I am
I am
Follow

Okay, I Want To See Who's Really In Charge Around Here ......

Posted over 4 years ago
As I was cruising the Republican haunts online, looking for an "article about the Council for National Policy Summit in Salt Lake City and their threat to run a 3rd party candidate.":http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14869664, I came across this nugget of "good" news. This old dead mule that Republicans keep beating never fails to amuse me.
"*Thompson defends gay marriage stance...*":http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/611/story/205118.html
The synopsis (if your to lazy to read the article) is;"Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage"My question is, Why?Is because he believes same sex union is to blame for societies ills?Is he doing it for the children?Exactly, why is gay marriage such a big deal?Of course with an Amendment, social conservatives won't have to deal with those pesky state reciprocity laws that deal with civil unions i.e. JoP marriages. Though he didn't come out and say it, I have a sinking feeling that the word God and Bible have something to do with this. Here is a hinge point from the Biblical perspective;*Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."*And not more then two chapters ahead, we find this;*Lev 20:10-11 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."*
Are they homily? Both of the verses? What make one more real then the other?I wonder how traffic around the Beltway would be if we put to death all of the adulterers. I think the morning commute would be a lot less stressful.As for preserving family, I don't know about that either. Though I don't have them handy, I am sure the statistics on same sex and opposite sex marriages don't compare, even remotely. More social ills stem from: drugs, alcohol, criminal activity, both physical and mental abuse, absence of a spouse in opposite sex marriages than do same sex marriages. I'll see what I can find in the way of proof to bear this out. Thompsons' remarks tell of a bigger truth, as does the Council for National Policy Summit.The separation of between church and state is getting smaller.
0

Comments (69)

  1. ivylander
    ivylander says As a minister I know recently explained it, "abomination" is really a rather strong term to describe the degree of disapproval that homosexuality receives in the Bible. Apparently, eating pork is considered an abomination as well. So perhaps we should institute a Constitutional amendment banning barbecue.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  2. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Let the people decide
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  3. I am
    I am says Or or ... 10 dollar words. My next post. The 28th Amendment ... or The Amendment the Good Ole Boys Had A Hard Time Signing .... I offer this as a refresher. Commentary to follow. *On this day hence forth, usage of 10 dollar words and "pig stickin'" be bound by Federal jurisdiction, and tried under these laws of the United States of America.*
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  4. I am
    I am says That is what frightens me. Allegations of voter fraud aside, fundamentalist scare me. I guess what I am trying to say is; Our Democracy won't be democratic, once it changes to a theocracy. According to the rules of the Bible. There is only one rule: God's Rule. Exactly how do they plan on codifying this rule? Do you realize how many versions of the Bible there are? Which one is the right one? And who gets to pick it? I really don't think I am being Elitist when I say, "Do the "People" really know what they are buying into?"
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  5. I am
    I am says Did anyone else see the "Certified Christian Dating" ad at the bottom of the Thompson article?
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  6. ivylander
    ivylander says If our leaders really gave a rat's ass about the will of the majority (as opposed to "the base"), guns would not be sold without thorough background checks and homosexuals would be left alone to live as they see fit. Every poll I've ever seen shows a clear majority of Americans in favor of those positions. So why does nothing change? For one of two reasons. Either because there's no much money in it that lobbyists can manufacture public opinion - or the perception of public opinion - through clever manipulation of our emotions, or else because keeping a wound open and throbbing suits somebody's political purpose. Nothing to do with what most people actually want.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  7. I am
    I am says Geez Billy, don't sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  8. ivylander
    ivylander says Don't know about anybody else, but I am deeply committed to a tax cut in which 30 percent of the benefits go to the richest 1 percent of the population. If that's what it takes to ensure that domestic partners receive no extension of health benefits or that the myth of climate change is dismissed, it's a small price to pay.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  9. Groon
    Groon says Good points, and I thoroughly agree, with the exception of your last sentence. I think the fact that this has even become an acceptable issue for debate shows just how much wider the separation has become. Sure, you're always going to find candidates who base their platform on religious-based ideals, but I think most of them would just as quickly say they were in favor of making small rabbits undergo forced broomstick laden anal-rapings if they thought it would give them more votes, or if the powerful Lepus lobby offered to give them money. Kind of got off track there. Sorry.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  10. Rawkkiddoh
    Rawkkiddoh says Gay marriage........man I got into a heated debate with my father on this one the other day. I look at it this way, if you have two people who want to be together, then why not let them do it. It seems us heterosexuals have made a laughing stock of the whole marriage concept, what is it now 50% of marriages end up in divorce. We obviously dont know what we are talking about, and half of the population doesnt even value the actual act of marriage. My father sees homosexuality as immoral and disgusting and I think thats where the problem is. Until that generation is out of office, and we have people with a more open view of what love can actually be, then we might see a change on who can marry who and where.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  11. I am
    I am says I stand by my assertion Groon. We debate when our backs are against the wall. But I concur with your vote getting, anal raping opinion. I think it's Lapis isn't it? Coop, I agree. What did you think of the Toasters?
