My Fabulous Gay Wedding

[trevster2k]

New TV show being broadcast on Global TV in Canada. Man, we are so cutting edge.

But I found this objective write-up on a website called The Rapture Report. Oh well, better to rule in hell, then serve in heaven. We're so evil, EVIL.



Shame, shame, shame, on Canada!


Canada does not want anything to do with God. The majority of Canadians have rejected God and the Bible. Instead they have become a very tolerant people who are very tolerant of all sin and evil. The only thing that these people will NOT tolerate is the Bible and the moral law of God!

As a result below is an example of God giving over to a reprobate mind. Those with a reprobate mind cannot discern between good and evil. Good becomes evil and evil becomes good to those with a reprobate mind.

Romans 1
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Here is the sickening article that shows the godless and base nature of Canadian entertainment!

Global TV Announces New Series: "My Fabulous Gay Wedding"

TORONTO, August 20, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Global Communications Corporation announced Wednesday that it has begun work on a new series planned for the Canadian television audience for early 2005: My Fabulous Gay Wedding.

Each of six one-hour episodes will focus on a different same-sex couple, as they prepare for and are "married." "With two weeks to make the couple's wishes for a dream wedding come true, the My Fabulous Gay Wedding team must surprise each couple with a wedding day more fabulous than they could have imagined," a CanWest Global news story reported Wednesday.

The show will be hosted by Global TV's Kids in the Hall former member Scott Thompson.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/aug/04082005.html

 

[pax]

The show will be hosted by Global TV's Kids in the Hall former member Scott Thompson.

Even Carson could not possibly be a more appropriate host.

 

[Irvine511]

the line between North American political Christians and their fanatical islamist brothers in places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia grows thinner, and thinner, and thinner ...



(and i've tacked on as many specific adjectives as i could ... i am comparing a very specific kind of politicized right wing christianity ... we know who i'm talking about, so let's not go crazy with the "not all christians hate gay people" because, likewise, anyone who's paid any attention on FYM knows that's not at all true, nor are political Christians necessarily right wing, etc.)

 

[trevster2k]

I agree Irvine511, not all Christians have radical views which is why I found that writeup so ridiculous and funny, "the majority of Canada have rejected God and the Bible"
Ummm, whatever. I mean, I have but not the majority of Canada.

 

[MaxFisher]

Gay marriage initiatives have been voted down by a large majority in each state where they have appeared on the ballot.

American opposition to gay marriage is hardly only a "Christian" stance.

 

[Irvine511]

seems to be doing just fine in Massachusetts.

and Connecticut.

and Vermont.

and soon in California.

and New Jersey, too.

you'd see it in the District of Columbia if it weren't for Senators from, say, KANSAS who have threatened to gut the city's budget should such a measure pass.

there's no question that the states that have beaten back gay marriage amendments did so because gay-baiting is a great way to get those who hate to the polls. and, yes, most of these states that have voted this down are Red states, which i do think it's fair to say are far less secular than the Northeast and the West Coast.

they also have fewer gay people, and higher divorce rates.

but we all need scapegoats, don't we?

 

[MaxFisher]

Michigan is a blue state which voted it down.

A gay marriage vote hasn't taken place in any of the states you listed so it's hard to derive any credence for your argument.

Your previous post used the term "political Christians". Simply because red states are less secular does not mean that the people living there are evangelical Bible thumpers. I know plenty of conservative republicans who could care less about religion.

Also, putting gay marriage on the ballot is a great reason for liberals to go out and vote too.

 

[Irvine511]

gay marriage is a great way to get gay people to vote, and those that hate gay people. for everyone else, it's kind of a non-issue.

Michigan is also a generally socially conservative state, and it's not on the coasts as i mentioned. and we shouldn't put civil rights up for voting. if rights can only be conferred unto a minority by a majority, then there would still be anti-miscegenation laws in parts of the south. when a majority singles out a tiny minority that represents no threat to them, bars them from basic legal protections, and denies them the most basic aspects of human dignity, we are no longer talking about the "protection" of marriage. we are talking about another version of Jim Crow.

are secular Red Staters turning out in droves to vote for anti-gay discrimination? hard to tell ... but it is easy to see the highly organized religious movement in these states that move people to the polls. fear drives voting, as we learned in 2004, and no one in the country mongers fear and hatred of gays and lesbians more than (some) churches.

and if you look at Massachusetts, public opinion polls, now that there is gay marriage, support for equality in marriage has risen a full 18 points in less than a year, a massive increase in support to a clear majority of all Massachusetts residents.

 

[MumblingBono]

There is no gay marriage in Connecticut.

 

[Irvine511]

^ there are civil unions which are marriage by another name.

 

[MaxFisher]

You're straying from whether opposition to gay marriage is primarily fueled by Christians. I say that it isn't. That's the only point I was trying to make.

I have to take off or I'd continue posting. Irvine, I always apreciate your contributions to this forum. You are intelligent and articulate and state your case with conviction. Although your views are often contrary to mine, you force me to think and examine my opinions more closely. Thanks!

 

[Irvine511]

^ while i disagree with your point, i think my case is harder to prove -- since we don't know what denominations people are when they vote, it's kind of impossible to objectively prove that a specific kind of Christianity fuels anti-gay legislation. however, i think sitting back and looking broadly at the culture, at the pundits on TV, at the myriad "family" organizations who's platforms are centered around homophobia (among other things), i think it's a fair comment. but not an irrefutable one.

and thank you for the kind words -- and i feel the same way about you. you don't post often, but when you do, i often respond because you have real, intelligent things to say (and i worry that i might come off too harshly). please know it's because i think you add a lot and provide rich, provoking comments, and they're always well expressed.

 

[sharky]

Hmm...really? This isn't a Christian issue? How many Hasidic Jews have you seen driving cars with "Gay Marriage is immoral" bumper stickers?

Think about it: Canada does not have the religious overtones in their government policies that we do at this time. And they have gay marriage and we have the Republicans going for the nuclear option so liberal judges don't have verdicts for human and American rights over a bunch of crazy moralists.

And besides, I would bet you $20 that the jerk who wrote that Canada is Godless spiel also watches Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Will & Grace.

 

[nbcrusader]

Let's keep our labels simple so we don't get confused with our finger pointing.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Wait for it...I'm about to agree with crusader again (this might be the 3rd time? lol).

Without the basis of religion, being anti gay marriage is solely bigotry. I dont wish to start the merits of bigotry, or lack of, in religion, but without it, there is no basis except the fundamental and otherwise appalling denial of equal rights. And if the importance of the now defunct term 'family values' is more important than equality, then by all means wallow in your absolute beliefs that we dont all deserve the same rights. Infact, I encourage it. Like a pig in mud.

 

[Irvine511]

Let's keep our labels simple so we don't get confused with our finger pointing.

whenever i keep a label simple, people like you jump down my throat for painting with too broad a brush. fair enough.

i'm not pointing fingers. i'm demanding accountability from what is, perhaps, the centerpiece of self-described "Christian" groups like Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and The Catholic Church.

i liked Angela's post.

 

[Lemonfix]

Wait for it...I'm about to agree with crusader again (this might be the 3rd time? lol).

Without the basis of religion, being anti gay marriage is solely bigotry. I dont wish to start the merits of bigotry, or lack of, in religion, but without it, there is no basis except the fundamental and otherwise appalling denial of equal rights.

I personally am pro-gay marriage, but I do know non-religious people who are against it who use the argument that it's unnatural in a scientific sense or that the term "marriage" relates to only a man/woman couple. Do I agree with these arguments? Nope, I can find many a whole in them. But are they bigotry? I honestly don't know.

(kicking myself because I thought I never would get into FYM again, but oh well)

 

[Angela Harlem]

Hmm. I do try not to throw the term bigot around too lightly, but...The way I see it is, you take any issue like sexuality, race, age, gender whatever, and have any number of reasons for feeling that certain people within these groups should be held back from whatever it is you are discussing, but at the end of the day you are withholding their right to participate in something based on their one difference to you or whomever. Hows that for a convoluted sentence lol. It is discrimination in the very least, and bigotry when the feeling is there is no grounds for equal participation. No one person is technically equal to the next, we are all (all 6 odd billion of us) different, but we have to treat everyone the same. We need a flat level playing field. We need to say marriage is for all. We need to say employment and pay opportunities equal for all. I feel that to not do so is, like I said, in the least discriminatory. To believe that it is ok to discriminate and hold someone back based on one element of their selves I do think is bigotted. If we strip this down, that is essentially what it is. We are mainly discussing basic rights like marriage. Yet we believe we hold the power and moral authority to withdraw this right from someone on a difference. There is no morality there. It says "You are not as worthy, you will be held back". Some might argue that there is no hatred involved. But it is at the least placid non-acceptance. And in my book, placid non-acceptance is just not ok.

I'm going round in circles lol.

 

[melon]

I don't think heteros have any business telling gay people they can't be married. It's none of their goddamn business at all.

I'm sure black people would be mad if their rights had been up to a vote. No, it took the North blackmailing the South during Reconstruction to approve the anti-slavery amendments and then it took "activist judges" to enforce the amendments. If it were up to the "majority," black people would probably still be slaves.

Melon

 

[AcrobatMan]

Let's keep our labels simple so we don't get confused with our finger pointing.

sarcasm or plain humor .

well written anyway

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I don't think heteros have any business telling gay people they can't be married. It's none of their goddamn business at all.

.

Angela