| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2013 04:16:39 PM · #6001 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The salient point made by Portman was that until his son came out, he hadn't really thought through the issue... a stunning admission of actively working to deny equality without even considering facts or the impact on others. |
sad isnt?
i wonder what else it is that our lawmakers write policy on without thinking through.
ETA, oh right is doesnt matter, they just care to please the groups who hold the biggest checks. |
In a sense, isn't this the way it's designed to be, though? Not so much the MONEY part, but we elect representatives, right? They are supposed to "represent" us? So answer me this; if you have a solid, cohesive majority in your district who elected a representative who "represented" their stance that there should not be, say, a nuclear power plant on the Cockadoodle River, and if subsequently said representative voted in FAVOR of the Cockadoodle River Nuclear Plant, for whatever reason or for no reason at all, isn't s/he failing to represent the desires of the district?
Now, we CAN argue that many issues are too complex to be broken down like that, and that the best we can do is elect a representative we trust to be "wise", and then live with whatever decisions s/he comes up with after studying issues in-depth; many believe this is the true ideal of representative democracy?
So which side's right? "We elected you to vote our way, dammit!" or "We trust you to do what's best for the voters, the district, the city, the state, the country, and the world!" Which is the more viable system? |
nope you are exactly right. of course i wouldn't have a problem if actually it worked that way, it doesn't, special interests have too much influence.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2013 04:21:40 PM · #6002 |
All I said was that the issue of what degree of majority should be required is worthy of discussion -- as you point out, today it is often too easy for one group to infringe on the rights of others ...
In the case of Proposition 8, the proponents (those opposed to same-sex marriage) argue that the courts shouldn't overturn the "will" of 7 million voters, while overlooking the inconvenient fact that they themselves want to deny the wishes of some 6.9 million voters. A vote of 7 to almost-7 doesn't seem very decisive to me when it seeks to deprive people of rights already held.
However, it might be reasonable for a close majority to grant new right, so long as that action doesn't deprive others ... |
|
|
|
03/16/2013 06:05:06 AM · #6003 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The salient point made by Portman was that until his son came out, he hadn't really thought through the issue... a stunning admission of actively working to deny equality without even considering facts or the impact on others. |
If Portman actually said that he hadn't really thought about it before - then I do not believe him. I think he thought about it plenty and had a very staunch stance against it (as many people do - for a variety of reasons) - until his son made him face a different reality. Then to ease the change of position, he used his "thought" depth as an excuse. In truth, his new thought depth and subsequent position was not due to "more" thinking but rather a different understanding on the thinking he had already done. Likely not much different that a believer who later becomes an agnostic or athiest. People can change their understanding of issues - even issues they have long fought for or against.
I would like to think that some here (who have thought long about gun control) may have adjusted their thinking somewhat based on the defensive use of firearms based on a substantial amount of information designed to educate about the entire process of self defense. Some of course have'nt and never will no matter how much evidence is presented, but some have moved a bit and gave additional thought to the matter, considering elements they had not considered before.
Such is the way of thought evolution. |
|
|
|
03/16/2013 07:23:11 AM · #6004 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The salient point made by Portman was that until his son came out, he hadn't really thought through the issue... a stunning admission of actively working to deny equality without even considering facts or the impact on others. |
Originally posted by Flash:
I would like to think that some here (who have thought long about gun control) may have adjusted their thinking somewhat based on the defensive use of firearms based on a substantial amount of information designed to educate about the entire process of self defense. Some of course haven't and never will no matter how much evidence is presented, but some have moved a bit and gave additional thought to the matter, considering elements they had not considered before.
Such is the way of thought evolution. |
In any serious controversy, there will always be serious, thought-provoking evidence to support both sides of the discussion.
The evolution of thinking as it pertains to gay rights has done more to reinforce my personal beliefs in that theater, not so much the gun control issue.
The main difference to me on these two subjects is the difference between a choice, as in whether or not to arm yourself, and as in the case of being gay, which is not.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2013 08:11:48 AM · #6005 |
| I completely agree job. This whole issues becomes settled when tbe masses either realize or accept it isn't a choice. |
|
|
|
03/16/2013 12:34:48 PM · #6006 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If Portman actually said that he hadn't really thought about it before - then I do not believe him. I think he thought about it plenty and had a very staunch stance against it (as many people do - for a variety of reasons) - until his son made him face a different reality... Likely not much different that a believer who later becomes an agnostic or athiest. |
Exactly. You choose to take it on faith (literally defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof) because actually having to think about it means having to face all evidence to the contrary and zero to support your position. There is no such thing as "a different reality." There is only reality, whether you have the courage to acknowledge it or not. This is why nobody has ever been able to explain how someone else's gay marriage has any affect whatsoever on their own as the self-proclaimed champions of personal liberty and constitutional freedom attempt to dictate who's allowed to marry Taliban-style. If these people had the slightest empathy for others, there wouldn't be an issue to fight against. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:08:57 PM · #6007 |
The other side of that coin.