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  12. Groon
    Groon says Sounds like discussions I get into with my mom. I think it must be a generation thing like you said, but honestly I couldn't care less what other people do with their, um, junk, as long as it's consensual on both ends (and of course, all involved are of age). I can't see why it matters, honestly.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  13. Groon
    Groon says Could be lapis. I wasn't sure so I looked up a website that said lepus.
    Permalink posted 10/01/2007
  14. Cody B
    Cody B says Thanks I am, for being a uniter..not a divder. As for Fred, he looks tired already. I don't think he's in this for the long haul. One more thing, Why do so many care about other peoples business or think they have the right to constitutionally control the way they live?
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  15. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Ivylander is wrong in one respect. The overwhelming majority of people in this country are very much opposed to the idea of same-sex marraige. Each state that has voter initiative has passed an amemdment to their constitution banning such things. That's why in the last fifteen years the concept of voter initiative has gone from being the darling cause of liberal minded folks, to bein' an absolute deal with the devil.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  16. I am
    I am says Here is a link to Polling Report. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  17. fistula spume
    fistula spume says I wasn't going to say anything but since you asked I am... I'm secretly in charge here. I run a multinational secret society that controls everything from phony laws to putting flouride in water to making people allergic to artificial strawberry flavoring. Yup. Secrets out. No one will believe if you tell though. This post never happened.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  18. meko
    meko says I have a sister in law that is (gay) and her girl friend treat me with the total respect and I to them and they would do anything for me, they dont have to answer to Me!!!!. so let it BE.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  19. ivylander
    ivylander says DM, you're probably right about the gay marriage thing, sadly. It's the word marriage. But if you ask whether gay people should have the same rights and privileges as anybody else, I am convinced a sizable majority will say yes. The marriage card has been used to manipulate people - by making the most extreme position the default position, you get people to reject it. It's called the false choice, and it is the political strategy of choice at this very cynical moment in our governmental history.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  20. HelenMarie
    HelenMarie says I'm all about banning pork. (sorry that's all-you all are handling this post very well)
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  21. Cody B
    Cody B says What happens if the majority in a national vote says we should do something that the constitution doesn't allow..say, a state religion?
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  22. RGM
    RGM says Patrick Digs Freddie! Plus Patrick Is all for monogomy & the Lesbian Moment!
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  23. meko
    meko says IVY your are politically correct.LOL
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  24. RGM
    RGM says Seriously, your right the separation between church and state is getting smaller. I do believe in the separation between church and state and I was a church goer at one time. One thing they got wrong is that they think that we are a theocracy, or that our country was setup as a christian nation. That is untrue, you have to look at this objectively. One yes it's about votes, two just pleasing masses, also this is a candidate that the GOP party really wants to continue their agenda. Read between the lines, claudes and gods. They got their war, we ate cake... That is ALL... ;)
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  25. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Yes Ivylander, you are probably correct in your view. Furthermore, each generation becomes more tolerant. I think the extremes of both sides have taken over the argument. A general question to any still reading this thread of incredible thought candy: Would you force, by dint of legislation, a deeply religious man with property to rent, to rent to a same sex couple? I was under the impression that the government was not supposed to force beliefs on the populace! And that is what's at stake here! There are millions and millions of people in this country who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Regardless of what you think of their beliefs, or the philosophical underpinnings thereof, they are entitled to those beliefs. Just as you are entitled to yours. The government has no right, under the constitution, to force one set of beliefs on the people, correct? On a purely scientific level, on a natural level, on a philosophical level, neither side can win. The advocates of same-sex marraige are the ones trying to legislate (im)morality. How very ironic!
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  26. Rawkkiddoh
    Rawkkiddoh says the toasters have always been one of my favorites.........sorry I am a little late answering
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  27. Cody B
    Cody B says All men are created equal! The government is just following the Declaration of Independence when they attempt to stop discrimination. No new legislation is needed. They got it right the first time. The government is just getting around to upholding its own original standard.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  28. dharmachris
    dharmachris says Another excellent post. I am troubled by the call to ban pork. heh.... Even if pork is used in both haggis and scrapple production. In general, I agree with DM that each generation gets successively tolerant. Though, the recent news burst around the "Jena 6" incident last year in Louisiana makes you wonder how far we have come. And your questions are very provocative. And though a popular referendum is not something I would support on this, leaving it to each state to determine what degree of civil union-ness is permissible is likely a better solution. If that had been done with Roe v Wade, that issue might not have been as polarizing as it became.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  29. waydutch
    waydutch says DMDM - "...The advocates of same-sex marraige are the ones trying to legislate (im)morality.." No trying to preserve FREEDOM, what this country is about! At least that's what they taught me in grade school. Your "deeply religious man with property to rent" has pretty open choices of who can and can't live in his homestead, now if he wants to be providing housing on a commercial basis outside of his homestead, he has to not discriminate, that's the choice he makes to conduct commercial business. Turning that around to say his religious beliefs should be enforced by the law is where the forcing of beliefs on others occurs, not the other way around. The Religious Right’s thinking we should be legislating Christianity always strikes me as unchristian. Didn’t Jesus say something like "leave on to Caesar what is Caesars”. (or to paraphase it, stay out of politics)?
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  30. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Leave it to the states! Very good! And yet....... Isn't a constitutional amendment just that? No scratch that, at some point all dissenting states would have to fall in line if enough states ratified it. But if its to be state's rights issue, what do we do about reciprocacity(?) (hey, its late!). One thing is certain, very certain. The people by an overwhelming majority do not want (gay marraige) forced upon them by the courts. The current backlash we are witnessing is a direct result of activist judges with extralegal agends.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  31. dharmachris
    dharmachris says PA does not require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Other states do. Each state has differing rules on voting, ie, based on length of residency, open vs closed primaries, etc. Thats what I meant by leave it up to the states. A majority may not support gay marriage. But a majority may support civil unions. When one of our friend's partner was sick, my friend would have had no legal recourse as to handling his partner's affairs, visiting, etc, if things went badly, or if the hospital was feeling strict. That seems wrong to me. And I still don't see how their marriage imperils the sanctity of mine.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  32. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says And yet every mechanism exists to rectify that situation, legaly, if they choose. And waydutch, why do you insist on dragging religion into this! You are dead wrong when you insist its a battle for freedom. It is exactly as I said it is...One set of people using the powers of the government to force its BELIEFS on others! Period. One religion is multi-theist. One religion is atheist. The constitution says the state shall establish no religion. period. Now we know in the lexicon of the liberals "establish" means tolerate, so they read it that way. Again, the virulent backlash is engendered by the few forcing (or attempting to) their views as the only correct views, and using government institutions to do so.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  33. I am
    I am says Jeff, Dutch is right when he "brought religion" into this. I have to ask you why you think gay marriage isn't something the country can bear? What is it in the minds of voters when they go to the polls? Why are civil unions and extension of health care benes such a bad thing? Really, dig deep and tell me why Americans don't want this. My guess is a Christian centered world view. Theology has everything to do with this issue as does abortion. Why make it a Constitutional Amendment? Look at Prohibition.
    Permalink posted 10/02/2007
  34. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says As I have said. It matters not why people believe as they do. You still would force your beliefs on them. YOU CAN'T DO THAT! The simple irreducible fact is this. We are here for one reason, to make our replacements. In that light, gay-marraige is unnatural. You who would force your "religion of reason" on the "faithful" are guilty of exactly the "crime" you accuse them of. I AM<>do not ask me to speak for anyone but myself.
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  35. dermahrk
    dermahrk says I think the idea of banning gay marriage is ridiculous and counterproductive. But let me go back to a prior point made by Ivylander. 30% of that tax benefit may've gone to the richest 1% BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING at least 30% OF ALL TAX DOLLARS. I am a tax man (cue Beatles track), and I am severely taxed. The fact is that the well-to-do make a tremendous financial contribution towards running this country, while the poor receive all of the same government benefits for free or cheap. That's ok. It's socialism of a sort, but I pay my taxes hoping that the government will spend the money wisely (I said HOPING. I'm not insane). Furthermore, that tax cut gave the economy a tremendous boost. My two cents (and 5 figure tax bill!).
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  36. I am
    I am says Why DM, you seem to be doing a good job so far, talking for both sides that is. Reason is not a religion. Why isn't polygomy not more prevalent today? Jeff you didn't really answer my questions.
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  37. RGM
    RGM says Yup health care benefits are it, and abortions. Polygomy! Dude! You want to add a new prob\issue now?
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  38. Lizziegreeneyes
    Lizziegreeneyes says Why the world has placed such a stigma on homosexuality is beyond me - ancient times - men were beebopping all over the place. That's right - lying with other men. I am so FOR gay marriage & gay rights it's sick. Why must it be such a hot topic ???? I second Kev's statement - if two people love each other & want to unite in matrimony - where does ANYONE get off saying they can't ??? (there Chris... you got my response) ;P
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  39. ivylander
    ivylander says Mark, I'd hope that the richest 1% of Americans is paying 30% of the taxes, because as of 2001, before any of the recent tax cuts were enacted, they were bringing in 33.4% of our nation's wealth. In fact, those who believe in the merits of a progressive tax system (as opposed to, say, a flat tax) would probably argue that they should be paying an overall percentage that is higher than 33.4%.
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  40. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says "they were bringing in 33.4% of our nation’s wealth" True enough, but meaningless without adding that they create wealth for all of us. Lizzy says>I second Kev’s statement – if two people love each other & want to unite in matrimony – where does ANYONE get off saying they can’t ??? No one has the right to tell them they cannot do so. But many have a problem with the state's sanctioning of such unions. Every mechanism exists for them to do so now, under current law. I AM (the poor unrecognized one) says> "Reason is not a religion" And of course, Idealy he's right. Ahhh but FAITH in reason is indistinguishable from FAITH in a diety. The leader of the world's Catholics said in his latest encyclical that faith without reason is an empty, fruitless husk. But what I find most interesting, Mr I AM (the poor unrecognized one) is how you assign me my position and ascribe to me my motivation. ">Really, dig deep and tell me why Americans don’t want this. My guess is a Christian centered world view. Theology has everything to do with this issue as does abortion. Why make it a Constitutional Amendment? Look at Prohibition." Now, I understand, as you must, that your stance is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on the opposition's faith-based stance. (of course ignoring your own faith based stance). Because you believe that your faith is superior to others, and you want the state to codify your ethics as state ethics. My opposition, (though it barely exists) stems from the nexus of science/reason/philosophy, having nothing to do with religious beliefs of any kind. But I've explained that before, in this very thread, but you chose not to acknowledge it. Instead you challenge me to answer questions so freighted with bias that no suitable question will suffice. In the end, though, as I said way back when; When the people are asked their opinion (no not in polls, in the voting booth) they invariably choose to define marraige as between a man and a woman. You need this to be faith based opposition because any other stance short circuits all your arguments. You won't/can't admit that the motivation for one's beliefs is entirely irrelavent. You hang your hat on one foolish interpretation of one word in the constitution, not daring to admit any other interpretation because to do so would render your points to be an unfortunate byproduct of our ego-driven, narcissistic society. >
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  41. ivylander
    ivylander says Do the rich really create wealth for others? Enough to merit them a (relatively) light tax burden? That, if I recall correctly, was the asssumption behind supply-side economics, which was the cornerstone of Reagan's economic policy. Tax cuts were enacted without similar limitations on spending - the idea was that increased productivity and economic growth would make up the difference and then some. The fact that the vast majority of mainstream economists disagreed with this analysis was considered irrelevant, perhaps even a virtue - the "so-called experts" couldn't absorb the great common sense of this idea, it was argued by its proponents. Except that, as practiced by the Reagan White House, the tax cuts didn't work. By any measure you care to name, they just didn't work. They created a short-term prosperity - the kind you might enjoy while you were maxing out your credit cards. But the anticipated revenues never quite arrived. David Stockman, Reagan's budget chief, later admitted to cooking the books and acknowledged that the "rising tide raises all ships" rhetoric accompanying the tax cuts was the administration's way of selling to the general public a tax cut that was designed as a benefit to the rich. You might remember that the late '80s and early '90s were when the bill came due. That eternally prosperous future vanished before our eyes. We spent the '90s more or less rebuilding our economic system. We were lucky that high tech came around to jump-start the economy, but we were also smart to pay down the national debt and move toward getting out books in order. It seemed as if we had learned something from our supply-side misadventure. That supposition turned out to be wrong. Because of the return of supply-side economics - lower taxes, more spending, the wishful thinking that we can grow our way out of deficits - we are now seeing the fruits of the mistaken belief that cutting taxes on the rich results in long-term economic good for all Americans. I tend to cast my lot with those people whose philosophy mirrors a bumper sticker I saw a couple of years ago in Texas: "Real conservatives don't do deficits."
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  42. I am
    I am says I am thinking your missing the point here gentleman and ladies. Bill, Jeff and Mark I am a neophyte when it comes to tax law and reform. I will admit that freely, I am out of my element. So I won't comment on any of that stuff. But I do know religion and I do know philosophy. Jeff, I am glad you stooped to name calling and cheap shots. It only bolsters my view that much more. I can see that this has become personal. I will address your points the best I can. *“Reason is not a religion” And of course, Idealy he’s right. Ahhh but FAITH in reason is indistinguishable from FAITH in a diety. The leader of the world’s Catholics said in his latest encyclical that faith without reason is an empty, fruitless husk.* Of course the Pope would say that. Much of the Catholic churches doctrine comes from the idea of "free will". It is free will that drives us away from the core of Christian belief. How narrow-minded and generally foolish of you to say faith in reason is indistinguishable from faith in a deity. Faith in reason stems from a observation of facts, proven and unproven. Faith in a deity is a faith of faith a deity is not bound by observation and hypothesis, it just is. You want to change my mind? Give me facts that can be proven or at least tested. Don't give me conjecture. *But what I find most interesting, Mr I AM (the poor unrecognized one) is how you assign me my position and ascribe to me my motivation.* You do the same thing to me and everyone else who doesn't agree with your point of view. If you don't believe this one I will pull quotes from past posts as a reminder. Here's one:*Because you believe that your faith is superior to others, and you want the state to codify your ethics as state ethics.* and not more than a few sentences away from your allegation. *Now, I understand, as you must, that your stance is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on the opposition’s faith-based stance. (of course ignoring your own faith based stance).* Your right, it is. And that was my original point. I truly believe that much of the coalition against gay marriage is voting from the pews. And politicians are courting their votes in sermons across this country. I don't have a faith based stance on gay marriage, it more of a humanistic stance. *My opposition, (though it barely exists) stems from the nexus of science/reason/philosophy, having nothing to do with religious beliefs of any kind. But I’ve explained that before, in this very thread, but you chose not to acknowledge it. Instead you challenge me to answer questions so freighted with bias that no suitable question will suffice.* Not true, I am not frightened, I am energized by any answers you may give me. If anyone is scared ...... Why couldn't you answer this question; *Why are civil unions and extension of health care benes such a bad thing?* I was hoping to hear some good argument for the ban, but they were not forthcoming. Here's another;*I have to ask you why you think gay marriage isn’t something the country can bear?* Why is so hard to tell me what you think? You are so damn busy defending you positions and yet I have no idea what they are yet. That is how debate works. I/you ask a question and then the other answers. *In the end, though, as I said way back when; When the people are asked their opinion (no not in polls, in the voting booth) they invariably choose to define marraige as between a man and a woman.* If you would have followed the link to Polling Report, you would have found ammunition. Instead you choose to ignore it and decided to argue against my perceived flawed thinking. I was trying to meet you half way but your arrogance got in the way. Way to build consensus. *You need this to be faith based opposition because any other stance short circuits all your arguments. You won’t/can’t admit that the motivation for one’s beliefs is entirely irrelavent.* I am not sure what you mean here. So I can't comment. *You hang your hat on one foolish interpretation of one word in the constitution, not daring to admit any other interpretation because to do so would render your points to be an unfortunate by-product of our ego-driven, narcissistic society.* I have an easier time coming to an agreement when I am not being insulted. My hat hangs on verifiable fact, not one word. And interpretation is the name of the game. You don't like it, go somewhere else. If you have something relevant to say, you are most welcome to stay. Just don't hit me with cheap shots. I am moving on.
