Well now that the election is over...

[karl k]

and before you all disperse for lack of things to jab at, I would like to ask your thoughts about the "core ideology" of both the democratic and republican party's. As a youth back in the 80's I found myself to be more aligned with the republicans on issues pertaining to money and success. I also liked the things that Reagan did with the defense spending and his "STARWARS" proposal(still like the idea in principal) but quickly began to disagree with "Reaganomics" and "trickle down", as an efficient means to economic prosperity, the older I got. I didn't really look any deeper into the republican agenda while supporting them. I generally thought the environment was overplayed and civil rights were something each individual should have to earn and not be given away by government. But I began to look a little deeper as I acquired a family and began to understand how modern business works...truely works. I began to see favorite vacation spots in Colorado (as a youth) get gobbled up by rich investors from out of state who erected gambling casinos in their place. I began to see the pollution emitted from power plants and vehicles(other than cars) not be addressed due to the supposed expense that would be incurred by those companies. I began to see laws that require helmets on motorcycle riders and seat belts required on passengers in cars but no seatbelts for school bus' due to expense incurred by the companies. It seemed that republicans weren't so concerned about the increased money that I would have to buy a new car or the serenity of a good get away or the air that I breathe...just the money that the corperations would have to spend on a level playing field. They weren't concerned with bigger government when it came to me personally... just when it came to their companies.

Sure I was a little naive in believing that everyone was no better than anyone else and that the only difference between dems and the gop was whether you succeeded by the government giving it to you or you working for it.

SO...I have listened to most of you for some time now(and you all thought I left in a fit of rage:) ) and how you express yourselves as you do politically, but I would like you to put your discriptions in a short list of perceived/stated goals pertaining to your party. For instance...

1) Since Dems tend to cater to the urban working population, women and minorities with promises of making their lives better/more prosperous through government involvement, that Dems are more about making/treating people more equal through government involvement since we can't do it on our own.(if we could, there would be no need for that platform in that aspect)

2) Dems tend to side with environmentalist and naturalists on preserving the natural resources ie. creation of parks and wildlife preservation.

3) Dems tend to side with consumer advocates on personal safety through legislation on companies that force safety standards on products and services. It should also be noted that personal safety includes work safety standards and holding companies responsible for violations or neglegance(sp?).

4) Dems tend to spend only what they take in. They tend to believe that the addage "take from the rich and give to the poor". They tend to believe that everyone deserves to "make it" and the only way to make that happen is through government intervention. They tend to tax more in an effort to pay for the programs that will do so.

5) Dems tend to believe that "people" need less legislation "directly" and more indirectly in the form of laws on companies providing products and services and the formation of government programs for the needy and under priveledged.



And now for the GOP...

1) Reps tend to cater to rural farmers, ranchers, and businessmen with the promise of "keeping" their lives as prosperous as they already are. They also cater to those of religion that believe everyone should live by the rule of God reguardless of their faith by promising to vote on legislation according to their beliefs. They cater to the upscale, white, males by voting against civil rights issues that would erode their status of being "the majority" or somehow superior.

2) Reps tend to side with energy, mining, logging, and real estate companies that want to develope the wilderness for financial gain.

3) Reps tend to side with companies to limit through legislation the amount and types of penalties that said companies can be exposed to for injury and damages from products or services.(TORT reform, toxic waste disposal, ect)

4) Reps (as of late) tend to spend more than they take in. The trend started with Nixon and has been increasing with every republican since. They tend to give tax revenue back to everyone which inherently becomes a large portion for the rich and companies(since they pay more in both percentage and raw dollars). Because of the tax reform, they end up borrowing to pay for their programs. They tend to believe you are on your own in this country and IF you make it, you deserve a break. If you don't make it, it's probably your own fault and you deserve nothing from the government.

5) Reps tend to believe people need more legislation "directly" to be equal in the eye's of God and less legislation on companies that ultimitely support the people.



This is just an example of my "perception" in small part as I see it from 30yrs or so of observation. While they may not be factual in detail, the end result "seems" to be so. I would be extremely interested in a topic conversation on the subject. I will not have a great deal of facts to support my statement, but would provide a view positive or negative none the less. If anyone can give me a guide to "the goals and principles of the republican/democratic party" please do so. Ultimitely, this is what I seek... in short form of course. Something straight forward and no spin. If a republican is going to be in office for awhile(more than 4yrs I suspect) I would like some insite as to what they really want my life to be.

[JeffKnob]

I have had the same observations.

[karl k]

Yes, but are they accurate... factual? Everyone has an agenda. When those coincide with other of the same, you have a party. They both claim to have the same kind of vision for us through different philosiphies. What are those philosiphies /agendas?

[piece-it pete]

Hello karl!

How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol.

I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution.

If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought.

Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!

Don't hear much about that. Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money.

Substitute work ethic, education, business smarts, etc. Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State.

I can't speak for all Reps, but I can speak for myself:

1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves. We have defended this with our lives. There are still those that will do it again.

2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.

Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).

This also applies to good works in the community. See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you.

3) Continue working on the world economic system. Aha! The evil Rep comes out! But only so the world can become more and more prosperous. The rising tide has lifted many, many boats, we are directly responsible for the worlds' greatest golden age. I want us to strive to extend and expand this. It takes work, and level-headed toughness, and is always subject to:

4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.

Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.

5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.

Well you asked :D !

I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it.

The more mudane, short term stuff :) :

Gay "marriage" amendment. Equal parts public morality/health and protection from judicial overreach. Outlook: very good, witness the votes that have already taken place in the states. You Dems have a LOT of "intolerant" people!

Budget management. The twin shocks of the WTC (war on terror) and recession (with the added problems of the corporate criminals), have shown an already existing problem with our spending habits. This encompasses all gov't programs, including SS and the tax code. Outlook: VERY questionable IMO. Many cuts will have to be made, and if a Congressman proposes cutting, say, Yak studies you can be sure the press will be all over him/her, with college and old hippie protesters chanting "Yak murderer!" and "Mean, evil Congressman!", with the Yak lobby both funding it and milking it for all it's worth.

Then, come the next election, a private group will smear the Congressman with commercials about how he/she hates Yaks, which are somehow vital to our very survival.

Moore will make a movie about it.

Some will believe him.

The only plusses is that Bush is now a lame duck. Easy to shoot :D ? Nah, but he can spend some of his vast wealth of popular-vote capitol on it (can I rub it in, just a little? ;) ). Also, it is becoming such a huge problem that SOMETHING will have to be done. Stop spending your SS payroll deduction and save it for SS? Hahahahahahaha (stop - wipe eyes - continue) that would show the REAL size of the defict, and the gov'ts used to that money, so forget it - the "saving of SS" mentioned during the debates has became a huge tax increase. But 401ks' are so successful overall that I think we'll be seeing some privately managed SS accounts. We have GOT to try something, or have no SS at all.

School unions like the NEA. This group of public school teachers should be like Ceasars' wife - not a HINT of inpropriety.

Instead, we have an organization the partners with groups like MoveOn - using my tax money to advance their partisan agenda. Does any Dem see the problem with this?

Outlook: Doubt it.

Continue working on reducing pollutants worldwide. The easiest way is to increase income - studies have shown folks start worrying about the enviroment when their income hits a certain level - I think it was 6 or 7 gs' a year. Regardless, I was surprised it was so low. We make a lot of money here!

We can continue to work on our contribution to pollution. I like the tax credits, like the $1000 given to those who buy alternatively-fueled cars. But - that equals a tax cut (gasp)! And worse, since the alternate fuel cars now cost like 3-4 gs more than gas ones, it equals a TAX CUT TO THE WEALTHY! Money that could better be used to balance the budget?

Holding up a school constuction project for three months, at a cost of many thousands of dollars, because a certain bird MIGHT be living there (happened around here last year) does not make sense, though I guess it assuaged the liberal guilt of a couple of folks. Money better spent DOING something to help.

Outlook on what? I don't know what to do. But it darn well sure WON'T be letting a bunch of American-hating foreign bureaucrats calling the shots, how about slowly lowering the total amount of pollutants we allow produced? Regardless, nothing earthshaking will be done anytime soon, due to human nature, better be ready for the day after tomorrow!! (is that only 2 days away?)

War on terror. Continuing to spend massive amounts of money to lower casuality rates (which I agree with) and, protect us.

Outlook: Very good. However, we can't control the actions of others, only influence and punish them.

Thanks, karl, I needed this! Have a great weekend!

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.

Pete, you don't really believe this do you? Sorry bud, white men don't get off that easy. Racism in case you didn't know it is on the rise. Institutional racism is not gone, it has metamorphsized into a much more subtle culture. Blacks are still not widely welcomed in the board room, still lagging in employment, health, education, and in the highest reaches of government. Let's not even mention Hispanics. Anyone who believes that racism is no more has obviously closed their eyes, or have buried their heads deep in sand. White men still control the board room, the government, education, finance you name it. And it looks like they are not willing to share that control anytime soon


Gay "marriage" amendment. Equal parts public morality/health and protection from judicial overreach. Outlook: very good, witness the votes that have already taken place in the states. You Dems have a LOT of "intolerant" people!

This is a bunch of pish posh. The gay "marriage" amendment is about hate and intolerance, even this straight guy can see that. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot force any form of morality on anyone. How health comes into the issue escapes me, can you enlighten me on that one? When my wife was alive, I cannot see for the life of me how two married men would negatively affect us. My next door neighbors are two men that have been together longer than every married couple in the neighborhood. They have raised two beautiful little kids, who are now by the way two grown young people attending college. Living next door to them has been a very enlightening experience. They are not as wicked and self indulgant as Alan Keys has lead us all to believe.

[JSE]

The gay "marriage" amendment is about hate and intolerance, even this straight guy can see that.

Are you serious? Hate and Intolerance? That's a pretty bold statement and has no basis in fact. I am against gay marriage and I don't hate gay people in any way. I am all for legal agreements but Marriage is between man and women. Libs can't seem to understand the difference and resort to using scare tactics like "Hate" and "Intolerance". Just like San Fran, Houston has a huge gay population and I am friends with many. I can tell you that the majority of them think the whole gay marriage issue is a non issue. I would be willing to bet this is true in most parts of the country. Libs tried to raise it as a scare tactic to get Gay people to vote for them. Seems to have worked well huh?

" Hate" and "Intolerance"? Please!


JSE

[karl k]

Pete, you don't really believe this do you? Sorry bud, white men don't get off that easy. Racism in case you didn't know it is on the rise. Institutional racism is not gone, it has metamorphsized into a much more subtle culture. Blacks are still not widely welcomed in the board room, still lagging in employment, health, education, and in the highest reaches of government. Let's not even mention Hispanics. Anyone who believes that racism is no more has obviously closed their eyes, or have buried their heads deep in sand. White men still control the board room, the government, education, finance you name it. And it looks like they are not willing to share that control anytime soon



This is a bunch of pish posh. The gay "marriage" amendment is about hate and intolerance, even this straight guy can see that. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot force any form of morality on anyone. How health comes into the issue escapes me, can you enlighten me on that one? When my wife was alive, I cannot see for the life of me how two married men would negatively affect us. My next door neighbors are two men that have been together longer than every married couple in the neighborhood. They have raised two beautiful little kids, who are now by the way two grown young people attending college. Living next door to them has been a very enlightening experience. They are not as wicked and self indulgant as Alan Keys has lead us all to believe.
You appear to be educated and leaning a little left, maybe you can enlighten me as to the Dems "Big Picture"? What is their core ideology as you see it. While I do take great pleasure in watching the conflict baloon before my eyes, PLEASE answer my question before it gets lost in the insueing arguement.

:) Thanks for being a standup guy!

[karl k]

Are you serious? Hate and Intolerance? That's a pretty bold statement and has no basis in fact. I am against gay marriage and I don't hate gay people in any way. I am all for legal agreements but Marriage is between man and women. Libs can't seem to understand the difference and resort to using scare tactics like "Hate" and "Intolerance". Just like San Fran, Houston has a huge gay population and I am friends with many. I can tell you that the majority of them think the whole gay marriage issue is a non issue. I would be willing to bet this is true in most parts of the country. Libs tried to raise it as a scare tactic to get Gay people to vote for them. Seems to have worked well huh?

" Hate" and "Intolerance"? Please!


JSE
I didn't post this question here to start a fight... My wish to ask and learn was a sincere one. The question isn't about gays, or crime, or religion(directly) but the big picture. The political process is a means to an end. I wish to know what each party has in mind for the endgame. If republicans had their way, according to the republican agenda, what would my life be like when it's all over? What of the Dems?

We can get into the sparring match but I would prefer to do it AFTER my question has been answered.

[JSE]

I didn't post this question here to start a fight... My wish to ask and learn was a sincere one. The question isn't about gays, or crime, or religion(directly) but the big picture. The political process is a means to an end. I wish to know what each party has in mind for the endgame. If republicans had their way, according to the republican agenda, what would my life be like when it's all over? What of the Dems?

We can get into the sparring match but I would prefer to do it AFTER my question has been answered.


Sorry Karl, I just can't and won't let statements like T. made go without responding. Especially when they are so far from reality.

When I have more time, I will respond to your question.

JSE

[karl k]

I know that took some time to put together. I really wasn't looking to pick a fight.(contrary to what others might have thought through the appearent lack of interest in my topics)

I was very sincere in my thirst for knowledge but was looking for the condensed form rather than spending hours and hours trying to re-learn history and political science. It seems to me that there is so much attention put on getting votes to win an election that the long-term goals of the different parties is getting lost to the public. There is a fear that has been put into the minds of people that their way of life is in danger and unless they act now, that all will be lost. It is that fear that causes the short-sightedness of the public to what the different philosophies are all about. I have found myself having difficulties with aligning myself with any particular one... in part because of a lack of understanding of the goal(s) that they represent and in part because of the lack of accountability of those goals. It can be difficult to make a decission without having a representation of the big picture(as conceived by any party) before you.

I was also looking to see if all people here have an accurate concept of the goals of the parties they support/represent, or do they just support the parts of those goals that directly have their interest... at that moment. You would think more people that vote, do so because of the big picture. But I find it(more times than not) is more a case of "I want to keep my guns so I will always vote republican." or "I may want to have an abortion in the future, so I will always vote democrate." It seems like most people are happy with the way things are in general(except we are always wanting more money;) ) and that is why they vote as they do about "single issues". The exception is in 2000 when morals and values came into question over the Clinton sex scandle. It seems that we took it pretty personal what the world thought about our embarrassment THEN and now we are determined to do something about it. Funny how we care so much about our moral image then but not now in Iraq. See, that's why I'm having a problem with the parties. Like everyother party, it conflicts it's self making it hard to support or even understand what they stand for... long term.

Anyway, I will spare you the response to the end of your post(as I said earlier, not really what I was looking for anyway) and express a few thoughts on the rest.

"How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol."

They both dislike each other, why put a pretty face on it... for us? Waste of energy.IMO

"I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution." " If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought."

Probably distributed by the GOP in an effort to start kids early on how people will never be truely equal in reality so acceptance of inequality would be seen more preferable than equality.:D I find it interesting that the book would cite weighing down the strong in an effort to be equal to the weak instead of the strong helping to lift the weak. I was taught that you can't help others til you help yourself, but helping others, once self established, was morally acceptable and in some cases required as a responsible member of society(Uh huh huh... member) How many CEO's would drive by the slums and offer to provide work... personally... or just drive by and complain about the government taxing them too much.

"Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!"

I'm not sure I understand the context of the comment. You'll have to clarify.

"Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money."

I agree... mostly. The fact is that most people that can't read, work really well with their hands... something that alot of well educated businessmen can't do. So while your reading skill has value, I would argue that it may not have MORE value than someone who can build and fix things. I would argue that one who can't read IS NOT generally as smart as one who can but certainly not better/worse a person.

"Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State."

Huh? Money is NOT colorblind but I will admit it is getting better... slowly. BTW, that was forced legislation if I recall my history. Was it right to force it back then knowing the current outcome? Or should the GOV had butted out of their business as well. Some will say that color denial is a function of education. While this might be true in some cases, it's not in all... or even a few. It's just another means that justifies the end.

1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves.

Not for ourselves, but for ALL in the community. It(by your definition) doesn't sound very personal to me except for those who are in the majority(see Totalitarian) or unless the majority means everybody. Hopefully before you and your other members vote, you will have come to a comprimise that everyone can vote "YES" on.

2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.

Personal responsibility... I like that one. Good call!

Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).

and yet it is you(figuretively speaking of course:) ) who are entitled to restrict, by force,(gov't action) what I may potentially view in the privacy of my home? Should they not fall under the same ideology?

"See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you."

Oh now Pete, you know that's not true! Come on now, how many times have I seen you complain about those liberal sissy judges that rule from the bench. They are, whether you like it or not, part of the gov't. That's a big part of what the gay marriage thing is about. BEING THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That's what all the ballots were about... the conservatives fear of a government takeover of their way of life. Giving time and money... every two weeks brother! And yes I still believe in them!(although they do test my patience from time to time :mad: on how they manage it )

I will fore go 3) as I want to address it a little later(if you dont mind:) )

4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.

Agreed. As long as you don't read to much into it. Alot like the Bible in that aspect, isn't it?

Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.

Do unto others... big fan of that one!

5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.

Killing me softly with his song? It seems anymore since we can't spread capitalism as directly as WE would like(figuratively speaking again) in totalitarian and dictatorship gov'ts, that the answer now is to spread Democracy instead and let the public choose Capitalism. Isn't that a big part of why we are in Iraq?(see GMEI) I find it interesting the plots being instituted by us, in the name of humanity, for our own ends, and against the wish's of those on the receiving end. While what you speak of not slaying dragons sounds noble, it seems like we have a problem with this getting in the way of our interest's.

"I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it."

And Pete, as usual, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for breaking the ice and answering my question as thoroughly as you did! If you have any additional thoughts, I'll be as civil as I can.

Congrats on a smooth election! :p

[karl k]

Sorry Karl, I just can't and won't let statements like T. made go without responding. Especially when they are so far from reality.

When I have more time, I will respond to your question.

JSE
Thank you for your understanding and I look forward to your answer.:D

[Feanor]

Granted I'm an outsider, a Canadian, but you seem bang on to me. Canada too has its conservatives. Their position is becoming increasingly Republican-like, even on the religious issue. People here are similarly deceived.

Also, in my youth long ago, I too saw things in terms of the deserving rich verus the undeserving poor. But I got over that decades ago.

The biggest thing, maybe, is the right-wing ecomonics favors globalist multi-national corporations increasingly. And their interest is money purely: they don't care about Americans or Canadians or anybody. They will take all their taxes breaks and invest the cash anywhere wages are low, labor laws are lax, and the enviroment is unprotected.

The "middle" class -- I'm speaking of small business owners and people in well-paying professional and technical jobs -- in both our countries are deceived if they believe that their prosperity will survive when the less well-off are reduced to poverty. No, middle class propersity depends on the relative posperity of the "lower" classes much more than it does on that of the rich.

As for religion, as I said in another thread, "conservative" Chistianity (in both countries) is essentially Pharasaic, that is, self-rightiously hypocritical and falling short of of a thorough acceptance of Jeus' message.

[karl k]

Granted I'm an outsider, a Canadian, but you seem bang on to me. Canada too has its conservatives. Their position is becoming increasingly Republican-like, even on the religious issue. People here are similarly deceived.

Also, in my youth long ago, I too saw things in terms of the deserving rich verus the undeserving poor. But I got over that decades ago.

The biggest thing, maybe, is the right-wing ecomonics favors globalist multi-national corporations increasingly. And their interest is money purely: they don't care about Americans or Canadians or anybody. They will take all their taxes breaks and invest the cash anywhere wages are low, labor laws are lax, and the enviroment is unprotected.

The "middle" class -- I'm speaking of small business owners and people in well-paying professional and technical jobs -- in both our countries are deceived if they believe that their prosperity will survive when the less well-off are reduced to poverty. No, middle class propersity depends on the relative posperity of the "lower" classes much more than it does on that of the rich.

As for religion, as I said in another thread, "conservative" Chistianity (in both countries) is essentially Pharasaic, that is, self-rightiously hypocritical and falling short of of a thorough acceptance of Jeus' message.
On the contrary, if you study any at all about politics, you are qualified to respond no matter where you live. When someone not from the US can analyze and comment about the left or the right, I listen... objectively of course.:) I'm not so naive to believe that I'm getting all the info from my native news in an accurate, "objective", no spin fashion. I know how powerful a group of people with personal agendas can be and how the truth can be selective. That's what I'm trying to get at... the burried truth to the long term goals of the different parties. Throughout the ages, philosophers have described their version of utopia and I was looking for the same thing from the Dems and Reps to confirm that their party line goals would realistically take them there. I said in another post that the political process is a means to an end, are we looking at a model of heaven on earth? Are we just playing a game of Monopoly and the ones with all the money win? Is the goal of the Dem or Rep party truely a moral one? Maybe I'm asking for an overly simple answer that can't be had... but if it exists, I would like to see it.

Thanks for your "outside" assessment, but I would say due to globalization, you're in the same boat and therefore not so much an outsider when you think about it.:D

[FLZapped]

Granted I'm an outsider, a Canadian, but you seem bang on to me. Canada too has its conservatives. Their position is becoming increasingly Republican-like, even on the religious issue. People here are similarly deceived.

Your last statement sums up the whole problem with liberals today. Seeing as the moderate to conservative people clearly make up the majority(which is growing), one must ask, who is deceiving whom?

Fact is, we're sick and tired of these back-handed insults. The elections results are a clear indication this group of people are pushing back.

-Bruce
(go take your enlightened back-sides and look in the mirror for a change.)

[piece-it pete]

I know that took some time to put together. I really wasn't looking to pick a fight.(contrary to what others might have thought through the appearent lack of interest in my topics)

karl,

I wasn't looking for a fight either, the overall thoughts I posted were a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was the question.

One wise man I knew said: "Every time 2 people talk there's actually 6 people talking. On each side: the actual person, the guy he thinks he is, and the guy the OTHER guy thinks he is".

It's a wonder we can talk at all :) .

Topic? What topics? :D


I was very sincere in my thirst for knowledge but was looking for the condensed form rather than spending hours and hours trying to re-learn history and political science. It seems to me that there is so much attention put on getting votes to win an election that the long-term goals of the different parties is getting lost to the public. There is a fear that has been put into the minds of people that their way of life is in danger and unless they act now, that all will be lost. It is that fear that causes the short-sightedness of the public to what the different philosophies are all about. I have found myself having difficulties with aligning myself with any particular one... in part because of a lack of understanding of the goal(s) that they represent and in part because of the lack of accountability of those goals. It can be difficult to make a decission without having a representation of the big picture(as conceived by any party) before you.

I think the short-sightedness of the general public is a reflection of human nature. So as scary as it is a burden is on the candidates themselves to act in our best interest. Not the way it was supposed to be. Shudder!!

I've often thought of independents, it's got to be tough. How hard is it to determine WHO will be the best to lead the country? And I fear the celebrity-based culture we live in hurts this, Lincoln wouldn't be elected now.

The only real accountability we'll ever have is the next election.


I was also looking to see if all people here have an accurate concept of the goals of the parties they support/represent, or do they just support the parts of those goals that directly have their interest... at that moment. You would think more people that vote, do so because of the big picture. But I find it(more times than not) is more a case of "I want to keep my guns so I will always vote republican." or "I may want to have an abortion in the future, so I will always vote democrate." It seems like most people are happy with the way things are in general(except we are always wanting more money;) ) and that is why they vote as they do about "single issues". The exception is in 2000 when morals and values came into question over the Clinton sex scandle. It seems that we took it pretty personal what the world thought about our embarrassment THEN and now we are determined to do something about it. Funny how we care so much about our moral image then but not now in Iraq. See, that's why I'm having a problem with the parties. Like everyother party, it conflicts it's self making it hard to support or even understand what they stand for... long term.

This is why I vote party and not individual. 60% of the winning parties' platform becomes law, on average. The person only counts for so much IMO.

Regardless of what's being said, most Iraqis think it was immoral of us to desert them after Gulf War round one and would be horrible to do it now.


Anyway, I will spare you the response to the end of your post(as I said earlier, not really what I was looking for anyway) and express a few thoughts on the rest.

* "How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol." *

They both dislike each other, why put a pretty face on it... for us? Waste of energy.IMO

*"I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution." "[/i][i] If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought."*

Probably distributed by the GOP in an effort to start kids early on how people will never be truely equal in reality so acceptance of inequality would be seen more preferable than equality.:D I find it interesting that the book would cite weighing down the strong in an effort to be equal to the weak instead of the strong helping to lift the weak. I was taught that you can't help others til you help yourself, but helping others, once self established, was morally acceptable and in some cases required as a responsible member of society(Uh huh huh... member) How many CEO's would drive by the slums and offer to provide work... personally... or just drive by and complain about the government taxing them too much.

Yep I'm cynical about the love-fest, too - hate and fear each other (the election commercials) - love and respect each other - yeah that'll happen!

The one thing that stood out was Kerry saying to stand together in Iraq.

That story (I wish I could remember the name!!) was supposed to be an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Fact is, people are NOT equally endowed. Any attempt to force that will only screw things up.


*"Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!" *

I'm not sure I understand the context of the comment. You'll have to clarify.

*"Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money."*

I agree... mostly. The fact is that most people that can't read, work really well with their hands... something that alot of well educated businessmen can't do. So while your reading skill has value, I would argue that it may not have MORE value than someone who can build and fix things. I would argue that one who can't read IS NOT generally as smart as one who can but certainly not better/worse a person.

Well, we're talking about equality and the like, I thought it interesting that within a couple of decades, with current birth rates, whites will constitute less than 50% of the general population of the US. No one race will control over 50% of the vote. Thus, the first multiracial democracy in the world, curtesy of the US.

If you reread my writing on reading :) you will see I did not judge the nonreader. I simply stated a fact.

I think of the lead man at the last place I worked, who was solidly functionally illiterate.

He was VERY good mechanically, quite smart (a lead man who can't read!), a hard worker, and a good man you could count on and trust. We became good friends (even more amazing, considering he was an old-school union type Democrat!). But if you can't read orders and packing lists, or fill out production schedules, there is only so far you can go on tools alone.


[PETE NOTE: I had to break the post in two]

[piece-it pete]

*"Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State."*

Huh? Money is NOT colorblind but I will admit it is getting better... slowly. BTW, that was forced legislation if I recall my history. Was it right to force it back then knowing the current outcome? Or should the GOV had butted out of their business as well. Some will say that color denial is a function of education. While this might be true in some cases, it's not in all... or even a few. It's just another means that justifies the end.

I respectfully disagree - money IS colorblind. Power, well, it NEVER will be.

The Blacks' struggle here goes waaayyy back, before the Revolution, back to the founding of the Colonies. It was punted at the Revolution, at the Constitutional Convention, and many many times right up to the Civil War, for the simple reason that everyone believed it would rip the country apart.

It did. It is a shame Lincoln died, everyone went back to business as usual, licking wounds, exhausting war, all that, but THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.

My point is that slavery, and by extension civil rights for blacks, was and is a special issue, a standout. It needed extreme solutions. No other issue approaches this in importance. It almost destroyed our country.

Legislate morality, or not?


*1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves. *

Not for ourselves, but for ALL in the community. It(by your definition) doesn't sound very personal to me except for those who are in the majority(see Totalitarian) or unless the majority means everybody. Hopefully before you and your other members vote, you will have come to a comprimise that everyone can vote "YES" on.

What is democracy? A majority equals a totalitarian state? What type of gov't do you suggest?

People disagree, and desicions need made.


*2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.*

Personal responsibility... I like that one. Good call!

*Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).*

and yet it is you(figuretively speaking of course:) ) who are entitled to restrict, by force,(gov't action) what I may potentially view in the privacy of my home? Should they not fall under the same ideology?

But we DO use gov't force to take income through taxes. What I'm arguing for, what is part of my parties' core beliefs, is to be FAIR about it. We want to encourage the creation of wealth, not discourage it.

As far as porn goes, well, it's the same as the tax code: "The People" - the legislature -decide (or is supposed to).


*"See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you."*

Oh now Pete, you know that's not true! Come on now, how many times have I seen you complain about those liberal sissy judges that rule from the bench. They are, whether you like it or not, part of the gov't. That's a big part of what the gay marriage thing is about. BEING THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That's what all the ballots were about... the conservatives fear of a government takeover of their way of life. Giving time and money... every two weeks brother! And yes I still believe in them!(although they do test my patience from time to time :mad: on how they manage it )

I'm not making the connection - further explanation please? Or aren't I clear?

BTW, "you" in this instance is plural and not directed at you, personally.


I will fore go 3) as I want to address it a little later(if you dont mind:) )

Gaaahh! Ack! Phpppt!

:D


*4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.*

Agreed. As long as you don't read to much into it. Alot like the Bible in that aspect, isn't it?

Absolutlely. If in doubt, we should err on the side of Democracy, the people.


*Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.*

Do unto others... big fan of that one!

*5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can.We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.*

Killing me softly with his song? It seems anymore since we can't spread capitalism as directly as WE would like(figuratively speaking again) in totalitarian and dictatorship gov'ts, that the answer now is to spread Democracy instead and let the public choose Capitalism. Isn't that a big part of why we are in Iraq?(see GMEI) I find it interesting the plots being instituted by us, in the name of humanity, for our own ends, and against the wish's of those on the receiving end. While what you speak of not slaying dragons sounds noble, it seems like we have a problem with this getting in the way of our interest's.

It is a shame, but sometimes people have been brainwashed against free trade.

If we have a legit interest then it's not "looking for dragons". And those folks WANT us there, according to poll after poll.


*"I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it."*

And Pete, as usual, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for breaking the ice and answering my question as thoroughly as you did! If you have any additional thoughts, I'll be as civil as I can.

Congrats on a smooth election! :p


The pleasure is all mine. Imagine, not being called a hypocrite, a KKK member, or an intolerant hater!! What do I do?!

:D

Thanks!

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Are you serious? Hate and Intolerance? That's a pretty bold statement and has no basis in fact. I am against gay marriage and I don't hate gay people in any way. I am all for legal agreements but Marriage is between man and women. Libs can't seem to understand the difference and resort to using scare tactics like "Hate" and "Intolerance". Just like San Fran, Houston has a huge gay population and I am friends with many. I can tell you that the majority of them think the whole gay marriage issue is a non issue. I would be willing to bet this is true in most parts of the country. Libs tried to raise it as a scare tactic to get Gay people to vote for them. Seems to have worked well huh?

" Hate" and "Intolerance"? Please!


JSE

JSE,
Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate. When I got married I was entitled to more than a 1000+ federal benefits. When gay couples want to commit to a partnership, they get none of these benefits. Domestic partnerships allowed from the state level doesn't entitle them to these benefits. Why should my wife and I get them, and not the two commited gay guys next door. They have been together longer than my wife and I(she passed away)
They are being treated like second class citizen, I cannot see how that is fair. They should be allowed to committed partnerships(it doesn't necessarily have to use the sacred word "marriage") with full state and federal benefits. That is what is called equality.

There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth. You just face it. My wife and I got federal benefits when we were married, and the gay couple next door gets nothing. Where is the fairness in that?

You may be for legal agreements, but not everyone shares your view. The authors of alot of the "marriage is between a man and woman" constitutional amendments do not want gays to get anything for their partnership. No state benefits AND no federal benefits. Some of the go as far as not recognizing these kinds of partnerships at all.

There are some here in San Francisco who think this gay marriage thing is a bunch of hoey. But there are others who think this is a pretty big deal. There are some straight folks the are rabidly anti gay marriage, and their are others like myself who think its very significant . Each to his own. While I am not a pro gay marriage activist, I am having a hard time understanding why straight couples are so opposed to seeing gay men and women get married. This kind of defensive behavior based around a word is puzzling. There is nothing sacred about it(ask Britney Spears, or the couples that are part of the 50% divorce rate, and cheaters). I can't help but to think that there are religious undertones to all of this, and it violates the seperation between church and state.

Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You appear to be educated and leaning a little left, maybe you can enlighten me as to the Dems "Big Picture"? What is their core ideology as you see it. While I do take great pleasure in watching the conflict baloon before my eyes, PLEASE answer my question before it gets lost in the insueing arguement.

:) Thanks for being a standup guy!

Karl, I am more of a moderate than left leaning. I have no clear idea what the demo's big picture is, and neither do they which is part of the problem. As far as I know, its strengthening the middle, and lower class through tax cuts, healthcare for everyone, strong military, balanced budget, more money for education. Those seem to be the themes I have heard for the last couple of elections. Oh, and the get rid of Bush montra, which I don't think is particularly helpful.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your last statement sums up the whole problem with liberals today. Seeing as the moderate to conservative people clearly make up the majority(which is growing), one must ask, who is deceiving whom?

Fact is, we're sick and tired of these back-handed insults. The elections results are a clear indication this group of people are pushing back.

-Bruce
(go take your enlightened back-sides and look in the mirror for a change.)

Bruce, you are wrong man. Moderates make of the majority. Both liberal AND conservatives make up the minority. Both extremes are inherently dangerous to this country. Conservatives are what make up the racial intolerant. Liberals may be TOO intolerant(anything goes)about everything. Condervatives are for the rich whites, Liberals for the poor and minority. Both of these represent a pendilum that has swung to far in either direction.

I think the real deception is listening to the conservatives talk about more minority inclusion, while they get rid of more and more affirmative action laws. Here in California the preach THEY are the party for minorities while sponsoring Prop 209 and 187. Right!!!!!

[piece-it pete]

Karl, I am more of a moderate than left leaning.

I take issue with this.

If someone's a moderate, that implies middle of the road. If you're middle of the road, why haven't you agreed with the GOP over anything of substance, while fighting for the Libs at every turn?

Pete

[Chris]

Pete, the funny thing is, I agree with many of your points - or at least the basis of them. I believe that you're a good guy. I'm all for personal freedom, personal responsibility, and the promotion of wealth. You tend to stand for the "good" things on the conservative side... the things worth agreeing with.

I think personal freedom is extremely important, we need to protect personal liberties fiercely. I think those who are not responsible for their actions should not expect to be bailed out by loop holes. And I think we should reward hard work. But I think there are a few things we overlook as Americans. I find a little irony in how we boast about equality and how everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Our nation was founded on many principles, some of them tightly tied to religion. The gay marriage bans have made me see how religion still excludes certain people from our society, even today. Most of my family is very religious, and I still can't understand how they view other human beings as outcasts because a book tells them they should - especially when the same book tells them to love everyone. If homosexuals are denied certain rights that marriage offers, how can we argue that everyone has the same shot at the same opportunities in our country?

Humanity is imperfect. Our nation used to enslave people. We used to prevent black people and women from voting. We grew enough to see that was wrong. I'm hoping that sooner or later, we'll see how denying homosexuals various rights that married couples receive is also unjust. I'm not saying the right thing to do is to allow them to get "married". But give them their rights - that's what most of them want (along with not wanting to be verbally assaulted, beaten and killed for being gay). I don't think it's a "hate" thing
(well mostly) - just more about "exclusion" from society. If you're gonna promote wealth, you have to make sure people aren't being excluded. If you're going to promote religion, you have to promote love and acceptance for ALL.

And please, let's not have some half-wit start talking about "what's next, letting people marry sheep?" - that's the type of talk that really insults everyones' intelligence, not to mention how bad it makes you look. If you can't see the difference, please move on to a less complicated subject.

As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I take issue with this.

If someone's a moderate, that implies middle of the road. If you're middle of the road, why haven't you agreed with the GOP over anything of substance, while fighting for the Libs at every turn?

Pete

Perhaps because no GOP issues have been mentioned here that I agree with. And please refrain from calling all democrats libs. We are not all that way, just like not all GOP supporters are not racist haters.

[Chris]

And please refrain from calling all democrats libs.Aren't they the same thing? My Republican friends seem to think so. Isn't a liberal anyone who doesn't agree with Bush's policies? Oh wait, those are communists and terrorists... :D

[karl k]

Karl, I am more of a moderate than left leaning. I have no clear idea what the demo's big picture is, and neither do they which is part of the problem. As far as I know, its strengthening the middle, and lower class through tax cuts, healthcare for everyone, strong military, balanced budget, more money for education. Those seem to be the themes I have heard for the last couple of elections. Oh, and the get rid of Bush montra, which I don't think is particularly helpful.
Seeing you write about racism and other "dem supported" issues pertaining to predjustice, you seemed a little left. I, with yourself, am more in the middle than I may seem. I, like yourself(again) speak about equality and the freedom to do as I wish(as long as it's not hurting anyone) pretty passionately. And rightfully so...IMHO. In general, you seem to have the same handle on the left and the right as I and many others. I went to the DNC and RNC websites and did a little reading.(I figured someone would tell me to do so anyway) Not overly enlightening, but did expect more spin than I got.

Anyway, I wont bore you any longer. I just wanted to thank you for answering my question personally in the context I asked for.

[karl k]

Sorry man, it seems you don't come by near as often as you should!:D


As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???
In general(veeerrry general) I think your assessment is sound. I know it goes much deeper than that but also acknowledge the list could get quite long indeed. I noticed your assessment didn't specify world policy from each partie... that's ok. That could get pretty lengthy as well. Maybe we can discuss next about how these ideals are implimented to satisfy the goals of the different parties and at what potential cost.(if the peace holds up:D)

You wrote that the Reps "stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right" and I was just curious if it is perceived that the Dems don't in either case? At what point(if any) does the stand for religious beliefs and what's morally right interfere with personal or religious freedom of either the majority or minority of a community or the nation as a whole?

Thanks for chiming in!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Seeing you write about racism and other "dem supported" issues pertaining to predjustice, you seemed a little left. I, with yourself, am more in the middle than I may seem. I, like yourself(again) speak about equality and the freedom to do as I wish(as long as it's not hurting anyone) pretty passionately. And rightfully so...IMHO. In general, you seem to have the same handle on the left and the right as I and many others. I went to the DNC and RNC websites and did a little reading.(I figured someone would tell me to do so anyway) Not overly enlightening, but did expect more spin than I got.

Anyway, I wont bore you any longer. I just wanted to thank you for answering my question personally in the context I asked for.

Karl, I guess It would seem like I am from the left because I talk about prejudice and racism. The Republicans don't usually want to talk about it because they are usually the perpretrators(Prop 209 and 187 and totally anti affirmative action)

Republicans(especially the old school repubs, not this new generation) had plenty of ideals I openly support. Strong military, balanced budgets, smaller government and less intervention in private matters. The new generation of repubs talk about these things, but they fail in practice.

[JSE]

"Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate."

I am am sorry you feel this way. It's truly unfortunate, because it's not reality. Just because you are against something, does not mean you hate it. I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some people. Maybe your past has contibuted to this view but the view is wrong. Like I alluded to before, someone can have no problem with gay people and still be against gay marriage. There is "being gay" and there is "gay marriage". Two completely different things. I personally don't have a problem with legal unions that afford the same rights as mariage between a man and women but I do have a problem with it being called "Marriage". So, I guess by your standards I now Hate gays?

"There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth."

Your right, but your view that people against gay marriage "Hate" gays is utterly wrong and careless.

"Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?"

It does not. Never said it did. But that's not what this is about. It's about the definition of Marriage. Not Hate or Intolerance.


JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate."

I am am sorry you feel this way. It's truly unfortunate, because it's not reality. Just because you are against something, does not mean you hate it. I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some people.

Can you tell me what makes the word so exclusive? And why you think that its okay to discriminate against a particular group of people. If this wasn't about hate, then can you tell me why it is so difficult to come up with a solution that gives committed gays the same benefits as married straights? Can you tell me why some of these states constitutional amendments won't even recognized their union? It may not be about hate to you, but somebody in your party(religious right maybe) definately has it in for gay people in this country.


Maybe your past has contibuted to this view but the view is wrong.

You know nothing of my past that qualifies you to make this statement. And who gave you carte blanche on right and wrong? Nothing personal, we see things differently. It may be okay for you to discriminate against a group of people and feel alright about it, but I don't.



Like I alluded to before, someone can have no problem with gay people and still be against gay marriage

So, you have no problem with gay people, but you do have a problem with them committing to one another. Kinda schizophrenic isn't that?


There is "being gay" and there is "gay marriage". Two completely different things.

I guess if you seperate things in this fashion, it makes it alot easier to discriminate, and legislate.



I personally don't have a problem with legal unions that afford the same rights as mariage between a man and women but I do have a problem with it being called "Marriage". So, I guess by your standards I now Hate gays?

Many in your party have a problem calling it anything, let alone recognizing it. They don't want to give not one federal benefit to gay unions, even though individiual states recognized this. Something is awful fishy when a state recognizes a gay union and give them rights and benefits just like straight couples, but the feds absolutely move against giving benefits, and then moves to discriminate.

Nobody still has not effectively explain to me how what makes the word "marriage" so exclusive to heterosexuals. Or how your marriage is effected by a married gay couple next door. Can someone enlighten me?





"There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth."

Your right, but your view that people against gay marriage "Hate" gays is utterly wrong and careless.

JSE, there is nothing reckless about pointing out legislated discrimination, which many in the Republican party would like to do. Gays are getting killed, seriously injured, and abused and you do not call that hate? How does sand taste?


"Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?"

It does not. Never said it did. But that's not what this is about. It's about the definition of Marriage. Not Hate or Intolerance.

If it doesn't effect you, then why would you care about the definition? Something is not adding up at all here. This smacks of intolerance and discrimination. You may not like that, but it does.

My next door neighbor said something to me that was very interesting. He said "maybe we shouldn't push for gay "marriage". Considering the sucess rate that word incapsolates, maybe we should call our unions something else"

Only a short sighted fool would believe this is about a word. This is about keeping gays uncommitted(or at least unrecongnized) and marginalizing them. That is a hateful move if I ever saw one.

[JSE]

"Can you tell me what makes the word so exclusive? And why you think that its okay to discriminate against a particular group of people. If this wasn't about hate, then can you tell me why it is so difficult to come up with a solution that gives committed gays the same benefits as married straights? Can you tell me why some of these states constitutional amendments won't even recognized their union? It may not be about hate to you, but somebody in your party(religious right maybe) definately has it in for gay people in this country. "

No point in arguing about this any longer. You feel it's Hate, I don't. I think people can see the reality and make up their own minds.



"You know nothing of my past that qualifies you to make this statement."

I was simply going off your statments within this topic about you neighbors and wife. Nothing personal.

" And who gave you carte blanche on right and wrong? Nothing personal, we see things differently."

It's does not.

" It may be okay for you to discriminate against a group of people and feel alright about it, but I don't."

This I take offense with. I, in no way discriminate against gay people saying I prefer "Marriage" to be defined as man and women. What have I taken away other than a word? Like I said, I am all form legal unions that give gay couples every right couples have in a traditional marriage. How is this descriminatory? I am talking about a definition.

"So, you have no problem with gay people, but you do have a problem with them committing to one another. Kinda schizophrenic isn't that?"

How do I have a problem with a gay couple committing to each other? I am all for it. Don't have any problem with it what so ever.

"I guess if you seperate things in this fashion, it makes it alot easier to discriminate, and legislate. "

Again, I am not descriminating. If it makes you feel better to believe I am, then so be it.

"Many in your party have a problem calling it anything, let alone recognizing it. They don't want to give not one federal benefit to gay unions, even though individiual states recognized this. Something is awful fishy when a state recognizes a gay union and give them rights and benefits just like straight couples, but the feds absolutely move against giving benefits, and then moves to discriminate."

Look, there are alway going to be people that Hate gays. There are people that Hate Black people, Asians, Jews, Etc. But, I do not feel the Anti-Gay Marriage issue is Hate driven. Are there some, sure.


"JSE, there is nothing reckless about pointing out legislated discrimination, which many in the Republican party would like to do. Gays are getting killed, seriously injured, and abused and you do not call that hate? How does sand taste?"

What? So now if you oppose gay marriage you agree with gay people being killed, injured and abused? Whatever.

"If it doesn't effect you, then why would you care about the definition? Something is not adding up at all here."

It's about beliefs and cultural values.

"This smacks of intolerance and discrimination. You may not like that, but it does."

Sorry, not the case. Think what ever you want but it does not change who I am.

"My next door neighbor said something to me that was very interesting. He said "maybe we shouldn't push for gay "marriage". Considering the sucess rate that word incapsolates, maybe we should call our unions something else"

Sounds like a good idea! :D

"Only a short sighted fool would believe this is about a word. "

Like "HATE"?

That's all from me on this. I will read your response but I am done commenting on this.

JSE

[karl k]

I wasn't looking for a fight either, the overall thoughts I posted were a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was the question.

And you did. Due to the initial apprehension of responding to the topic, I suspected most thought I was just looking to start something... or the topic was immaterial.

One wise man I knew said: "Every time 2 people talk there's actually 6 people talking. On each side: the actual person, the guy he thinks he is, and the guy the OTHER guy thinks he is".

Probably talked to himself alot as well as in his sleep!:D I can see how confusing that can be... but I can't! :p LOL!

Topic? What topics? :D

Ya, there aren't many, and it's been awhile, but they do exist. Look and see. Maybe I'm just sensative.

The only real accountability we'll ever have is the next election.

By accountability, I probably meant credibility. It's one thing to state a means to achieve a goal, it's another to really expect the means to achieve that goal. The only way we'll really know is when the end game has been achieved from BOTH sides. Hopefully, we as a country will not have to see that day,(the day we can say we've tried and achieved both ideologies) for that may be the day we acknowledge as a people we really don't know what we want.:(

Regardless of what's being said, most Iraqis think it was immoral of us to desert them after Gulf War round one and would be horrible to do it now.

If we made a promise... you bet it was! And yes it would be horrible. No qualms with that here.

Yep I'm cynical about the love-fest, too - hate and fear each other (the election commercials) - love and respect each other - yeah that'll happen!

For me, it was more than that... it's like maintaining a view(like everyone does at sometime) and then saying my view has no rellevence.

The one thing that stood out was Kerry saying to stand together in Iraq.

And he meant it, in the context that we need to get the troups out as fast as posible without sacrificing the mission at hand... getting the Iraqi people on their feet and on their way.
That story (I wish I could remember the name!!) was supposed to be an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Fact is, people are NOT equally endowed. Any attempt to force that will only screw things up.

Wait a minute! "...all men are created equal. Are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." What have I missed here? :confused: just kidding! :p

At the risk of being called a flip flopper, back peddling, or other sort... the only thing I have preached is equal treatment, equal oppurtunity... not to have someones thumb on my head like it was as a kid! I am also a big fan of the idea that everyone has their place in the picture and we can't all take up the whole frame but we can all be in the same picture, taking up the same relative space in the picture... if we have the desire and the means. The constitution is the means, and all we lack is the will. Really is a shame when the constitution has to be used in that fashion... shows something about us.

Well, we're talking about equality and the like, I thought it interesting that within a couple of decades, with current birth rates, whites will constitute less than 50% of the general population of the US. No one race will control over 50% of the vote. Thus, the first multiracial democracy in the world, curtesy of the US.

Hopefully, the current minorities will have more wisdom than we have shown. At least, the whities will finally have a dose of what it feels like to potentially not get their way. A little humility can go along way if properly administered...don't you think?

If you reread my writing on reading :) you will see I did not judge the nonreader. I simply stated a fact.

Oh I got you alright! I only dispute the fact you cite. That one should/would be more economically or otherwise valueable than the other. Still disagree that to be fact. Yes, tools will only take you so far... reading is a tool, just like a wrench. Think about it. It's more a case of which is more valueable... having tools or understanding how to use them. Comprehension along with responsibility should determine a persons value. You can put that blueprint in front of an illiterate and get the same result as putting a wrench in the hand of one who can read. Either one can be taught to do the others job in most cases and one can't live without the other... in most cases.

And now... to pt2(tomorrow)

[karl k]

"Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate."

I am am sorry you feel this way. It's truly unfortunate, because it's not reality. Just because you are against something, does not mean you hate it. I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some people. Maybe your past has contibuted to this view but the view is wrong. Like I alluded to before, someone can have no problem with gay people and still be against gay marriage. There is "being gay" and there is "gay marriage". Two completely different things. I personally don't have a problem with legal unions that afford the same rights as mariage between a man and women but I do have a problem with it being called "Marriage". So, I guess by your standards I now Hate gays?

"There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth."

Your right, but your view that people against gay marriage "Hate" gays is utterly wrong and careless.

"Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?"

It does not. Never said it did. But that's not what this is about. It's about the definition of Marriage. Not Hate or Intolerance.


JSE
Is "being gay" a choice?

[Feanor]

Your last statement sums up the whole problem with liberals today. Seeing as the moderate to conservative people clearly make up the majority(which is growing), one must ask, who is deceiving whom?
...
The deception is that conservative -- actually right-wing -- policies benefit the middle class person. They actually do not. Rather they benefit the very rich and large, multi-national corporations. Else where I asserted the welfare of the middle class in any country depends on the welfare of the less well-off class and the middle class, much more than that to of the rich.

You have to be very gullible today to swallow the doctrine that unrestricted capitalism will automatically result the greatest benefit for all. It ain't so. Bit lots of "moderate to conservative" people still believe this crap. Are they deceived or self-deceived?

Give tax breaks to the rich?? Why, because they're better investors? Yeah, right. Trouble is the investment is off-shore where wages are low, labor and consumer protection is weak, and the environmental policies are slash-and-burn.

In Canada the party in power is the "Liberal Party", (large-L as we over say up here). And generally "liberal" is not the dirty word is seems to be state-side.

[JSE]

Is "being gay" a choice?

Sometimes, but I believe that most gay people do not have a choice. I feel there is something genetically mixed up that causes someone to be gay.

JSE

[JeffKnob]

Sometimes, but I believe that most gay people do not have a choice. I feel there is something genetically mixed up that causes someone to be gay.

JSE

If that is the case we need to stop people with any genetic defect from getting married. I say we pass a bill or better yet an amendment that prevents people with 11 toes from getting married. That is just ridiculous.

[JSE]

If that is the case we need to stop people with any genetic defect from getting married. I say we pass a bill or better yet an amendment that prevents people with 11 toes from getting married. That is just ridiculous.


Why would you want to do that? Regardless of any genetic "defect", it does not change the fact that a man is a man and a women is a women.

However, every 11 toed person I have ever met has been a little off. Not sure a ban against the marriage of 21 toes is a bad idea. :p

JSE

[piece-it pete]

Pete, the funny thing is, I agree with many of your points - or at least the basis of them. I believe that you're a good guy. I'm all for personal freedom, personal responsibility, and the promotion of wealth. You tend to stand for the "good" things on the conservative side... the things worth agreeing with.

Thanks, Chris.

I'm going to start a thread about the wackos on both sides one of these days - it'll be interesting to see who's willing to admit they have loonies (and what type) in their party.


I think personal freedom is extremely important, we need to protect personal liberties fiercely. I think those who are not responsible for their actions should not expect to be bailed out by loop holes. And I think we should reward hard work. But I think there are a few things we overlook as Americans. I find a little irony in how we boast about equality and how everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Our nation was founded on many principles, some of them tightly tied to religion. The gay marriage bans have made me see how religion still excludes certain people from our society, even today. Most of my family is very religious, and I still can't understand how they view other human beings as outcasts because a book tells them they should - especially when the same book tells them to love everyone. If homosexuals are denied certain rights that marriage offers, how can we argue that everyone has the same shot at the same opportunities in our country?

All the principles we were founded on are directly tied to Christianity.

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

In light of the recent votes I think we're beating a dead horse. The only reason the Constitutional amendment doesn't have popular support yet is 'cause the Federal judiciary hasn't struck down a State amendment. Look for this to happen REAL soon. These folks saying that, due to the States restrictions the Federal amendment is unneccessary, and an invasion of States rights (they care about that NOW?), are wrong.

As soon as it happens, look for the amendment to pass at the Constitutional equivilent of light speed.

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

THAT is behind the huge Christian turnout. Overall we're not scared of gays (homophobic), or vengeful, or haters. We fear for our country.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Canada and some European countries have already done this.

I'm only being frank here.


Humanity is imperfect. Our nation used to enslave people. We used to prevent black people and women from voting. We grew enough to see that was wrong. I'm hoping that sooner or later, we'll see how denying homosexuals various rights that married couples receive is also unjust. I'm not saying the right thing to do is to allow them to get "married". But give them their rights - that's what most of them want (along with not wanting to be verbally assaulted, beaten and killed for being gay). I don't think it's a "hate" thing
(well mostly) - just more about "exclusion" from society. If you're gonna promote wealth, you have to make sure people aren't being excluded. If you're going to promote religion, you have to promote love and acceptance for ALL.

And please, let's not have some half-wit start talking about "what's next, letting people marry sheep?" - that's the type of talk that really insults everyones' intelligence, not to mention how bad it makes you look. If you can't see the difference, please move on to a less complicated subject.

Look at the transcripts of the debate in the Massachusetts Congress, the sheep topic was brought up, a number of them said they couldn't in good conscience tell their neighbor what he could and couldn't do.

So, how bad does it make THEM look?

I realise you haven't heard about this, good luck getting the media to report it!

And NAMBLA *has* endorsed this. Why?

I, and many like me, see skin color as different than sexual preference.

Excluded from wealth generation? Gays make more on average than the general population.

Love and acceptance for all? My religion teaches us to love their enemies. I can do this without condoning their behavior, or agreeing with it. I certainly don't have to accept it.


As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

Oh it's pretty easy - you cut spending.

The problem and big increased spending generator in gov't is this: Flush times, money is POURING in (without a tax hike), Congressmen do the spending dance (it's a very joyous dance :D ).

The economy takes a downturn, as it always does, tax receipts dry up. So, they cut the spending down to fit.

Yeah, I know, that's just plain silly - it'll NEVER happen on its' own.

But instead, the Yak thing happens, because every gov't program becomes a right. So at every cycle the gov't grows, naturally, becoming a bigger and bigger burden on all of us.

Let alone the fiction of the SS withholding. It's criminal, IMO, a regressive tax that effects the poor the hardest, and exempts the wealthy, a huge stealth tax sold as saving SS. If we're going to spend it, call it what it is: a general tax increase, and make it fair.

The same thing'll happen to health care premiums too, at first. Then, when the deficit ballons again due to waste, over-promising, and overspending they'll say the healthcare system needs saved, promise a "lock-box", raise taxes again, and spend that too.

History is a wonderful thing.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Perhaps because no GOP issues have been mentioned here that I agree with. And please refrain from calling all democrats libs. We are not all that way, just like not all GOP supporters are not racist haters.

You mention in your response to karl:

"Republicans(especially the old school repubs, not this new generation) had plenty of ideals I openly support. Strong military, balanced budgets, smaller government and less intervention in private matters. The new generation of repubs talk about these things, but they fail in practice."

I have not seen the arguments that back this statement up, except the budget, which was a Kerry mantra.

Libs, well, not intended as a slight. Sometimes I use Dems. I used to use Cons as well - but it just didn't come off very well :) .

Although many would agree :D .

Further, you are now parsing your statement about hate and intolerance. So let's come to an agreement: I'll stick to Reps and Dems, you drop the hate and intolerance.

BTW, I am so conservative I made Kerrys' blood freeze when he saw me. I have questioned my continueing participation in the Grand Old Party as it drifts left. If you think the "old" Reps would have allowed abortion and gay "marriage" you are quite mistaken.

The neocons you are referring to are in for quite a shock this term. It should be a lot of fun watching!

Pete

[dean_martin]

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

THAT is behind the huge Christian turnout. Overall we're not scared of gays (homophobic), or vengeful, or haters. We fear for our country.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Canada and some European countries have already done this.

I'm only being frank here.




Pete

Pete - we will be calling on you and others on the right to help defeat Bush's "tort reform".

"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit." Exodus 23:6

Your usual excellent cooperation will be appreciated.

[piece-it pete]

Pete - we will be calling on you and others on the right to help defeat Bush's "tort reform".

"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit." Exodus 23:6

Your usual excellent cooperation will be appreciated.

Hello Dean!

Honestly, I don't see the difference betwen 1 million and 5 when it comes to judgements!

Outside of punitives.

Unless justice = 5 million? Especially to the poor?

I'd be more worried over getting the indigent better legal help. I do realise that many very good lawyers do a lot of charity legal-wise.

But I wouldn't worry too much. As you have pointed out, many members of Congress, heck the majority of members!, are lawyers, I can't imagine they will shoot themselves in the foot, more likely pass something minor they can call what they like, and drop the issue altogther.

Classic Congress.

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No point in arguing about this any longer. You feel it's Hate, I don't. I think people can see the reality and make up their own minds.

JSE, here is the reality. 11 states passed anti gay marriage amendments to their constitution. Not one of those states offered a solution or compromise, they just block the right of committed gay couples to be recognized. Who was behind these campaigns? Anti gay groups, groups staunchly against gays right to even exist.


This I take offense with. I, in no way discriminate against gay people saying I prefer "Marriage" to be defined as man and women. What have I taken away other than a word? Like I said, I am all form legal unions that give gay couples every right couples have in a traditional marriage. How is this descriminatory? I am talking about a definition.

JSE unfortunately taking away the word takes away the recognition of a relationship by the state and feds, and all of the benefits that go with the word, and are afforded to straight couples. The is no other word that gets these benefits on the books at the federal level. This is called discrimination based on sexual orientation. Once again, YOU may be all for legal unions that give gays the same rights as straight couples, but others who also support what you believe don't. Perhaps their motivations are not the same as yours, but who makes that call, you guys appear to be on the same side. Your quest for a definition is going to leave somebody discriminated against, and that is not a very good thing. Sometimes the consequences of ones motiviations are not always very good, no matter how innocent they believe the cause.


It's about beliefs and cultural values.

Yes, so your beliefs are more important, more moral, and support better cultural values than the beliefs of gays to fit in, be recognized and equal? JSE, you cannot legislate any of these things. What your saying here is arrogant, shortsighted, and narrow minded. You saying here there is only one true great way to live, our way. Where is the freedom and equality in that?


What? So now if you oppose gay marriage you agree with gay people being killed, injured and abused? Whatever.

Unfortunately this position does put you in the same side as people who kill, injure, and abuse gays. Isn't if funny the company you keep when you choose a side that seeks to deny a group of people some very basic rights to equality.

Here is the most interesting thing I found in all of this. Massive amounts of resources and energy has been spent preventing gays from being married. But no energy has been devoted to coming up with a solution that gives equal rights and benefits to gay couples, and still appeases those who don't want the word "marriage" used to define their committed relationships. Based on this fact, it's easy to see the motivation. As a hispanic man in this country, I know what it feels like to be discriminated against. Just because this is a gay issue(and I am not gay) doesn't take away the sting of watching another group of people discriminated against like I have been. So who is next, you legislate this discrimination, then its people who are mixed with mexican and black? People with one eye, or limbs too short? Short people? Non christians? Where does this kind of discrimination end? The way this is being approached will further divide this country, much like racism did. Is this what we really want?

[dean_martin]

Hello Dean!

Honestly, I don't see the difference betwen 1 million and 5 when it comes to judgements!

Outside of punitives.

Unless justice = 5 million? Especially to the poor?

I'd be more worried over getting the indigent better legal help. I do realise that many very good lawyers do a lot of charity legal-wise.

But I wouldn't worry too much. As you have pointed out, many members of Congress, heck the majority of members!, are lawyers, I can't imagine they will shoot themselves in the foot, more likely pass something minor they can call what they like, and drop the issue altogther.

Classic Congress.

Pete

Pete - the provisions to look out for are those that may make it harder, more difficult or almost impossible for the "poor" or even middle class to access the courts. Be on guard. I would like for my fellow Christians to demonstrate that their allegiance is to their principles and not strictly to their candidate. There are 2 camps in the Republican party - one camp is most interested in preserving wealth. The other is most interested in preserving Christian principles. The GOP has used this latter camp to win statewide elections here in the South for years and more recently nationwide. But, what must not go unnoticed is that the former camp often calls the shots on policy, particularly economic, and some of their policies do in fact conflict with the principles of the latter. Christians can join the political debate on more topics than just marriage and abortion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You mention in your response to karl:

"Republicans(especially the old school repubs, not this new generation) had plenty of ideals I openly support. Strong military, balanced budgets, smaller government and less intervention in private matters. The new generation of repubs talk about these things, but they fail in practice."

I have not seen the arguments that back this statement up, except the budget, which was a Kerry mantra.

Okay, Its a fact that government has not gotten smaller under Bush. It has gotten larger, that is a fact. This anti gay amendment is more government intervention in private matters. The military is stronger because of weapons developement under a Democratic leadership.


Libs, well, not intended as a slight. Sometimes I use Dems. I used to use Cons as well - but it just didn't come off very well :) .

Although many would agree :D .

I guess many would agree(especially blacks and the poor) that the Republican party is the party of rich white racists, overly judgemental bible thumping christians, and white collar thieves, but I am sure that wouldn't go over well either.


Further, you are now parsing your statement about hate and intolerance. So let's come to an agreement: I'll stick to Reps and Dems, you drop the hate and intolerance.

I will be more than glad to drop hate and intolerance when the Republican work harder on equal rights for all, and less on discriminating against gays. Their actions warrant the words intolerance and hate.


BTW, I am so conservative I made Kerrys' blood freeze when he saw me. I have questioned my continueing participation in the Grand Old Party as it drifts left. If you think the "old" Reps would have allowed abortion and gay "marriage" you are quite mistaken.

No, I would expect them to be more hateful and intolerant than they are now. But then I wasn't referring to either of thse issues when talking about "old" republicans. It just goes to show how much you guys have progress. You were discriminators and haters back then, and you still are today. So much for party progress.


The neocons you are referring to are in for quite a shock this term. It should be a lot of fun watching!

Pete

Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the course of action this president has chosen to take will unite this country.

[piece-it pete]

Pete - the provisions to look out for are those that may make it harder, more difficult or almost impossible for the "poor" or even middle class to access the courts. Be on guard. I would like for my fellow Christians to demonstrate that their allegiance is to their principles and not strictly to their candidate. There are 2 camps in the Republican party - one camp is most interested in preserving wealth. The other is most interested in preserving Christian principles. The GOP has used this latter camp to win statewide elections here in the South for years and more recently nationwide. But, what must not go unnoticed is that the former camp often calls the shots on policy, particularly economic, and some of their policies do in fact conflict with the principles of the latter. Christians can join the political debate on more topics than just marriage and abortion.

Dean,

So far I haven't seen any law restricting access.

Agreed on the two camps - but if the GOP doesn't pull something through for the Christians this cycle, or do something obviously against us, they can kiss the massive turnout goodbye.

Somehow I find myself reiterating the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I believe my beliefs, you yours. As a matter of fact, I believe the two party system is a neccessity, and do not want to shut up the opposition - only beat them :) .

Badly, if possible :D .

We have debated far more than abortion and marriage. Some things have a lot more grey, to me, then others.

Last election, I heard a thing on the radio that stuck with me - not what we disagree on, which only seems like everything, but what we agree on, which is more than we think.

One of these days we'll have to put it together.

Pete

[Chris]

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.
Actually, don't married couples get lower auto insurance rates, pay less for medical insurance, and are eligible for medical benefits where gay couples aren't? I would say that's denying them the same opportunities. You don't have to allow them to marry, just give them the same opportunities. By denying them, you're basically implying that they are inferior and that they do not deserve the same benefits rewarded to married couples. That's where I see it being wrong.

This is one fundamental belief I disagree with in Christianity (and other religions). I'm as straight as they come, but I feel a great injustice for the gay people I know who have had to endure being outcasts because of religion. I don't fault you for fully embracing a religion that outcasts a certain group of people. You're taught to believe things and not to question them. I just wish people would look at things from the outside a little more and realize what great atrocities have been attributed to religion in the past. Just ask the terrorists - they seem to think it's perfectly fine to murder innocent people in the name of their God - luckily others don't agree. Though sexuality is different than race, it is still alienation of a people, and it's something you teach your children to do. Hopefully we don't regress too far with these new bans.

The whole freedom of religion thing just sounds a little ironic at times like this. Here we're saying that anyone can practice any religion they want, yet our laws only reflect the beliefs of one religion. And some are trying to create new laws based on that one religion that we all will have to live by. Faith is good folks, but religion can be a little scary sometimes. Pete, I don't think you "hate" gays. But I must ask how many gay friends you have. Through the gay people I've come to know and befreind, I've learned more about what they go through and have realized that they are good people like you and I. Why create more laws that prevent them from being apart of our society?

Anyway, there's not much that can be done to battle a religious belief thousands of years old. If some had their way in our country, we'd still have slavery - and that's not even a religious belief, just a deep-rooted hatred. I fear this is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I'm rambling now. Thanks for listening...

[piece-it pete]

Okay, Its a fact that government has not gotten smaller under Bush. It has gotten larger, that is a fact. This anti gay amendment is more government intervention in private matters. The military is stronger because of weapons developement under a Democratic leadership.

Yep, like the Star Wars program.

When is the last time the gov't has gotten smaller? Hoover? Well maybe Truman as the war wound down. I'll have to look sometime. The only issue is how fast it grows.

I see the gov't as intruding on a private matter, the definition of marriage. The vast majority agree. So we will take away the power of the gov't to force it.

I suppose the military became stronger by voting for equipment, before voting against it.



I guess many would agree(especially blacks and the poor) that the Republican party is the party of rich white racists, overly judgemental bible thumping christians, and white collar thieves, but I am sure that wouldn't go over well either.

Sir TT, my comments were directed at the Reps. My apologies if that was unclear.




I will be more than glad to drop hate and intolerance when the Republican work harder on equal rights for all, and less on discriminating against gays. Their actions warrant the words intolerance and hate.

So, the Democratic partys' actions do not warrant the new meaning of the word "liberal"?


No, I would expect them to be more hateful and intolerant than they are now. But then I wasn't referring to either of thse issues when talking about "old" republicans. It just goes to show how much you guys have progress. You were discriminators and haters back then, and you still are today. So much for party progress.

I assume you are dropping the appearance of neutrality now? I would say this has degenerated into a name-calling match, except only one side is calling names.

The "old" Republican party freed the slaves.



Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the course of action this president has chosen to take will unite this country.

How would a Dem unite the country? Agree on gay "marriage", and not agree on it?

Fact is, there are two or more sides to every question. Somebody will always be upset. If you can come up with a way to unite us, please clue us in.

Pete

[Chris]

" It may be okay for you to discriminate against a group of people and feel alright about it, but I don't."

This I take offense with. I, in no way discriminate against gay people saying I prefer "Marriage" to be defined as man and women. What have I taken away other than a word? Like I said, I am all form legal unions that give gay couples every right couples have in a traditional marriage. How is this descriminatory? I am talking about a definition.
JSE, I wish more people who are against gay marriage shared your sentiment. Unfortunately, they do not want to even recognize legal unions. In fact, a few of the states who passed the gay marriage ban even reversed civil union laws at the same time. I don't think Terrence is attacking your stance on this subject. He's questioning the people who are treating gay people as social outcasts by rejecting their pleas to be apart of our society and receive the same benefits and rewards that married couples receive. Some of us may not think gays should be allowed to "marry", but you can't really deny that disallowing them the same legal benefits based on religious beliefs does carry some of the same undertones as racial discrimination did a few decades ago.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All the principles we were founded on are directly tied to Christianity.

Yet you cannot read a bible, pray, or hold any religious activities in schools. So much for our christian foundation.


We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

What about the more than 1,100+ federal benefits offered to straight married couples? What about recognition? What about equality? Not all benefits can be address through legal devices. And why should gay couples have to pay someone to get these services when straight couples get them by just getting married. So gay couples have to pay attorneys for things that straight couples get for free. Where is the fairness and equality in that?


Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

As a christian I completely understand that Gods wrath is tempered by grace. In this day of grace, God doesn't punish the masses for the sin of a single person, or group. He deals with the person directly. Each christian has to stand before God and account for HIS life, not the life of the gay couple next door. We don't live in the old testiment, so that kind of fear is ignorance at its best. There is no scripture in the bible that supports forcing Gods word on anyone. But it does say "if they don't receive you, shake the dust from your feet and keep going." Any other words, walk away, and let God deal with them as he so desires. Its says nothing about legislated God's word on everyone, and it certain doesn't say discriminate if they don't believe in me. Who says gays are against God? Where does the word homosexual or gay appear in the bible? As a christian I am at a loss trying to understand where my fellow christians are coming from. What ever happen to love coverth all sin? There is no scripture in the New Testament(which is the dispensation we currently live in, not the Old Testament) which prescribes mass punishment for the sins of a few. This is a false arguement.


Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion

So we find ourselves at an impasse. You want to be able to legislate religion on those who don't believe in what you do, yet you don't mind squelching their rights and freedoms to live as they please to save your rights. What ever happen to PERSONAL responsibility? Now my christian brothers and sister think it is up to them to change everyone into a christian, and if you don't do it willingly, then we will vote to legislate it, and force it on you. That is not what God has commanded us to do. Why do some of us think that God cannot handle himself, or knows how to deal with this? Why do we think we have to judge and punish for God? The freedom of religion is a personal right, not your freedom to force others to believe as you do.

[piece-it pete]

Chris,

It took I while, but I've figured out why I enjoy discussing various things - I learn why, exactly, I believe certain things, and why others believe what they do. Glaring inaccuracies get uncovered, new facts discovered, on and on.

It's a shame it gets heated to the point where folks genuinely believe the other side is coming from a place that is not very good, particularly when previously they liked and respected each other. Nature of the beast, I guess.

Guess it's my turn to ramble!



Actually, don't married couples get lower auto insurance rates, pay less for medical insurance, and are eligible for medical benefits where gay couples aren't? I would say that's denying them the same opportunities. You don't have to allow them to marry, just give them the same opportunities. By denying them, you're basically implying that they are inferior and that they do not deserve the same benefits rewarded to married couples. That's where I see it being wrong.

I would tolerate ( :) ) some sort of civil union. That said, the issues you mention above also apply to single people, who are therefore discriminated against.


This is one fundamental belief I disagree with in Christianity (and other religions). I'm as straight as they come, but I feel a great injustice for the gay people I know who have had to endure being outcasts because of religion. I don't fault you for fully embracing a religion that outcasts a certain group of people. You're taught to believe things and not to question them. I just wish people would look at things from the outside a little more and realize what great atrocities have been attributed to religion in the past. Just ask the terrorists - they seem to think it's perfectly fine to murder innocent people in the name of their God - luckily others don't agree. Though sexuality is different than race, it is still alienation of a people, and it's something you teach your children to do. Hopefully we don't regress too far with these new bans.

Christianity goes deeper than that. All sinners are outcasts - and all are sinners in the eyes of God.

Butthat doesn't mean that we as a society should validate it! Just as we should attempt to limit divorce, we should keep marriage the way it is.


The whole freedom of religion thing just sounds a little ironic at times like this. Here we're saying that anyone can practice any religion they want, yet our laws only reflect the beliefs of one religion. And some are trying to create new laws based on that one religion that we all will have to live by. Faith is good folks, but religion can be a little scary sometimes. Pete, I don't think you "hate" gays. But I must ask how many gay friends you have. Through the gay people I've come to know and befreind, I've learned more about what they go through and have realized that they are good people like you and I. Why create more laws that prevent them from being apart of our society?

2, and a family member, and a coworker, who I occasionally travel with. Mostly nice folks, but wow some bizarre relationships.

We're not creating laws excluding them, we are preventing laws from being created that validate them as legitimate "marriages".

The reason the laws here are based on one religion because, well, the majority is one religion. Outside of Constitutional protection the majority rules. Moreover, this is a good thing, as all the Founding Fathers agreed that this system of gov't, that they designed, would only work with a society based on the ten commandments.


Anyway, there's not much that can be done to battle a religious belief thousands of years old. If some had their way in our country, we'd still have slavery - and that's not even a religious belief, just a deep-rooted hatred. I fear this is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I'm rambling now. Thanks for listening...

This isn't slavery, but yes, we can agree to disagree. Nice talking to you.

Pete

[Chris]

Pete, your message had some bad formatting with the quoting but I think I got it anyway. I have found that I've learned a lot about what I believe in and why I believe in it from discussing and debating things as well. And you're right, it does uncover certain things about people that you've respected that might change your view of them. I've found this to be true with close friends of mine. I can't say it's hurt any of my friendships, just as it hasn't made me lose any respect for you as a person. Maybe you believe I'm coming from a place that "is not very good" because I don't believe we should create laws that deem homosexual relationships as illegitimate, excluding them from various benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. I can't say I think that of you. I do however, think religion in its purist form has a way of alienating good people and having the opposite effect than it was intended to have. And I feel this is one of those instances.

It feels good knowing that you would "tolerate" some type of civil union - that's all I've been standing up for all along. They deserve the same opportunities that marriage offers, nothing more, nothing less. I can understand that allowing them to share "marriage" is something that the church would die fighting against, but at least allow them some type of civil union. That's all. I guess we don't disagree as much as we thought. As always, great discussion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yep, like the Star Wars program.

I belive star wars was a Regan disaster LOL


When is the last time the gov't has gotten smaller? Hoover? Well maybe Truman as the war wound down. I'll have to look sometime. The only issue is how fast it grows.

On the campaign stump, Bush listed as one of his goal as smaller government. Smaller meaning smaller than it is now, or was? It got bigger during his first term!


I see the gov't as intruding on a private matter, the definition of marriage. The vast majority agree. So we will take away the power of the gov't to force it.

HUH?


I suppose the military became stronger by voting for equipment, before voting against it.

No the military got stronger because they had to use the money they received wisely.





Sir TT, my comments were directed at the Reps. My apologies if that was unclear.

No biggie, its all good man LOL






So, the Democratic partys' actions do not warrant the new meaning of the word "liberal"?

No more than the actions of the Republicans warranting the label hater and intolerant




I assume you are dropping the appearance of neutrality now? I would say this has degenerated into a name-calling match, except only one side is calling names.

Is not referring to moderate democrats as libral not name calling? Since when is it okay for one side to slap labels, but get offended when the labels come back? No this is two sided name calling I would say.


The "old" Republican party freed the slaves.

This incarnation of the republican party is not like the "old" republican party at all. The "old" freed slaves, the new wants to enslaved them again by rolling back affirmative action. And the decendents of these slaves still do not support the "new" republican party. Apparently the "new" republican party has lost their compassionate conservatism over time


How would a Dem unite the country? Agree on gay "marriage", and not agree on it?

No, actually we get a certain Republican president to stand in front of a camera, tell us that the country is united, on one accord and the economy is doing great. And if you don't vote for him, the world we know will come to an end. His audience could be a bunch of unemployed gay couples. (sarcasm off)


Fact is, there are two or more sides to every question. Somebody will always be upset. If you can come up with a way to unite us, please clue us in.

You do what is right and give equality where it is due. Allow "marriage" to be between a man and a woman, and give civil unions all the recognition, state and federal benefits that marriages has. Anti gay marriage activist get what they want, and gay couples get equality.
The course of action the republicans have taken on this issue is divisive, reckless, hateful, and intolerant. They pursued constitutional bands on gay marriage without providing a solution. Obstruction of equality, while discriminating through constitutional amendments.
You are sending a mixed message when you say this is the land of the free and equal, yet you are legislating morality, and refusing the right of equality for a certain type of american. And this is the party that thinks it is morally the right one.

[Chris]

You are sending a mixed message when you say this is the land of the free and equal, yet you are legislating morality, and refusing the right of equality for a certain type of american.Mixed messages? I thought those only came from Kerry! You mean Republicans are guilty of those too? Nooooo! Get outta here!

Land of the free, home of the brave... equal opportunity... equal rights... yup, we'll get there eventually. Hopefully someday we'll be able to see past the differences that divide us as a people, and in this case, as a nation.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mixed messages? I thought those only came from Kerry! You mean Republicans are guilty of those too? Nooooo! Get outta here!

Land of the free, home of the brave... equal opportunity... equal rights... yup, we'll get there eventually. Hopefully someday we'll be able to see past the differences that divide us as a people, and in this case, as a nation.

LOLOL, it just goes to show you that whether your a Democrat, or a Republican, nobody is perfect.

I hope we get pass this too. I am at odds with many in my church family, at odds with my republican friends, angry that this whole presidential campaign polarized the national so badly, and angry at watching another group of people fall victim to discrimination. After watching the republicans attack affirmative action, and this gay issue in the fashion they have, makes me wonder what their real motivation is. You have some really cool people in that party, but they are tainted by actions of a few. I am confused to why it is so hard for the various races, gays and straights, and christians and non christians to get along with each other. All you do is respect each other differences, and seek some common interests and beliefs. Why is that so hard for so many?

[karl k]

LOLOL, it just goes to show you that whether your a Democrat, or a Republican, nobody is perfect.

I hope we get pass this too. I am at odds with many in my church family, at odds with my republican friends, angry that this whole presidential campaign polarized the national so badly, and angry at watching another group of people fall victim to discrimination. After watching the republicans attack affirmative action, and this gay issue in the fashion they have, makes me wonder what their real motivation is. You have some really cool people in that party, but they are tainted by actions of a few. I am confused to why it is so hard for the various races, gays and straights, and christians and non christians to get along with each other. All you do is respect each other differences, and seek some common interests and beliefs. Why is that so hard for so many?In a nutshell, I think I can answer that question in 1 word or less...

Fear...

Why are people who are religious prejudice against gays? Fear of God and his wrath.(as Pete pointed out) If being gay constitutes an abomination, and you are to promote the word of God, then you are, by default, not to promote(and therefore acknowledge) the ACT of being gay. Here, Christians are(or appear to be) split where some believe that being gay is not by choice and therefore can acknowledge(but not promote) those who are gay... and those that believe being gay soley is a choice and therefore cannot accept the action under any condition.

Why are nonreligious straights prejudice against gays? My experience... a forced change in environment. That's not to say that they believe that the gays will take over the whole world and "convert" everyone else, no it's more personal than that. It's more a case of they will change "my" outlook on sexual relationships. Sexual relationships are just as much about submission as they are about feeling good and making babies. For a straight guy, being hit on by a gay guy would constitute an act of dominance by the gay guy and therefore a totally new experience that he's unprepared for. You doubt me, ask a known gay basher what he would do if a guy hit on him. Then ask the same guy what he would do if an old fat woman(just as undesireble IMO) were to hit on him. In most cases both would be undesireble(almost equally) and both could be told "no thank you" but the guy would probably get his arse kicked when the woman would be politely(or not so) told "no thanks" Ultimately they will feel threatened(on the most basic, instinctual level) unless they have had early and often exposure to gay people. Most crimes against gay's are considered "hate crimes" and when you think about it, what drives hate more than anything else... FEAR. What is the action that is needed to overcome fear? Understanding and exposure.


"why it is so hard for the various races, gays and straights, and christians and non christians to get along with each other.

As described above, you can substitute sex for religion, color, gender, and any other source of prejudice. Fear of change from the known to the unknown, inferiority, popularity, peace. Yes fear of peace. After all, when you have no disagreements, no conflict, no winners, no losers, no status, nothing to overcome as a society, what will you do next? Some people actually fear this.

All you do is respect each other differences, and seek some common interests and beliefs. Why is that so hard for so many?"

It can be hard when your doctrin states that life be lived in strict fashion and morally should be spread to others(strength in numbers). How do you argue against promotion and not argue against the doctrin as a whole when the doctrin states all or nothing? When I speak of doctrin, I'm not just refering to religion as athiest's also have a doctrin... that of basic instinct and accepted order of things.(that which is natural) Ask a white guy what's wrong with interracial marriage, if he disagrees, he'll say "because it's not natural or right."

"watching the republicans attack affirmative action"

I agree with affirmative action. That said, I also think that as affirmative action succeeds, it should be scaled back to nonexistance. Who determines when and to what degree... dunno.

Ok, so it wasn't one word!:p

[JSE]

Karl,

Just to make my position clear.....

I have no problems at all with gay people in any way. I do not fear them in any way. And I think they should have every right that a straight person has because they are a human beings just like me and you. I judge people on their actions, not their sexuality. I don't have a problem with a State or Federal law giving a gay union every right that a traditional marriage has. No problem with that at all. I simply have an issue with a gay union being called Marriage. To me, marriage is between a man and women. To me, it's about our cultural past and tradition and to a minor degree, religion. As believe it or not, there are a lot of people just like me. For people to think myself and others like me have these views out of Hate and Intolerence is just stupid and goes to show their closed mindedness (word?) and inability to seperate their preconceived beliefs from reality.

BTW, I get hit on constantly by gay friends "messing" with me. I doubt they are serious but I could care less. If I ever responded in a angry agressive manner back toward them I would probably get MY arse kicked. A couple of them are pretty big guys. :rolleyes:

JSE

[karl k]

Karl,

Just to make my position clear.....

I have no problems at all with gay people in any way. I do not fear them in any way. And I think they should have every right that a straight person has because they are a human beings just like me and you. I judge people on their actions, not their sexuality. I don't have a problem with a State or Federal law giving a gay union every right that a traditional marriage has. No problem with that at all. I simply have an issue with a gay union being called Marriage. To me, marriage is between a man and women. To me, it's about our cultural past and tradition and to a minor degree, religion.

BTW, I get hit on constantly by gay friends "messing" with me. I doubt they are serious but I could care less. If I ever responded in a angry agressive manner back toward them I would probably get MY arse kicked. A couple of them are pretty big guys. :rolleyes:

JSEOk, so I got the acceptance right and the lack of promotion(used for lack of a better term... not saying you promote being gay, just ummm, well, never mind) wrong. My bad. I will correct the reference in the post.

I remember the first time I was hit on by a man... damn terrorfying!(spelled as intended) I was invited to a gay party by a friend at work. I went because he was OK and because he granted me a request that I bring a straight friend and he agreed he would see to it that we wouldn't be considered to be "new meat". Happened the next day at work. What do I do? What do I say? LOL! After that it was no big deal. An experience I think everybody should have to go through at least once in a life.:D The party to see how they live(them guys threw one hellova party)... the advance an exercise in adaptation.

We are clear... I think.

[karl k]

BTW, I get hit on constantly by gay friends "messing" with me. I doubt they are serious but I could care less. If I ever responded in a angry agressive manner back toward them I would probably get MY arse kicked. A couple of them are pretty big guys. :rolleyes:

JSEof an old Beavis and Butthead episode that you could have some fun with towards your "friends".

Butthead walks into the denist's office and see's a honey waiting on a bench. She's thinkin please don't sit by me... which he does. He turns to her and asks..."Uh huh huh huh Hey baby, got any cavities?" Of course, she knocks the **** out of him!

Ok well, maybe a little risky, but might be worth it. Would maybe catch someone off guard ... just enough! :D

[piece-it pete]

Yet you cannot read a bible, pray, or hold any religious activities in schools. So much for our christian foundation.

Oh yes you can!

As long as it's not required by the school. THIS is the result of our Christian foundation. Wouldn't happen in Islamic cultures!



What about the more than 1,100+ federal benefits offered to straight married couples? What about recognition? What about equality? Not all benefits can be address through legal devices. And why should gay couples have to pay someone to get these services when straight couples get them by just getting married. So gay couples have to pay attorneys for things that straight couples get for free. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?




As a christian I completely understand that Gods wrath is tempered by grace. In this day of grace, God doesn't punish the masses for the sin of a single person, or group. He deals with the person directly. Each christian has to stand before God and account for HIS life, not the life of the gay couple next door. We don't live in the old testiment, so that kind of fear is ignorance at its best. There is no scripture in the bible that supports forcing Gods word on anyone. But it does say "if they don't receive you, shake the dust from your feet and keep going." Any other words, walk away, and let God deal with them as he so desires. Its says nothing about legislated God's word on everyone, and it certain doesn't say discriminate if they don't believe in me. Who says gays are against God? Where does the word homosexual or gay appear in the bible? As a christian I am at a loss trying to understand where my fellow christians are coming from. What ever happen to love coverth all sin? There is no scripture in the New Testament(which is the dispensation we currently live in, not the Old Testament) which prescribes mass punishment for the sins of a few. This is a false arguement.

So you're saying, that according to the New Testament, Gods' grace would be a good reason to vote FOR condoning sin. This ISN'T walking away. Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more".

God also said "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom".

The ten comandments are from the Old Testament. It starts out by saying, "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was God". I didn't hear Jesus refute this statement.

Marriage is still a Sacrement, is it not?

God will judge nations, check out Revelations. Even if not, since this is a democracy, the gov't is a reflection of the people. But you're right to a degree, God will judge every individual. Will He say, "Thanks for approving of gay "marriage"? Or will He say, "Didn't I tell you, ' ...if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea'"?

Because the single, most important reason for marriage in the first place was - protecting and raising children. It's bad enough divorce is through the roof, and many kids are raised outside of a family - let's hold up same sex couples as a good example. Let them adopt kids, they'll have a normal, healthy upbringing.

Look at the studies. There is no question. This is a reason that goes beyond religion and applies to everyone.

Of course we live in Grace, else we have no hope.



So we find ourselves at an impasse. You want to be able to legislate religion on those who don't believe in what you do, yet you don't mind squelching their rights and freedoms to live as they please to save your rights. What ever happen to PERSONAL responsibility? Now my christian brothers and sister think it is up to them to change everyone into a christian, and if you don't do it willingly, then we will vote to legislate it, and force it on you. That is not what God has commanded us to do. Why do some of us think that God cannot handle himself, or knows how to deal with this? Why do we think we have to judge and punish for God? The freedom of religion is a personal right, not your freedom to force others to believe as you do.

My freedom of both religion and freedom of speech allows me to vote my concience. If my concience leads me to vote one way or the other, and enough fellow citizens agree, that becomes law.

That is democracy. Anything else is tyranny.

Can't legislate morality? I disagree - your whole argument is that it isn't right, or fair, to deprive gays of their "rights". So it's really my version of morality or yours.

Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality.

If I believe that changing the definition of marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, isn't it my personal responsibility to say so, and vote accordingly?

Also, I'm not forcing anyone to become a Christian. Jesus said "You will always be a little flock". How can that be, if everyone's a Christian? How can I justify forcing everyone to become one when God Himself said it's not possible?

He also said "Vengence is mine". It's not up to me! I'm not advocating the execution of gays, I'm drawing the line as I see it. Big difference.


Pete

[Chris]

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?
Hey Pete, I don't think many here want to redefine marriage. I don't even think that most homosexuals want that - well, some might, only because it would prove to them that their relationships are legitimate in the eyes of their peers. I think they're mainly fighting for their rights as human beings. Straight couples receive certain benefits and rewards that gay couples don't because they're not allowed to marry. Civil Unions that afforded them these benefits and rewards would likely suffice. I think that's all anyone here is arguing. Let's not redefine marriage, let's just create a way for gay couples to receive the same benefits without undermining marriage (in some peoples' eyes). The fact that you've already said you'd tolerate some type of civil union tells us that you're in agreement with us.

We're not comparing gay singles to straight singles. We're comparing married couples to gay couples - a direct comparison of two people who have an intimate relationship and are committed to eachother.

Folks, if you drop the term "marriage" and name it something else, I think everyone can be happy. Unfortunately, the way Mass. and Calif. handled things recently, it enraged everyone who wanted to "protect marriage" and seriously damaged any progress that had been made. We need some middle ground though. It's obvious that this is going to get worse before it gets better.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh yes you can!

As long as it's not required by the school. THIS is the result of our Christian foundation. Wouldn't happen in Islamic cultures!

Pete sorry, but you can not. Right here in the bay area a judge in a case disallowed a bunch of school kids from having a voluntary bible study on the school grounds. The school didn't sanction it, and neither did the school district. He said if it is allowed, then muslim, buddhist, hari krishna's and every other religion would have to be allowed to do it. That would turn the school into a religious meeting place, and would violate the seperation between church and state.


Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

Why should gays have to pay, and straights don't? A little? Have you hired an attorney lately??? That is not equality at all. Redefining marriage without providing equality for gays is discrimination. That is hateful and cruel just like racial discrimination is. Dicrimination is wrong


And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?

It is their conscious choice not to be married. This statement defies logic


So you're saying, that according to the New Testament, Gods' grace would be a good reason to vote FOR condoning sin. This ISN'T walking away. Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more".

Where in the word of God does it say that being GAY is a sin? The word GAY or HOMOSEXUAL is not mentioned anywhere in the word. Many sins are mentioned directly in the word. Lying, killing, stealing, conveting, falsely accusing are all directly named. A man loving another man (or woman another woman) is not mention directly, or indirectly as far as I know. The Word does say that God is LOVE. So the very nature of two people loving one another is the very essence of who God is. I think christians need to be very careful when enterpreting (or misinterpreting) the word that we do not colour its meaning with our own prejudices. When Jesus said "go and send no more" he was talking to a prostitute, not a gay man or woman.


The ten comandments are from the Old Testament. It starts out by saying, "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was God". I didn't hear Jesus refute this statement.

For whoever observes all the law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all. This is taken from the book of James. Jesus new we WOULD break the law, so he gave his life so we would be granted grace from the law. The consequences for breaking the law is death. That is why we are not bound by the law anymore, we couldn't follow it, and live a long life at the same time. Jesus came and fullfilled the law(no need to refute it) and his love and grace replaced the law which was outdated and impossible to follow.


God also said "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom".

The word fear is not used in the original text as we use it in the english language. Fear equals respect or honor in this context.


Marriage is still a Sacrement, is it not?

Only if honored by the church. If you are married in city hall, it is not a sacrament. In order for it to be a sacrament, it must be blessed by the church. Marriges between atheist are not sanctioned by the church.


God will judge nations, check out Revelations. Even if not, since this is a democracy, the gov't is a reflection of the people. But you're right to a degree, God will judge every individual. Will He say, "Thanks for approving of gay "marriage"? Or will He say, "Didn't I tell you, ' ...if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea'"?

God will not judge nations collectively. He will judge the individuals which make up a nation. Whether he says thanks, or didn't I tell you, you won't know until he judges. However it must be noted that convenants (the ancient Israelites viewed them as holy unions) between same sex partners were around during the old testament days.(read Ruth 1st chapter) If it was a sin, the people that entered into these type of covenants would have been killed. There is no record of that happening. Since it has not been established that gay unions are sin, there is no need to worry about the large millstone, or drowning in the depth of the sea.


Because the single, most important reason for marriage in the first place was - protecting and raising children. It's bad enough divorce is through the roof, and many kids are raised outside of a family - let's hold up same sex couples as a good example. Let them adopt kids, they'll have a normal, healthy upbringing.

Single women for years have raised and protected children, that is not something exclusive to heterosexual couples. The gay couple to my left raised a son, and a daughter. They are in college doing well, very nice, and love their fathers to no end. Around the corner a lesbian couple is raising two daughters. They have been together for 25 years. Their daughters are just as polite, kind, and cute as the heterosexual couples children that live accross the streets. Love, nuturing, protection, and support are not attributes exclusive to heterosexuals(even though we would like to think that) There are good heterosexual parents, and bad ones. There are good gay parents, and bad. Being a loving, supporting parent is an individual thing, not something exclusive to a group of people. And by the way, gay couples do adopt kids. These are usually kids that heterosexual parents have abandoned.


Look at the studies. There is no question. This is a reason that goes beyond religion and applies to everyone.

Studies also outline that children are worse off after a divorce, but that is not stopping heterosexual couples from getting them. The results of studies can be manipulated to make just about any point. You look at studies, I look at my neighbors.


My freedom of both religion and freedom of speech allows me to vote my concience. If my concience leads me to vote one way or the other, and enough fellow citizens agree, that becomes law.

If your conscience allows you to vote for discriminating against a group of people, then you have misused your freedoms. This country "freedoms" and "conscience" in the past has allowed slavery to exist, and the results were a group of people damaged for generations. Mans conscience can be good, or as evil as the devil himself.


Can't legislate morality? I disagree - your whole argument is that it isn't right, or fair, to deprive gays of their "rights". So it's really my version of morality or yours.

Your morals are design to govern yourself, not others. It is wrong for you to "export" you morals onto others. Jesus teaches us to compel people to follow his teaching, not force them. Athiest don't believe in God at all, why should they follow your morals? Your version of morality is for you, not for me. So if you mind your own business, and stay out of the affairs of others, then it is NOT about your morality of mine.

{quote]Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality.[/quote]

The law of the land is designed to impact everyone in the same way(which it does not in reality, ask black and hispanic men that, but that's another post altogether), it in no way was design to negatively impact one group, while positively impacting another(even though it does)


If I believe that changing the definition of marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, isn't it my personal responsibility to say so, and vote accordingly?

The bible states specifically this " as high as the heavens are from the earth, are my thoughts from your(mans) thoughts. In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God. Homosexuality is not specifically named as a sin. Your beliefs do not always equate to scriptual accuracy. It is not your job to judge your fellow man, that is Gods job. The bible also says;

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye"

In other words, get yourself together first, then you can assist your neighbor. If you are not a PERFECT christian, then you have no business judging anyone else. The beam is still in YOUR EYES.


Also, I'm not forcing anyone to become a Christian. Jesus said "You will always be a little flock". How can that be, if everyone's a Christian? How can I justify forcing everyone to become one when God Himself said it's not possible?

You say this, yet you have no problem forcing your beliefs(through legislation I might add) on other people. That is not what God put us on this earth for. We compel people to christianity though our love, not our judgement, our beliefs that are legislated to discrimination, or our perceived morals(christians occasionally do some of the most unGodly things). God implores us to "go into the world and preach the good news". These are our marching orders. There is nothing in scripture that says we are to legislate our christian morals on everyone. This country was founded on christian morals, but these morals were legislated in such a way as to free people from tyranny, not bring it upon them. There was a reason to seperate church and state. The church doesn't get out of control throwing moral edicts on everyone, and the state cannot tell people how to worship.


He also said "Vengence is mine". It's not up to me! I'm not advocating the execution of gays, I'm drawing the line as I see it. Big difference.

Yes but your definition of marriage in the absence of equality for all is discriminatory against gays. Since gay marriage doesn't square with your beliefs, your legislate discrimination. That IMO is vengance, because someone is suffering because of your "drawing the line as you see it" As you see it, and as somebody else may see it, could be universes apart. What makes your way better than anothers? Who made you god over the exportation of morals? Who says your way is the right way?

[piece-it pete]

Sir TT, it appears we have something in common - we love the debate!


Pete sorry, but you can not. Right here in the bay area a judge in a case disallowed a bunch of school kids from having a voluntary bible study on the school grounds. The school didn't sanction it, and neither did the school district. He said if it is allowed, then muslim, buddhist, hari krishna's and every other religion would have to be allowed to do it. That would turn the school into a religious meeting place, and would violate the seperation between church and state.


I would think you'd be up in arms over this clear, specific violation of our Constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court will strike it down.

Research what is meant by the term, "Seperation of Church and State".




Why should gays have to pay, and straights don't? A little? Have you hired an attorney lately??? That is not equality at all. Redefining marriage without providing equality for gays is discrimination. That is hateful and cruel just like racial discrimination is. Dicrimination is wrong



It is their conscious choice not to be married. This statement defies logic

We can call it what we like, gays will never be married, except in fantasy.




Where in the word of God does it say that being GAY is a sin? The word GAY or HOMOSEXUAL is not mentioned anywhere in the word. Many sins are mentioned directly in the word. Lying, killing, stealing, conveting, falsely accusing are all directly named. A man loving another man (or woman another woman) is not mention directly, or indirectly as far as I know. The Word does say that God is LOVE. So the very nature of two people loving one another is the very essence of who God is. I think christians need to be very careful when enterpreting (or misinterpreting) the word that we do not colour its meaning with our own prejudices. When Jesus said "go and send no more" he was talking to a prostitute, not a gay man or woman.

Being gay isn't a sin - sexual immorality is. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Not believing the Old Testament is an odd position for a Christian to take. Most do believe it. I believe it does still hold true, except for what Jesus specificly said was different.

Because God is love does not make love God. In Revelations He says the blood will flow to the horses' bridles. Vengence WILL be His.

If any non-Christians are reading this I encourage you to read Revelations, it's a good read on its' own. There is no doubt that our God is terrifying.

And Jesus said in heaven we will be like angels and not marry. I wonder what that means.




For whoever observes all the law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all. This is taken from the book of James. Jesus new we WOULD break the law, so he gave his life so we would be granted grace from the law. The consequences for breaking the law is death. That is why we are not bound by the law anymore, we couldn't follow it, and live a long life at the same time. Jesus came and fullfilled the law(no need to refute it) and his love and grace replaced the law which was outdated and impossible to follow.

Is freedom license? Are the ten commandments void? Because we're forgiven, we should put our stamp of approval on sin?

THIS is why Christ died? So we can do what we want?


The word fear is not used in the original text as we use it in the english language. Fear equals respect or honor in this context.

Please see Revelations.


Only if honored by the church. If you are married in city hall, it is not a sacrament. In order for it to be a sacrament, it must be blessed by the church. Marriges between atheist are not sanctioned by the church.

So it's OK for us to approve it?



God will not judge nations collectively. He will judge the individuals which make up a nation. Whether he says thanks, or didn't I tell you, you won't know until he judges. However it must be noted that convenants (the ancient Israelites viewed them as holy unions) between same sex partners were around during the old testament days.(read Ruth 1st chapter) If it was a sin, the people that entered into these type of covenants would have been killed. There is no record of that happening. Since it has not been established that gay unions are sin, there is no need to worry about the large millstone, or drowning in the depth of the sea.


God will judge nations. Plenty in the Old Testament. Some quick bits from Revelations:

2:26 He who overcomes, and he who keeps my works to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations.
2:27 He will rule them with a rod of iron, shattering them like clay pots...

19:15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with a rod of iron. He treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.

My take is that, yes, he judges nations, with prosperity or pestilence, but at the time of truth each person will answer for themselves.

Why did Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just"?

After multiple readings of the book of Ruth chapter one I can't find reference to gay covenants. Please clue me in.

Sexual immorality is a sin.



Single women for years have raised and protected children, that is not something exclusive to heterosexual couples. The gay couple to my left raised a son, and a daughter. They are in college doing well, very nice, and love their fathers to no end. Around the corner a lesbian couple is raising two daughters. They have been together for 25 years. Their daughters are just as polite, kind, and cute as the heterosexual couples children that live accross the streets. Love, nuturing, protection, and support are not attributes exclusive to heterosexuals(even though we would like to think that) There are good heterosexual parents, and bad ones. There are good gay parents, and bad. Being a loving, supporting parent is an individual thing, not something exclusive to a group of people. And by the way, gay couples do adopt kids. These are usually kids that heterosexual parents have abandoned.

Better abandoned than killed. The fact that gay couples can't have kids on their own should give us pause. Marriage doesn't exist to make us feel validated as a person.

Do we decide by feelings, or facts? Fact is, kids raised by single women are at a marked disadvantage in every catagory.



Studies also outline that children are worse off after a divorce, but that is not stopping heterosexual couples from getting them. The results of studies can be manipulated to make just about any point. You look at studies, I look at my neighbors.


There are very nice folks of every stripe. To base our argument for or against this massive social experiment on your neighbors is a mistake IMO.




If your conscience allows you to vote for discriminating against a group of people, then you have misused your freedoms. This country "freedoms" and "conscience" in the past has allowed slavery to exist, and the results were a group of people damaged for generations. Mans conscience can be good, or as evil as the devil himself.

Agreed to a point. However, comparing everything to slavery is wrong IMO.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington



Your morals are design to govern yourself, not others. It is wrong for you to "export" you morals onto others. Jesus teaches us to compel people to follow his teaching, not force them. Athiest don't believe in God at all, why should they follow your morals? Your version of morality is for you, not for me. So if you mind your own business, and stay out of the affairs of others, then it is NOT about your morality of mine.

"Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality."

The law of the land is designed to impact everyone in the same way(which it does not in reality, ask black and hispanic men that, but that's another post altogether), it in no way was design to negatively impact one group, while positively impacting another(even though it does)

You are telling me what I can or cannot recognise. You think the definition of marriage is unfair, immoral, like slavery.

And it does not change the fact that our entire criminal code is legislated morality.



The bible states specifically this " as high as the heavens are from the earth, are my thoughts from your(mans) thoughts. In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God. Homosexuality is not specifically named as a sin. Your beliefs do not always equate to scriptual accuracy. It is not your job to judge your fellow man, that is Gods job. The bible also says;

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye"

In other words, get yourself together first, then you can assist your neighbor. If you are not a PERFECT christian, then you have no business judging anyone else. The beam is still in YOUR EYES.

But you have been calling me intolerant repeatedly. This is not judging?

When you say, "In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God.", I actually agree! :D Original sin is "knowledge of good and evil", commonly considered to be when WE decide what is right and wrong, vs what God says.

He says sexual immorality is wrong. Clearly.

If it has to be clearly said, what good are the parables? Why do we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand?

What did Jesus mean when He said He'd make them blind and deaf?



You say this, yet you have no problem forcing your beliefs(through legislation I might add) on other people. That is not what God put us on this earth for. We compel people to christianity though our love, not our judgement, our beliefs that are legislated to discrimination, or our perceived morals(christians occasionally do some of the most unGodly things). God implores us to "go into the world and preach the good news". These are our marching orders. There is nothing in scripture that says we are to legislate our christian morals on everyone. This country was founded on christian morals, but these morals were legislated in such a way as to free people from tyranny, not bring it upon them. There was a reason to seperate church and state. The church doesn't get out of control throwing moral edicts on everyone, and the state cannot tell people how to worship.

Nope, but the people can define marriage!


Yes but your definition of marriage in the absence of equality for all is discriminatory against gays. Since gay marriage doesn't square with your beliefs, your legislate discrimination. That IMO is vengance, because someone is suffering because of your "drawing the line as you see it" As you see it, and as somebody else may see it, could be universes apart. What makes your way better than anothers? Who made you god over the exportation of morals? Who says your way is the right way?

I'm making myself God? Doesn't that go back to the mote in the eye again?

All I'm doing is casting my vote. Am I discriminated against because my arms are slightly longer than others, so long sleeves don't fit?

All I'm doing, and many, many others, Rep and Dem, is affirming what marriage IS.

Here's more of what that paragon of the Democratic party, Jefferson, had to say:

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted."

"The nation who never admitted a chapter of morality into her political code,... [will] boldly [avow] that whatever power [she] can make hers is hers of right."

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT, it appears we have something in common - we love the debate!

It does appear that way LOLOL


I would think you'd be up in arms over this clear, specific violation of our Constitutional rights.

No I am not, because I think the decision is right and fair. Public school are for learning reading, writing and math. Not religion. Catholic and private school, a different animal. It's not funded by the feds.


The Supreme Court will strike it down.

The one here in California hasn't, so I doubt it.


Research what is meant by the term, "Seperation of Church and State".

Did it in elementary school, high school, and college.


We can call it what we like, gays will never be married, except in fantasy.

I do not think anyone would waste their time on a pretty insignificant word. I think equality is much more important to gays.


Being gay isn't a sin - sexual immorality is. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

That may be so. So call it gay union, give it the same benefits, rights of recognition, and call it a day. Not doing so is discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is just one step away from color, and social class. We have a history in this country that discrimination in any form is harmful to society as a whole, and rips this country apart. I just won't believe that it is more important to my fellow christians to see this country ripped in two, just so they can export their beliefs, thereby discriminating against another. I think history has seen how wrong christians can be in this area(slavery)

Sexual immorality is too vague and useless to be helpful here. It defines nothing. God has always been very direct in what he constitutes as sin. Vagarities would serve him no purpose, as it would allow anyone under the sun to decide what that is. That would be wrong to put in fallible, gullible, opinionated human hands.


Not believing the Old Testament is an odd position for a Christian to take. Most do believe it. I believe it does still hold true, except for what Jesus specificly said was different.

I do not believe I said I didn't believe in it. I understand where it fits in my everyday life. The old testament is a series of book on examples, not guidlines. We cannot live by old testament guildlines or you and I would probably be dead already. Remember, you fail one, you fail them all. Failure is death. Jesus understood that completely. The old testament gives us perspective. How they lived and governed in that period, and how the new testament is to govern us today.


Because God is love does not make love God. In Revelations He says the blood will flow to the horses' bridles. Vengence WILL be His.

The fire and brimstone approach has never been helpful in compelling people to Christ. His word says that they will know us(Christians) by our love, and not by our Gods anger. In the book of psalms he also says "his anger last for a moment, but his LOVE a lifetime" Based on that, how can we justify the "scare the crap out of them" message. He says go preach the GOOD news, not the angry news.


If any non-Christians are reading this I encourage you to read Revelations, it's a good read on its' own. There is no doubt that our God is terrifying.

I think this is a irresponsible thing to say. First, revelations is full of symbolism that takes background study to understand. Secondly, this would be the worse introduction to Christ that you could give. How can you love someone you are scared crapless about? If anyone did what you suggest, you would walk away thinking that God was so angry, so destructive, and cared so little about human life, what would be the purpose of serving him? Wrong approach, and has always been.


And Jesus said in heaven we will be like angels and not marry. I wonder what that means.

Marriage serves no purpose in heaven. In heaven we will be praising God 24/7. No time for marriage, no time for hometheater(shucks!!) and no time to eat(double shucks!!).


Is freedom license? Are the ten commandments void? Because we're forgiven, we should put our stamp of approval on sin?

Sin has to be defined. It the word it was, and it was VERY specific. Unfortunately for the haters, and discriminators based on their own personal prejudices, being gay, and wanting to be committed is not listed as one. When you decide to export your morality, and freedoms to discriminate, you need to ask are my freedoms liscense to discriminate against people who do not believe like I do?


THIS is why Christ died? So we can do what we want?

I do not think this is about doing what you want. We are talking something very specific here, not doing what you want. Once again, what YOU think is right, might not be what GOD thinks is right.


Please see Revelations.

Read it at least 20 times. Not relevant to the specifics of this topic.


So it's OK for us to approve it?

It's not your job as a christian to approve, or disapprove anyone behavior or beliefs if you are not walking in perfection. Since nobody is, then it would be best to take your christian knowledge, apply it to yourself, incourage and nuture it in your family, and support your christian brothers and sisters. For every sin you can point out in others, an equal number of different(or same)sins can be pointed right back at you.


God will judge nations. Plenty in the Old Testament. Some quick bits from Revelations:

2:26 He who overcomes, and he who keeps my works to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations.

2:27 He will rule them with a rod of iron, shattering them like clay pots...

19:15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with a rod of iron. He treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.

My take is that, yes, he judges nations, with prosperity or pestilence, but at the time of truth each person will answer for themselves.

First, I am not interested in YOUR TAKE(not intended to insult). Without a greater understanding of the original text(language), your take can be far off the mark. Both Hebrew and Greek are much more descriptive languages than english is. What we take literally in the english language ,contexturally could be symbolism in greek and hebrew. Revelations is full of symbolisms, that when translated to english don't exactly mean the same thing. Nations are not collectively judge as one entity, or the righteous would be swept up with the evil. We he speaks of nations in revalations, he is speaking of people who are like minded in beliefs, not nations as in countries. I know quite of few gay christians who are God believing and respecting people. Why would God judge that respect along with those who don't believe in him at all. They are not like minded at all. Why should the righteous parish along with the unbeliever? That is exactly what would happen if we took the word nations as it is defined in english and apply it in this case. This nation is a prosperous nation, yet we are full of poor folks. The just, and the unjust(as defined by the word, and not by you and me) are not judged with the same result.



Why did Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just"?

I would hardly look to the words of a man that thought of another man as "property". Even a good man can have unjust ways.


After multiple readings of the book of Ruth chapter one I can't find reference to gay covenants. Please clue me in.

Did I say same sex convenant, or gay convenant? Don't think I said gay, because as I have said earlier, the word GAY doesn't exist in the bible anywhere.




The words sexual immorality are meaningless, vague, and in some cases self serving. The word is VERY specific about what it call immoral.

[quote]Better abandoned than killed. The fact that gay couples can't have kids on their own should give us pause. Marriage doesn't exist to make us feel validated as a person.

Unfortunately Pete children abandoned to the foster care system are being killed. So neither option is ideal for children.Just because heterosexual couples can have children doesn't make them good parents. That should also give us pause. The children of divorce parents also do poorly, unfortunately nobody is taking a pause on divorce. Gays are not seeking validity, the are seeking equality.


Do we decide by feelings, or facts? Fact is, kids raised by single women are at a marked disadvantage in every catagory.

Children of divorce parents fair no better because unfortunely the have to be raised by a single parent. Children in bad marriages, or just plain bad parents have no advantage either. These are also facts


There are very nice folks of every stripe. To base our argument for or against this massive social experiment on your neighbors is a mistake IMO.

Your opinion is noted, but it is just one of many. There are other who just don't agree with you. My neighbors are like many stable gay couples all over this country. And from what I understand, there are alot more than many of us know about.


Agreed to a point. However, comparing everything to slavery is wrong IMO.

Slavery just happen to be the worst kind of discrimination this country has ever exacted on a group of people. All discrimination is bad. I know of no time that discrimination against somebody based on sexual orientation(or anything else) is a good thing. One thing leads to another. Then it becomes beliefs, and social class. Once you start discriminating, it get's very hard to stop. What has happen against blacks is evidence of that.


"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Great words. But once again from a person who had pretty schizo morality himself.


You are telling me what I can or cannot recognise. You think the definition of marriage is unfair, immoral, like slavery.

No, I think pursuing the definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and women, giving this union favortism and special benefits over a union of a same sex couples is discriminatory. Just like giving whites special benefits over blacks and hispanics is discriminatory. Discrimination is immoral.


And it does not change the fact that our entire criminal code is legislated morality.

Its the law of the land though, and not designed to be discriminatory. However it is a failure in that respect because it can be misused.


But you have been calling me intolerant repeatedly. This is not judging?[/quote}

It is no more a judge than you calling what gays do as sexual immorality. You want to point and shoot, be prepared to get shot. That is the peril of judging.

[quote]When you say, "In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God.", I actually agree! :D Original sin is "knowledge of good and evil", commonly considered to be when WE decide what is right and wrong, vs what God says.

YOU cannot decide this for anyone else though. YOU decide this for yourself.


He says sexual immorality is wrong. Clearly.

That goes for ALL people, not gays specifically. If it went specfically to gay, he would have clearly outlined that this only applied to gays. Sorry Pete, but it does not.


If it has to be clearly said, what good are the parables? Why do we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand?

Parables are to teach us. The holy spirit is to enlighten us, give us comfort, lead and guide us. You need the holy spirit to give you understanding. Unfortunately too many christians are interpreting the word without the holy spirit, but with their prejudices.


What did Jesus mean when He said He'd make them blind and deaf?

You'll have to point this scripture out to me directly, I am blind on this one(LOL)


Nope, but the people can define marriage!

Yes they can. But it is evil to discriminate against a person, or a group of people when achieving this definition. Love thy neighbor as thyself. He said that period, and not with conditions. It is clear we know how judge individuals, marginalize them, discriminate against them, but the love part we seem to fall short.


I'm making myself God? Doesn't that go back to the mote in the eye again?

Precisely!


All I'm doing is casting my vote. Am I discriminated against because my arms are slightly longer than others, so long sleeves don't fit?

What you are doing may seem innocent to you. But if the result of this innocent gesture is the suffering of a group of people, then its not innocent at all. You know what discrimination does to a group of people, and you know what happens when you give a particular people benefits over another. So your gesture is not so innocent at all.
If someone is discriminating against your because of your arms, it is WRONG!!!


All I'm doing, and many, many others, Rep and Dem, is affirming what marriage IS.

That is fine. But affirming what marriage is, and giving this group special benefits over a another committed group, is just plain wrong. When many, many, many other people do it, it is just a bunch of people doing wrong. Just because the masses do something doesn't make it right. Masses of people in the old testament worshiped idols, God thought that was wrong!


Here's more of what that paragon of the Democratic party, Jefferson, had to say:

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted."

"The nation who never admitted a chapter of morality into her political code,... [will] boldly [avow] that whatever power [she] can make hers is hers of right."

Pete

Yes, nice words, and true. However he said all of this while owning slaves. As a person of color, that is hypocritical. Everyone has a sense of what is moral, and what is not. However in a free country, they may not all agree what that is. Jefferson and Washington were good men, but they had a very schizophrenic sense of morality. How can you treat people as property, and yet say we are all created equal. And just to justify their ownership, they called these people "animals". Sorry Pete, that is a very funny morality to me.

[JeffKnob]

The fire and brimstone approach has never been helpful in compelling people to Christ. His word says that they will know us(Christians) by our love, and not by our Gods anger. In the book of psalms he also says "his anger last for a moment, but his LOVE a lifetime" Based on that, how can we justify the "scare the crap out of them" message. He says go preach the GOOD news, not the angry news.

I agree. The whole fire and brimestone thing is BS. We are taught that God loves us unconditionally but we should fear him. That is just dumb. I am not going to live my life in fear of something that loves me. I am also not going to live my life fearing something (terrorism) because the Republicans tell me I should. I am much more scared of dying in a car accident than a terrorist attack and the stats back that up. We should have a war on car accidents; it would save more lives. Everything has been about fear since 9/11. I don't fear any wrath of God because I feel that homosexuals should have the equal rights that I have. We are all his children and no one is better than any other.

I personally don't have a problem with the word marriage being used for homosexuals but there are people like JSE that do. If the real issue is about the word and the religious meanings that come with that word, then the answer is simple.....Don't use the word marriage. Call it a civil union and give homosexuals the rights under the law that married couple have. Churches should not be forced to agree with it, recognize it, or even perform the ceremonies.

[piece-it pete]

Sir TT, Jeff,

I don't have the time to answer the whole posts before the weekend hits, but am compelled to point out that, to unrepentant sinners, our Lord CAN be a terrible God.

Although Sir TT I understand what you're saying, in our happy/feely time it may not be the best marketing!

Jeff, this is not a matter of interpretation. Yes, there is symbolism in Revelations, particularly in the begining chapters, but it is clear that the description of God's judgement on the world is literal. (Or why would He say, "Don't write down what the 7 thunders said"?)

It starts out early by saying:

1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

It is the only book in the Bible that has this pointed warning:

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is also the book that says, and He shall wipe away every tear from our eye.

Pete

[dean_martin]

Sir TT, Jeff,

I don't have the time to answer the whole posts before the weekend hits, but am compelled to point out that, to unrepentant sinners, our Lord CAN be a terrible God.

Although Sir TT I understand what you're saying, in our happy/feely time it may not be the best marketing!

Jeff, this is not a matter of interpretation. Yes, there is symbolism in Revelations, particularly in the begining chapters, but it is clear that the description of God's judgement on the world is literal. (Or why would He say, "Don't write down what the 7 thunders said"?)

It starts out early by saying:

1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

It is the only book in the Bible that has this pointed warning:

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is also the book that says, and He shall wipe away every tear from our eye.

Pete

Pete, I believe I've found a more succinct statement of your position that sums it up nicely. This is a letter to the editor at mcall.com from your pal Earl. 'Nough said.

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa

Washington Township

[piece-it pete]

Pete, I believe I've found a more succinct statement of your position that sums it up nicely. This is a letter to the editor at mcall.com from your pal Earl. 'Nough said.

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa

Washington Township

Dean,

THAT'S IT!!!

Perfect!

Just kidding. I kinda regret mentioning the Gods' wrath thing, I was just trying to explain something to non Christians that I have never seen in print.

I know some Christians are Democrat, God loves them anyway :D .

Pete

[Chris]

Pete, I believe I've found a more succinct statement of your position that sums it up nicely. This is a letter to the editor at mcall.com from your pal Earl. 'Nough said.

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa

Washington Township
Great, this is what really scares me about religion... when people start referring to their political party as "God's party". Jihad is only a hop, skip and jump away :D

[Chris]

Terrence and Pete, great arguments on both sides. I thank you two for going into this debate as deep as you have. Terrence, I think Pete has already mentioned that he agrees with your statements about equal rights (at least to some degree). But I'm enjoying reading your interpretation on Christianity and how it pertains to marriage and discrimination. It's very interesting to read two different interpretations from two people who are obviously very religious. Thanks you two. I plan on having some talks about this with some of my religious family members so I can get some other views on it as well.

[dean_martin]

Dean,

THAT'S IT!!!

Perfect!

Just kidding. I kinda regret mentioning the Gods' wrath thing, I was just trying to explain something to non Christians that I have never seen in print.

I know some Christians are Democrat, God loves them anyway :D .

Pete

Pete, I should have been a little more obvious that my post was meant to be humorous. I'm glad you took it that way.

We may be treading on new ground for this generation reminiscent of the Great Awakening and other past movements. This does not scare me nor does it bother me. What bothers me is that so many may associate a particular political party with such a movement when I can see so much hypocrisy in that party. You know, the democrats could have just as easily adopted the theme, "At least you know where we stand."

Did you know that of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rate 9 were "blue states"? Did you know that Massachusetts, that bastion of gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in America? Did you know that 9 out of the 10 states with the highest divorce rate were "red states"?

Did you know that 8 out of the top 10 states that pay the most into the feds, but receive the least were "blue states"? 9 of the top 10 that receive more than they paid out were "red states".

I didn't know these stats prior to the election. Some of my Northeastern compatriots are pretty angry over the accusation that they've lost touch with the "values" of "real" America. Their tired of the old anti-tax slogan "it's my money" when they pay out more than anyone and in fact their tax dollars are funding highways in "red states". They're making a pretty good argument that should have been made before the election.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT, Jeff,

I don't have the time to answer the whole posts before the weekend hits, but am compelled to point out that, to unrepentant sinners, our Lord CAN be a terrible God.

Although Sir TT I understand what you're saying, in our happy/feely time it may not be the best marketing!

Jeff, this is not a matter of interpretation. Yes, there is symbolism in Revelations, particularly in the begining chapters, but it is clear that the description of God's judgement on the world is literal. (Or why would He say, "Don't write down what the 7 thunders said"?)

It starts out early by saying:

1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

It is the only book in the Bible that has this pointed warning:

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is also the book that says, and He shall wipe away every tear from our eye.

Pete

Pete, yes you are right, God is powerful, but the translation of the word fear is not the scared feared. Is honor and respect. Keep in mind that some words translated from the original hebrew doesn't have the same meaning in english. Secondly, you have 66 books in the bible. You have three of four books talking about Jesus loving sacrifice for us, the entire old testament designed to give us perspective on how profound grace is. Several more on how to govern our daily life, and just one that focuses on the end time, and Gods anger. To present God in this fashion based on that is doing him a serious injustice.

Suggesting that non believers read revalations first is much like turning a donkey and cart backwards, and cracking the wip. If you except christ as your personal savior, then revalations is useless to you, you won't be here. If you haven't, or you are not going to(atheist), then you don't give a rat's butt what revalations says.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence and Pete, great arguments on both sides. I thank you two for going into this debate as deep as you have. Terrence, I think Pete has already mentioned that he agrees with your statements about equal rights (at least to some degree). But I'm enjoying reading your interpretation on Christianity and how it pertains to marriage and discrimination. It's very interesting to read two different interpretations from two people who are obviously very religious. Thanks you two. I plan on having some talks about this with some of my religious family members so I can get some other views on it as well.

Chris,
I prefer to be called "spiritual" rather than religious.

Religious people are judgemental, and not so loving.
Relgious people talk about the bible, but own slaves.
Religious people preach that you are evil for doing what you do, and then turn around and sin themselves.
Religious people curse on monday, smoke pot on tuesday, fistfight on wednesday, visit prostitutes on thursday, go to the club and party on friday and saturday, and repent for everything on sunday. And then do it again next week!

Spiritual people work on their own lives. And as they grow people notice the love, kindness, and coolness they exibit, and ask them how they do it. Then we tell them about the love of christ. They either accept it, or reject it. We've done our job. No judgement, no condemnation, no force acceptance, no jamming down ones throat. Spiritual people allow the spirit to do the work.

[piece-it pete]

Great, this is what really scares me about religion... when people start referring to their political party as "God's party". Jihad is only a hop, skip and jump away :D

Chris,

Just a reminder - not too long ago both parties were "Gods' party" - Christianity gave us the rise of democracy - jihad is the fruit of Islam.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Pete, I should have been a little more obvious that my post was meant to be humorous. I'm glad you took it that way.

We may be treading on new ground for this generation reminiscent of the Great Awakening and other past movements. This does not scare me nor does it bother me. What bothers me is that so many may associate a particular political party with such a movement when I can see so much hypocrisy in that party. You know, the democrats could have just as easily adopted the theme, "At least you know where we stand."

Did you know that of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rate 9 were "blue states"? Did you know that Massachusetts, that bastion of gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in America? Did you know that 9 out of the 10 states with the highest divorce rate were "red states"?

Did you know that 8 out of the top 10 states that pay the most into the feds, but receive the least were "blue states"? 9 of the top 10 that receive more than they paid out were "red states".

I didn't know these stats prior to the election. Some of my Northeastern compatriots are pretty angry over the accusation that they've lost touch with the "values" of "real" America. Their tired of the old anti-tax slogan "it's my money" when they pay out more than anyone and in fact their tax dollars are funding highways in "red states". They're making a pretty good argument that should have been made before the election.

Dean,

Yep no harm no foul. I've realized that with my sometimes very dry humor (or feeble attempts at it, anyway) the reader has no way of knowing!

Your mention of the Great Awakening pulled at very strong emotions in me, I thought about it all weekend. I pray it is so.

I visited my lives-in-the-getto friend friday night, it may interest you to know that they (generally firmly in the Democratic camp) call flip-flopping "kerry", as in, he's kerrying again. He's kerry.

As you can imagine, this cracked me up in a pretty big way! :D

So, with that candidate anyway, "At least you know where we stand." wouldn't have worked very well. Clinton? Signed NAFTA and welfare "reform", along with many other GOP initiatives.

Not exactly playing to his base? But playing for funds and election.

Not to impune the forthrightness of all Democrats, of course! Just pointing out that both parties play this game. The best we can hope for is to keep them in check.

___

That is a good point! It's not too surprising, though, when you figure those areas have the biggest population.

The marriage statistics are interesting. Do you know if the percentages of marriage to the general population are similar?

I don't think that Dems are exactly out of touch - just out of office lol.

48% isn't very much out of the majority! Of course the GOP is going to play this for all they're worth, the Dems are out of touch, out of time (Hall and Oates?).

That's a discussion I'd love to hear - WHY did the election go to the GOP? What, exactly, did the Reps do, the Dems didn't, or both, that again produced this result (complete control)?

When Clinton won his second term I was unhappy. But I knew it wasn't the end of the world, largely 'cause the Pres can't do as much as the opposition blames him for.

Though I did worry about the Supreme Court. But even this isn't as big an issue as it seems, simply because you don't know WHAT the new justices will do, once they're permanently esconced, untouchable, in that body. Looking at who appointed who and how they turned out can be interesting, I haven't for a while but last time I did I was very surprised, I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote Roe vs Wade (Blackwell? Blackburn? Bootblack :) ?) was a GOP appointment.

Not to say it doesn't matter at all.

Anyway, now it's yous guys turn to sit on the sidelines. I assure you, it doesn't bother me much!

Pete

[dean_martin]

Your mention of the Great Awakening pulled at very strong emotions in me, I thought about it all weekend. I pray it is so.



I know my reference to a recent movement toward God (or, movement of God) was kind of cryptic, but the reports our church gets from missionaries in the field are that people in third world/developing countries are converting to Christianity in surprising numbers. Not to get too preachy, but along with these high numbers is a reported increase in "miracles" and/or "signs and wonders". The feeling among them is that our complacency and comfort level are a detriment here, but that there will be a "breakthrough" soon. Think about that for a while!

[piece-it pete]

No I am not, because I think the decision is right and fair. Public school are for learning reading, writing and math. Not religion. Catholic and private school, a different animal. It's not funded by the feds.

The one here in California hasn't, so I doubt it.

Because YOU think it's right and fair, you're willing to ignore the Constitution? Isn't that forcing your version of morality?

It goes against both original intent and case history. If it goes all the way, it will be overturned.


Did it in elementary school, high school, and college.


What did they teach you it meant?


I do not think anyone would waste their time on a pretty insignificant word. I think equality is much more important to gays.


That sounds a lot like "seperate but equal".


That may be so. So call it gay union, give it the same benefits, rights of recognition, and call it a day. Not doing so is discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is just one step away from color, and social class. We have a history in this country that discrimination in any form is harmful to society as a whole, and rips this country apart. I just won't believe that it is more important to my fellow christians to see this country ripped in two, just so they can export their beliefs, thereby discriminating against another. I think history has seen how wrong christians can be in this area(slavery)

Calling it a gay union won't make it NOT sexual immorality.

If you are black, white, or green :) you are still a man or woman. This is not racism.

If the country rips in two one part will be much smaller than the other, the vast majority are opposed to redining marriage.



Sexual immorality is too vague and useless to be helpful here. It defines nothing. God has always been very direct in what he constitutes as sin. Vagarities would serve him no purpose, as it would allow anyone under the sun to decide what that is. That would be wrong to put in fallible, gullible, opinionated human hands.


The New Testament certainly mentions sexual immorality- repeatedly. Why?

1st Corinthians 6:9 Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

There you go. Some versions say "effeminate" instead of "homosexual".

Sex outside of marriage is a sin in the eye of God. He defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. I cannot put my approval on what is clearly a sin.

Further, I don't want the society that I am a part of to hold anything else up to my kids as a ligit example, because it is not, and therefore a lie. Satan is the father of all lies.

Can gays go to heaven? If saved, absolutely. If I can go, well, it's wide open, if you are saved.


I do not believe I said I didn't believe in it. I understand where it fits in my everyday life. The old testament is a series of book on examples, not guidlines. We cannot live by old testament guildlines or you and I would probably be dead already. Remember, you fail one, you fail them all. Failure is death. Jesus understood that completely. The old testament gives us perspective. How they lived and governed in that period, and how the new testament is to govern us today.


Agreed that the Old Testament can take some discernment. However, no one argues that the Ten Commandments are void! It is quoted often in the New Testament.

Failure is death, agreed, that is why we die, the wages of sin are....

I looked and you did not say you didn't believe in it. Sorry :( .


The fire and brimstone approach has never been helpful in compelling people to Christ. His word says that they will know us(Christians) by our love, and not by our Gods anger. In the book of psalms he also says "his anger last for a moment, but his LOVE a lifetime" Based on that, how can we justify the "scare the crap out of them" message. He says go preach the GOOD news, not the angry news.

I think this is a irresponsible thing to say. First, revelations is full of symbolism that takes background study to understand. Secondly, this would be the worse introduction to Christ that you could give. How can you love someone you are scared crapless about? If anyone did what you suggest, you would walk away thinking that God was so angry, so destructive, and cared so little about human life, what would be the purpose of serving him? Wrong approach, and has always been.


I'm not trying to scare anyone. If it seems scary it's because it IS scary - if there is a hell then fearing God is a smart thing to do: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Proverbs 9:10.

The Good News is we are saved! From what? God's wrath! Hell!

"Someone who is always thinking about happiness is a fool. A wise person thinks about death." Ecclesiastes 4

(BTW, I'm not implying that you are a fool. It's just part of the verse.)

I'm not too concerned about approach, I worry more about the truth. In this age, where so many are lured by mysticism, Revelations has a special place. Just as a secular read, it's very, very good.

It is the fulfillment of our resurrection.

If Jesus is right, that we are a little flock, most will EXPERIENCE Gods' wrath. I think it's nice to warn them, and there it is, in black and white.



Marriage serves no purpose in heaven. In heaven we will be praising God 24/7. No time for marriage, no time for hometheater(shucks!!) and no time to eat(double shucks!!).


Ahp ahp ahp - you're giving me your take!!

:D

I yearn for this - we will finally get the explanations of the mysteries - and I have a feeling we'll experience things much better than we know!

Our purpose will be revealed.

I like choral music - I always thought it must be like angel music - we'll see!


Sin has to be defined. It the word it was, and it was VERY specific. Unfortunately for the haters, and discriminators based on their own personal prejudices, being gay, and wanting to be committed is not listed as one. When you decide to export your morality, and freedoms to discriminate, you need to ask are my freedoms liscense to discriminate against people who do not believe like I do?




I do not think this is about doing what you want. We are talking something very specific here, not doing what you want. Once again, what YOU think is right, might not be what GOD thinks is right.

Very true. But all we can do is what we think God wants. Look at us, both Christians, we disagree. What I believe is reflected in the Bible passages I have quoted.


Read it at least 20 times. Not relevant to the specifics of this topic.


It was in reference to your statement "The word fear is not used in the original text as we use it in the english language. Fear equals respect or honor in this context."

I think there's a lot to fear for the unsaved in Revelations.


It's not your job as a christian to approve, or disapprove anyone behavior or beliefs if you are not walking in perfection. Since nobody is, then it would be best to take your christian knowledge, apply it to yourself, incourage and nuture it in your family, and support your christian brothers and sisters. For every sin you can point out in others, an equal number of different(or same)sins can be pointed right back at you.


I absolutely agree 100%. It's when I'm asked to APPROVE of sin that I have a problem.


First, I am not interested in YOUR TAKE(not intended to insult). Without a greater understanding of the original text(language), your take can be far off the mark. Both Hebrew and Greek are much more descriptive languages than english is. What we take literally in the english language ,contexturally could be symbolism in greek and hebrew. Revelations is full of symbolisms, that when translated to english don't exactly mean the same thing. Nations are not collectively judge as one entity, or the righteous would be swept up with the evil. We he speaks of nations in revalations, he is speaking of people who are like minded in beliefs, not nations as in countries. I know quite of few gay christians who are God believing and respecting people. Why would God judge that respect along with those who don't believe in him at all. They are not like minded at all. Why should the righteous parish along with the unbeliever? That is exactly what would happen if we took the word nations as it is defined in english and apply it in this case. This nation is a prosperous nation, yet we are full of poor folks. The just, and the unjust(as defined by the word, and not by you and me) are not judged with the same result.


We don't have an original copy of the Bible. So if we take this to its' furthest conclusion we would have nothing, effectively no Bible.

Not to say you don't have a point. But only to a point IMO.

Nations are more than like minded people. Christians or Muslims worldwide do not constitute a nation.

I have got to run. Part two tomorrow!

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Because YOU think it's right and fair, you're willing to ignore the Constitution? Isn't that forcing your version of morality?

The constitution does not allow turning schools into churches. If you turn schools into churches, some atheist is going to be offended, and it will be back in the courts because we are violating their rights. No the judge had enough foresight to see where this was going.



It goes against both original intent and case history. If it goes all the way, it will be overturned.

Unfortunately the judge didn't see it this way. The case is four years old, and no challenge. That says something.





What did they teach you it meant?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.


That sounds a lot like "seperate but equal".

No, just plain equality whomever you choose for a partner



Calling it a gay union won't make it NOT sexual immorality.

Sorry but sexual immorality has been clearly defined in the word of God. Gay unions are not amoung the things he mentions. That is using your own personal biases to filter and define the word of God. A violation of the last scripture in Revelations.


If you are black, white, or green :) you are still a man or woman. This is not racism.

No, it is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is equally as bad as racism. So you believe that discrimination is okay if the person doesn't fit your moral code. Well, early americans thought the same thing, and brought slavery to this country. That is okay with you I suppose. Discrimination in any form is wrong PERIOD!




If the country rips in two one part will be much smaller than the other, the vast majority are opposed to redining marriage.

Yes when it comes to defining marriage. But your conclusions dissipate when you mention civil union, and give equal rights. Only the judgemental church people are left at odds with this.


The New Testament certainly mentions sexual immorality- repeatedly. Why?

You know why just as well as I do, come on!!!!


"1st Corinthians 6:9 Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

There you go. Some versions say "effeminate" instead of "homosexual".

Sorry, but neither word is found in the original text. There is no Greek or Hebrew equivilant to homosexuality. The word didn't even exist in that day. Effiminate does not have sexual connotation at all. It just means acting femanine, and I know some supposidly straight men that would violate this.(too fuzzy and vague) Also, you have to be VERY careful of all the different translations. Some of them stray VERY far away from the King James version(which has its own problems), and even farther away from the original text. Secondly, the original text does not define the gender of prostitutes at all. Why would they make it wrong for a male prostitute, and let a female prostitute go free. Doesn't make sense at all, and that is why there is a danger in all of these different translations or the bible.


Sex outside of marriage is a sin in the eye of God. He defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. I cannot put my approval on what is clearly a sin.

Who says SEX is the driving force behind same sex unions? Is it the driving force between you and your wife? Perhaps it does say that sex outside marriage is a sin, but makes no mention of sex within a UNION. There is absolutely nothing written about the parimeters of convenants(which are unions). The point that God illustrates is that he doesn't want everyone having sex with multiple partners, and between uncommitted people. What if two men(or women) have a convenant, or union? The bible is mum on that.


Further, I don't want the society that I am a part of to hold anything else up to my kids as a ligit example, because it is not, and therefore a lie. Satan is the father of all lies.

So instead of being a strong bible believing christian, who has prayed for the strength to resist temptation, and be in the world, but not of it, you want to be a weak christian who cannot resist temptation, doesn't know how to teach your OWN how to resist(as my mother and father did), you want to get it out of your sight, so you don't have to resist. That is not scriptural at all. He plainly says resist(sin, temptation etc) and it will flee from you, not legislate all sin into nonexistance so you don't have to be a strong christian. He repeatedly demands we take the strong pathway, not the weak one. My grandmother and mother raised me with understanding that sin was going to be everywhere, but I had to develope the strength to resist it, not work hard to stamp it out. God knows how to deal with sin, so let him, and stop trying to do his job!!


Can gays go to heaven? If saved, absolutely. If I can go, well, it's wide open, if you are saved.

Salvation comes by belief, so it makes no mention that Gays cannot go to heaven. John 6:35-45,65) "If you confess with mouth, believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. Based on this scripture, why can't a gay person(who is living a normal christian life like you and me)can't go to heaven.




Agreed that the Old Testament can take some discernment. However, no one argues that the Ten Commandments are void! It is quoted often in the New Testament.

Failure is death, agreed, that is why we die, the wages of sin are....

First Pete, the ten commandments ARE the law. The law is the very thing that Jesus came to fulfill(take the place of). Since we cannot live by the law(it was impossible at the time), grace fill the place of the law. In other words we are not instantly killed anymore for stealing, or cheating.

Get your interpretation correct, the wages of sin is death(referring to spritual death which is instant) not physical death(as many sinners live long lives)


I looked and you did not say you didn't believe in it. Sorry :( .

No worries!


I'm not trying to scare anyone. If it seems scary it's because it IS scary - if there is a hell then fearing God is a smart thing to do: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Proverbs 9:10.

You are still being WAY to literal with this scripture, and that is because you never studied the original hebrew. Fear is NOT correctly translated as scared in that passage. According to Hebrew translation, fear(not really the correct translated word) is HONOR and RESPECT, not be scared crapless. It was the love of Christ that drew me, not because I was scared. You will never get an athiest to fear anything he doesn't believe in, but you can show so much love toward him, that it will compel him to Christ.


The Good News is we are saved! From what? God's wrath! Hell!

Wrong again, we are saved from the perils of sin, we are not bound to it. Once you are saved, his wrath, and hell are no worry to you. The hell fire and damnation approach you take is a utter failure. It has not compelled anyone to come to Christ. Why would you want to serve a angry God? Psalms plainly says, "his anger last just a MOMENT(a small space in time), his love a lifetime"(a huge space of time). To portray him as fierce and angry all the time, based on this scripture, and many hundreds of others is a misportrayal.


"Someone who is always thinking about happiness is a fool. A wise person thinks about death." Ecclesiastes 4

This is a old testament scripture where failure to adhere to the law was death. That is not the grace approach and therefore not representative of this dispensation. You are taking this scripture out of contexted by this type of usage.

(BTW, I'm not implying that you are a fool. It's just part of the verse.)


I'm not too concerned about approach, I worry more about the truth. In this age, where so many are lured by mysticism, Revelations has a special place. Just as a secular read, it's very, very good.

Alot of old style preachers thought like you did, and unfortunately their congregation stayed empty. Approach is everything when you are competing for souls in a sinful environment. Approach is everything when there are 300 times more scripture that speaks of his love, than his anger. Your approach is backwards. Revelation is not a book to approach casually. You can easily misinterpret almost everything(as many have done) without a clear understanding of the writers, their background, and their language which is clearly more descriptive than ours


It is the fulfillment of our resurrection.

And only applicable to us. Not much good to anyone else.


If Jesus is right, that we are a little flock, most will EXPERIENCE Gods' wrath. I think it's nice to warn them, and there it is, in black and white.

Waste of time. A atheist doesn' t care about this, and neither do those who are bound and determind to live life to the fullest down here on earth. They don't think about what's going to happen in Revelations, the could be dead.



Ahp ahp ahp - you're giving me your take!!

:D

Didn't you say you read revelations? Then you would know this isn't my take.


I yearn for this - we will finally get the explanations of the mysteries - and I have a feeling we'll experience things much better than we know!

We'll probably also discover that the judgements we heaped on other are just not true. I think you will be VERY surprised who ends up in heaven. It may not be your pastor!



Very true. But all we can do is what we think God wants. Look at us, both Christians, we disagree. What I believe is reflected in the Bible passages I have quoted.

Unfortutunately your interpretation may not be spot on. This is why God tells us to study to show ourselves approved. Sometimes you have to take the time to read how the interpretation of the word from the original languages to english, has effected the true meaning intended.



I think there's a lot to fear for the unsaved in Revelations.

I don't think they care very much based on their actions



I absolutely agree 100%. It's when I'm asked to APPROVE of sin that I have a problem.

Yes, but you are defining sin based on your own understanding, not Gods. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean NOT to our own understanding. If your bias against Gays extends beyond the bible, then it is not difficult for you to use the bible to justify discrimination. The bias against blacks way back in time extended well beyond the bible, that is the reason why our forefounders(they are not my fathers) had no problem using it to justify treating people like animals.



We don't have an original copy of the Bible. So if we take this to its' furthest conclusion we would have nothing, effectively no Bible.

Your wrong again, the original manuscripts are around. That is how we know the King James version has some interpretation problems.


Not to say you don't have a point. But only to a point IMO.

Grudging recognition is better than none at all I guess ;)


Nations are more than like minded people. Christians or Muslims worldwide do not constitute a nation.

Yes, that is because they do not believe the same thing. Just look at how they view Jesus, and how we do.




Pete[/QUOTE]

[karl k]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
It's not your job as a christian to approve, or disapprove anyone behavior or beliefs if you are not walking in perfection. Since nobody is, then it would be best to take your christian knowledge, apply it to yourself, incourage and nuture it in your family, and support your christian brothers and sisters. For every sin you can point out in others, an equal number of different(or same)sins can be pointed right back at you.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I absolutely agree 100%. It's when I'm asked to APPROVE of sin that I have a problem.
Don't you mean the allowance of sin? Is there a difference? Can you allow without approval? Can you approve without allowance? Isn't the difference(if there is one) what we call tolerence?

BTW, I appreciate the tone that has been conducted in your conversation with The Terrible One. It is quite fascinating to me how the two of you have such different interpretations of one book. Sure the general concensus may be the same, but the details... amazing... and yet not so.

I am a little curious though... what will happen when we have school sponsored prayer, no abortion, no birth control, no adult content(including anything with a PG or higher rating, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs(prescription or otherwise), a manditory 10% of income to the church/charity(as a function of the 10% flat tax reform),and the nation as a whole claims to believe in God, will the Republicans have an agenda to campaign on or will the vote just be automatic? :p

Just thinkin'.

[piece-it pete]

Don't you mean the allowance of sin? Is there a difference? Can you allow without approval? Can you approve without allowance? Isn't the difference(if there is one) what we call tolerence?

There is a large difference. What people do or don't do is on them. If I am called upon to vote for anything, anything at all, I will vote my conscience. If I believe gay "marriage" is wrong I will vote against it.

It is my right as an American.


BTW, I appreciate the tone that has been conducted in your conversation with The Terrible One. It is quite fascinating to me how the two of you have such different interpretations of one book. Sure the general concensus may be the same, but the details... amazing... and yet not so. .

Thanks, Karl. I feel I have been provoked many times, however I understand that these issues are devisive.

The Church in the US is going through a giant civil war, one that will only intensify, and that I believe will end under government control - I will be jailed for stating that being actively gay is against Gods' will.

It'll be a "hate" crime. It's happenning all over the "free" world right now. The very folks who are slamming the religious right, calling us hateful and intolerant folks, will be the ones who strip us of our freedom of both religion and speech.

They will hail it as a great victory, as the advancement of human culture and civilization. All praise the god of human hubris!!

When in reality this is a clear sign that our time as a Great Nation is coming to an end. Unfortunately the discussion of the religious issues has made it look like that is the only reason it matters - which is not true, not by a long shot.

Consider: I once read a survey of 27 cultures. As soon as the family unit breaks down, that society is on its' way out.

There were no exceptions.

I've been racking my brain trying to remember the name or author of that book, to no avail, if I remember I'll post it.

But regardless, healthy societies have strong men and virtuous women. A cursory glance at history will affirm this.

The Roman Republic was known as a nation of honest men. The Roman Empire under Caesar was not.

As a matter of fact, homosexuality was admired greatly right before the fall.

Yes, this means divorce is bad. VERY bad. However, having one bad law is no good reason to have another.



I am a little curious though... what will happen when we have school sponsored prayer, no abortion, no birth control, no adult content(including anything with a PG or higher rating, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs(prescription or otherwise), a manditory 10% of income to the church/charity(as a function of the 10% flat tax reform),and the nation as a whole claims to believe in God, will the Republicans have an agenda to campaign on or will the vote just be automatic? :p

Just thinkin'.

You won't see prayer in the schools anytime soon. For cryin' out loud, we're fighting just to keep "under God" in the Pledge!!

How about the money?

Most Christians don't have problems with birth control. With abortion, most do. In reality it is a huge power grab by the Judges. Like gay "marriage". There has always been stag movies, they just were not allowed IN PUBLIC. The anti-smoker crowd are the same folks arguing for gay "marriage", not us. No drinking? lol Martin Luther had a mug with level markings on it, like "The Ten Commandments", Sermon on the Mount", etc! :D True. And the Puritians had a higher per-capita alcohol intake than we do overall (as well as more education). I really don't see how (or why) we'd outlaw drugs.

Gov't already takes WAY more then 10%, for social programs (charity? Yes) and absolutely there will be no need to vote.

:D

Thanks again, Karl. You're really OK, for a liberal lolol.

Pete