Obama comes out......

[Tyler Durden]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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]

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.  

[Solus]

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.

[lhprop1]

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.

[Sponsor]

[bodean87]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[JdePietro]

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.

[PegLeg45]

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:  

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.