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  43. waydutch
    waydutch says Yes, the logic in this gets twisted in the fact that it is a change to tradition, but then so was the end of our colonial allegiance to England, the ending of slavery and Jim Crow laws, and giving woman (and earlier, non-property owners) the right to vote. "no not in polls, in the voting booth"... Unfortunately, an indifference to exercising voting responsibilities in this country leads to low voter turn-out. This causes electoral results to be easily skewed and gives relatively small, unrepresentative, blocks of voters undue influence. I.e. - Thank you Gay Marriage and Ohio for 4 more years of Bush and our current state of foreign affairs - (yes DMDM - Evil Karl was a genius)
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  44. RGM
    RGM says HolyJahofuckJesusFuckingForeSkin!!! Just Let The carpetmuncherses & swordswallowers Marry already!!! For FuckShitSake Man!!! Here someone Fuck Right Said Fred in the Ass & get it over with!!! Here I'll do it!!! We'll even Swap Cum!!! He knows He's wants It's!!!
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  45. I am
    I am says RGM - I gotta ask, have you ever been diagnosed with Tourettes Syndrome. I hear lithium will do wonders. Dutch I got to agree with you. The Porcine One was a great "strategerizerist", he wrote the book on voter turn out.
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  46. RGM
    RGM says Oh I forgot! Amen...
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  47. RGM
    RGM says Delete all if ya' like... Just playing around sir...My apologies...Although I do have a view point on cursing, religion, ethics, semantics, society, and hypocracy...thats another post. Again My apologies... ;)
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  48. RGM
    RGM says So what is Philosophy?
    Permalink posted 10/03/2007
  49. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Name Calling? Cheap Shots? > How narrow-minded and generally foolish of you to say faith in reason is indistinguishable from faith in a deity. Faith in reason stems from a observation of facts, proven and unproven. Faith in a deity is a faith of faith a deity is not bound by observation and hypothesis, it just is. You want to change my mind? Give me facts that can be proven or at least tested. Don’t give me conjecture. Are you being deliberately obtuse here? You could have gotten this right by leaving out a few words, 'cause I agree with you, "Faith stems from observations and facts, proven or unproven." I say again, Your faith in reason asks for all the 'leaps of faith' of any deist faith. Neither can be definitively proven. It takes faith. Your faith in reason is no better or worse than one's faith in a deity. In your mind it is better to put your faith in science. See, that's just an opinion. BTW: How did I insult you? (I need to know for future reference) If you would have followed the link to Polling Report, you would have found ammunition. Instead you choose to ignore it and decided to argue against my perceived flawed thinking. I was trying to meet you half way but your arrogance got in the way. Way to build consensus." I was attempting to make a point about polls, The answers are usually in the questions, but you know that. No one I know feels threatened by the issue of gay marraige. Disgusted, appalled, disbelieving maybe, but threatened? Not at all. I think what we are seeing, as I said, is a backlash against activist judges. You hang your hat on one foolish interpretation of one word in the constitution, not daring to admit any other interpretation because to do so would render your points to be an unfortunate by-product of our ego-driven, narcissistic society. There is an insult here? directed at you? where?
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  50. I am
    I am says *Why are civil unions and extension of health care benes such a bad thing?* *I have to ask you why you think gay marriage isn’t something the country can bear?* DMDM, two unloaded questions you still haven't answered. You dance and dance. Yet you still are not forthcoming. You attack tactic. *I think what we are seeing, as I said, is a backlash against activist judges.* I don't think the general public cares about activist judges. They are voting cause the bible says it's wrong.
