed was if Christians who oppose homosexuality use Leviticus as reasoning. I submit - using any one verse of the bible in isolation is to take it out of context thereby allowing the individual 'carte blance' in interpretation.
Now, remembering that the Bible has been translated repeatedly, by a multitude of people, and the original text is long gone - there is no Hebrew word for "homosexual" and pagan rituals of the period required child sacrifice, same sex relations and sexual relations with animals as part of those religions - which were against God - but also did nothing to assist in the promotion of society. Also, remember woman has no value at this period, and that men are dominant and to submit to another man - in whatever fashion - is to be weak. Leaving the writings of the Old Testament in context, and the consideration that the only way to promote faith is through procreation - religions often have laws regarding survival of the species.
This is what Leviticus is about - survival of the faith in God - NOT survival of Christianity - Christ had not yet arrived.
Leviticus 18:22 - when placed in context of the chapter, is more likely a referance to pagan religious rights - and the sin is that of turning your back on God - not homosexuality. The preceeding verses deal with specifics of sexual behaviour and forbids relations with:
Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
Verse 7: father or mother.
Verse 8: father's wife.
Verse 9: sister or step sister.
Verse 10: granddaughter.
Verse 11: sister or step sister.
Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
Verse 14: uncle or aunt.
Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
Verse 16: sister-in-law.
Verse 17: female friend together with a close female relative of the friend.
Verse 18: wife's sister.
Verse 19: with a menstruating woman.
Verse 20: adultery with a neighbor's wife.
There is then a clear break in topic and, verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh. We then hit 18:22 - the "man shall not lie with man as he does with woman" passage...then Leviticus continues with forbidding sexual activity:
Verse 23: with animals, or make a woman go with an animal
Verse 24: Do not defile yourself.
Science has demonstrated that many of the laws of God are practical in terms of evolution - that the healthy and strong should procreate - in order to ensure survival of the species. If you look at those verses with an education - you will notice that most of those relationships do not promote healthy reproduction. Same sex relations impede procreation all together - while close-kin relations (we have learned from science) may result in birth defects and other physical or mental problems - relations with non-close kin, but close social relationships - erodes trust in your fellow man. Just ask someone whose sibling nailed his/her husband or wife...
So what does Leviticus really say?
I believe that Leviticus is dealing with the demise of a society for focussing on personal, rather than societal, needs. That without faith in something (in this case God) humans gradually move from rejection of faith, to idol worship, to sexual acts coming from that idol worship, to becoming hateful, uncaring, and self-centered. I suggest to you that this is no more a blanket condemnation of love and love-making between two people in a same gender relationship than are scriptures regarding adultery a blanket condemnation of all heterosexual love-making.
The new testament - if interpreted through ancient linguistics, and not 20th Century versions - makes no reference to homosexuality. For such a hotly debated topic—and one that so many present as being perhaps the greatest threat to religion, society, families, and humanity—Jesus was strangely silent—totally silent—on the matter. It makes one wonder just how truly concerned God is about how and with whom we express genuine love and affection.
So what did Christ say?
"‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
My faith welcomes people from all walks of life - Popescu has, like many before him, taken things out of context - I don't engage in homosexuality because I like men.
4/5 | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 3:56:45 PM |
1) Why is someone who is against homosexuality or unaccepting of it considered homophobic? Does the phobic part of that word not mean a fear of homos? I can be unaccepting without fearing them, if i were to be unaccepting.
Latin translation: Homo = human, Phobicus = fearing "fearing humans"
Greek translation: Homo = same, Phobikos = lack of affinity "lack of affinity for the same"
So, if you choose Latin - you fear all humans. If you chose Greek - you don't like things that are the same. I'm not sure how either applies to being against homosexuality...
2) Why are we considered to have separation of church and state but only if we refuse Christian views access to the schools?
We have separation of Church and State in the governance of our nation - which means no one religion is given control over our government - in the past religion carried the power of the government. We refuse to PROMOTE any one religion in schools - we allow all to attend and to practice their religion. Kids can pray at school if they wish.
4/5 | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 3:57:15 PM | In message #32, Romanticoptimist wrote:
the reference C-250 failed to note that a compromise was reached ... That compromise protects the integrity of a religious expression or book regardless of any opinion that it promotes hate (the major concern of the groups named). In other words, If I say “kill the homosexuals”, it’s considered a hate crime… but if it’s written in a religious book, then it’s protected as “religious expression”
Romanticoptimist also wrote:
Christians have the right to express themselves in a free society, subject only to the laws of that society The problem is, they are allowed to hide behind “religious expression”… which means they are NOT subject to the same laws.
What I'm saying is that EVERONE has the same rights. That includes homosexuals, heterosexuals, Christians, Atheists, and assorted other humans. I’m not sure what you guys burn for incense at church, but I’d like to try smoking some of it… you seem to get way better shit than I can find.
| |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 9:29:59 PM |
Susan's original question posed was if Christians who oppose homosexuality use Leviticus as reasoning. I submit - using any one verse of the bible in isolation is to take it out of context thereby allowing the individual 'carte blance' in interpretation.
Yes, and if he is a Christian, as he professes, I'd like him to give me a quote attributed to Christ regarding the sinfulness ( or non sinfullness) of homosexuality. If he can only quote Leviticus as his justification then he should be referring to himself as a Leviticusian. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 11:21:29 PM | How he defines himself is his business...and his right....both given by God and the Government...and when the time comes he will be judged by both.
Had he quoted evolution instead of the Bible - because evolution requires the strong and healthy of a species to mate in order for true evolution to work and mating is impossible between homosexuals - would that have been more acceptable to you?
My point is... does it really matter to what he attributes his views? Or is it more important that we protect the right of the incredibly stupid to spout their garbage so that the rest of us can hear the rhetoric and thereby know where these beliefs are focussed and work for positive change for us all? | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/11/2008 11:34:21 PM | ^^^^^^^i've been drinkin and tried to read thru this thread and all i got to say is............ ........................................................ ...................................
wait for it...................
wjw.........all i got to say............. | |
|
| |
| |
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 2:20:00 PM |
I said: We passed laws to make sexual orientation a protected class. That means a heterosexual cannot be refused work on the basis of his or her sexual orientation, a qualified lesbian has the same rights to rent an apartment as a qualified transsexual or a qualified homosexual, and so on. It has nothing to do with protecting homosexuals from Christians. And I'm thankful the same Human Rights code protects Christians from the likes of you.
dudley said: What does my being heterosexual have to do with my job? Nothing. That's the point of the addition of sexual orientation being added to the protected classes. If your company has an internal policy of hiring only heterosexuals (or only homosexuals) it would have to demonstrate that iti is a necessity to do so. Prior to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the protected classes, it wouldn't have to do so.
Why are these people who are looking for apartments placing their sexual preference on the application form? Some rental applications had such questions at one time -- in nations other than Canada as well.
1) Why is someone who is against homosexuality or unaccepting of it considered homophobic? Does the phobic part of that word not mean a fear of homos? I can be unaccepting without fearing them, if i were to be unaccepting. They're not. I think the term "homophobic" has been used by some of the homosexual community to silence opposition. It usually suggests that the person who is "against" homosexuality is afraid of homosexuality because they are a closet homosexual. I think it's perfectly fine to be "unnacepting" - by which I take it you mean mentally rejecting homosexuality for yourself - without being bigoted (mocking or acting in negative ways towards them because of their homosexuality). Unless you mean "unacceptable", a very different meaning. Did you mean "unacceptable"?
2) Why are we considered to have separation of church and state but only if we refuse Christian views access to the schools? The Principled of Separation (of Church and State) is actually a US concept. It's not enshrined in Canadian law or the Charter. However, the courts and legislatures have tended to follow that principle so it has an effect similar to if it were law. "We" (I assume you mean Canadians) don't refuse Christian views access to the schools. For example, there is no law forbidding a pupil to carry religious material or express their beliefs. There is a restriction on most school districts that prohibits official affirmation of any one religion and so the reading of the "Lord's Prayer" is no longer practiced in some schools. But in some schools it's still done. It's actually more of a local decision. However, I think that the official practice of religion by the schools/government that presses compliance any religion is wrong. Religion/Belief/Faith are private and not public matters, and the only interest government should have in the matter is that of protecting us from those who would attempt to prevent us from following our own conscience and deciding what to believe in or not. For example, some people would insist on silence from Christians in regard to their beliefs, and the practice or discussion of same to be forced out of the public arena. The Charter protects Christians from these people. As it should. But if a Christian teacher decided to preach to his/her students mocked up as an English lesson, I would not be supportive of that action. I'd feel the same way if an Atheist wanted to vocalise their beliefs in public, or a Buddhist teacher wanted to "preach" Buddhism. What the person believes or not is irrelevant to their right to exercise their freedom of speech and expression and the practice of their religion except in such narrowly and precisely defined circumstances as the courts have deemed inappropriate (such as a classroom full of captive and impressionable students). | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 3:41:28 PM | dudley said: What does my being heterosexual have to do with my job?
