The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: philw on May 10, 2012, 06:12:26 AM
-
(http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/political-pictures-barack-obama-gay-vote1.jpg)
(http://stutteringmessiah.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gay-obama.jpg)
this has stirred a bit of shit here ( yes the pun was intentional ;) )
firstly personally marriage is for blokes and chicks however I don't give a rats what others do if they want or not who am i to stop them there choice just like I Shoot and Hunt, a lot don't like it but I don't want them to stop me from doing it.
also today was the 40th anniversary of a bloke getting bashed killed for being gay ( it was illegal to be gay and after he was killed SA was the first state to decriminalise it ) so now the greens are pushing to have marriage and with Obama coming out they were all over it like a fat kid to candy
do you think this will be a game changer in the election as they were saying a few states that now won't be sucking on the obama koolaid because of this.
my main point though WTF dose this have to do with it...
non-college educated white voters
i mean really why bring that up that college edumicated peoples are any different to non college edumicated.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3499434.htm
PETER CAVE: US president Barack Obama has declared his support for same sex marriage.
Mr Obama says that after a prolonged evolution on the issue he is now in favour.
He says it's a personal view but it will have political implications.
Correspondent Stephanie Kennedy reports from Washington.
STEPHANIE KENNEDY: In a significant reversal Barack Obama has changed his view on this controversial social issue and in a hastily arranged interview he's unveiled his new position.
BARACK OBAMA: Over the course of several years as I talk to friends and family and neighbours, when I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed in monogamous relationships, same sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained even because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.
STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Barack Obama is the first US president to back gay marriage but he was backed into a corner after his vice-president Joe Biden unexpectedly announced that he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage in an interview earlier this week.
Other senior cabinet members followed, saying they also favoured gay unions. And recent polling revealed that a majority of Americans support homosexual marriage
Michelle Cottle is a political commentator and she says that Barack Obama had no choice but to reveal his new position now.
MICHELLE COTTLE: Whatever the president's personal journey on this has been there is no way he wanted to be having a culture discussion at this point in the campaign.
But you know you can call it Biden being Biden - once he opened his mouth this question was going to be out there. The president cannot afford to look wishy-washy on something like this so he was going to have to address it. And to his credit he did not, you know, he did not go half way. He went whole hog.
STEPHANIE KENNEDY: But Barack Obama's bold new position does come with its risks.
Julian Epstein is a Democrat political consultant and he says the president's support for gay marriage could alienate some voting groups.
JULIAN EPSTEIN: The polls show that nearly every segment of the American population is moving in the direction of supporting gay marriage. There are still major demographic groups where this can be used as a wedge.
Republicans will certainly attempt to try to use this as a wedge in the African American community. They will certainly try to use it as a wedge with non-college educated white voters. And there are risks there because Obama clearly needs votes in both of those communities.
STEPHANIE KENNEDY: And it will help mobilise the Republican base and boost Mitt Romney's conservative credentials.
The presumptive Republican nominee reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage.
MITT ROMNEY: Well when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts I indicated my view which is I do not favour marriage between people of the same gender and I don't favour civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.
While marriage is governed by state law and only a handful of states have legalised gay marriage, Barack Obama's historic position does put pressure on state legislatures to enact laws allowing homosexuals to marry.
STEPHANIE KENNEDY: In Washington this is Stephanie Kennedy reporting for AM.
-
FTA: "Julian Epstein is a Democrat political consultant and he says the president's support for gay marriage could alienate some voting groups."
WRONG! Well, maybe the polls show that (they're not biased, no, not at all!), but in every election on marriage amendments, the numbers in favor of man-woman only have been increasing, not the other way around. Just the MSM at work spinning things the way they want it to go.
What frosted my cake, though, was bho (yuck, ptooey, may his name forever live in infamy) saying that as US troops served overseas on his behalf...
What a maroon! >:(
-
Does this surprise anyone Really as I believe he has sold his soul to anyone that might vote for the worst President in our History
-
What frosted my cake, though, was bho (yuck, ptooey, may his name forever live in infamy) saying that as US troops served overseas on his behalf...
What a maroon! >:(
Yea, that kinda sticks in my craw as well...
-
BTW Phil, there are already 39 states that have defined marriage as between a man and a woman only! Several have amended their state constitutions to reflect that as well!
Having that information, the Fed cannot even consider trying to amend the US Constitution as they'd not have the requisite 38 state majority to ratify the amendment.
He's done this to garner votes and try to bring his base back because he's pissed them off for being a do nothing lefty and really cranked up the independents who swung left in 2008. The youth of the country will probably take a pass on the guy as well as their unemployment numbers coming out of college are nearly 50%!
He had a very, very bad week here....His kickoff in Ohio last week had booked a 14,000 seat arena and there were 4,000 empty seats!
Oops! ::)
-
He's done this to garner votes and try to bring his base back because he's pissed them off for being a do nothing lefty and really cranked up the independents who swung left in 2008. The youth of the country will probably take a pass on the guy as well as their unemployment numbers coming out of college are nearly 50%!
You are absolutely correct, Timmy. At this point, the ONLY reason he'll be taking ANY position is that he thinks it might help save his worthless ass with the rabid, bat-shit crazy, womb-to-the-tomb, give-me-my-free-shit base. I'm not as optimistic about the youth of the country taking a pass on BHO this year, though. Still got a lot of them who think college, food, housing, cars, gas, hookers, condoms, birth control pills, etc should be free.
I worry for the future of this country.
My politically incorrect campaign slogan for this year: Evict A Kenyan From Public Housing. ;D
-
From Phil's post :
"Quote
non-college educated white voters
i mean really why bring that up that college edumicated peoples are any different to non college edumicated. "
It's simple really, College educated folks have been trained to parrot what an "Instructor" wants to hear.
Non college educated folks have learned to think for themselves.
BO has no principles or beliefs, he has the socialist agenda and poll results. >:(
-
He hasn't done a thing really just blowing smoke for the Gays and he has only said he personally support Gay Marriage and nothing more. Dick Chenney did the same and nothing else so obama sold his soul for cash and votes without doing anything. If you were sleeping with the Worst lady U might consider the other opitions like Clinton did. obama saying I'm so Gay but I can't come out of the closet in my opinion
-
He hasn't done a thing really just blowing smoke for the Gays and he has only said he personally support Gay Marriage and nothing more. Dick Chenney did the same and nothing else so obama sold his soul for cash and votes without doing anything. If you were sleeping with the Worst lady U might consider the other opitions like Clinton did. obama saying I'm so Gay but I can't come out of the closet in my opinion
It opens the door for more to come through:
http://www.congress.org/news/senate-democrats-want-to-go-farther-on-gay-rights/
Senate Democrats Want to Go Farther on Gay Rights
Senate Democrats want to push farther on gay rights issues.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and 16 other Senators wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano today renewing a request to hold off on green card applications for binational gay couples while the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged, reports Roll Call’s Humberto Sanchez.
The move would allow married binational gay and lesbian couples to remain together in the United States without forcing the foreign spouse to run afoul of immigration law. Nine states and the District of Columbia have laws that allow gay marriage, according to the group Freedom to Marry.
“We write to you to reiterate our request that the Administration provide relief for lesbian and gay families in which one spouse is not a U.S. citizen during this time of legal uncertainty,” the letter said.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) also plans a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Read the full story on RollCall.com.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate_democrats_leap_into_the_debate_over_gay_rights-214445-1.html?ref=corg
-
It's simple really, College educated folks have been trained to parrot what an "Instructor" wants to hear.
Non college educated folks have learned to think for themselves.
that is what i thought
-
It opens the door for more to come through:
The backdoor? :o
-
It sure didn't take him long to get the merchandising machine cranked up for such a "spontaneous" announcement. ::)
I guess that means his rainbow logo does double duty now.
http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html
(http://store.barackobama.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/o/f/ofaxxxx_lgbt_t_grey_m.jpg)
-
(http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/05/14/1226354/789163-20120513-obama-cover.jpg)
-
-
I don't understand.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If someone can provide a scientific reason for why same sex marriage is harmful than I'm all ears. However there is no other reason to prohibit it except for religious purposes. This is one of the main reasons I cannot stand the R party. How dare you claim to stand for constitutional law when ignore the very first paragraph of the very document you exclaim to be flawless. I am not an Obama supporter but I'll give the man his dues when he says something right. There is no reason for mindless bigotry to dictate law. I don't care what your religion is or the lack thereof but this is stupid.