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  51. Cody B
    Cody B says So I see this thread got revived...It would be great if we could vote on every question, but we'd be voting an awful lot. Since we can barely get folks to come out for the elections we have now, I think we need to back it up a tad. What we need is a national conversation on what exactly what we want our government to do (Federal,State,Local). We need reps somewhere or else we'd be voting on stuff everyday, but if we decide to do that I'm all for it, if it will be fair. I'm sure if we voted on everything there would be some drastic changes made, but to vote on Gay Marraige alone isn't fair. I think there are plenty of other issues that need to come first. 1.How do we defend our country? 2.How do we educate our kids? 3. How do we make this a land of opportunity for all? etc,etc If we could answer some of the big picture questions first: What do we need the goverment for? Will we participate in ruling ourselves? Do we want majority rule (even if it's 51-49)? Then maybe we wouldn't get so bogged down with these smaller issues.
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  52. I am
    I am says Cody B in 2008 on the Hell Yeah! ticket.
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  53. RGM
    RGM says There bad because they cost more $$$...
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  54. RGM
    RGM says Some 1 in goverment needs to call... http://www.ilovekarlrove.com/
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  55. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says 1) Why are civil unions and extension of health care benes such a bad thing? 2) I have to ask you why you think gay marriage isn’t something the country can bear? DMDM , two unloaded questions you still haven’t answered. You dance and dance. Yet you still are not forthcoming. You attack tactic. I think what we are seeing, as I said, is a backlash against activist judges. 3)I don’t think the general public cares about activist judges. They are voting cause the bible says it’s wrong. 1) If you're asking MY opinion, I could give a rat's assets 2) Where did I imply or say that? 3) One more time: You have your faith (In Reason). They have their faith (in Dieties). As I said above, (and you so beautifuly illustrated with you subsequent comment), You belief your faith is superior BECAUSE its based on reason. As far as you're concerned, all else is superstition. I would remind you that there are many brilliant scientists on the cutting edge of every discipline who are deeply religious. I mention that because you think you're laying out a trump ace everytime you make your comparison between faith in reason and faith in a diety. "They are voting cause the bible says it’s wrong." I sure wish I too were all knowing. In your world their can be no other reason to oppose these concepts?
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  56. RGM
    RGM says You know no one for the longest time in a church has heard the name Karl Rove... Maybe now, and don't be surprise if many church goers still believe we went into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. This whole thing is a ploy, remember it's a election time. Remember...
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  57. I am
    I am says I am going to say this once Jeff. Religious faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic and proof. The 2 are almost opposites. If you want to state your case against gay marriage, go right ahead, I will stay and read. If you want to call me names (the unrecognized one) and tell me my faith (Lutheran, BTW), I will disengage and leave you to shout at nobody all by yourself. Since I have been writing and you have taken notice of me and my opinions you have done nothing but cry about flawed interpretation this, hinge on one point that, and generally whine about the delivery and not the message. And you have drawn me into it to. You know, at least I am citing some examples (Biased, sure. It's my opinion after all, its supposed to be.) and evidence (articles and such) to shore up my arguments, you haven't given us anything. Even my Supreme Court examples were not good enough, I mean really. It is the highest court in the effin country and what they decide is law. What do want from me? What kind of argument will be good enough? This is all I will say on the subject, if you want me to continue, cite some examples or bring evidence to the table, if not, I am going to move on to something else.
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  58. RGM
    RGM says Don't take this pesonally, but just the attitude behind the statement bothers me. It has a oh yea or else feel to it. Sounds like a precusor to religious legalism, remember you have the concept of grace in the bible also. You should understand that as a Lutheran, or your church has failed you. Unbelievers don't have this concept, I say let them have their marraige. If your really a Christian, you should know why. I shouldn't have to tell you, but you sound like an Atheist... "I wonder how traffic around the Beltway would be if we put to death all of the adulterers. I think the morning commute would be a lot less stressful."