I wonder why some people have such a tiny circle of empathy... |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:11:29 PM · #6008 |
OMG! I had to read that several times to decide if it was satire or not. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:13:57 PM · #6009 |
Borowitz sounds like a humor columnist. That doesn't sound in any way accurate.
ETA: Yeah, looked the guy up, he's a well known Satirist. Strange that he's stayed off my radar until now. Heh.
Message edited by author 2013-03-17 15:17:53. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:14:42 PM · #6010 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
OMG! I had to read that several times to decide if it was satire or not. |
Satire, for sure. What I'm trying to figure out is if JUDITH knows that ;)
ETA: Hah. Nevermind. Didn't see Scalvert's original link. Is it time for green beer yet?
Message edited by author 2013-03-17 15:19:38. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:26:34 PM · #6011 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
OMG! I had to read that several times to decide if it was satire or not. |
The real tragedy is that this would be plausible enough to make you wonder. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:38:13 PM · #6012 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Exactly. You choose to take it on faith (literally defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof) because actually having to think about it means having to face all evidence to the contrary and zero to support your position. There is no such thing as "a different reality." There is only reality, whether you have the courage to acknowledge it or not. This is why nobody has ever been able to explain how someone else's gay marriage has any affect whatsoever on their own as the self-proclaimed champions of personal liberty and constitutional freedom attempt to dictate who's allowed to marry Taliban-style. If these people had the slightest empathy for others, there wouldn't be an issue to fight against. |
A couple of small points...
1. I don't agree with the phrase "means having to face all evidence to the contrary and zero to support your position" as there is generally evidence to support any position (even belief in God/Jesus) - what there may not be is conslusive irrefutable scientific evidence.
2. I would agree with your statement "There is no such thing as "a [i]different reality." There is only reality"[/i] as long as you are using Plato's definitions from his world of abosolutes. However, if you are implying that there is only one reality and that reality makes one person correct and another wrong, then I would disagree. Simply review various witness accounts of a violent encounter. Each perspective may be different (in some cases directly opposite), yet each is correct to the vantage point of that witness. Different realities to the same reality. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 04:15:02 PM · #6013 |
Originally posted by Flash:
there is generally evidence to support any position (even belief in God/Jesus) |
Rationalization and fallacy are not evidence.
Originally posted by Flash:
if you are implying that there is only one reality and that reality makes one person correct and another wrong, then I would disagree. Simply review various witness accounts of a violent encounter. |
The one reality of what happened is unaffected by the perceptions of those who witnessed it. Their claims would simply be correct accounts or not. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 04:16:03 PM · #6014 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Kelli:
OMG! I had to read that several times to decide if it was satire or not. |
Satire, for sure. What I'm trying to figure out is if JUDITH knows that ;)
ETA: Hah. Nevermind. Didn't see Scalvert's original link. Is it time for green beer yet? |
Just think "The Onion" when you read Borowitz. :-) |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 05:29:01 PM · #6015 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Kelli:
OMG! I had to read that several times to decide if it was satire or not. |
Satire, for sure. What I'm trying to figure out is if JUDITH knows that ;)
ETA: Hah. Nevermind. Didn't see Scalvert's original link. Is it time for green beer yet? |
Yes, I know that. But, my point was it "could" be real. LOL! |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 06:12:27 PM · #6016 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
But, my point was it "could" be real. LOL! |
The tragedy is that it's plausible. |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 08:07:53 AM · #6017 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
I completely agree job. This whole issues becomes settled when tbe masses either realize or accept it isn't a choice. |
Or simply imagine that it's NOT a choice as you are...
That said, GayMarriage (its own word since two same-sex gay people can never ever truly be in a "marriage", they can be in a GayMarriage, which could just as easily be called Zinklewism or Rondsplader or something else), will be "legal" soon. Society has no sense of moral bearing and no goal of self presevation, why shouldn't it? Prostitution won't be long after, as will drugs. I AM NOT saying those issues are connected (except by lack of intelligence and common sense) and that there is crossover in the groups who choose to be gay, patronize whores, or take drugs.
"Marriage" is and always will be the union of one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. "GayMarriage" will never be "Marriage" in the same way that a man in drag will NEVER be a woman. Even if said drag requires several surgeries, medications, and is recognized "legally".
The world is "falling apart" as the current challenge goes. Why shouldn't all these things become legal.