Nothing. That's the point of the addition of sexual orientation being added to the protected classes. If your company has an internal policy of hiring only heterosexuals (or only homosexuals) it would have to demonstrate that iti is a necessity to do so. Prior to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the protected classes, it wouldn't have to do so.
Other than a homosexual prostitute what occupation might be adversely affected by sexual orientation?
Shouldn't it be a matter of choice by the person who owns the company who he is willing to hire? If i am refused work because of my orientation or gender or whatever that should be up to the person who decided that unless it is a government job.
I think it's perfectly fine to be "unnacepting" - by which I take it you mean mentally rejecting homosexuality for yourself - without being bigoted (mocking or acting in negative ways towards them because of their homosexuality). Unless you mean "unacceptable", a very different meaning. Did you mean "unacceptable"?
It could go either way. I simply accept people as individuals and go from there that is why i added the if i were unaccepting part. However if i were to be cornholed by anyone homosexual or not that would be unacceptable. It's your body do with it what you will but leave me out of it if it isn't something i would do on my own.
I think the whole liberalism thing has run it's course and people need to wake up and stop being so damned sensitive over every little thing. Crystal City Mb elementary school had a book banned from the library about 6 years ago because it was about evolution. There is a large Mennonite population there and 1 or 2 parents complained. They would like to have the Lord's prayer at assembly but the principal is afraid that would be illegal. So tit for tat. In California Little Red Riding Hood was banned from schools because the picture on the front shows a wine bottle sticking from the basket. Some parent decided their child would become alchoholic from reading the book i guess. Many many years ago i was refused work hoeing sugar beets at Winkler Mb because i am not Mexican Mennonite. I wouldn't have fit in and probably would have wanted at least minimum wage so it wouldn't have worked out. The point is you sometimes have to put up with stuff and eventually everything works out, usually for the better. People now are tired of having tolerance and acceptance preached at them constantly and there will be a backlash eventually. It seems those who are doing the preaching are the least accepting of all. They want their ideals accepted and society to change for them but in so doing they show their inability to accept other's ideals. This is not intended to mean any particular group but individual people. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 4:41:58 PM | Had he quoted evolution instead of the Bible - because evolution requires the strong and healthy of a species to mate in order for true evolution to work and mating is impossible between homosexuals - would that have been more acceptable to you?
Well, since chimpanzees and penguins enter into homosexaul couplings, I'd say homosexuality is natural, just not prevalent. And I'm not opposed to his opposition to homosexuality, I'm opposed to his genocidal rage against it, however he chooses to justify it. I thought Christianity" was a religion of forgiveness and love.
And no one is posting any quotes from Christ about homosexuality.
And if I happen to see any questions on a form re: sexual preference I'll write in "often" as my choice.
And I'm surprised this thread is still going strong; I think some responses would justify seperate thread topics. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 4:51:34 PM | Crystal City Mb elementary school had a book banned from the library about 6 years ago because it was about evolution. There is a large Mennonite population there and 1 or 2 parents complained. They would like to have the Lord's prayer at assembly but the principal is afraid that would be illegal. So tit for tat.
Not sure this'd be a case of tit for tat when these families can go to church for their prayers and faith based teaching. Of course, if they also eliminated any reference to a god at their church services then it'd be tit for tat. If people can use their faith to control a public school curriculum it would seem only fair that people in that same community could use their non-faith to control the church's curriculum. Church & family is the place for religion; if you try to bring it into schools the only fair way to have a "prayer assembly" would be to have a prayer from a different faith every morning ( and have this assembly voluntary, not compulsory)... that might be an OK idea, it can teach the children about others beliefs.