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  59. RGM
    RGM says PS I sux at this stuff lol... Peace ;)
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  60. I am
    I am says No, no RGM I don't take it personally. Not at all. I can understand your confusion, is it that or more of a "Huh What?". I have wrestled with Christianity much of my adult life. I even entertained entering the Seminary at one point. In my post I was trying to start a conversation about in inherent flaw in fundamentalist belief. They quote the Bible to show justification for a social disagreement, in this case, gay marriage. My point is; If your going to use the Bible as a reference point for one idea you have to use it for all aspects in your life. Another for instance: An eye for an eye, as justification for the death penalty. Yet the teachings of Jesus Christ emphasizes forgivness. I am sure you know the Bible is full of contradictions like this. Which in my mind doesn't lend itself to well as a basis for public policy. You can have your Bible and your beliefs, just don't try to legislate with them. This is the conundrum the Christian Right has to come to grips with. As for declaring I am a Lutheran, that was for DMDM benefit. Just so he knows I am not totally Godless.
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  61. I am
    I am says No sir you don't. Your last comment was well worth the time. Thanks. Feel free to ask questions and disagree. Just watch the language:>)
    Permalink posted 10/04/2007
  62. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Religious faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic and proof. The 2 are almost opposites. OH? There are very many scientists on the cutting edge of every discipline who insist that the more they learn the more convinced they become of the existance of (G)od. Now you can dismiss them out of hand if you wish, but the fact remains. Your defifinition of Religious faith is pretty much on T. But you forget, or choose not to notice, the more generic definition of the word. In a nutshell, its the belief in the unproven and unprovable. Now, Way up there in previous comments I said that you are convinced of the superiority of your faith (in reason), and you cannot understand how come everyone cannot see this simple truth. And then, to beautifully illustrate my point, you came back, on cue, with your argument that of course reason trumps all else, based on.....well because you say so. As I have said elsewhere, and here, I could give a rat's asset portfolio if gays marry each other. I honestly don't care. But I undertand that we live in a society in a culture that has been developing for many millinia. Over time custum become Stone, the sands of law will come and go. The stone, formed over generations of trial and error and experiences changes very very slowly. The attempt as of late to "jumpstart" this "evolution" of our society has backfired badly for the very people attempting the jumpstart. I do not feel at all threatened by gay people, or religious people, or athiests. I watch, bemused. So, a few years from now, as Adam & Steve exit the church and hug and kiss and canoodle for the camera, as Marty and Wilma are hauled away by the thought police for observing and commenting (to each other) on how vile a disgusting the whole thing is, will we be better off?
    Permalink posted 10/05/2007
  63. I am
    I am says Not because I said so Jeff, Those definitions come from the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. *as Marty and Wilma are hauled away by the thought police for observing and commenting (to each other) on how vile a disgusting the whole thing is, will we be better off?* I honestly hope it never comes to this. And I still believe religion has no place in legislation.
    Permalink posted 10/06/2007
  64. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says You see? Ultimately we agree. But I don't give a rat's assessment if folks want to put up religious displays on public grounds to celebrate certain events. Nor should the government, at any level. as Marty and Wilma are hauled away by the thought police for observing and commenting (to each other) on how vile a disgusting the whole thing is, will we be better off? I honestly hope it never comes to this. Read the proposal to add sexual identity to the list of things one can say nothing negative about. Anyway, There's an old Chinese curs..."May you live in interesting times" We got that in spades!
    Permalink posted 10/06/2007
  65. I am
    I am says What were we argueing about again?
    Permalink posted 10/06/2007
  66. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Argument? C'mon, drunks in barrooms argue. We took part in an exchange, a discussion, (a diatribe or two LOL), a lively give n take. In all, a damn good time.
    Permalink posted 10/06/2007
  67. Marigold
    Marigold says I just sat and read this whole thing with my morning coffee. I think you two would make great gay lovers. :P
    Permalink posted 10/06/2007
  68. I am
    I am says Yeah, Thank God for the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy. Wow Mike, you must be a even bigger loser then I am. Just think, now you can go out and tell your friends (both of them) you are truly an expert on gay marriage. Kapow:>)
    Permalink posted 10/06/2007
  69. Marigold
    Marigold says Big loser? Yep. that pretty much sums it up. My wife often refers to me as weird.
    Permalink posted 10/07/2007

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

OR login using Facebook Connect

Connect

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

 

© 2006-2012 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved