Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

SSM Vote

Vic Towes announced that there will be a free vote in the House of Commons on SSM. As per CTV.

I'm calling my MP, and asking her to stand for the traditional definition of marriage. She's a Liberal, but was one of the 40 who opposed changing the definition the first time around. I heard that she may have changed this stand since then, however, I will ask her to maintain the commitment she made several years ago.

posted by Christian Conservative @ 12:59 p.m.  

35 Comments:

  • At Wed Apr 05, 02:54:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Zac said…

    Sweet Jesus...I can't believe all of this is coming up again.

    Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Wake up already people!

    If you don't like it you can move to George Bush's America!

    Reopening the debate now is dumb. It seems that the religious right in this country will not be happy until homosexuals are ritually slaughtered, criminals are executed, and we're all riding "jesus horse's"!

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 03:26:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Yes, Jesus is "sweet".

    Regarding SSM, it is not a "rights" issue... that was the phrasing that the left used to change the focus of the debate. And it worked. Fewer people dared to debate it because the question had been phrased as a "rights" issue, when infact it is an issue of our government attempting to dictate morality.

    I will not condone the execution of homosexuals... they too are sinners like you and me. (The only people who deserve the death penalty are people like Paul Bernardo, but that's another issue)

    What I protest is the way that the government rammed this redefinition down our throats.

    I'll turn your statement around...

    Reopening the debate is GREAT! The left and the homosexual movement will not be happy until those who do not support their "lifestyle" for religious reasons change their point of view, and homosexuality is "normalized" to the point where no one thinks any differently.

    But that won't happen until after I'm dead.

    Homosexuality is sin, like any other sin... lying, adultery, pornography, speeding, jaywalking, etc. Sin is sin, and I can't accept homosexuality as a normal way of life because God has identified it as sin. I'll keep on protesting against the normalization of homosexuality as long as I protest against all the other sins I've listed above... which will be for the rest of my life.

    I'm not like some on the "right" that you're mad at Zac. I don't have a ranking system of sin, where homosexuals are #1. I view all things as being equal, and every homosexual in Canada has the right to the same life and liberty that I have.

    But what they can't do is tell me that I'm not allowed to believe what my God has decreed.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 03:35:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    By the way... why would I move to George W. Bush's America when I can bring it here?

    KIDDING PEOPLE! I'M KIDDING!!!

    Canada is a nation of freedom, where we are free (or should be) to share our ideas and our ideals without persecution. My ideals differ from yours, and as I said above, it's mostly in how the debate was framed. I think it was dishonest, but it worked.

    It is NOT a "RIGHTS" issue. Marriage is not an institution defined by the Government of Canada, therefore, it has no basis attempting to re-define it. Introducing a new institution like a "civil-union" is another matter all together.

    Marriage was defined by God thousands of years ago... WHO ARE YOU TO REDEFINE IT???

    LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE! Go make up your own institution! Then you can define it any way you want!

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 03:41:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Separate church & State CC.

    Using political parties or forums as a delivery system for, “the government ramming…… (insert religious based issue here)…. …down our throats” is just as wrong in every sense of the world. You base your argument strictly on interpretation of religious text.

    What right do you have to tell anyone what they do is a sin?

    By the way? I too am a CPC member.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 03:57:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Jim (Progressive Right) said…

    Homosexuality is sin

    That's your opinion (flawed as it is). That's not fact.

    But what they can't do is tell me that I'm not allowed to believe what my God has decreed.

    That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? Nobody is telling you you're not allowed to believe what your God has decreed. I'm not, Zac isn't ... this legislation does not.

    That's a myth that you guys have invented - there's a "homosexual agenda" or a "Hollywood agenda" (I'm not up on my hidden agendas, but I've heard both terms) - to make everything you consider to be a sin normalized just to undermine your religion.

    It's not all about you, dude.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 04:00:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "Separate church & State CC."

    This is Canada, not the U.S. of A. That's part of THEIR constitution, not ours.

    What I was saying is that the Government should not have the right to pass laws that expressly defy the religious tenents of millions of Canadians... Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.

    I was making two seperate points there.

    Firstly, I was stating that the Government should not have forced secular humanistic views upon us, which are, in and of themselves, a religious viewpoint.

    Secondly, I was clarifying my own views on the issue, and WHY I am opposed to it.

    Sorry for not making them more clearly seperate.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 04:13:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Lemon said…

    http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2006/04/same-sex-marriage-non-right-and-non.html#links
    Here's a link to my latest piece on this that argues that SSM is not a right because it is not self-evident:
    -- Fewer Canadians are getting married so it is not absolutely desired
    -- Few Gay/Lesbians have chosen to get married (less that 1/2 of 1%)
    -- Many people are unable to get married because of other restrictions (age, unwillingness to accept required doctrine, etc.)
    -- Any Gay/Lesbian can get married to a person of the opposite sex
    -- There is not agreement on whether marriage should be a right
    Apply these tests against any commonly accepted right (to speech, to assembly, to a free press - even to right to worship which still attracts a majority of Canadians in these ungodly times, etc.) They all pass. Marriage does not.
    I argue this not because I give a fig whether Gays and Lesbians get wed or not - Civil Union would seem to do the job nicely enough from a rights perspective.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 04:51:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

    If you are willing to fight SSM til your six feet under you should also fight against speeders etc with the same committment. Since all sin is the same and all that.
    Do you call your MP about speeders?
    I didn't think so.

    Personally I think no speeders should be allowed to marry until they repent their sinful ways.

    And for the absolutely ridiculous point that gays are indeed allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's a bad joke right?

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 06:21:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So in viewing ALL sins as equal, you're putting homosexuals on par with murderers.
    Think about that.
    You're saying that because someone is a homosexual (a characteristic that one has as much control over as they do the natural colour of their eyes or hair), they are just as bad as someone who knowlingly, consciously took the life (or lives) of other(s)?

    When is Prime Minister Harper shipping Canada's homosexuals off to the internment camps?

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 06:51:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian said…

    Why is it that opponents to SSM always suggest that marriage has always been a "religious institution"? There is nothing futher from the truth. I am a doctoral candidate in Medieval History, and I can tell you that the church did not even involve itself in marrige into well into the 12th century. Prior to that it was an entirely secular institution, more about power and inheritance than any sort of sacrament. St. Jermome, himself, argued that the only good thing about marriage was that it could potentially produce virgins for God. In general, he was opposed to the entire idea of marriage. The Christian religious association with marriage came about during the 12th century, when the church attempted extend it's influence in to many secular institutions - mostly in a power struggle between secular authorities. I could care less if someone wants to associate religion and marriage, but they certainly shouldn't force that on the rest of us. In fact, there are plenty of Christian religions, including the United Church, which support SSM. Are their religious views any less valid than yours? No one is forcing you, or your church to marry a gay person. Just as no one forces you to join the Catholic Church, or any other religion.
    Marriage is a secular instution to me, and to many others. What right do you have to take that away from me?

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 06:52:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    rcld, in God's eyes, sin is sin. I will point out this is a Christian viewpoint, as whatever is said, I will be sacrificed for it by whoever comments afterwards. God calls homosexuality sin, he calls stealing sin, he calls lying sin, he calls murder sin, he calls incest sin. the Bible states all these as sin, and all sin (even one little white lie) requires payment by death (wages of sin is death, Rm 6:23)

    The fact of the matter is homosexuality IS a choice. (note, I am going to take both directions here in my arguing, maybe you can fight both) First, as we continue to discover the human genome, we have yet to find a single biological marker for this apparently innate sexual leaning we are said to be born with. (a) Despite what people claim, science has found no genetic predisposition to homosexuality, ever. (b) If it is genetic, it will now weed itself out of existence, because in the past, gays were 'forced' by society to marry (marriage being a MAN and WOMAN. period) and therefore bring forth children. Now that they are free to 'be themselves' they will not have children. (c) Statistics point out the the majority of those claiming to be gay have been sexually abused. I will try to find that report, but didnt see them originally online. If it is genetic, explain this link.

    Second, let us say it is genetic. Christians see humanity as 'fallen', after the first sin of Eve, then Adam, eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sin entered the world, it entered humanity, and it was given power over the flesh. Disease is an affect of sin, did not exist before, will not exist after. The example in my head is Down Syndrome. Here in North America, abortions have led to the choosing by parents for abortion because their child may be susceptible to DS. In eastern culture, it has led to the abortions of girls. So, when this apparent genetic marker shows up, we can choose to abort our children who have a predisposition to homosexuality. Will there be a public outcry? by gays? by 'straights'? After all, murdering, sorry, keeping a life from beginning will keep the pain of being gay from harming the child's youth...

    I would love to hear comments on both sides

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 07:25:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    One thing guys?
    The Federal government can do whatever it wants...its a Provincial responsiblity, the Provinces will do what ever they want.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 07:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Nowhere in the Roman Catholic bible does it SPECIFICALLY say that homosexuality is a sin to begin with. This is something I was taught at a CATHOLIC school.
    Let's assume that a study was done, and during this study it was found that "A" and "B" were highly correlated. Throughout my education in elementary school science, high school science and university psychology classes, I have always been taught that although "A" and "B" are correlated, "A" does NOT CAUSE "B". They are simply correlated. You seem to be assuming with this statistic (sidenote: were there any credentials on that stat?)that sexual abuse as a child CAUSES homosexuality. At the most, they are only correlated. Abuse does NOT CAUSE homosexuality.
    Even if it WERE the case that homosexuality was the end result of sexual abuse as a child, it doesn't mean that homosexuality is a conscious choice. One does not choose to be sexually abused.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 10:28:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    rcld, try Leviticus and Deuteronomy... both books that say "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman."

    Just to correct your notion that the Catholic Bible doesn't mention it. Last time I checked, those books were in there.

     

  • At Wed Apr 05, 10:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Marriage is not an institution defined by the Government of Canada, therefore, it has no basis attempting to re-define it."

    Actually, yes, it is. If the government wants to get out of the marriage license business (which I think it should) then by all means, we can consider your argument, but until then it is currently defined by the Government of Canada (and nearly every other government out there). God may or may not have "created marriage," but that doesn't remove the above facts.

    "What I was saying is that the Government should not have the right to pass laws that expressly defy the religious tenents of millions of Canadians... Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc."

    Technically governments only have the rights that either we the people or their soldiers and guns give them. That said, you're smarter than someone who would make statements like this Andrew.

    Anyway, this whole SSM thing is irrelevant and a distraction from more important issues. It isn't hurting any person, institution, or religion to allow gays to get married, and it sure as hell isn't hurting God, He's quite capable of taking care of Himself. If you could get as excited about issues that mattered, issues that are actually hurting actual people rather than just your sensibilities, imagine what you might be able to accomplish. Yes, politics and government are a farce, and there's no such thing as actual democracy in Canada, but maybe we can do some good in spite of that fact. Or maybe we can't, who knows.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 12:48:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I don't get it. Instead of going head to head with the SSM forces why doesn't the government simply bring the laws of this country into the modern era. Ditch the Marriage Act. It's simply a holdover from when the Anglican Church was the government. Replace the Marriage Act with a Civil Union act. Let people who want to get married go to a church. We are a secular society. Why do we want these religious anachronisms anyway?

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 01:13:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm going to leave it at this. The Bible, Torah, Qu'Ran, Tripitaka, Baghadvagita, Guru Granth Sahib, Dao De Jing (spelling?) or ANY other scripture/doctrine/holy writing is always going to be interpreted in a different way by any one person who reads it, and there will never be a unanimous decision on what is and isn't acceptable in any religion. We're all entitled to our own opinion on the matter, as long as the end result isn't blood being shed.
    What I believe, is that homosexuals are not sinners, and that they are completely equal to heterosexuals in every way. Gays and Lesbians are capable of feeling love, making conscious decisions and having their hearts broken just as straight people are.
    Times are changing. No one person on this planet can stop things from changing. 125 years ago (give or take a few years, I don't remember the exact year), the debate would have been on whether or not women have the right to vote. Those opposed to SSM would have been those opposed to women being able to vote.
    Look at how well that turned out. :)

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 08:21:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Drew, I consider this a major issue for Canada. Rome fell not due to any one factor, but because moral corruption ate away its core.

    Likewise for Canada, should the tide not be stemmed NOW.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:00:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Rome fell not due to any one factor, but because moral corruption ate away its core."

    Whether that's true or not (and I'm not convinced that it is), your view of what is moral or not might not actually be what is really moral or not. Just because you interpret a particular book as saying SSM is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

    Anyway, there are much bigger issues to worry about here in Canada if you're worried about immorality. On a scale of things, if SSM actually were immoral, it should be at the bottom of the list of things to worry about. We need to worry about issues that are actually hurting people.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:01:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I don't get it. Instead of going head to head with the SSM forces why doesn't the government simply bring the laws of this country into the modern era. Ditch the Marriage Act. It's simply a holdover from when the Anglican Church was the government. Replace the Marriage Act with a Civil Union act. Let people who want to get married go to a church. We are a secular society. Why do we want these religious anachronisms anyway?"

    Amen!

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:04:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I could actually live with that better than the government changing the definition of marriage.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:09:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian said…

    Moral corruption ate away its core? I should try that next time I'm teaching class.

    Christian Conservative, Rome did not fall because they transgressed some imaginary moral boundary that you and others believe in. Rome ceased to exist because of complex factors including changing economics, migration patterns of European tribes - being pressured from the expansion of the east, and mostly because the empire had grown too large to easily manage.

    Please before you start using history to bolster your argument, get your facts straight. Moral corruption? What is that anyway? The worst of what you would think of as excesses happened under Nero, hundreds of years before Rome fell. In fact, Rome flourished when it had tons of your "moral corruption."

    Believe what you want to believe, but don't force it on the rest of us. I’m not going to argue that the Bible doesn’t say bad things about homosexuality. The Bible describes lots of things that I’m sure you would not be seriously proposing should be brought back, particularly in the Old Testament – like stoning adulterers, offering up children for sacrifice…etc.

    I’m saying many of us don’t believe in your Bible.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:40:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    You don't believe the Bible? Then may God have mercy on your soul.

    Regarding marriage, I never said anything about the church's involvement, whether it started getting involved in the 12th century, etc. I said that it was instituted by God back in the days of Adam and Eve.

    And to quote the Lord Jesus...
    "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

    Matthew 19:4-6

    You may disagree with my views, but I'm just here to tell you what the Word of God says. And Drew, I reject your intepretation of things, as per 1 Corinthians 1:18-25... but you knew that already. ;-)

    "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    As for political party views, I'm not speaking for everyone in my party. In fact, my views line up with quite a few Liberals... and even a couple of BQer's!

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:46:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    As for the falling of Rome, you're right, I don't know all of the details. However, a brief examination of history shows that most major cultures normally fall following a corruption of moral values. Be it 20 years or 200 years later, I can't recall any culture that survived after allowing their moral compass to be eroded. It doesn't have to be sexual moral decay per say, but that is often a good sign of impending doom. God will only allow a nation to go so far before using whatever factors are required to destroy them, as you so aptly pointed out... militarily, socially, economically, or enviornmentally.

    Then again, I'm no historian. ;-)

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:48:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "You may disagree with my views, but I'm just here to tell you what the Word of God says."

    That's great, but this country is not a theocracy (thank God).

    And for the record, I do agree with 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. :)

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 09:50:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "However, a brief examination of history shows that most major cultures normally fall following a corruption of moral values."

    It turns out that this is probably just a historical urban legend from what I've read.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 10:11:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian said…

    "However, a brief examination of history shows that most major cultures normally fall following a corruption of moral values."

    How is one supposed to argue about this? You will always find what you're looking for in hindsight, no matter what it is. If it doesn't matter whether it's "20 years or 200 years later", you could point to anything as a factor for downfall. Then it becomes a matter of belief, not historical fact. Historians only work with the tangible things, like the environment, social conditions..etc. If you want to choose to believe that these come from God, that's your prerogative.

    I do respect your belief system, i just do not think it should form the basis of a multi-cultural nation, with a plurality of beliefs. If your religion wants to believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to agree with you. Every religion has some views which should not be enforced on the main stream. If your equivalent in Islam, Fundamentalist Muslims had more political, perhaps we would be debating whether all women should wear the hijab? Some religions believe in female circumcision, would you want your daughter to undergo this process? Probably not. Your definition of marriage, is your definition. Not the only one. In our society we have to allow for differences to co-exist.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 10:28:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "If your religion wants to believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to agree with you."

    All would be well and good if I really had that right in our society. At present, I don't legally have that right, due to all the anti-"hate" laws, and how they are being applied in the courts. No one has tried to push the envelope yet, but with the upcoming changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I'm worried...

    Soon, people will be able to take their "human rights" complaints directly to the tribunal, rather than going through a screening process first. Now that SSM has been declared a "right", (incorrectly, I say, see the first commenter's post) people who hold views like mine may well be hauled into these tribunals willy-nilly everytime we open our mouths.

    This is only a fear at this point, and is yet unproven. However, I think I'm right... we'll just have to see.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 10:33:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "All would be well and good if I really had that right in our society. At present, I don't legally have that right, due to all the anti-"hate" laws, and how they are being applied in the courts."

    Of course you do. Whether you will continue to have the right to publicly state your religious views is the question (although I believe you will), but you do have the right to believe whatever you want, as ridiculous as these beliefs might be, and I seriously doubt that will change.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 07:16:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Nowhere in the Roman Catholic bible does it SPECIFICALLY say that homosexuality is a sin to begin with. This is something I was taught at a CATHOLIC school."

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Rom.1:26-27

    So I'm pretty sure thats in the Catholic Bible. Along with the other versus that have been posted on this thread.

    But I don't believe God just wants us to turn our brains off and just operate in blind faith only, I think we should know what we believe and know why we believe it.

    All the current research surrounding homsexuality shows that there is no genetic cause. It seems to be a complex result of hormonal, psychological, or social (APA)

    From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:
    “Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.”
    – J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books).


    When “gay gene” researcher Dr. Dean Hamer (a gay man himself)was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:
    “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors.”

    For most people homosexuality is not a conscious choice, (although for some it is) but rather a result of choices made at strategic intervals in early development.

    If you doubt this, ask yourself "How does Darwinian natural evolution (survival of the fitest) provide for genetic transference of homosexual genes? Would not a genetic trait that makes it hard or impossible for one to pro-create have been weeded out millenia ago?

    So why should the governemnt promote a certian psychological condition by fascilitating social normalization?

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 07:31:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "That's a myth that you guys have invented - there's a "homosexual agenda" or a "Hollywood agenda"

    No hidden agenda eh? Alright, what exactly do you think groups like GLSEN, PFLAG, GSA and ACLU are doing?

    here's what they're doing...

    http://www.narth.com/docs/month.html

    and this is particularily disturbing...

    http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html


    even proponents of gay marriage have agreed that it implementation of gay marriage will be used as a spring board for those seeking to legitimize polygamy. Already a group relationshi has been recognized by the Dutch gov't. Is this really the direction that we want to take our country? There is an element within the gay marriage movement that seeks to redife marraige out of existence. The first step has been taken.

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 07:36:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "All would be well and good if I really had that right in our society. At present, I don't legally have that right, due to all the anti-"hate" laws, and how they are being applied in the courts."

    "Of course you do. Whether you will continue to have the right to publicly state your religious views is the question"

    no kidding

    http://www.narth.com/docs/trumps.html

     

  • At Thu Apr 06, 08:23:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    When everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage.

     

  • At Mon Apr 10, 07:46:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    Calling Brenda? That's a lark.

    "Ahhhhhhh...Same Sex Marriage? My stand? Ahhhhhh...let me call Paul Martin. Ooops, can't do that. Ahhhhhhhh, my opinion? Ahhhhhh, let me think about that and get back to you on that..."

     

  • At Sun Apr 16, 05:12:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "... and I can't accept homosexuality as a normal way of life because God has identified it as sin."

    No, the men who wrote the bible identified it as a sin. Yes, MEN wrote the bible, not God. And when these men decided that homosexuality was a sin, they also decided that slavery was fine, selling one's daughter ok as well, and women should assume a subordinate role in society.

    The usual response is that "these must be viewed through the lens of that period". Fine with me. There were quite a few barbaric practices then - leaving people to die on crosses, for example - that we deem unacceptable. So why can't we ditch the anti-gay ignorance as well?

    Progressive in Alberta

     

Post a Comment

<< Home