Sunday, 22 May 2011

1 Point

Just my opinion;  if this was only a video about saving lives by eliminating gay suicides, I would support the video and not post.  However, there were a lot of dynamics in this video: it was not just 1 simple message. 

Showing "Daddy and Daddy" kissing child and another clip of "Daddy and Daddy" holding family along with a slue of 'your fine the way you are comments' warranted me to post.

I indicated in previous blogs that Socialists do not have the corner on compassion.  I have argued strongly that you can believe in the free market and act compassionately to others.  Similarly, the people who think homosexuality is not sin or immoral also do not have the corner on loving people and showing compassion.

My belief in a certain set of morals which does not approve of such conduct does not in anyway shape or form disqualify me from loving and showing compassion to homosexuals.  Love is not based on agreement.  I can love homosexuals and believe their sexual conduct is immoral.  It's no different then my wife loving me even if I am disrespectful to her.  She can disagree with my conduct, but still love me.
And, her disagreement does not constitute her not loving me any more then me disagreeing with homosexual activity does not constitute any lack of love.

I think Conservatives need to clearly articulate their idea's and positions.  I look forward to continually learning how I can better love others.


  1. I agree. To love someone is to give them hope and compassion. See:

    I don't believe to love someone is to enable them in their problems. Whether that is through welfare, overlooking bad behaviour (cheating employers, etc) or by encouraging poor or dangerous lifestyle choices. All of us have serious issues we must overcome.

  2. I agree Ryan, Loving someone does not mean we must excuse or enable behaviours we do no agree with.

    No one is perfect, no one acts properly or does the right thing all the time, in very situation. We are all with faults, I think if more people concentrated on working on their own faults and lending a helping hand when needed or asked by would be a better place.

  3. Children are not stupid..Who is my mommy..Where is my Mommy..How come all the other kids have mommies.It is all nice and easy to act as if this is normal,but really who are we kidding.??
    It is a little like all the film stars adopting children from other countries,when there are perhaps millions in America in need of adoption.Like the flavor of the month,these children are trotted out for photo shoots for the ego of these(look at me,look how good I am stars).2 men caring for children or 2 women caring for children is admirable and decent and in some cases needed, but don,t lie to children and tell them that this is normal,because it is not.


    "Perhaps it was Sunday mornings at our Baptist church, where preachers taught that liking someone of the same sex was a direct and swift path to hell. And that if that person would just turn to the Lord and confess his sin, then God would change him back into the person He wanted him to be - a person who only had crushes on the opposite sex.

    All of which meant that, from a very early age, I began to think I was dirty and that I was going to hell. Can you imagine what that feels like for a kid who was just learning to read and perform basic arithmetic? It was awful."

    "It's time for us, especially black people, to stop trying to pray the gay away and to get on our knees and start praying that the discrimination of gay people ends.

    What we're doing to our young gay people now is child abuse. It's plain old bigotry and hatred. And if African-Americans don't know what that feels like in America, I don't know who does."

  5. Morality implies choice. I would invite those who think being gay is immoral or not normal to actually have a conversation with a gay person. Ask them when they knew they were gay, and if it was similar to their "choice" about being white/black/tall/short.

    I'm shocked that a business owner would publicly go after first "socialists", and now gays and post this on the internet for all to see. The world isn't a straight, white, christian, right-wing place. Diversity is the future of business, gays and socialists included. Saying "I love you even if" doesn't work. You need to stop at "I love you".

  6. My dear anonymous,

    Implying that disagreement with the gay "lifestyle" is just a matter of not knowing or speaking directly with a gay person is a tad one dimensional. I don't imagine that there is a single person in Canada that hasn't meet a gay person or doesn't associate with on an almost daily basis.

    There is currently a lot of research dollars sunk into the study of choice vs. the Homosexual Gene . As far as I know there have been no concrete results.

    I see nothing wrong with the author trying to facilitate conversations based on myths that "liberals" have in their heads about "conservatives". Your post contains a few of them your self.

    Some how I got the impression that Ryan is NOT white...nor did he present "religion" in his post .. another set of bad assumptions on your part me thinks.

    But I agree with you diversity is the name of the game in this world, being a conservative is also part of that diversity that needs to be understood instead of condemned just because you can not wrap your head around it. Tit for tat.

  7. well said ryan.... do not abandon the ground we have forgotten to fight for,,,, compassion for the plight of others is OUR automatic response as christian free enterprisers ,,,, the left does NOT own the response of compassion, and in fact , everywhere the left assumes leadership , calamity results... and we could add, CALAMITY with NO COMPASSION... the examples are legion... so many , that the conclusion is formable without citing examples.... LUKE

  8. The posts by "Anonymous" seem to be intolerant to Ryan's (and my) view.

    Anyway, there is much research that shows it is indeed possible for "gays" to change to a heterosexual orientation. If you truly are compassionate toward a homosexual person you would lovingly lead them to a more positive lifestyle. By positive I mean a heterosexual orientation with abstinence until in a committed marital relationship. For more help see Exodus International and research links at the following web page:

  9. You are trying to change something that isn't in need of being changed. You are frankly ignorant if you think all gays are all just running around having random sex and are not in a committed relationship. Abstinence and marriage are not restricted to heterosexuals.

    I am intolerant of people that think they have the right to try and change someone's physiological makeup, or have the audacity to judge them for it. I'm intolerant of hate speech, which is clearly defined as "any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic."

    "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."[74]"

    An anti-gay stance is archaic and will be viewed by history in the same category as slavery and the oppression of women.

    Love your brothers and sisters for who they are, leave the judgment to God.

  10. My dear anon,

    There is a vast difference between not approving of a lifestyle and being disparaging of it.

    disparaging adjective Tending or intending to belittle: deprecative , deprecatory , depreciative , depreciatory , derogative , derogatory , detractive.

    Disapprove | Define Disapprove at
    /ˌdɪs əˈpruv/ Show Spelled [dis-uh-proov] Show IPA verb, -proved, -prov·ing. –verb (used with object). 1. to think (something) wrong

    You see the two are very different in intent and in delivery. Ryan has clearly stated that he has the capacity to love and care deeply about a person even if he disapproves of their lifestyle. Love does not require approval, but I am thinking that if you despise and disparage there is no room for any of the love that Ryan honestly professes to have.

  11. Anonymous (don't you have a real name):
    You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I'm not as ignorant as you may think.

    Are you saying we are not to judge sin? Do we not judge that lying, stealing, adultery, and murder are wrong. If we really do love and have compassion for someone we would warn them when they are heading for harm and ultimately for judgement. See 1 Corinthian 6:9,10.

    Regarding the 2010 study. There probably are some rare situations where something goes wrong in the womb that would cause some gender issues, but that would create a medical issue; at least that is what I see implied in the article you quoted. If one is born with a defect do we not try to fix it if we can? For more info on studies that indicate no real correlation to one being born "gay":

    You are correct in that in the end God will ultimately judge all of our sins. None of us would be able to avoid that without Him. Thankfully in His love He made a way.

  12. If you are taking a religious approach, I would invite you to look at a progressive organization such as the United Church of Canada.

    Homosexuality is pervasive in nature and not a human creation nor a learned behaviour.

    I pray that you open your heart to love all of God's creatures as He created them, and not on man's interpretations of God's will.

  13. In terms of disparaging remarks, we have now covered "immoral", "sinner" and the kicker here has to be "birth defect".

    I invite you to tell your 5 year old child, that they are all of these things, and then be surprised when they commit suicide (going back to the original post).

  14. Anonymous has said a lot of things that are internally self refuting. As well it does appear to me like he/she does not read the comments/views of the other posts. For instance he/she does not stick with the topic at hand but resort to emotional diatribes and accusations. I sense a lot of intolerance to the view opposing.

    First of all the United Church of Canada is mentioned and the comment that we ought not to follow man's interpretation of God's will. This church is a direct example of following "man's interpretation". They no longer follow God's word which is His written will to us. His Word is by and large very clear and not subject to interpretation by man. Romans chapter 1 and 2 might be a good place to read about what has happened to them.

    In the same breath we see animals compared to humans in a wikipedia article. Does this mean we ought to act like animals? There are many other animals behaviours that I don't think you would like us to emulate. For further reading and context on this issue read:

    The next interesting thing I read from anonymous is the birth defect comment. Actually anonymous is the one who indicated this through his link to an article on fetal development in the womb. In the same article the author makes a sweeping statement that is proven wrong as can be seen from the numerous research papers at the link I posted. You would do well to read these.

  15. Rather than continue a senseless back and forth, I'll leave you with this quote:

    Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, pondered the question another way: "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"

  16. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  17. Gabriel Finochio26 May 2011 at 03:39


    The quote from Mr. Simon is one of the most unthinking thoughts i've ever encountered in the political banter about so-called same-sex marriage.

    The "born this way" argument is wonderfully interesting and true, but it's implications are deeply disturbed. Here's a quote from an eminent professor who has now discovered another group of people who were "born this way":

    “If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person's sexual orientation. He may however remain abstinent.”
    –Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem

    So what does Mr. Simon have to say about Pedophiles now? Would he again respond with the same emotionally persuasive candour? I wonder. Actually, I don't.

    The beautiful and liberating thing about science is that it is slowly discovering the doctrines that the Bible has loudly declared all along. There is a part of human nature that has been corrupted by original sin. People ARE "born this way"; and Christ desires to transform them through redemption and repentance.

  18. Pedophilia only becomes a societal problem when you force your will onto an unwilling participant or engage in exploitative behavior with an unwilling participant.

    The same is true of heterosexuals who force their will onto an unwilling participant, such as that chap from the IMF.

    Two consenting homosexual adults in a monogamous relationship is not a reasonable comparison for measuring unlawful behavior.

    I can't believe that God will look at a loving, monogamous, homosexual couple and banish them to hell. That isn't the type of God that I pray to.

  19. My dear anonymous,

    you wrote:Two consenting homosexual adults in a monogamous relationship is not a reasonable comparison for measuring unlawful behavior.

    I have to agree whole heartedly with this statement.

  20. Gabriel Finochio26 May 2011 at 19:19


    "Pedophilia only becomes a societal problem when you force your will onto an unwilling participant or engage in exploitative behavior with an unwilling participant."

    -Did you think about the implications of this comment before you wrote it? So you're suggesting that pedophilia is a fine thing to have as long as it refrains from coercive sex within an "unwilling participant"? So how are we to tell if a child is willing or not? What if a child is willing? What then? Does that make it alright? Is evil justified whenever two people agree with its existence? Your morality is fascinating.

    And how do we determine what "unlawful behavior" is? For the better part of the last two thousand years it was considered unlawful for homosexuality to exist. Did that law come from a simpleton ignorance of moral law? Or did it come directly from a moral Christian law?

    You must not be praying to the God of the Bible. The Scripture explicitly warns us:

    "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were WASHED, but you were SANCTIFIED, but you were JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

    My prayer for you Anonymous is that you will come out from under this morally bankrupt modernist deception and accept the Truth of the God that you pray to; that you also may be washed, sanctified and justified from these evil works of darkness and sin.

  21. Ryan, I appreciate and agree with a lot of your thoughts.

    You said that homosexual's sexual conduct is immoral in your view.

    I'm curious, is their love-for, intimacy-with and desire-to spend their life with their partner (excluding anything sexual) also immoral in your view?

  22. Gerald, you're in hot water if you're 1) quoting the bible to serve some end or 2) basing your morals on the bible.

    There are a lot of ridiculous things one can quote from the bible.

    This one (assuming its really in the bible) seems relevant:

    "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."
    - Leviticus 20:13

  23. Alex:

    I base morals on the Bible. Taken in context the Bible does not contain any "ridiculous things". I have read it from cover to cover several times. This puts me on a solid footing not "hot water".

    The item you quoted is from the Levitical law. It was the law which the Jews had for their nation. Not unlike our criminal code.

    Do you have an objective basis for your morals??


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain