Do you support Gay Marriage in Trinidad & Tobago?

[Habit7]

Ads like that can only cause hurt and discrimination.

How does that ad do that?

It was great counter point amid the echo chamber of the homosexual lobby.

another great Christian persective:

[Humes]

Ads like that can only cause hurt and discrimination.

How does that ad do that?

By peddling iffy statistics and outright lies about homosexuality that strengthen a negative perception in the minds of bigots. His references alone are incredibly shaky.

[Habit7]

Ok since we have such a high standard...


Can someone please lay out the peer reviewed genetic evidence that ppl are "born this way"?

[Stephon.]

When did you choose to be straight then? Lol.

[Habit7]

check video above

[Humes]

Really?

then scroll up to the second post on this page

That is a kinda stretch, Habit7.

No one is telling them to perform gay marriages in their church or to change their beliefs. But if they want to benefit from an all-inclusive property use tax break, they have to follow the laws of inclusivity.

Can you cite any actual cases of a religious group's rights being infringed by the state in any of the countries where gay marriage has been legalised?

[Humes]

Ok since we have such a high standard...


Can someone please lay out the peer reviewed genetic evidence that ppl are "born this way"?

Pretty sure no one can supply conclusive evidence yet.

What little information which can be provided is more valuable than the "facts" and "reasoning" in that full-page ad.

I agree that an opposing voice is valuable in any discussion, but that sh1t isn't the best opposing voice out there, Habit7.

[Habit7]

No one is telling them to perform gay marriages in their church or to change their beliefs.

Yes they are telling them they must perform a gay marriage on their property which is against their belief.

Taking away their tax exemption is discrimination, they had tax exemption prior to the legalization of gay marriage in their state, the law changed to accommodate the few, now they will have to suffer. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is a redefinition of marriage issue that whether or not you have a horse in the race, it will affect all who acknowledges marriage as an institution (sacred or secular).

I agree that an opposing voice is valuable in any discussion, but that sh1t isn't the best opposing voice out there, Habit7.

The homosexual lobby has Saucy Pow advocating their cause: CNC3 Indepth:LGBT

[Humes]

Yes they are telling them they must perform a gay marriage on their property which is against their belief.

They eh telling them they have to do it at all. They're saying if they don't do it, they will lose the benefits conferred upon property owners who don't discriminate. The law only "discriminates" against the people who discriminate, ironically.

It isn't a loss of a fundamental right. It's the loss of a bonus.

[Habit7]

That my friend is a violation of Religious Freedom enshrined in the US constitution.

So Ron Jeremy have a right to shoot a porno in there too?

[Humes]

That my friend is a violation of Religious Freedom enshrined in the US constitution.

So Ron Jeremy have a right to shoot a porno in there too?

Nobody has a RIGHT to do anything in someone else's private property.

The state, however, is saying that if you do give the general public the right to use the property, you'll get a tax break. It's a specific, recent initiative, not a constitutionally-enshrined right. It applies to anyone with qualifying private property, not just religious bodies.

The church chose to discriminate against members of the general public, therefore it lost the tax break. That could have happened to any property-holder. The church still owns the property, and can still do whatever it wants with it. They just aren't getting any bonus for making their private property available for public use.

Understand now? It is NOT an example of the state telling a Church what they can or cannot do in their own services.

Shooting pornographic scenes in a public area is against the law, so no, Ron Jeremy wouldn't have had the right to do that.

[Humes]

The homosexual lobby has Saucy Pow advocating their cause: CNC3 Indepth:LGBT

Yeah, that was pathetic. What's your point, though?

That full-page ad is a genuine reflection of the level of debate emerging from the anti-gay lobby. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of the anti-gay arguments than that.

Saucy Pow was possibly the single worst example of the anti-discrimination lobby so far. Those who've spoken out against discrimination in Trinidad include several leading columnists, activist groups like CAISO, and even publishers. The Express, the Mirror and the Newsday have all spoken out against discrimination and in favor of anti-discrimination legislation in their general editorials. The well-known conservative publisher of the Newsday wrote a bylined column in her newspaper about the subject. So did Maxie Cuffie in the Mirror.

Even the head of the Catholic Commission for Social Justice has spoken out against discrimination.

So yeah...Saucy Pow was the worst of the anti-discrimination lobby. But who's been the best of the anti-gay lobby? Pastor Winston Cuffie?

[Habit7]

This doesn't have to turn into a penis measuring competition.

Some of those ppl you refer to said nothing on gay marriage. They spoke out against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Which I agree is wrong in most circumstances.

But jumping over that, then same-sex unions and then landing square in same-sex marriage issue then we run into problems.

[toyota2nr]

Have agree with Habit7. They're basically telling them either do or we're gonna take away something from you. What's all the fuss though? If they do legalize it then just do civil marriages nothing wrong with that. They don't have to get married in a church/ temple / mosque.

Most if not all religions are fundamentally against homosexuality so why would you want to get married in their institutions? Sounds to me like they're trying to force their views on the religious groups now and as bad as some religions or religious groups are that is totally wrong.

[Habit7]

Have agree with Habit7.

You sure you wanna do that? Some might what to call you PNM now.

[Humes]

Have agree with Habit7. They're basically telling them either do or we're gonna take away something from you.

No.

They said do something and we'll give something to you.

They didn't do it, so they lost the chance to have that thing.

There's a huge difference between removing someone's fundamental right, and not giving them bonuses that they don't qualify for.

[Humes]

Most if not all religions are fundamentally against homosexuality so why would you want to get married in their institutions? Sounds to me like they're trying to force their views on the religious groups now and as bad as some religions or religious groups are that is totally wrong.

This is the angle that's being pushed, but it's totally incorrect.

No one wants to get married in the institution. Someone wants to get married on a piece of property the church owns.

Huge fundamental difference. Nobody was asking one of their priests to marry them in a church building according to church rites. It's a piece of property that the church was allowing the public to use for non-religious reasons.

It's the equivalent of the government giving the Catholic Church some sort of subsidy if they let people park in their cathedral car park in Port of Spain. But the Catholic Church says they will let everyone except Hindus park. No subsidy.

edit: In fact it eh even that, because the property isn't part of a church building. So change "cathedral car park" to "empty lot on Edward Street."

[Humes]

This doesn't have to turn into a penis measuring competition.

It isn't. That was a response to a weak point.

[Habit7]

Since you not seeing the obvious, lets move on to a more science based topic...

3 years ago I was asked to give blood. I was asked about 50 questions during an evaluation, 3 times I was asked either if I was gay, bisexual or if I ever had a sexual encounter with a man in my life. An affirmative answer would have banned me for life for donating blood in most countries (including 'progressive' ones).

Last year the UK in an attempt to correct this perceived discrimination, allowed that men who had not had sex with a man within 12 months can donate blood.

If we are out to end discrimination in every form, whether it be race, class, sexual orientation, etc. should this blood donation rule be eliminated too?

[Stephon.]

That law is also backward and is being revised. You tried it though.

[Humes]

Since you not seeing the obvious, lets move on to a more science based topic...

No, Habit7. Please explain to me the obvious constitutional issue in that tax exemption case.

How am I wrong here? And why hasn't the group sued the state for an infringement of its constitutional rights if the case is so, as you put it, obvious?

Seriously...don't just dismiss it. If I'm wrong about something, I'll admit I'm wrong.

[maj. tom]

^ yes it should be eliminated. The FDA and other health organizations created that rule in the early 1980's when AIDS was first discovered and the link between gay men and the spread of the disease and the huge risk of donating infected blood.

30 years on AIDS is a disease that affects both sexes and all ages. There has been many calls for the ban to be lifted in recent years because it's an anachronistic law and does not fit current scientific data on that disease. Google can give you many articles where doctors and health professionals are calling for the law to be changed in the last 5 years, but the politicians won't because it will affect half of their vote. What, the 36 million people dying of AIDS this minute in Africa are all homosexual men?

[Humes]

3 years ago I was asked to give blood. I was asked about 50 questions during an evaluation, 3 times I was asked either if I was gay, bisexual or if I ever had a sexual encounter with a man in my life. An affirmative answer would have banned me for life for donating blood in most countries (including 'progressive' ones).

Last year the UK in an attempt to correct this perceived discrimination, allowed that men who had not had sex with a man within 12 months can donate blood.

If we are out to end discrimination in every form, whether it be race, class, sexual orientation, etc. should this blood donation rule be eliminated too?

Yeah, I think rules like that should be eliminated.

All blood should be tested (and is tested, as far as I know), so your sexuality or sexual history shouldn't prevent you from giving blood. If you belong to a group with a higher than average infection rate, I can understand you being asked that question to prioritise testing in specific circumstances (like when it's difficult or impossible to test all blood being distributed), but I don't think anyone who has healthy blood to give should be barred from donating.

[Ronaldo95163]

When did you choose to be straight then? Lol.

And you're the one going around telling people that they're idiots for not believing that stupid theory that people were born gay/straight

You honestly believe that an individual was born gay/straight

Really?

You and Daran are probably two closet cases BTW.....cuz the kinda thing allyuh posting in here....it kinda disturbing for people who claim to be "straight"

[Habit7]

The reason why countries are reluctant to repeal this rule is because homosexual men are up to 50x more likely to have AIDS/HIV, Hepatitis B, etc. In spite of rigorous testing of donated blood, the process is not that exacting to weed out any chance of diseases in the blood.

So physicians are faced with the obvious fact that homosexual men run the risk contaminating the blood bank. In an effort to appease the gay lobby as in the UK, the 12 month rule is created but it is still a rule exclusively towards the MSM community.

No religion, no morality just plain facts and science.

[Humes]

The reason why countries are reluctant to repeal this rule is because homosexual men are up to 50x more likely to have AIDS/HIV, Hepatitis B, etc. In spite of rigorous testing of donated blood, the process is not that exacting to weed out any chance of diseases in the blood.

If these are the facts, and homosexual men are still that much more likely to be infected with STDs in the countries that enforce this rule, then I can't argue with the logic.

If, as maj. tom points out, medical professionals themselves don't see a need for the measures due to their own data, then I can't argue with them.

[Stephon.]

So, testing the blood, whether gay straight or bi isn't possible? Cool!

[Les Bain]

The homosexual lobby has Saucy Pow advocating their cause: CNC3 Indepth:LGBT

You don't even have to be gay to think this is a poor choice. Saucy Pow is a mentally challenged man that allows men with homosexual tendencies to trade cash for sex.

[Stephon.]

The homosexual lobby has Saucy Pow advocating their cause: CNC3 Indepth:LGBT

That is fcuking embarrassing!!

[TRAE]

you people are rediculous sometimes.

What you think it is gay people want? To take over the world and enslave you? Well who doesn't want that, but you all need to put things in perspective and be open minded.

Throw religion out the window, the state and the church/temple/mosque ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MIX.

All they want is the right to be married or have some sort of civil union that affords them the same benefits, as well as protection from discrimination.

how do you feel about groups putting our misinformation like this?


Ads like that can only cause hurt and discrimination.

/
i thought marriage is before the eyes of the state and god? how we seperating that, since all marriage is thought to be in the sight of god,


i say it again-- if yuh gay, lesbo keep it to yourself, if yuh transgender suicide yuhself cause you eh even like yuh