Jump to content
icelus

Two words for my fellow Americans...

Recommended Posts

[...] the 'left' is screaming that I accept that their way of life is normal/fine/whatever, I can do that and remain against it. but the left has to, in turn, accept that people will be against it, and that is also normal/fine/whatever.

 

No, we don't want you to approve or force you to see it as normal. We just want the same rights as everyone else.

 

Ending segregation didn't end racism, and allowing gay marriage will not end homophobia.

Share this post


Link to post

Folks, I'm sorry to interrupt, but every morning I visit new G3 threads, every morning I see new posts on this one, and my mood drops like a rocket shooter(not sure about the metaphor, but anyway). It is offensive, and it's not getting any better. Could you close this topic, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Folks, I'm sorry to interrupt, but every morning I visit new G3 threads, every morning I see new posts on this one, and my mood drops like a rocket shooter(not sure about the metaphor, but anyway). It is offensive, and it's not getting any better. Could you close this topic, please?

Perhaps it's offensive to you, but it's important to many others. As long as it remains civil, which it has for the most part, there's no reason to close it.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, *your* posts are offensive to me, and no, you haven't remained civil.

Share this post


Link to post
I am not sure I got your point, devSin, on the differences between marriage and civil union, but I can try to put it in my own words, and have you correct me, which will clarify your point -

 

B is really a misnomer. There's marriage as governed by the State and federal governments and there's marriage as consecrated by your religious beliefs. They're really the same thing, but they're handled differently by the respective backing institution

<<snip>>

Basically, under the law, there's non-marriage providing some State rights and responsibilities of marriage and there's marriage providing those rights and more (in some cases). There's nothing preventing those from Group A from having a church wedding (for those institutions blessing same-sex marriage), but these will not be recognized by the State (you can be married in the eyes of your church, but the government cares not). Additionally, civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't necessarily restricted to couples of the same gender (a quick end-run around some discrimination concerns), but for all intents and purposes, it's a new status designed to grant some legal rights to homosexual couples.

 

What keeps A from being equivalent to C (and if A were truly equivalent to C, under the Constitution, there should only be A or C, not both) is the societal implication of "marriage."

<<snip>>

 

Thank you - I think I understand. I guess it was easy to fall back on "why not; equal treatment under the law is equality" without thinking more deeply than that. A big blind spot - if I am voting my conscience, it makes sense to actually have engaged with the arguments, both pro and con, before engaging the voting end of things. And it seems likely that this is a discussion that will continue for quite some time, even in Chicago (which is decidedly liberal-leaning) and Vermont (which is decidedly independent).

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree with that - for example Catholic Church changed a lot during its existence - even the last Pope made some changes - for example he has removed Hell.

 

He only removed Limbo, I belive. The place where non-christians go.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, *your* posts are offensive to me, and no, you haven't remained civil.

If this thread is so offensive to you, may I suggest you stop reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree with that - for example Catholic Church changed a lot during its existence - even the last Pope made some changes - for example he has removed Hell.

 

He only removed Limbo, I belive. The place where non-christians go.

 

Actually, I think purgatory is still a belief. If not, it's news to me. And I had 7 years of Catholic schoolin'. :thumbsup:

 

Here are some questions that may get people up in arms. I am not intending it in an aggressive or mean way, I am honestly curious.

 

Why should we consider the bible, or the "traditional" Judeo-Christian God to be some kind of moral authority? The question isn't as crazy as it seems.

 

The bible is chock full of stories of parents killing (or being ready to) their own children to prove their love for Him (Genesis 22:1-18), (Judges 11:29-40 NLT) . God smote the first born children of the Egyptians because of the actions of their ruler, which I very much doubt they had anything to do with. The bible advocates whole-sale slaughter of non-believers (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT), (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT), (Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB), (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT). A couple of kids get killed because they were being brats (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB).

 

The bible also has a lot to say on the subject of rape. There are examples of rape and pillaging sanctioned by God (Judges 21:10-24 NLT), (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT), (Deuteronomy 20:10-14), (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB), (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) (Judges 5:30 NAB), (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB). If a man rapes someone, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver then marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT).

 

The bible also offers handy instructions on how to handle your slaves. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT), (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB), (Ephesians 6:5 NLT), (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT).

 

Capital punishment crimes, according to the bible, are many and varied. A lot are in the Old Testament, but there are some in the New Testament as well. These crimes include: people who don't listen to priests, witches, fortune tellers, people who hit their father, people who curse their father, adulterers, fornicators, people who follow other religions, non-believers, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, blasphemers, people who work on the Sabbath and the children of sinners (too many places to list, although I can provide exact verses if anyone is interested).

 

Most of these things we now consider to be wrong, for one reason or another. My problem comes when people start to pick and chose which passages still apply, even if they are from the same book. If you're saying the stuff about stoning virgins or owning slaves is no longer applicable to modern times, then what makes you so sure that the stuff about homosexuality or all the other punishable offenses still should be accepted? Why should we be worshiping a God that will kill children (or let his followers do so) at the drop of a hat?

 

IS that the real God? I often hear about the difference between "Old Testament God" and "New Testament God". In the past, there have been groups of people (deemed heretics by the pope at the time) believed that they were actually two different Gods, because the contrast was so startling. How do you explain the discrepancies? Did God finally mellow out after a few thousand years of human existence?

 

This is putting aside the fact that the bible was oral tradition for generations before anyone ever thought to write it down. Omissions or additions to its content could've occurred, whether on purpose or by accident. It's like one giant game of "Telephone", but with very complicated material and over large stretches of time and space. Additionally, the bible has been through several translations over the years, from Greek and Hebrew to Latin and whatever over language it eventually winds up in. Translation is a tricky business, and a single word in one language may have two or three different meanings in another. Mistranslation is possible, again, whether on purpose or by accident.

 

I do believe that the bible has a lot of positive things to offer. But as I've said, there's tons of really scary, negative stuff in there, too. It doesn't make sense to me to make laws based off of religious teachings. Imagine how much protest there would be if the state decreed that no one could eat pork, or that women had to go around wearing veils and concealing clothing? Both would be based on religious doctrine. But neither of those doctrines is the majority in this country, so I guess we don't have to worry about that.

 

However, I will note that I have not run into any Jewish people who complain that because the consumption of pork is legalized in the United States, it compromises their religious freedom somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Folks, I'm sorry to interrupt, but every morning I visit new G3 threads, every morning I see new posts on this one, and my mood drops like a rocket shooter(not sure about the metaphor, but anyway). It is offensive, and it's not getting any better.

Au contraire, my dear Kulyok. Au contraire... :worship::thumbsup:

 

Threads like this are what make the community come alive IMO. If we all post threads where we simply agree with one another, then what would be the point of that? :thumbsup: The place would be boring and dull, wouldn't you say? Every now and then, sparks must flow. That is the whole purpose... that is the whole meaning of life! (I betcha jcompton, after watching this thread turn out the way it did, is likely kicking himself for 'pulling a Baronius' and locking the same thread over at PPG)

 

Now excuse me while I make myself comfortable and gently roll around in the pigsty with some of my fellow posters.

 

 

 

I've finally assessed the situation and ready to convey my thoughts.

 

 

To the democrats:

 

First, Obama is only half-black. Therefore, this is only a half-victory. Second, and more importantly, Obama is half-white. In other words, while you may have wanted Obama to win to show the world America is not as racist as it seems, you were also subconsciously rooting for his half-white portion and thus, are demonstrating EXACTLY why racism is rampant in America. You can't seem to make up your mind about what exactly is the point you want to get across. 2437.gif

 

Moreover, even if Obama was 100% black, that still doesn't mean much. What about the Native Americans, or the Hispanics, or the other minority races that feel left out? :)

 

Only when a candidate is concocted from the genes of all the minority races is the time all this celebration is warranted.

 

Someone like, say... Tiger Woods.

 

But even then, while it may give the impression of eliminating racism on the surface, there is still the problem of sexism.

 

So, to sum up...

 

The day a female Tiger Woods wins the presidency is the day I'll hold hands with you all and sing "Kumbaya..." e419.gifr977.gif

 

Until then, no need to blow your load just yet. ;)

 

 

 

To the republicans:

 

BOO HOO! o292.gifo292.gif

 

Cry me a river while I play the world's smallest violin. :D You've had one of your brain-dead clowns in charge for the last eight years, now let the other kid get his fifteen minutes of fame.

 

 

With that said, God bless America! s402.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Guest
No, we don't want you to approve or force you to see it as normal. We just want the same rights as everyone else.

would you be happy with a 'marrage' but w/o the tax benefits? since I apparently have these rights but being single I do not get the tax benefits. mind you that tax bennies are not a right.

 

Ending segregation didn't end racism, and allowing gay marriage will not end homophobia.

please find a new word since phobia is a fear.

but this sentence is setting you in the place that you are saying that you do not want people to have there own thoughts if they're contrary to your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, *your* posts are offensive to me, and no, you haven't remained civil.

Glass houses, Kulyok. You have no idea how offensive you are, or, more importantly, that you even care. If you don't like the topic, read something else, or check your self-righteous ego at the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest S-K

that last one was mine

No.....own.

Sooooo?

Share this post


Link to post

Akasha, I have read the Bible (note the capitalization), and your attack fails in several ways. Check the context of the scriptures. God was dealing with a people, beginning with Abraham, for a specific purpose. Is He harsh? Absolutely. He was shaping rebel hearts and minds. As you said, it's a matter of authority, and He had to establish His. The Jewish people (icelus, please note they are considered a people group - Semites) did not truly become monotheistic until after the First Exile. As for rape, the penalty was death by stoning. He allowed many things because of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:8). That included slavery. He did not condone it. And many of your references were limited in time and scope. The Old Testament is the Law (though mercy is clearly evident), the New Testament is Grace.

 

God has not changed, nor has His law. He has used corrupted humans to reveal Himself and His plan over time, because we could not handle it all at once. I marvel it only took 900 years or so to get the Scriptures to us. Are they reliable? Why don't you check out "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

 

I have lived over fifty years, and have been a Christian for over thirty of them. I remained so because my head and my heart agree this faith is true. It is not blind. It is also not intolerant, as some would suggest. How can I condemn someone when I am under the same condemnation, even if it is from a different cause. To break one Commandment is to be guilty of them all because God is perfect. Just one sin makes me imperfect, and I have far too many to count. I have learned to live under His mercy and grace. One saves me from Hell, the other gives me Heaven.

 

We have entered the Christmas season. Perhaps it is time for all who have read, and who have posted on, this thread to consider the reason why we celebrate the birth of this one Person.

 

I have said all I intend. I will not post on this thread again. It's time I got back to living my faith, not just talking it.

 

God bless you all.

Share this post


Link to post
If this thread is so offensive to you, may I suggest you stop reading it.

 

I'm only partaking in the meta-discussion, not the "discussion" in this thread itself.

 

Not denying anyone the right to carry on with the political/religious posts. However, apart from generating flames and/or strained relationships amongst members, I can't see this leading to anything or anywhere at all.

 

Again, not denying anyone their right to decide how to spend their time. But IMNSHO the whole G3 community would be better served by other more productive discussions. And I would have thought that the forum moderators/admins would agree with that.

 

Just because it's civil doesn't imply it's not futile. And just because you're able to, doesn't mean you should. Sometimes "rights" shouldn't be the sole point of consideration.

 

I have said all I intend. I will not post on this thread again. It's time I got back to living my faith, not just talking it.

 

God bless you all.

 

The wisest thing I've read in this thread. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Ending segregation didn't end racism, and allowing gay marriage will not end homophobia.
1) Please find a new word since phobia is a fear.

2) But this sentence is setting you in the place that you are saying that you do not want people to have there own thoughts if they're contrary to your own.

1) Homo -phobia, -fear, -whatever; it's based on fearing difference of things, whether the excuse is the eyes of god or what ever, it's still phobia...

2) It actually acknowledges that you can allow what ever -for example Police to search houses- but there are still people that have contrary believes for one reason or another, as you can please everyone, while searching Terrorist activity- for example.

 

I have read the Bible (note the capitalization)
Ahh, good as I have questions to 1800 year old person. ;)

Or do you mean that you have read one or more of the later versions of the book, you do understand that the message changes as people do. That's why the book is called Holy, as it has holes in it. :thumbsup: Well, perhaps not, but still... :D

Just forget the old rules and live with the new ones(The Spirit of the Law, not the Letter...).

It cost money, doesn't it? :):thumbsup: Edited by Jarno Mikkola

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...