Thursday, August 25, 2005

More on young Lisa's anti-same-sex marriage stance and subsequent denial of said stance.

I'm going to quote a few of her posts and comments verbatim and see if anyone here can't figure out what her stance on same-sex marriage is.

From a comment on my "yay canada!" post on June 29th:

I love how the government just lies and lies and lies. And how they ignore the opinions of those within the country.

Polls showed that 75% of Canadians did not want same-sex marriages aprroved. But the government, who "represents the people", voted to extend parliament so that they could pass the bill, which had been rushed through all the preliminary things a law is supposed to go through. It was rushed through and did not go through the proper scrutiny that a normal law is supposed to go through.

Not to mention that Martin promised he would wait until the fall to pass the same sex legislation.

I'm not overly upset that it has been passed - it was obvious that it would happen anyways, in our country's desire to be politically correct. To me, the passing of the bill demonstrates the government's willingness to lie and bend the rules when it suits their own interest.

Followed by her remarkably similar July 31st post:

(12:14 AM) -
I'm tired, so this is bound to be more or less incoherent. And probably what some might deem "unintelligent". And full of spelling mistakes! Our friend Phreadom can enjoy them.

I read a stupid article in our lovely left-leaning newspaper, The Sun. Shouldn't have done it - I knew it would make me mad.

The stupid thing was so biased, and so wrong. Good Lord - why can't people just believe whatever the hell they want to believe, and not bug other people about it? Let me say this. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE RELIGIOUS DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T VOICE THEIR OPINIONS. For goodness sakes - the whole point of government is so that people of varying opinions and beliefs can be represented, not just one group of similar minded people. Everyone has opinions, and everyone deserves a say. Christians aren't going to take over the world, for goodness sakes. Stand up for what you believe in - unless it's politically incorrect. Then you're a bigoted, hateful, prejudicial person and you don't deserve a say. Arg.

Oh yes. And 75% of Canadians believe in defending the traditional definition of marriage. And so our government passes the law! Whoo! Way to be a representation of the people! Bastards.

And they also bashed a whole bunch of Christian orginizations. Why don't we abolish all of those too? Religious people shouldn't be allowed to be religious in public. Or teach what they believe, or what the Bible says. Heaven forbid.

And this is NOT an oppertunity for people to start an angry argument over the comments. I'm looking at YOU. No insults, no anything if it's going to start a fight.

End of angry rant. Tomorrow I talk about Doug.

She's also flat out said that she thinks that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. But unfortunately, she deleted her entire blog, and while I have the main posts, I do not have all the comments. :-( So I can't copy the exact comments here.

My problem here was simply that she obviously sees same-sex marriage as wrong if she has such a problem with the government passing the laws for it. The issue of government corruption is moot here because this was not a case of that... and the only reason she would possibly think that is because she's against same-sex marriage, which is obviously a symptom of her religious born prejudice against homosexuality. Which is exactly what led me to that point in my arguments with her.

lisa: the government is corrupt.
me: why?
lisa: because they passed a law for same-sex marriage.
me: how does that make them corrupt?
lisa: it's against what most people wanted.
me: what about the governments responsibility to protect the rights of minority groups? aside from the fact that the statistics I see show that the majority both supported the law, and do not want it meddled with now that it is passed.
lisa: statistics mean nothing (even though I tried to use them to my advantage previously), the government is corrupt!
me: I'm not arguing whether or not the government is corrupt. I'm arguing that you used same-sex marriage laws as an example of their corruption, and the fact that you plainly stated that you think homosexuality is wrong. you are also quite plainly opposed to same-sex marriage. and when I ask you what valid reasons you have to oppose it, or feel that it's passage into law was a source of corruption in your government that would imply that they did something damaging or wrong, you refuse to address the issue beyond saying that those are simply your beliefs (which are based upon what the bible teaches).
lisa: I refuse to argue with you. I never said anything against same-sex marriage or anything about homosexuality.


No comments: