|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Please fill free if you like, what have I posted that makes you think my interpretation is wrong. What have I said? Am I being to literal for your taste. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I just am not afraid to give my opinion. Did Paul have a problem giving his opinion. Not that I'm comparing myself to Paul but he did kill Christians so he came from a unusual background. Anyway I gotta ask and I hope you answer this question but how can you honestly think homosexuallity is not a sin!?
Perhaps you missed where I said I was not interested in arguing your interpretation of the Bible, that was not the point of the post. I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. End of story, we will never agree and that's just fine. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
Yes you figured me out. I'm racist. Everyone knows he got votes From pretty much the whole black population. I would bet even a whole bunch of Republican voters. I mean are you serious.
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
The point I am trying to make is WHO DRAWS THE LINE??? I mean if homosexuality is acceptable...then why not pedophilia or beastiality or numerous other taboos....where is the line drawn and why and WHO gets to make that decision????
Sigh. I don't know, maybe because animals and children are NOT consenting adults? Really, Pete? I expect better from you in a debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
I've read that people are against the word marriage because it is based in religious tradition. What should we call unions between men and women that aren't preformed by any member of the clergy, no matter what faith. Justice of the Peace, ships captain, etc?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
Quote:
I've read that people are against the word marriage because it is based in religious tradition. What should we call unions between men and women that aren't preformed by any member of the clergy, no matter what faith. Justice of the Peace, ships captain, etc?
Edited due to the fact that I'm a pseudo-racist!
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Every application I ever filled out ask your race. If you are not aware companies are required to hire minorities
And if you look, the applications, by law, must state you do not need to answer that question.
Companies are NOT required to hire minorities. They can hire damn near anyone they please., They are however required to give equal consideration to minorities and there are times when they designate a position as one they'd like to fill with a minority. But as a requirement,, NO SIR.., Not true as you stated it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Yes you figured me out. I'm racist. Everyone knows he got votes From pretty much the whole black population. I would bet even a whole bunch of Republican voters. I mean are you serious.
I already stated that the Democratic presidential candidate gets nearly the same amount of the black vote as Obama. The difference (which was about 5%) to previous candidates ( Kerry got 88%) was due to Obama's strategy of going into the poor, black areas and actually organizing community shuttles and whatnot to increase voter turnout among the black community - a demographic which has historically low turnout.
I'm not arguing that he didn't get a large percentage of the black vote, I'm arguing that Democrats get essentially the same turnout and the difference can be explained by the active effort to increase black voter turnout.
Regardless, he won every age demographic (except 65+), he had more males and females voting for him than McCain, he won the popular vote in every region except the south, he won among union families and non-union families. In short the only demographics he lost were 65+ and the south.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
I can honestly say that in all of the time I did any kind of hiring, I never once considered a person's race, either as a positive or as a negative.
There were some people who spoke in such a manner that I could barely understand them, and others who came in dressed in a completely inappropriate manner, and obviously they never even got an interview. However, race never entered into things at all.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
It's your story tell it like you want.
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
And with you and with other things you have posted on various different topics. I believe you but race does play a part. Look at the Rooney rule. That is the dumbest rule I have ever seen which we have discussed before.
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
And with you and with other things you have posted on various different topics. I believe you but race does play a part. Look at the Rooney rule. That is the dumbest rule I have ever seen which we have discussed before.
I agree it's a dumb rule, but it's really a poor example. It is a rule that affects a whopping 32 employment positions in the world and a rule within a self contained organization, one that has surpassed the need for such a rule in the past decade anyway by way of the number of minority coaches that have been hired.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
Quote:
The point I am trying to make is WHO DRAWS THE LINE??? I mean if homosexuality is acceptable...then why not pedophilia or beastiality or numerous other taboos....where is the line drawn and why and WHO gets to make that decision????
Sigh. I don't know, maybe because animals and children are NOT consenting adults? Really, Pete? I expect better from you in a debate.
As a former person against gay marriage I never understood this argument. I do respect people like Caty for having their belief and I don't consider him hateful. I come from a family of deep faith who have struggled with the issue of gay marriage. I have a cousin who has been in a gay relationship (they were married last year) for eight years and have a child, with another on the way. Her parents were not at the wedding but they are accepting of the child. They are not accepting of the relationship but they do accept her wife in their home.
Some people might find them hateful, while others might find them condoning what they say they are supposedly against. I see them conflicted between the child they love and what they believe is right and wrong in their heart.
I guess I can understand what they feel because not to long ago I was in the same boat with my beliefs. I have never taken the Bible literally so I can see some of it is open to interpretation. Jules and Michelle helped me in realizing my beliefs were not right. When I meet and get to know people like Jules and Michelle I can't see how Jesus could be against it?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
Rasist rule none the less. Gotta go.
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
Police, Fire and other safety services usually have to pass by many qualified applicants in order to fill a minority quota.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Quote:
The point I am trying to make is WHO DRAWS THE LINE??? I mean if homosexuality is acceptable...then why not pedophilia or beastiality or numerous other taboos....where is the line drawn and why and WHO gets to make that decision????
Sigh. I don't know, maybe because animals and children are NOT consenting adults? Really, Pete? I expect better from you in a debate.
Sigh....and I would expect you to understand the point I am trying to make and not make any inferrence to any stance I have on any of the stated taboos(hence my statement before I even started with the argument)....the point being WHERE is the line drawn???? WHY is it drawn there???? and WHO decides that??? Because then the next question in your situation becomes...who says it has to be consenting adults??? Why was that line drawn there...who drew it there?
Can you completely take emotion out of the equation...look at it abstractly and understand the points I am talking about are not the acts themselves Heck we could be talking about kissing rocks or petting kittens...I am not concerned with the act itself...but with the determination of and forcing of what is acceptable and moral upon others...(and that goes in ALL directions...)
Now lets be clear concerning the current issue....In this certain case however..the CEO of Chick Fil-A was not forcing his views on anyone else...He was asked an opinion and he answered. He is not forcing anyone else to believe the same way he does....nor is he discriminating against any employee nor customer....Yet people are trying to take action in order to change the way he believes and or hurt his business because of the way he believes in order to inact a change in his beliefs....WHO are they to Draw that Line??? And WHO are they to force it upon him??? And WHY do they get to decide???
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The point I am trying to make is WHO DRAWS THE LINE??? I mean if homosexuality is acceptable...then why not pedophilia or beastiality or numerous other taboos....where is the line drawn and why and WHO gets to make that decision????
Sigh. I don't know, maybe because animals and children are NOT consenting adults? Really, Pete? I expect better from you in a debate.
As a former person against gay marriage I never understood this argument. I do respect people like Caty for having their belief and I don't consider him hateful. I come from a family of deep faith who have struggled with the issue of gay marriage. I have a cousin who has been in a gay relationship (they were married last year) for eight years and have a child, with another on the way. Her parents were not at the wedding but they are accepting of the child. They are not accepting of the relationship but they do accept her wife in their home.
Some people might find them hateful, while others might find them condoning what they say they are supposedly against. I see them conflicted between the child they love and what they believe is right and wrong in their heart.
I guess I can understand what they feel because not to long ago I was in the same boat with my beliefs. I have never taken the Bible literally so I can see some of it is open to interpretation. Jules and Michelle helped me in realizing my beliefs were not right. When I meet and get to know people like Jules and Michelle I can't see how Jesus could be against it?
I don't understand the argument either, never have.
Thanks for the kind words, P, I appreciate it. I respect people's opinions on the matter, even if I disagree with them. I just expect the same in return, and I will, as always, state my opinion.  I don't really intend to change people's minds on the subject, but I have had people like you tell me I've made them look at things a bit differently. That can't hurt. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Would you feel better if I phrased it as such.... If A is accepted...then why not B or C or several other X's and Y's....
I mean like I said for the arguments sake...I am not all that concerned with the acts themselves...I am talking about the decision of what is acceptable and what is not and who makes that decision and why it is made....and then I am concerned about the forcing of that decision on others....and the morality of that action...
Last edited by PETE314; 08/03/12 01:03 PM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I already stated that the Democratic presidential candidate gets nearly the same amount of the black vote as Obama. The difference (which was about 5%) to previous candidates ( Kerry got 88%) was due to Obama's strategy of going into the poor, black areas and actually organizing community shuttles and whatnot to increase voter turnout among the black community - a demographic which has historically low turnout.
I'm not arguing that he didn't get a large percentage of the black vote, I'm arguing that Democrats get essentially the same turnout and the difference can be explained by the active effort to increase black voter turnout.
Nobody is arguing that democrats get almost all of the black vote but...
Quote:
Total turnout in 2008 was about the same as it was in 2004, about 64 percent of voting age citizens.
But with Barack Obama on the ballot, the makeup of the 131 million who voted last year was markedly different. While the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained roughly the same, 2 million more blacks, 2 million more Latinos and 600,000 more Asians turned out. Compared with 2004, the voting rate for black, Asian and Hispanic voters increased by about four percentage points. The rate for whites declined by one percentage point.
As a result, according to an analysis by William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, whites declined to 76 percent of all voters in 2008, from 79 percent in 2004.
Turnout varied widely by state, from a high of 75 percent in Minnesota to 52 percent in Utah.
In a number of states, including Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and South Carolina, turnout among blacks surpassed 70 percent.
In 2004, according to the census, barely 60 percent of eligible blacks voted. In 2008, nearly 65 percent did (as did 66 percent of white voting-age citizens).
web page
If you think that historic surge in black and minority voters was simply due to the fact that Obama went into black neighborhoods and asked them to vote... and that it has nothing to do with him being black... then you are way beyond being reasoned with..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
...and there are times when they designate a position as one they'd like to fill with a minority...
Isn't that illegal? What if they designated a position they'd like to fill with a white man?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
I don't think that anyone could make any kind of reasonable argument that Black people didn't turn out in huge numbers because the first Black man in history was one of the 2 major party candidates.
It's to be expected.
Never before had a Black person had the opportunity to vote for a Black person to be President. Of course they took great pride in that, and turned out in great numbers. I don't know how anyone could have expected anything less.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Actually, I think you are the one responding emotionally.
As far as the A, B, C thing, no, it doesn't make me "feel" any better as it is critical to know what A, B, and C are. "A" may be interracial marriage, "B" may be gay marriage, and "C" may be beastiality.
Tell me, how does two adults getting married force morals on you? And yet, you have no problem forcing your morals on them by not allowing them to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
The sooner this spectacle is decided in court, the better. Wouldn't it be amazing as a voting public to have an election not centered around divisive wedge issues which our leaders view as rains from the heaven to keep our attention diverted from their pathetic job performance and corruption?
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
If you think that historic surge in black and minority voters was simply due to the fact that Obama went into black neighborhoods and asked them to vote... and that it has nothing to do with him being black... then you are way beyond being reasoned with..
I obviously agree that black people took pride in the first major black candidate and went out and voted for him (just like Catholics voted en masse for Kennedy). I was attempting to make two points:
1) Obama did make an effort to increase the black voter turnout (and it worked). While him being 50% black had an effect, it's also a result of him making a conscious effort to get those voters to the polls
2) My main point was to dismiss moxdawg's point
Quote:
Honestly who on this board can honestly tell me we don't have a current president due to a whole lot of blacks voting for the black man.
Obama won across essentially all demographics, so Mox's statement doesn't hold weight since he would've won the presidency regardless since he won among nearly all demographics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Anyone who waits 2 hours to buy them some Chick-fil-A has got a ton of time on their hands and poor taste.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
The sooner this spectacle is decided in court, the better. Wouldn't it be amazing as a voting public to have an election not centered around divisive wedge issues which our leaders view as rains from the heaven to keep our attention diverted from their pathetic job performance and corruption?
Ummm... why do you think they drive them to the forefront?
If there isn't on, they'll just invent another... something like, perhaps, I dunno... requiring by law that everyone pays for women's birth control?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Jules, then I guess you will never be able to understand my point...I don't know how many ways I can illustrate to you that the acts don't matter for the purpose of my argument I DON'T CARE...about homosexuality, etc....I DON'T CARE.... My question is purely philisophical in the way that it is the ACTION of "deciding where the line is drawn" that I am questioning...not the acts themselves.... whether the issue at hand is sexuality(something that is in dispute amongst people), or murder(something considered bad), or charity(something considered good), or something else....that action of where that line is drawn....who decides that,....and why there and why them???? Why is that so hard to understand???? Quote:
Tell me, how does two adults getting married force morals on you? And yet, you have no problem forcing your morals on them by not allowing them to marry.
Says who??? Not me??? You obviously cannot read if you believe this....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
There's no doubt that they'd be looking for another. But this is an issue that's been dragged around the yard deeper and more prolonged than others. Maybe I've just been growing up during the course of it, but the issue seems to have more pull and divide than abortion anymore.
As for birth control, at some point that commodity's accessibility needs drastically improved- if not guaranteed. I know that probably sounds a bit ridiculous, but with fewer and fewer jobs/careers and a lack of need for meaningful labor and an exponentially growing population, our problems are only going to get exacerbated. Population control isn't a really PC subject, but it's bigger factor than I think we consider it to be.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
The sooner this spectacle is decided in court, the better. Wouldn't it be amazing as a voting public to have an election not centered around divisive wedge issues which our leaders view as rains from the heaven to keep our attention diverted from their pathetic job performance and corruption?
Exactly. Gay marriage, abortion, and some others are hot button topics that get way too much press when the leading issues should be the economy and our national debt. THOSE should be the factors. If all else between 2 candidates is equal, then I suppose one could/should vote based on agreement or disagreement on minor issues.
We do, however, live in a republic where majority rules - or, at least it was designed that way. Anymore it seems the minority feels like they are entitled simply because they are the minority.
Shoot, put gay marriage on the ballot this november. Have a national vote on it. Put it on again 4 years later.
But to vote for or against a candidate based solely on their views on gays, or abortion, or because they were or weren't a veteran, or because of any single issue, is small minded.
Gays in the u.s. are allowed to be gay. There are some countries where you get stoned for being gay.
Adultery, while generally frowned on in this country, is an offense in some countries that is punishable by prison or even death..........for the woman, that is.
I'm rambling, I know. Gay marriage is not a make or break issue for me. I'm not sure what preventing it does, and I'm not sure what allowing it does. It's "status quo" vs. "hey, we want to be able to say we're married".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
You are right, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Haha, maybe it's just one of those days for us. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
That's why I never vote on someone based on those types of issues. Number 1, they never do squat about them. Number 2, we have way bigger fish to fry right now.
I disagree with your last statement. Is that the way you feel about your marriage?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Gay marriage is not a make or break issue for me. I'm not sure what preventing it does, and I'm not sure what allowing it does. It's "status quo" vs. "hey, we want to be able to say we're married".
Reallly? Really? Aren't you married? Were you forced or something. Otherwise you had reasons which are probably very similar to the reasons why gay couples would like to get married,
Edit: I wanted to add putting important social issues to a vote is a terrible short-sighted idea. Sometimes for the advancement of social policy and equaility politicians have to make decisions which are against a majority of what people would like. Look no further than Slaves, Civil Rights Act, Jim Crowe Laws...etc. There was a large number of people especially in the South who wanted those things and it took a strong politican to say No, our country is better than that and we will not allow that kind of injustice and inequality.
The Constitution says nothing about limiting a man or woman's rights depending on their sexual preference therefore we shouldn't.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Were you forced or something.
Weeeeelllllllllllll.......
Ooooooh...hey...don't let my wife see that...lol
But to be honest...many people....if their significant other did not pressd the issue as a sign of the relationship "moving forward" as if it is some destination....they probably would never get "married"....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
For you and jules:
First, you. Yes, I am married, and no, I was not forced to be married.
I am personally against gay marriage for one reason: My religious beliefs. Period. That does not make me right, but it doesn't make me wrong, either. Simply put, it's how I feel. My opinion.
As for the other social issues you state.........Jim Crow, slavery, civil rights, etc. I am glad those were changed. No where, in my beliefs, do I think anyone is below me (or above me, actually). Just as I do not think gays are below me or above me. Marriage, to ME, is between a man and a woman. If gays can get married, it doesn't do anything for me. If gays can't get married, it doesn't do anything to me.
In other words, I don't care what the result is, but if I'm asked, I will state my opinion/position. You can attack me for that, and that's fair. No problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Nobody is attacking you. I was only commenting on your flip statement alluding that it is only so someone can say "hey, I'm married". Which is why I asked if that is how you feel about your marriage. I don't see the need to trivialize someone else's reasons for wanting what you have been legally able to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
I didn't say anyone was attacking me. I said it would be okay if they did.
Right or wrong, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how I feel. Some disagree. Just as I am allowed to have my thoughts, they are allowed to have theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
I don't support the Westboro Baptist Church.
Amen Jules
That church hurts me as a Christian when I see there disgusting behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
I am personally against gay marriage for one reason: My religious beliefs. Period. That does not make me right, but it doesn't make me wrong, either. Simply put, it's how I feel. My opinion.
Theres a fundamental problem with this view tho. Your view/opinion is one shared, but we derive our laws from the Constitution not from the bible or any other religious text for that matter. Being able to get married is a legal right not a religious one thus the Consitution takes precedent, and there is no where in the Consitution where it says gay couples cannot get married.
Additionally there were people who used the bible to justify Slavery..etc and in their opinion Slavery was justified because of their religion. The parallrels are not hard to draw. I cannot and will not ever justify taking people's rights based on some religious belief or text. We are not Saudi Arabi or Iran therefore we cannot derive our laws from religious beliefs or texts. We have to derive our laws and legal rights from Justice and Equaility.
Quote:
As for the other social issues you state.........Jim Crow, slavery, civil rights, etc. I am glad those were changed. No where, in my beliefs, do I think anyone is below me (or above me, actually). Just as I do not think gays are below me or above me. Marriage, to ME, is between a man and a woman.
Gay couples aren't below yet they don't have the same rights as you do? Your arguement is illogical. You are literally saying I hold these people equal with me, yet I should have more rights... seems this is a case of cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
In other words, I don't care what the result is, but if I'm asked, I will state my opinion/position. You can attack me for that, and that's fair. No problem.
First I am here to have a discussion with people mainly about the Browns but about other things as well. I am not here to insult, belittle, or attack someone. If you or anyone else feel that I have ever attacked or are attacking you please PM me and we can discuss my actions and how we could resolve the issue.
I know I probably won't change anyone's opinion but it makes me feel better to get it off my chest so to speak.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
J/C on your statement . . . Quote:
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman
I agree for the most part. But I take a different route. I am for Civil Unions and Marriages.
My thought on a Civil Union is a legal agreement between two consenting adults for purposes of sharing health care benefits, survivorships, estates and the like and Marriage which does the same plus receive a tax break.
Lets take for example, two elderly men or women, one has good retiree benefits the other has none or poor benefits. By joining a civil union they can share benefit packages and other arrangements which could help soften the blow of medical needs vs. funds for those needs.
Lets take another example of two same sex single moms who are not "gay" but want to be able to legally pool their resources together to help themselves out with health care for themselves and their kids.
I think by having these types of unions it encourages people to help one another out and I think would benefit all in the long term--those that are gay and those that are not.
It wouldn't be "marriage" no vows needed or ceremony, just two consenting adults and a really good attorney. (you can have "say yes to the dress" thing if you wanted to spend the cash . . .)
To pacify the religious--marriage=tax breaks plus the benefits of being in a civil union.
Last note . . . life is far too short and these days . . . brutal . . . if two people are happy being together and want to love one another and mutually support one another and maybe even raise good kids . . . maybe foster kids or adopted kids, as many gay folks do . . . then why not??
I'll let the good Lord above make the call . . .
(sorry if this not really coherent . .. looooong day at work!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
I did not ever say you, or anyone else, attacked me. I stated that people could, and I would understand. In other words, I wouldn't get upset, and, I am not.
Now, you bring the constitution into this discussion. I am not a constitutional scholar, but does the constitution discuss marriage as a "right"?
Then you say: "
Gay couples aren't below yet they don't have the same rights as you do? Your arguement is illogical. You are literally saying I hold these people equal with me, yet I should have more rights... seems this is a case of cognitive dissonance."
Okay, you think I'm illogical and have a case of cognitive dissonance? Fair enough. But you're not here to belittle or insult.
I have never said my opinion or view was right - I have said my opinions are just that - my opinions.
You also state: Additionally there were people who used the bible to justify Slavery..etc and in their opinion Slavery was justified because of their religion. The parallrels are not hard to draw. I cannot and will not ever justify taking people's rights based on some religious belief or text. We are not Saudi Arabi or Iran therefore we cannot derive our laws from religious beliefs or texts. We have to derive our laws and legal rights from Justice and Equaility."
I agree with most of that. We are not Saudi Arabia or Iran. If we were, gays would be killed. I don't want that, neither do you.
I'm not sure where your reference to slavery in the Bible comes from, but again, I'm not a Biblical scholar.
I am not here to judge. I've stated my opinion, and I've been quite clear I believe, that I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Chick-fil-a
|
|