-
I don't understand.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If someone can provide a scientific reason for why same sex marriage is harmful than I'm all ears. However there is no other reason to prohibit it except for religious purposes. This is one of the main reasons I cannot stand the R party. How dare you claim to stand for constitutional law when ignore the very first paragraph of the very document you exclaim to be flawless. I am not an Obama supporter but I'll give the man his dues when he says something right. There is no reason for mindless bigotry to dictate law. I don't care what your religion is or the lack thereof but this is stupid.
Actually that is not true.
Whether you are a believer or not Religion provides a baseline for personal conduct that has worked well for a couple thousand years.
It is another example of the "Frankfort School" conspiracy to impose socialism by undermining the strengths of Western culture.
While I have often mde it clear that I am no "Bible thumper" I have to ask you, have you not noticed that with the rise of the "If it feels good, do it" and "Gay Rights" that morals in other more obviously important areas have also declined.
Is it a coincidence that as Gay rights increase every body else's rights get more infringed.
Do some research on "Frankfort School" it makes a lot of seemingly unconnected political events come together in very scary fashion.
-
How can a religion that uses copy and paste text from other religions, that has on its own no direction in regard to morals, provide the guiding light to all that is right?
1. I don't believe that correlatation equates itself to causation.
The NRA was formed in 1871 only a few short years after the abolishment of slavery. That does not mean it was formed by scared white folk who wanted to arm themselves against an aggressive African population that no longer had homes or work. While the decay of morals has indeed taken place it has absolotely nothing to do with the rise in awareness and acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuality has existed for as long as mankind has, in both the good times and in the darker times of human history. If America would abide by all of the Constituion and not just the parts we like then there would be no more decay in American morals than there would be if we continued to ignore the rights of human beings.
2. To believe that humans derive their moral compass from the bible is absurd. The bible has no clear instructions for how mankind should behave. It points to the entire spectrum of morals and therefore has none of its own. You can say that I only "cherry pick" the verses I want to hear in order to edify my arguement but in essence you have to do the same in order to bolster your own.
Example: If I told you that murder was wrong and that your punishment was eternal damnation if you commit such an act but then order you to do so you would consider me a hipocrite however I can provide you with references in the bible that both condemned and condone murder. If I told you to kill your neighbors family, rob him of all of his possessions and infect him with a desease you think I was a monster and yet people would argue there is a lesson to be had in a mans faith to survive such events.
I think people find it ok to discriminate against homosexuals because they dehumanize them. They say that something is wrong with them, that they are less than you or I. This is the same argument people used for slavery and the suppression of women for centuries.
I think this board is full of intellegent and well spoken people. I am not trying to start a religious war, however I find it unbelievable that to this very day we refuse someone a sense of happiness and liberty because we are uncomfortable with their choice. Someday I hope to look back on this period of time with the same disdain that we have for Slavery or the suppression of Womens rights.
-
How can a religion that uses copy and paste text from other religions, that has on its own no direction in regard to morals, provide the guiding light to all that is right?
1. I don't believe that correlatation equates itself to causation.
The NRA was formed in 1871 only a few short years after the abolishment of slavery. That does not mean it was formed by scared white folk who wanted to arm themselves against an aggressive African population that no longer had homes or work. While the decay of morals has indeed taken place it has absolotely nothing to do with the rise in awareness and acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuality has existed for as long as mankind has, in both the good times and in the darker times of human history. If America would abide by all of the Constituion and not just the parts we like then there would be no more decay in American morals than there would be if we continued to ignore the rights of human beings.
2. To believe that humans derive their moral compass from the bible is absurd. The bible has no clear instructions for how mankind should behave. It points to the entire spectrum of morals and therefore has none of its own. You can say that I only "cherry pick" the verses I want to hear in order to edify my arguement but in essence you have to do the same in order to bolster your own.
Example: If I told you that murder was wrong and that your punishment was eternal damnation if you commit such an act but then order you to do so you would consider me a hipocrite however I can provide you with references in the bible that both condemned and condone murder. If I told you to kill your neighbors family, rob him of all of his possessions and infect him with a desease you think I was a monster and yet people would argue there is a lesson to be had in a mans faith to survive such events.
I think people find it ok to discriminate against homosexuals because they dehumanize them. They say that something is wrong with them, that they are less than you or I. This is the same argument people used for slavery and the suppression of women for centuries.
