Ut

The only thing I see here is an American trying to force his bigotry on Canada.

Who runs Canada? Canadians or Americans? Do you deny Canadian society has a right to accept homosexuals?

Gays are not trying to force acceptance on anybody in Canada. Canadian society is accepting them.

Ut

Yeah. I'm feeling so much oppressed by gays.

First, whose nation is it? Canadians' or Americans'?

Second, you still haven't made a single argument about how this would threaten the survival of the nation.

It must again be the same paranoid conservative delusion that any social progress will bring about the apocalypse. We've been hearing that for decades. Alcohol and blasphemy were supposed to destroy the French Canadian nation and we've never been feeling better.



No such thing has been declared or is even being considered in the short, mid or long term. Would you mind sticking to reality?



Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just as giving women the right to vote or a juridical personality was supposed to produce gender confusion. I still remember the argument of a Canadian politician at the beginning of the 20th Century:

"If we give women the right to vote, we will destroy the woman-wife, the woman-mother, finally the woman-woman. Instead, we will see rise the woman-voter, the woman-militant, the woman-MP, the woman-senator, the woman-lawyer, in a word the woman-man."

yguy, your arguments are as old as the world and let me tell you one thing.

They're booooooooring.

yguy

<insult deleted by Michael>

yguy

As clear a vision as you appear to have on the matter, producing a quote from me that demonstrates such an intent shouldn't be a problem.

yguy

What does an acorn have to do with a leaf, or what do either have to do with a twig? They all look different, right? How could they possibly have anything to do with each other?

Ut

What about:

along with:

In short, you are basically saying:

P1) Same-sex marriages in Canada will lead to same-sex marriage in the United States.
P2) Same-sex marriages in the United States will lead to the destruction of the United States.
------------------------------------
C1) Same-sex marriages in Canada will lead to the destruction of the United States.

Such a line of reasoning is obviously one that is hostile to Canada making its own choice on this issue.

scigirl

yguy,

I noticed you took the time to insult 3 posters, but effectively dodged this question.

In case you forgot, here was your post trying to link Holland's muslim problem to Canada's recent acceptance of gay marriage:

scigirl

Bill Snedden

I wasn't going to post this, but given yguy's comment to Dr. Rick, I feel it's justified in the interests of reducing the "signal-to-noise" ratio in this forum. For those of you who may not already be aware:

The basis of yguy's moral system appears to go no deeper than, "I feel it's wrong, therefore it's wrong." Rational evaluation of why one might feel that way seems to play no part and, in fact, appears to be considered "wrong" in and of itself.

If you happen to disagree with him therefore, discussion is well nigh impossible as his innate ability to detect right and wrong simply by "feeling it" renders him absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong and there's simply no rationality involved.

Before continuing, you might want to check out his performance on the "Homosexuality" thread in this forum.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

yguy

I'm not going to waste another keystroke defending myself against such patently idiotic accusation.

scigirl

No, actually I rarely know what you are talking about. Here's my impression of your posts so far (and I've read many more than I've replied to):

You make a bold outrageous claim, with no evidence to back any of it up. We all call you on it. You say, "that's not what I meant" but still never explain what you do mean. A couple threads later, you make the exact same bold outrageous claim.

You also have this interesting habit of replying to only one or two comments that a poster made, and ignoring the rest. Is that because you have no proper rebuttal? Look at your last post to Ut and Dr Rick. Yes they were a bit condescending to you. But as you just told fatherphil in another thread, that shouldn't be a reason to ignore their arguments so you can "sharpen" your own. Are you now forgetting your own advice?

Dr Rick's point about how gender is a complex trait - a while back I started a thread here discussing how confusing gender can be. Yet you just completely ignored this point, and instead wished to participate in a flame war.

I'm finished discussing things with you, for all of the above reasons. I would think after 1327 posts, you would have learned how to sit at the grownup's table. I think it's time for you to start posting substance, or go play in some theist site where it's ok to make unsubstantiated claims.

scigirl