[pyritechips]

How can this be considered free-thinking?

Very easily. One huge advantage that science has over religion is that religious doctrine is fixed, rigid. Science is "self-correcting". One example is the dual nature of light. At first, with Sir Issac Newton, light was thought to behave as a wave, and since he was the big man of the time, it was accepted, but when it was demonstrated that light showed particle property then physicists were divided, some supporting light-as-waves and some as light-as-particles. It wasn't until a hundred years ago that the world of Physiscs accepted the dual nature of light, wherein it could act as waves, or as particles, depending upon the circumstances. In fact the acceptance of waves as particles destroyed forever the outmoded and pathetically absurd notion accepted by the church of Heaven being made up of crystal spheres of the "ether".

Can you imagine the Church weathering such a schism? Apparently it couldn't. Weren't there two separate branches of "God" that split because they could not reconcile such a fundamental and important issue? What is the main diference between Christians and Jews? They could never agree over Jesus, right? No, Science is self-correcting; any member can propose a new theory and his peers are obliged to at least look at it. If it survives a rigourous attack and passes unscathed and whole then it is accepted as a new way. No more of a classic example can be given than Einstien's General and Special Theories of Relativity.

The statement itself (and you're not the first one who i've heard say it) is offensive to the extreme

No it isn't and what I find offensive to the extreme is a minority of fundamentalist "Christians" who are so rigid in their beliefs that they put it upon themsleves to "torture" homosexuals into going straight. Aversion therapy is nothing more than torture, no matter how you pretty it up. I don't have to accept it and I don't have to recognize their right to practice it. It is disgustingly arrogant, barbaric and constitutes cruel psycological torture, period! I rank Aversion Therapy right up there with Female Genital Mutulation; both done to appease a minor few religious fanatics. Psycological torture is just as bad as physical torture! I don't have to be tolerant about this and I am not! Don't you or anybody else dare tell me I am offensive because I equate torture with Torquemada!

[Tipacanoe]

I think the problem, Val, if I may, is not that you believe its wrong, but WHY you believe its wrong. The only reason you believe it is wrong is because a book tells you it is. He wants you to decide for yourself based on looking into your own heart. That's where the frustration lies--that your thoughts are controlled entirely by 2000 year old ideas of morality.

Some of our brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, parents and grandparents, cousins - people we profess to love and, indeed to respect - are homosexuals.

Please find it in your heart to INCLUDE them in our daily lives and traditions, not slam the door in their faces solely because of gender preference.

Surely, that is what we want to do. Surely, that love and desire to include them in our celebrations of love could not be a sin. Someone's got it wrong, obviously, if they think so.

Make up your own mind.

[pyritechips]

Hello Colombo:

It's very interesting to watch the main runners of the upcoming provincial elections here in Ontario play dodgeball with this issue

Canadian politics is almost boring in its predictability. Of course the Alliance party is dead-set against same sex marriage. The Conservatives are a non-party. The NDP must support it and of course the Liberals will do what they must to please as many people as possible, thereby pleasing no one but still garnering enough support to win the next election. Paul Matrin prefers to say nothing, proving he is the best choice to replace Cretien!

I think it's time our American friends begin to watch Canadian politics more closely. Being more progressive, Canadians deal with issues before Americans will even consider them. We are dealing with this now, the Americans will in the next generation. I posted an article in "Bush Bashers....... Interesting E-Mail I just received!" outlining how the Quebec government has eliminated coporate and union political contributions and influence-peddling while this still plagues the American system, making a mockery of their claims of having the most democratic political system in the world. Quebec dealt with this curse 23 years ago and I don't see the Americans being able to deal with it for another 50 at least. If Americans stopped ignoring everything non-American and looked elsewhere they would see how much they are falling behind the times.

[GoneForNow]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
I think it's time our American friends begin to watch Canadian politics more closely. Being more progressive, Canadians deal with issues before Americans will even consider them. We are dealing with this now, the Americans will in the next generation. I posted an article in "Bush Bashers....... Interesting E-Mail I just received!" outlining how the Quebec government has eliminated coporate and union political contributions and influence-peddling while this still plagues the American system, making a mockery of their claims of having the most democratic political system in the world. Quebec dealt with this curse 23 years ago and I don't see the Americans being able to deal with it for another 50 at least. If Americans stopped ignoring everything non-American and looked elsewhere they would see how much they are falling behind the times.

We Americans have this thing called the United States Constitution which contains an amendment called the First Amendment which guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech. So we won't be restricting unions or corporations in the exercise of that right. I guess will just have to keep falling further and further behind.

[pyritechips]

Yes, I am well aware of that gb, but is it so carved in stone that all one has to do is evoke the freedom of speech to stymie opposition or change?

I am not American and therefore not as versed in the American way, but isn't the freedom of speech guaranteed primarily for the individual, to allow him to petition the government and to express himself?

To quote from the description from the Quebec case: "... prohibits entities that do not vote from trying to use their wealth to influence the democratic process."

As you can see, Quebec had no problem distinguishing between a person and his rights and an "entity" which has no voting rights. This is an attempt to preserve the one person- one vote concept, which massive coporate/union contributions interfer with. Is it not true that, if Mr X controls a large coporation and he is vehemently opposed to gay marriage, he can exert his enfluence upon a government member to sway the vote? Does Mr X have the final say, instead of the thousands of individuals whom the government member is supposed to be representing?

I once stated that a flaw with the Canadian political system is that party members are, for the most part, forced to suppport the party position, even if the members' constituants are opposed to the position. Only rarely is there an open vote. Isn't forcing a member to "tow the party line" as undemocratic as Mr X having the voting power of thousands?

[Wet Chicken]

Originally posted by Mulder:
I think the problem, Val, if I may, is not that you believe its wrong, but WHY you believe its wrong. The only reason you believe it is wrong is because a book tells you it is.

Absolutely - Positively - Unequivocally - Completely - Totally - Definitely - Factually - Correct!

I believe if we were playing basketball that would be called a "swish"

WELL SAID MULDER

[GoneForNow]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Yes, I am well aware of that gb, but is it so carved in stone that all one has to do is evoke the freedom of speech to stymie opposition or change?

I am not American and therefore not as versed in the American way, but isn't the freedom of speech guaranteed primarily for the individual, to allow him to petition the government and to express himself?

This is an attempt to preserve the one person- one vote concept, which massive coporate/union contributions interfer with. Is it not true that, if Mr X controls a large coporation and he is vehemently opposed to gay marriage, he can exert his enfluence upon a government member to sway the vote? Does Mr X have the final say, instead of the thousands of individuals whom the government member is supposed to be representing?

Its more then evoking it, attempts to limit, if not end all together, corporate and union contributions have been overturned by the Supreme Court consistently. Freedom of Speech is given an expansive interpretation to include more then just individuals.

I'm not seeing your connection between one person-one vote and corporate contributions as corporations don't vote. Whether their contributions or union contributions influence voters is a question not so easily answered.

If you are implying that members of the legislature vote to pay back some political contribution I'm sure that has happen. IMO, not to the extent that media and the losing parties want you to believe. Face it, if a politician gets contributions from both sides it doesn't matter how he votes the losing side will say he was bought off.

Again, IMO, its more perception that money influences votes then the reality.

[pyritechips]

I'm interested in knowing what role and/or influence that professional lobbyist play in American politics. To what extent do they influence the political process, and isn't a politician's primary duty to serve his constituants? (This is not a critique, it is a genuine desire to know. Maybe American politics are different but in Canada political decisions are swayed by coporate and other third party influences.) And if lobbyists have negligible influence why do they persist?

P.S. This is relevant to the thread topic. Now that the same sex marriage debate heats up in Canada the Churches are bringing to bear pressure on the government.

[GoneForNow]

Well there are good lobbyists and bad lobbyists.

I'm sure they do have some influence. I've watched lobbyists in action and IMO the really good ones were educators. By that I mean they educated the Pol on the issue or issues that the Pol was likely to face in that session (obviously in the area the lobbyist is being paid to handle). The good ones would present both sides of the issue, not try to hide anything in other words. But he would go on to explain why he was right and the other side not. The Pols respected them for it and tended to believe that they weren't getting smoke blowed up their proverbial arse. Simple, these lobbyists have credibility.

Is it wrong to educate the Pol? Rep and I have been having this very discussion in another thread. My position is that things have become to complex that legislators need to be full time and not worrying about elections every two years.

[valley]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Aversion therapy is nothing more than torture, no matter how you pretty it up. I don't have to accept it and I don't have to recognize their right to practice it. It is disgustingly arrogant, barbaric and constitutes cruel psycological torture, period! I rank Aversion Therapy right up there with Female Genital Mutulation; both done to appease a minor few religious fanatics. Psycological torture is just as bad as physical torture! I don't have to be tolerant about this and I am not! Don't you or anybody else dare tell me I am offensive because I equate torture with Torquemada!

But Jim....you werent equating him with torture.....you were equating him with "fundamental christians", which is exactly what I have called myself in these forums for many weeks now. I realize now that you could not have known that since you havent been here. If you had simply called them deranged religious fanatics then I wouldnt have taken it personally.

Of course I agree that aversion therapy and things like FGM are horrible and cruel. I would never agree with such unspeakable acts against people we are called to love.

can you understand why I thought you were referring to my personal beliefs? If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

[pyritechips]

Thanks for that explanation gb. I have now been "educated".

What concerns me is that a special interest group, let's call one "The Tobacco Industry Association" for hypothetical reasons, can hire a lobbyist. This lobbyist obviously has a bias, in that he would have as his goal the task of convincing a politician not to support a proposed bill limiting tobacco advertising. I can't see how any lobbyist can be unbiased and have as his sole purpose the desire to merely "educate" a politician.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[valley]

Originally posted by Tipacanoe:
Some of our brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, parents and grandparents, cousins - people we profess to love and, indeed to respect - are homosexuals.

Please find it in your heart to INCLUDE them in our daily lives and traditions, not slam the door in their faces solely because of gender preference.

Surely, that is what we want to do. Surely, that love and desire to include them in our celebrations of love could not be a sin. Someone's got it wrong, obviously, if they think so.

I agree....we are to love, no matter how much we disagree with them.

I dont believe in burning my bridges with homosexual men and women....I believe in building bridges with them instead.

[valley]

woops...just noticed you two having a decent conversation here. Sorry for interrupting.

carry on.

[GoneForNow]

Of course he is biased but everyone knows it. Hence everything he says is taken with a grain of salt. Doesn't necessary mean what he is telling the Pol is wrong. You also know that there is a lobbyist from the AMA talking in the other ear of the Pol. Lobbyist have to register, disclose who hires them and what they are paid. They have to disclose if any money or anything of value is given to a Pol. Lobbying now a days is pretty much above board and well out in the open.

Lobbyist prove Newton's theory: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There will always be two lobbyist, each on opposite sides.

[GoneForNow]

Originally posted by valley:
woops...just noticed you two having a decent conversation here. Sorry for interrupting.

carry on.

As opposed to an indecent conversation?

We are, however, way off topic.