Besides, isn't there a passage in the Bible about praying in silence ?
| |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 5:42:59 PM | dudley (who really needs to learn how to use the "quote" thing - look to the left of your post for instructions ) said: What does my being heterosexual have to do with my job? I said: Nothing. That's the point of the addition of sexual orientation being added to the protected classes. If your company has an internal policy of hiring only heterosexuals (or only homosexuals) it would have to demonstrate that iti is a necessity to do so. Prior to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the protected classes, it wouldn't have to do so. dudley said: Other than a homosexual prostitute what occupation might be adversely affected by sexual orientation?
Shouldn't it be a matter of choice by the person who owns the company who he is willing to hire? If i am refused work because of my orientation or gender or whatever that should be up to the person who decided that unless it is a government job. Thank you for being so clear. You think it's OK for a person hiring to discriminate, yes? It's not. It's illegal. As it should be. A person should be hired based on their qualifications and merits, not their gender, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. You disagree? Too bad. That's the Canada we live in. A grand place to be. IMHO.
By the way, if you think the above is intolerant of your ideas, that's too bad. I support your right to free speech and expression. You can say whatever you want and preach your ideals whenever you want, but when they're wrong, they're just wrong. I hope you understand that.
"Cornholed"? Why would a homosexual want to anally rape you? That is what you mean, right? I mean, I hate to break it to you, but I doubt they even notice your existence. Or are you one of those men who think that every gay guy is out to have animal sex with him? Trust me, they're not.
Edit: susan_cd: I referred to you in a message above as "she" and was corrected by another poster, being told you are a "he". I assumed that you would prefer to be referred to in the feminine when gender based words are used, but could you make it clear so if it comes up again I and others will know? Thanks. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 7:10:06 PM |
Edit: susan_cd: I referred to you in a message above as "she" and was corrected by another poster, being told you are a "he". I assumed that you would prefer to be referred to in the feminine when gender based words are used, but could you make it clear so if it comes up again I and others will know? Thanks.
Well, at this site I'd prefer being refered to in the feminine form ( hence the name). In public it's 50/50, if you run into me you should be able to figure out my preference by how I'm dressed. That won't be an issue in a couple months tho, Iit'll be 24/7. | |
|
| homophobic rant reported in Winnipeg Sun
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:17:40 PM | Thank you for being so clear. You think it's OK for a person hiring to discriminate, yes? It's not. It's illegal. As it should be. A person should be hired based on their qualifications and merits, not their gender, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. You disagree? Too bad. That's the Canada we live in. A grand place to be. IMHO.
Why should it be illegal to hire whoever i want? I think it should be illegal to force companies to hire people they don't want to hire. If qualifications are the only criteria then you have no way of choosing between 2 equally qualified candidates. Plus if i own and operate a company why exactly should it be anyone's but my decision who i decide to use as a workforce? Is this a free country or a facist one?
By the way, if you think the above is intolerant of your ideas, that's too bad. I support your right to free speech and expression. You can say whatever you want and preach your ideals whenever you want, but when they're wrong, they're just wrong. I hope you understand that.
I understand that your ideas are right for you and mine are right for me. If you want true equality and acceptance of all then we all have to accept the ideals of every individual as valid even though we disagree with them. That is the whole thing with judgement, if you want to judge me that is fine but don't try to tell me that unless i live your life i will be wrong because for me that is wrong no matter how right it is for you. I don't need total control over someone to accept them as a valid person with their own ideals.
Cornholed"? Why would a homosexual want to anally rape you? That is what you mean, right? I mean, I hate to break it to you, but I doubt they even notice your existence. Or are you one of those men who think that every gay guy is out to have animal sex with him? Trust me, they're not.
As i said in the post above i don't want it by anyone homosexual or not. Not even by a woman with a strapon. I see though you are fixated with painting me as a homophobe but anyone who has actually read the posts will see through it. c'est la vie
I must agree with you on one point, i do have to figure out how to use the quote thing but i see nothing to the left of my post except open space. There is a thing at top right that shows square brackets and says this allows you to quote a previous post but nothing happens when i click on it nor if i type a bracket into my post. I have tried previously to get advice on how to do that and got no response so you are the first to try helping with that ....... thank you. | |
|
Home
login 