I think this board is full of intellegent and well spoken people. I am not trying to start a religious war, however I find it unbelievable that to this very day we refuse someone a sense of happiness and liberty because we are uncomfortable with their choice. Someday I hope to look back on this period of time with the same disdain that we have for Slavery or the suppression of Womens rights.
You do realize that the whole idea of marriage came from religion? Name one place before modern times there was marriage absent any religion.
-
How can a religion that uses copy and paste text from other religions, that has on its own no direction in regard to morals, provide the guiding light to all that is right?
1. I don't believe that correlatation equates itself to causation.
The NRA was formed in 1871 only a few short years after the abolishment of slavery. That does not mean it was formed by scared white folk who wanted to arm themselves against an aggressive African population that no longer had homes or work. While the decay of morals has indeed taken place it has absolotely nothing to do with the rise in awareness and acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuality has existed for as long as mankind has, in both the good times and in the darker times of human history. If America would abide by all of the Constituion and not just the parts we like then there would be no more decay in American morals than there would be if we continued to ignore the rights of human beings.
2. To believe that humans derive their moral compass from the bible is absurd. The bible has no clear instructions for how mankind should behave. It points to the entire spectrum of morals and therefore has none of its own. You can say that I only "cherry pick" the verses I want to hear in order to edify my arguement but in essence you have to do the same in order to bolster your own.
Example: If I told you that murder was wrong and that your punishment was eternal damnation if you commit such an act but then order you to do so you would consider me a hipocrite however I can provide you with references in the bible that both condemned and condone murder. If I told you to kill your neighbors family, rob him of all of his possessions and infect him with a desease you think I was a monster and yet people would argue there is a lesson to be had in a mans faith to survive such events.
I think people find it ok to discriminate against homosexuals because they dehumanize them. They say that something is wrong with them, that they are less than you or I. This is the same argument people used for slavery and the suppression of women for centuries.
I think this board is full of intellegent and well spoken people. I am not trying to start a religious war, however I find it unbelievable that to this very day we refuse someone a sense of happiness and liberty because we are uncomfortable with their choice. Someday I hope to look back on this period of time with the same disdain that we have for Slavery or the suppression of Womens rights.
Never heard of the 10 commandments I guess. ::)
-
Ok, JdePietro leave religion out of it. My main beef against homosexuality is that it goes against the laws of NATURE. Humans beings are not designed to have sex with other humans of the same sex. Whether you believe in religion (of which none condones homosexuality) or evolution (also doesn't advance without a man and a woman) Any way you slice it, homosexuality is an unnatual act.
-
You do realize that the whole idea of marriage came from religion? Name one place before modern times there was marriage absent any religion.
Yes, it did come from religion, but not one specific religion. Marriage is not a concept exclusive to christianity. Seeing as how the government shall make no laws endorsing a specific religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, if one religion wants to allow gays to marry, they should be allowed to do so and the government should recognize it just as they have done with other religious marriages for the last 2+ centuries.
-
Ok, JdePietro leave religion out of it. My main beef against homosexuality is that it goes against the laws of NATURE. Humans beings are not designed to have sex with other humans of the same sex. Whether you believe in religion (of which none condones homosexuality) or evolution (also doesn't advance without a man and a woman) Any way you slice it, homosexuality is an unnatual act.
Lots of things go against the "laws of nature"; Processed foods, mood altering drugs, shoes, driving a Prius . . . yet we don't prohibit people from poisoning their bodies with shitty foods or drinking beer or driving a really gay ass car.
And if sexual attraction to the same sex were against the laws of nature, you wouldn't see instances of it elsewhere in the animal kingdom, yet it's common in dolphins and many ape species.
As far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't restrict me from doing what I want to do and providing for my family, I couldn't care less. If you can show me how allowing two people of the same sex to get married will restrict my freedom in any way, I may change my tune. Otherwise, I couldn't care less.
-
This conversation/argument is the reason that Obamanation endorsed gay marriage after "evolving"!
It's taken the conversation to a trivial, theoretical and divisive direction rather than speak to his lack of accomplishments during his tenure in the White House!
Read my lips fingertips...."IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"
-
Lots of things go against the "laws of nature"; Processed foods, mood altering drugs, shoes, driving a Prius . . . yet we don't prohibit people from poisoning their bodies with shitty foods or drinking beer or driving a really gay ass car.
And if sexual attraction to the same sex were against the laws of nature, you wouldn't see instances of it elsewhere in the animal kingdom, yet it's common in dolphins and many ape species.
As far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't restrict me from doing what I want to do and providing for my family, I couldn't care less. If you can show me how allowing two people of the same sex to get married will restrict my freedom in any way, I may change my tune. Otherwise, I couldn't care less.
I agree, this shouldn't even be a political issue. Why is the government involved with it at all? I may not agree with the practice, but the government should have no say in it since it is not violating anyone elses rights.
-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=KJV
Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Forced acceptance of homosexuality violates the 1st Amendment.
-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=KJV
Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Forced acceptance of homosexuality violates the 1st Amendment.
To say that the government shall not restrict the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof is meant to allow anyone to worship as they see fit. It doesn't force you or your religion to accept or condone the practices of other religions. Allowing the Amish to live as they live doesn't mean you have to give up technology or have sex with your wife through a hole in a sheet.
Claiming that this somehow forces you to accept and/or partake in the practice of homosexuality is absurd. It doesn't force you to believe or accept anything. It simply allows the religions who want to allow gay marriage to do so. For them not be allowed to is more a violation of their first amendment right of free exercise of religion. The whole "your beliefs are different than my beliefs and therefore wrong" argument is the basis for many a holy war/jihad and has caused the death of many millions of people throughout the centuries. Your beliefs don't apply to everyone and to try to force those beliefs on others is a true restriction of that concept of freedom upon which this country was founded.
Again, the government shouldn't have anything to say about it. Let the individual churches decide who they will marry or not marry.
-
As was pointed out there is clear evidence of homosexuality within the animal kingdom. If you are not swayed I suppose I can dig up countless entries on the web of this existance. Point is it shouldn't matter. Homosexuality in no way shape or form detracts from your existance so why concern yourself with others affairs?
Yes I am very aware of the ten commandments. I am also aware that after they were put out God ordered the Isrealites to kill everyone in Jerico because any left alive could spread the worship of false gods among them. That what I was talking about earlier.
This arguement is a simple and clear one. People believe that we only have religion to provide us with morals and that anyone who goes against these morals makes society corrupt. I will argue that mankind has derived his morals based soley on the understanding of the world around him.
I will give you chaps something to ponder in this regard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ&feature=share&list=PL0EFCB22DFCD4F2E7
-
To say that the government shall not restrict the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof is meant to allow anyone to worship as they see fit. It doesn't force you or your religion to accept or condone the practices of other religions. Allowing the Amish to live as they live doesn't mean you have to give up technology or have sex with your wife through a hole in a sheet.
Claiming that this somehow forces you to accept and/or partake in the practice of homosexuality is absurd. It doesn't force you to believe or accept anything. It simply allows the religions who want to allow gay marriage to do so. For them not be allowed to is more a violation of their first amendment right of free exercise of religion. The whole "your beliefs are different than my beliefs and therefore wrong" argument is the basis for many a holy war/jihad and has caused the death of many millions of people throughout the centuries. Your beliefs don't apply to everyone and to try to force those beliefs on others is a true restriction of that concept of freedom upon which this country was founded.
Again, the government shouldn't have anything to say about it. Let the individual churches decide who they will marry or not marry.
Your reply seems intentionally obtuse.
You have it exactly wrong, the 1st Amendment guarantees that people who practice Judeo/Christian or Muslim morality will not be forced to accept what their beliefs classify as an abomination punishable by death.
It also guarantees that Catholic organizations will not be required to fund contraception.
-
You have it exactly wrong, the 1st Amendment guarantees that people who practice Judeo/Christian or Muslim morality will not be forced to accept what their beliefs classify as an abomination punishable by death.
Nowhere in any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say Judeo/Christian or Muslim morality. It simply says "religion". You are not being forced to accept anything other than to coexist with other human beings who have different beliefs than you.
The first amendment gives the freedom of speech, yet it doesn't give anyone the right to not be offended by someone's speech.
The fact that gay people exist in the same geographic part of the world where you live does not by any means that you have to accept their lifestyle. Do muslims have to accept people around them eating bacon or drinking beer, even though in their belief system, that is an abomination punishable by death? Are you being forced to accept the Gaiaistic beliefs of native Americans, even though that would be considered worshipping false idols? Are you forced to believe that Joseph Smith made up some cockamamie story about gold tablets in a language only he could understand? No. But the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to believe what they want to believe without restriction or persecution.
The right to the free exercise of religion is a right bestowed to everyone by the first amendment. To deny anyone that right, whether you agree with their belief system or not is wrong as long as they are a law abiding citizen.
If you want to go the biblical route, please refer to Luke 6:31. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."
-
a few years ago San Francisco had an employee. That employee had a partner at the time. The partner went through a sex change operation(s) paid for by the city's health insurance plan.
Is Obamacare going to pay for sex change surgeries?
-
lhprop1 wrote:
Do muslims have to accept people around them eating bacon or drinking beer, even though in their belief system, that is an abomination punishable by death?
well, they certainly aren't tolerant of alcohol and pRon "consumption" by Americans deployed overseas.
I guess it's sort of a "when in Rome..." thing.... I guess. ???
well for us Americans anyway. it appears to me that assimiliating to American culture just "ain't" their thing.
-
Nowhere in any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say Judeo/Christian or Muslim morality. It simply says "religion". You are not being forced to accept anything other than to coexist with other human beings who have different beliefs than you.
The first amendment gives the freedom of speech, yet it doesn't give anyone the right to not be offended by someone's speech.
The fact that gay people exist in the same geographic part of the world where you live does not by any means that you have to accept their lifestyle. Do muslims have to accept people around them eating bacon or drinking beer, even though in their belief system, that is an abomination punishable by death? Are you being forced to accept the Gaiaistic beliefs of native Americans, even though that would be considered worshipping false idols? Are you forced to believe that Joseph Smith made up some cockamamie story about gold tablets in a language only he could understand? No. But the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to believe what they want to believe without restriction or persecution.
The right to the free exercise of religion is a right bestowed to everyone by the first amendment. To deny anyone that right, whether you agree with their belief system or not is wrong as long as they are a law abiding citizen.
If you want to go the biblical route, please refer to Luke 6:31. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."
You're using a whole lot of words to say you don't "get it".
Still.
Let me make it as absolutely ,little word simple as possible.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all RELIGIONS.
Are you with me so far ?
OK.
Next, they all find homosexuality to be an abhorrent perversion, (remember that quote from Leviticus ?)
Still following me ?
Remember that thing I referenced earlier called the First Amendment ?
Remember that bit about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ?
Do you understand now, or do I have to spell out that the so called "Law of the land" AKA (that means "also known as" )
the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws that force religions to accept things they find reprehensible.
Is that simple enough ?
I wasn't to mean for you was I ?
lhprop1 wrote:
well, they certainly aren't tolerant of alcohol and pRon "consumption" by Americans deployed overseas.
I guess it's sort of a "when in Rome..." thing.... I guess. ???
well for us Americans anyway. it appears to me that assimiliating to American culture just "ain't" their thing.
I don't know where you found the quote from lhprop1 but it doesn't apply. Muslims and Jews aren't allowed to eat pork themselves but their dietary laws don't apply to others.
Also, an accurate reading of the Koran does not prohibit the use of alcohol, only "the fruit of the vine", for example Mead is perfectly acceptable to Islam.
-
lhprop1 wrote:
well, they certainly aren't tolerant of alcohol and pRon "consumption" by Americans deployed overseas.
I guess it's sort of a "when in Rome..." thing.... I guess. ???
Haha. I sent a care package to my buddy when he was in Iraq. They must have thought he had really bad breath when a box with a bunch of bottles of "Scope" showed up. I was also sure to include some packages of pepperoni and some nudie magazines, too. I guess I just like pushing peoples' buttons.
-
I do hope we aren't pushing the idea that laws should be taken from the Bible or any religion's book. Sharia law comes to mind.
Morals, for sure, can be based upon religious texts but they are binding only to those who follow that particular religion....and they still cannot violate the law as based upon the Constitution. Do we want our laws to address punishment for kids who do not Honor thier Father and Mother? Do we want laws that proscribe punishment for the sin of Coveting...either your neighbors wife or goods?
I do not. Let those be morals and do not push to have your moral system imposed on others, no matter if your's is Christianity, Islam or Satanism.
In our Republic laws protect the rights of individuals. For something to be against the law, it must harm others in a direct manner. If it only hurts your feelings, Philw has a nice form for you to fill out.
Many of our laws will follow the tenements of various religions...like murder, theft, lying to defraud and others. Other offenses against your religious beliefs are sins for those who follow your religion, but they are not crimes.
For a civil union between gays to be a crime, you need to show where someone is harmed other than their sensitivities.
If, somehow, gay's getting their rights protected causes other's rights to be lessened, the cause of that should be addressed, but it is NOT the gay's exercising their rights.
I said Civil Union rather than Marriage to avoid the semantics argument over the religious definition of Marriage.
I will not judge the worthiness of a couples commitment to each other, be it in a gay Civil Union or a heterosexual Marriage. That is between them.
And yes, I understand that homosexual unions are unnatural in that they cannot produce offspring. But making Civil Unions a crime because of that only means it is just as valid to outlaw Marriage between heterosexual couple who are unable to reproduce...or those who choose not to raise children. Of course a heterosexual couple can artificially conceive (not such a natural act there either) if the woman is able to conceive. But then would that mean lesbian couples can form a Civil Union because they can conceive in the same way?
My only reservation about homosexual civil union is if that allows them to adopt children. I have no proof, but my "emotional" feeling, not my logical view, is that it would not be good for the children. However, the record of heterosexual couples for raising offspring isn't so perfect it can be used as an example.
-
You're using a whole lot of words to say you don't "get it".
Still.
Let me make it as absolutely ,little word simple as possible.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all RELIGIONS.
Are you with me so far ?
OK.
Next, they all find homosexuality to be an abhorrent perversion, (remember that quote from Leviticus ?)
Still following me ?
Remember that thing I referenced earlier called the First Amendment ?
Remember that bit about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ?
Do you understand now, or do I have to spell out that the so called "Law of the land" AKA (that means "also known as" )
the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws that force religions to accept things they find reprehensible.
Is that simple enough ?
I wasn't to mean for you was I ?
The Constitution never referenced any specific religion. If it had, it would be by default, endorsing a religion. IT DOES NOT ONLY APPLY TO JUDEO/CHRISTIAN OR MUSLIM BELIEFS. IT APPLIES TO ALL RELIGIONS. Or do I have to use smaller words for that to be more understandable?
Prohibiting religions who believe it's ok for gays to marry from letting them get married is about as clear of a violation of "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. How is that not clear?
the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws that force religions to accept things they find reprehensible.
That is absolutely, completely false. The Constitution prohibits the government endorsement of any one (or multiple) religions and allows for the free exercise of any religion no matter how reprehensible you may personally find it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Nowhere in there does it say that you have a right to not have your feelings hurt. I can go over the individual words to make sure you understand the definitions, but to me, that's just as crystal clear as 2A.
Most major religions are against war of any kind, yet most christians fully accept that their tax dollars support many wars.
-
Yes, it did come from religion, but not one specific religion. Marriage is not a concept exclusive to christianity. Seeing as how the government shall make no laws endorsing a specific religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, if one religion wants to allow gays to marry, they should be allowed to do so and the government should recognize it just as they have done with other religious marriages for the last 2+ centuries.
I never said a specific religion did I? I'm trying to point out that marriage came from religion. No matter how you look at it, it has religious origins. Why would someone want to force their beliefs on a religion that wants nothing to do with them? To undermine the religion itself and make it worthless.
-
I do hope we aren't pushing the idea that laws should be taken from the Bible or any religion's book. Sharia law comes to mind.
No, that is not the point.
The point is that the CULTURAL standards the country was built on were those of Christianity.
That is why the Federal Govt recognizes Sunday as the "day of rest", instead of Friday, the sabbath day of both Islam and the Jews.
What lhprop1 refuses to understand is that all this "gay rights" BS is crap, it is not the problem.
It is a symptom of the real problem, which is the undermining of the things that gave Western civilization it's strength.
It's education, Patriotism, and predominantly Christian religious faith which includes morality and ethics.
Any one who can not grasp that the break down of those things must lead to their opposite is part of the problem.
-
No, that is not the point.
The point is that the CULTURAL standards the country was built on were those of Christianity.
That is why the Federal Govt recognizes Sunday as the "day of rest", instead of Friday, the sabbath day of both Islam and the Jews.
What lhprop1 refuses to understand is that all this "gay rights" BS is crap, it is not the problem.
It is a symptom of the real problem, which is the undermining of the things that gave Western civilization it's strength.
It's education, Patriotism, and predominantly Christian religious faith which includes morality and ethics.
Any one who can not grasp that the break down of those things must lead to their opposite is part of the problem.
Tom this is exactly my point of contention. Christianity is not what provided this country with its basis for morals. This country derived its morals from mankinds understanding of the world as it was. Christianity utilizes the bible for its basis on morality, the bible does not have any clear morals, only copied stories from other religions that ultimate share every view on morality and in the end has none of its own. A concept that shares all concepts has none. The gays are not going to bring about the end of times, they are not going to convert everyone to their lifestyle and they will not cease male, female couples from populating the planet.
I understand that marriage in context is a religious practice, there are religions that accept homosexuality and will honor their beliefs in an antiquated ceramony. It is the binding contract that is offered by law to allow partners medical decisions and retirement/insurance benifits that homosexuals seek.
Allowing men and women of consenting age the ability to legally bind themselves to each other does not detract from your quality of life, it does not detract from anyone's life experience. It allows a greater freedom within the population to express themselves.
Nobody is asking that any religion be forced by law to perform said unions. Nobody is asking that the Church be made to accept homosexuality. What is being asked is that the practice of discimination against homosexuality cease by the federal government which has already adopted doctrine that condems discimination at its very core.
I like you Tom I think you are a very smart guy, and I think that if you really search your heart you will find that there is really no reason to tell someone who will never effect your life how they must live theirs.
I don't have countless hours to explain why I don't feel Christianity is the basis for all moral arguement so the best I can do is offer everyone a link to a series of three videos on youtube that explain my point in great detail. I encourage everyone seeking this aspect of my point to watch them.
http://youtu.be/T7xt5LtgsxQ
http://youtu.be/hSS-88ShJfo
http://youtu.be/sN-yLH4bXAI
After this post I concede the floor. Sometimes the only conclusion to reach is that we agree to disagree.
-
Sometimes the only conclusion to reach is that we agree to disagree.
Which is why I rarely, if ever (anymore), get into religious/political debate..... so, IMHO, I agree to disagree (particularly with the Biblical references).
People believe what they believe...and, for the most part, nothing I say will change that.....so, my public 'stance' (as far as internet forums go) is that I will not try to force my beliefs onto anyone. General conversation is one thing, but trying to 'force' or beat one's opinion into someone via repetition is pointless at best. If, in normal dialogue, someone asks me to tell them my stance (or if it fits the theme of discussion), I will freely give it, as it is my belief to bear witness freely to anyone whom will freely receive it.
There is one thing I CAN do for my nation and my DRTV brethren (whether they like it or not...or believe it or not)...and no one can prevent me......and that is to pray. :)
*Also, I would submit the following as a general commentary: ;D
Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
However, government bureaucracies often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Saying things like "This is the way we always have ridden this horse."
4. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
5. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
6. Appointing a committee to study the dead horse.
7. Waiting for the horse's condition to improve from this temporary downturn.
8. Providing additional training to increase riding ability.
9. Passing legislation declaring "This horse is not dead."
10. Blaming the horse's parents.
11. Acquiring additional dead horses for increased speed.
12. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
13. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
14. Commissioning a study to see if private contractors can ride it cheaper.
15. Removing all obstacles in the dead horse's path.
16. Taking bids for a state-of-the art dead horse.
17. Declaring the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
18. Revising the performance requirements for horses.
19. Saying the horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
20. Raising taxes (any excuse will do).
And if all else fails:
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
-
I recently read a comment somewhere else that most of America is so deeply brainwashed that they can not comprehend basic truth if you engrave it on a nail and pound it through their skull, (that is a paraphrase ).
You people who defend gay marriage, which I actually don't give a sh!t about in and of itself, (even gays should have the joys of alimony and losing half their stuff ) are to blinded to see that the natural progression after the "Gay Rights" movement was to start pushing for the acceptance of ever more deviant behavior.
You say who cares about "consenting adults", what are you going to say when NAMBLA becomes more open in it's push for rights for child molesters ?
My time may not be that valuable, but I am still sick of wasting it on tools.