249 total posts
(Page 1 of 9)
Re: I still don't understand the ga marriage issue
Give it long enough and some will come along and argue why it is acceptable to discriminate against gays as much as it was to treat blacks as property in our history.
Some will never get it no matter what logic you use.
No, the last group that is legally discriminated against,
and with gusto I might add, is the Christians.
Again, you assert from unsupported, mere opinion
And patently, self-contradictingly, too.
Shall i proceed against your argument tomorrow?
Really and most truly you are painting yourself without any aid from me, as the most narrow and strident of active posters of this forum.
I can demonstrate and will demonstrate my assertion to be fact, not opinion, unless you come right back and at least partially retract your quite personally-to-me, absurd statement above.
So often it is dangerous and underpinning to your cause to be -too brief and cutting- and omitt supporting arguments.
No conclusion thus framed can stand of its own. Self-proclaimed truths must also be self evident.
Yours in general, are not, KP.
Some things are so manifestly obvious that they need no
supporting proof, but if you require some, consider:
President Bush is ridiculed and attacked merely because he has an active, evangelical faith. Witness all the attempts to smear him as 'hearing directly from God'. Such smears, of course, can point to precious little to support them.
Constant attempts are made to suppress the speech of Christians. They cannot express their beliefs without immediate charges that they cannot force their 'religion' on others, and that they are engaged in 'hate' speech.
Christians are forced into slavery (Sudan) simply because they are Christians.
Christians are beaten, jailed, and executed simply because they gather for worship (China).
Christians are painted as 'narrow', 'extremist', 'bigot', 'haters', etc. simply because they verbalize what the Bible says is true.
I could go on at length, but I think the shoe is now on your foot to defend your unsupported statement; 'Again, you assert from unsupported, mere opinion, and patently, self-contradictingly, too'. I might add netsky, that very little of what you say is supported, so why ask me for support? Isn't that a contradiction?
much later, gator...
thank you for your inputs. I shall address later as you are a low priority. My life mate is 74 today. He is my high priority.
And so i cannot pollute my emotions too much in thinking about your heart's hurting. You have a pastoral friend for that, yes?
I note that you took a 'thread' designed for discussion of MY KIND, of particular life-issue, and you proudly hijacked it over to a completely different topic.
Proudly you do this.
And me- mockingly indignant in print at that. Chill your bill of fare i'll get back on this before the night is over. A bright day outside as i write this but here and look at your laundry list of indictements i see in your heart an infection by worms writhing, boring holes.... they have no business being there.
You are a Christian, man!
(NT) ROTFL - You're breaking me up netsky!
Re: Some things are so manifestly obvious that they need no
Some (not all) Christians are attacked because they refuse to abide by the spirit of the First Amendment, which is that you do not impose your "moral values" on others by force of law. Few attack Christians for practicing their faith -- the issue with "prayer in schools" (for instance) is about those who AREN't Chritian, not about those who are. I don't ridicule Bush for his faith -- that's a matter for him and God. The problem comes when he tries to impose HIS values on those who don't share them. The whole "values" thing is very similar to the abortion debate -- many of us share the same values (frinstance, I'm straight, Christian, and monogomous) but don't consider it morally correct to impose those values, or legally discriminate, against those who don't share them. Homophobia is indeed the last legally sanctioned form of discrimination, sad to say.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Re: Some things are so manifestly obvious that they need no
When will the federal govt stop imposing it's moral values upon the states? When will the federal govt realize that IT is the only one restricted from interfering with or supporting religion? When our federal govt was formed that Amendment was intended to keep IT out of state affairs in which religion was also included. Neo-liberal jurists corrupted that view and the current day extension of it upon the state powers is bogus. It is the federal govt that has no say in such matters, neither for nor against, but individual states that have EVERY right, as before, to encourage RELIGIOUS values.
I heard on TV, states dont have to recognize
gay marriages from other states. Sounds good to me.
Re: I heard on TV, states dont have to recognize
They have to recognize them unless the Constitution is changed.
Guess that was a bit of democrat propaganda
But still, I just Googled a bit, to see which states have defined "marriage" as between a man and a woman:
"Gay-marriage bans bulldozed to victory in all 11 states that voted on the measure: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah." USA Today
That could mean that those states wont recognized gay marriage.
What part of the Constitution has to be changed?
Just in case you were thinking about Article IV, Sections 1 & 2 (i.e. "full faith and credit"), note that lawyers have to pass the bar in each State in which they want to practice. i.e. a license to practice law in one State does not allow a lawyer to practice law in the other 49 States.
Not to mention, my Nevada CCW doesn't allow me to carry in any other State. Would be nice if it did, though.
Thats changing -- re CCW: Reciprocity agreements
A 'for example':
The following states will recognize an Ohio concealed handgun license:
Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
Re: What part of the Constitution has to be changed?
The states, in the examples you use, grant you certain privileges that operate within that state. A marriage license is, obviously, different.
"obviously, different" how?
No privileges come with a marriage license?
And where in the Full Faith and Credit clause does it say that this difference, whatever it is, is significant? i.e. where does it say that if things are one way then FF&C applies, and if things are a different way then FF&C does not apply?
Full Faith and Credit is the whole point here
The big argument that the Supreme Court will rule on, if it comes to that, will come about because some blue state grants a marriage license to gays, they move to a red state, then assert that the marriage license must be recognized in the red state due to the Full Faith and Credit clause.
And I believe that the Supreme Court would hold that the red state must recognize the gay marriage license from the blue state.
If the marriage = one man and one woman amendment is not passed by the time such a case is heard, it will be passed shortly thereafter if the Supreme Court holds that the Full Faith and Credit clause requires the red state to recognize the license. It's inevitable, one way or the other.
In other words, it's all a waste of time.
Re: Full Faith and Credit is the whole point here
>"I believe that the Supreme Court would hold that the red state must recognize the gay marriage license from the blue state."
Interesting. Based on what precedent? It doesn't work that way for anything else that I'm aware of. (I believe even driver's licenses are recognized via reciprocity agreements, not Full Faith and Credit.)
Further, it's been my understanding that FF&C meant that State X could not void a judgment rendered in State Y, but State X did not have to abide by that judgment in State X. e.g. California cannot void my Nevada CCW and make it illegal for me to carry in Nevada, but California does not have to honor my Nevada CCW and allow me to carry in California.
If that's the case, then it would follow that the red State in your example would not have to recognize the marriage license issued in the blue State; if, say, the couple wanted to file a joint red State tax return. Although the red State would not be able to void a joint tax return filed in the blue State.
But I'm not the lawyer here - Mark
No they don't. You think they'ld go to all the trouble
of passing an amendment if it could be overridden by another state?
There was an interesting commentary by Rush Limbaugh I happened to catch on Friday. He pointed out that Bush had never actually campained on moral values, but that people had voted for him on that basis. Then he went on to say something very interesting (whether it's true or not). He said that when The Passion came out, it showed the moral dictate of the country, with the number of people going to see it. That showed, in turn, that people believed more in Bush, because of the perceived Christian values.
Let's face one thing: Christians ARE the majority in America. By sheer numbers, they control the most fundamental workings of this country. And sorry, but I include Catholics, SDA, and JWs and Mormons and every other faith here among "Christians" for this purpose. But even if I didn't, it wouldn't really matter. The majority of the folks here ARE Christian. You hold all the cards. It's your sandbox, with your toys. So where do you derive feeling like you are oppressed?
netsky buttsky in
DH brilliant again in summary:
"So where do you derive feeling like you are oppressed?
methinks, --by slight, impotent opposition----
(NT) Everyone needs someone to blame, Diane
Re: Again, you assert from unsupported, mere opinion
Sin is Sin, no matter what you paint it to be.
Agree with KP totally. Yep I guess you can call me narrow minded too! And you know what? I could care less.
no-need- to state the self-evident, but u did, u did
"Yep I guess you can call me narrow minded too! And you know what? I could care less.
Since it is Bush himself who claims to be "guided by God"
Since it is Bush himself who claims to be "guided by God" its not surprising that those of us skeptical about the minority opinion of the Evangelical Right wing tend to belittle his assertion. Frankly I'm surpised he isn't pilloried by Evangelicals for the pride he shows in claiming to speak directly TO and FOR God.
And SOME Christians are portrayed as narrow and bigoted because the description fits, remember that the KKK have always been good church-goin' boys, and the Aryan nation esposes the same view of religion, that the White Christian Nation is under seige from Blacks and Jews and Catholics and other Unbelievers.
To connect with another thread, I have less trouble being lumped in with Whoopi Golberg, nice Jewish girl that she is, than with Oral Roberts ("Give me money or the Lord Will take me") or Jimmy Swaggart ("Just one more ******* Lord, no one needs to know") or Jim Bakker (where to start?) or Benny Hinn ("Where's all the money going?") or any evangelist, television or otherwise who is "Only In It For The Money".
I find mainline churches much more persuasive and much more honest, even including the Catholic Church with all its troubles, because the overall intent is for good. Evangelicals are each little islands unto themselves bound by a loose agreement with others and making up rules for themselves. The problem comes when they try to extend their reach beyond their flock and into society as a whole. They are a minority trying to impose their definitions of morality on the majority.
To espouse those beliefs for yourself is fine but to IMPOSE those beliefs on any one else let alone the Country as a whole is forbidden by the Constitution, that document you say you revere.
Can you prove...
...that Bush doesn't speak to God?
I think most of us speak to God.
Every time the door bell rings I say "God, who in the world is it now!"
But jokes aside, what bothers me is that Bush, from what he has said, seems to think he is doing the will of God. That's scary. The terrorist also think they are doing the will of God.
So does Billy Graham. Is Billy a terrorist now?
I LOVE the process that's passing for logic these days!
Is Billy a terrorist now? In one sense, yes...
he plants terror in the hearts of biblical sinners
He plants hope!
Couldn't let this pass
his religion plants fear of Hell in hearts of sinners.
People, our greatest President George spoke about God in this way, as qouted and editorialized at
"...Yet, Washington was a deist who was very religious. Washington's Farewell Addressee to the people of the United States said in 1796. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports... Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure. reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Washington believed strongly in the separation of church and state. In an address to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, he said: "It is now no more that tolerance is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgenced of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. . ."
Imagine that! Washington privately did not refer to God but to "Providence" (see cited page). Washington addresssed a congregation of Hebrews! Imagine that.
Compare -that- old time religioning to that of the admittedly successful and beloved Billy Graham Neoptistic Family of Ministry (more funning than hard sarcasm, mind you)
Billy's religion is biblical literalist at its core, is it not?
Graham Ministry plants hope in people. But to call WRONG! my literary fun-post, that he is a "terroist" in the obvious device of his use of the HELL concept for sinners, well... Glenda,,,, lighten up!
I do not attack Billy Graham here. He is not a terrorist of any kind except in the most superficial kind of humoring.
Some folks have a hard time brooking -any- level of critcism of their sacred cows and sacred bulls. Bulls as in holy decrees. It's all man-made you see. It is all ego over the masses.
ALL ego but for Jesus weeping at our postings. The only man in history demonstrably lacking ego. No one can belay this claim that i put from my atheist mind into yours: Jesus weeps and Jesus is no hellfire preacher making money from men with sanctimonious promises of God's future glory.
Jesus, the anti-ego leader of us all.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 9)