Quite frankly, as a Christian, it's not my place (or the Church's) to "change the world" except one by one, sharing the Good News of Christ Jesus to people. To help them see that they are sinners (whatever flavor of sin that is: homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder, covetousness, hate, pride, etc... all are sins equal before God) and that sin separates them from God. But God loved them so much, so much that He sent His only Son to die and pay the price for that sin... that if all they do will accept the free salvation offered to them, they can live eternally with God.
There is no other way to God but through the blood of Christ Jesus.
Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by Me. ~ John 14:6
That is the purpose of Christians. Not rebel when pagan society turns against them. America was never a Christian nation. It was founded by a group of people with great ideas and some grounding in Biblical truth, but was never meant to be a Christian nation. For a couple of hundred years it wore the mask of Christendom, but it dallied with the world as well... now the mask is coming off and Christians want to get mad about it?
Daniel never told Nebuchadnezzar he couldn't have his statue or laws requiring people to bow down before it when the music played. Daniel took care of himself and refused to dishonor God by complying. And he was willing to accept the price to be paid for his fidelity. That is the Christian's role in this.
We cannot make the country or the world (or Obamachadnezzar) conform to a faith they are blind to. Let them pass their laws and continue into darkness on the path ironically called "enlightenment". Nothing they pass can separate the saved man or woman from God. But we as Christians are not to take part in anything that is against God. If a church rightly refuses to GayMarry same-sex couples, that is their choice. And they may lose their tax exempt status, be fined, jailed, or prohibited from performing real marriages. So be it. Be a Daniel and face man's wrath of ignorance by doing what is right.
For do I now seek to satisfy men or God? or do I seek to please men? If I were yet pleasing men, I were not Christ's bondman. ~ Galatians 1:10 |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 09:30:34 AM · #6018 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
GayMarriage (its own word since two same-sex gay people can never ever truly be in a "marriage", they can be in a GayMarriage |
That's what the bigots said about interfaith and interracial marriage, too, and on the same authority. Meanwhile, the story of Adam and Eve populating the earth requires incest.
Originally posted by klkitchens:
as a Christian, it's not my place (or the Church's) to "change the world" except one by one, sharing the Good News of Christ Jesus to people. To help them see that they are sinners... |
As a Christian, it's not your place to judge others (a direct contradiction).
Originally posted by klkitchens:
If a church rightly refuses to GayMarry same-sex couples, that is their choice. And they may lose their tax exempt status, be fined, jailed, or prohibited from performing real marriages. |
Or, they could be Christians. |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 09:59:50 AM · #6019 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
GayMarriage (its own word since two same-sex gay people can never ever truly be in a "marriage", they can be in a GayMarriage |
That's what the bigots said about interfaith and interracial marriage, too, and on the same authority. Meanwhile, the story of Adam and Eve populating the earth requires incest. |
Interfaith marriages don't work, not if either side holds their faith sincerely and wants to see the same for their spouse... But they do happen, of course. Interracial is a different matter entirely. Unlike you, I'm not a racist and I see one race of man on this planet. "Races" is a man-made convention.
As for the history of Adam and Eve, you are correct. Their children did of course intermarry. Absolutely nothing wrong with that AT THAT TIME. The reasons it is not allowed today (and since the time of Moses) is because of the mutations and birth defects caused by reproducing so close of DNA. But since incest is prohibited in the Bible, again from the time of Moses, you radicals should seek to have it legalized as well.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
as a Christian, it's not my place (or the Church's) to "change the world" except one by one, sharing the Good News of Christ Jesus to people. To help them see that they are sinners... |
As a Christian, it's not your place to judge others (a direct contradiction). |
Where do you get such nonsense? We are called to make judgments on the actions of people, not the salvation or heart of those people. People choosing to rebel against God are evident by their actions and Christians are called to make those judgments. Your strawman nonsense (as usual from you). We judge things ever day, Christian and non-Christian. Is that food safe? Is that movie any good? Does this photo get a 10 or 1? The non-Christian telling a Christian not to judge is in fact themselves acting as judge over the Christian.
Don't offer criticism of things you clearly know nothing about.
Matthew 7:1, the most misused verse of Scripture, is about making sure you're judging yourself before you judge others. All over Scripture we're told to test things, judge them, determine if they are right.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
If a church rightly refuses to GayMarry same-sex couples, that is their choice. And they may lose their tax exempt status, be fined, jailed, or prohibited from performing real marriages. |
Or, they could be Christians. |
See above. I cannot say that some of these people are not Christians, but their actions do not make this evident. Christendom is full of professors and very few possessors of Christ. They water God down into a man pleasing nothing, instead of letting God speak for Himself.
God has declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. Man has affirmed that. You cannot make green be red no matter how hard you stamp your foot and whine about it. Green is green. Red is red.
No, this church is defying God completely. Just because they bear the name Christian does not mean they are representing any form of Christianity at all. Just like the idiot who murders a murdering abortionist is NOT doing any honor to Christ either.
Message edited by author 2013-03-20 10:01:49. |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 10:42:22 AM · #6020 |
Poor Kevin. You're on the losing side of history, facts, and this argument. Equality and tolerance are inexorable as 81% of Americans under 30 (and 58% overall) now support gay marriage rights. Even among evangelical white Protestants, support is up 24 points since 2004. With multiple federal courts already ruling against DOMA and Prop 8 as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will put an end to the issue this year as predicted:
Originally posted by scalvert, 7/1/2011:
We've already been down this road with interracial marriage and interfaith marriage: some states adopt equality while others fight tooth and nail on the grounds of personal prejudice and religious dogma. The current situation of recognition only within certain states is untenable for the same reasons those were (including constitutional mandate), so gay marriage will be federally recognized within 5 years, and more likely within two. As with the first two issues, the conservative (traditional) crowd will scream and yell about all the bad things that will happen if freedom is granted, none of which will actually occur, and within two generations nobody will remember why it was such a big deal in the first place. It's inevitable. |
|
|
|
|
03/20/2013 10:46:25 AM · #6021 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Poor Kevin. You're on the losing side of history, facts, and this argument. Equality and tolerance are inexorable as 81% of Americans under 30 (and 58% overall) now support gay marriage rights. Even among evangelical white Protestants, support is up 24 points since 2004. With multiple federal courts already ruling against DOMA and Prop 8 as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will put an end to the issue this year as predicted:
Originally posted by scalvert, 7/1/2011:
We've already been down this road with interracial marriage and interfaith marriage: some states adopt equality while others fight tooth and nail on the grounds of personal prejudice and religious dogma. The current situation of recognition only within certain states is untenable for the same reasons those were (including constitutional mandate), so gay marriage will be federally recognized within 5 years, and more likely within two. As with the first two issues, the conservative (traditional) crowd will scream and yell about all the bad things that will happen if freedom is granted, none of which will actually occur, and within two generations nobody will remember why it was such a big deal in the first place. It's inevitable. |
|
Again you cannot read. I said it WILL BE legalized and that Christians should not be distracted from their duty by getting embroiled in social issues of a sinful world.
Opinion Polls != Right.
I am clearly on the winning side of the "homosexuality is a sin" argument. But since when has truth ever mattered to liberals and heretics?
Message edited by author 2013-03-20 10:46:58. |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 11:49:36 AM · #6022 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
I am clearly on the winning side of the "homosexuality is a sin" argument. |
Sorry Kev, but you will eventually lose even that argument. Until 1967 interracial marriage was a sin on par with homosexuality, with opponents fervently citing the very same sections of the bible to justify their bigotry, yet you would never hear such a claim today in any mainstream church. The same thing will happen to gay marriage within a generation or two. Today's champions of 'biblical morality' are history's wicked heathens. As with stoning adulterers, eating shrimp, owning slaves, women voting, wearing a poly/cotton blend or anything else, the faithful will gradually reinterpret the bible to conform with their current beliefs and the old views will no longer apply for whatever reason. This must occur, as it has for every social change in history, for the church to maintain its relevance. Any minister who tried asserting that eating bacon or shaving a beard is sinful in 2013 would quickly find himself alone in an empty church, and 20-30 years from now homosexuality will be in the same class of forgotten sins as dating a Buddhist or a woman being seen in church without a hat. The rapidly shifting mishmash of laws and attitudes concerning gay rights signals an imminent conclusion, and for every armchair Christian who expresses fear and hatred regarding the change, there will be many more who do more than pay lip service to Mark 12:31. |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 11:53:36 AM · #6023 |
saw a great meme recently, over 1500 species of animals have recognizable natural homosexual tendencies. only one species has been identified with a sexual orientation that's unnatural...celibacy.
ironic no?
|
|
|
|
03/20/2013 12:10:27 PM · #6024 |
Christian Law isn't US law. You can live by any moral standard you like, as can I, as can any other, all of us in the US live under US law.
If the SCOTUS determines that the gay marriage not be denied you have a legal obligation to recognize it exists. You can believe it immoral yourself, you can despise it, you can hate it and choose not to accept it but you must recognize the law and you can not discriminate or be hateful to those who live under the umbrella of that law.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2013 03:21:05 PM · #6025 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
saw a great meme recently, over 1500 species of animals have recognizable natural homosexual tendencies. |
You know, animals eat their young and condone rape. Should we revert to all our animal instincts? |
|
