Texas sodomy ruling likely to ruffle feathers

[Guest SP-1]

Marney, you came out of nowhere with your attacks. It's hardly on the level of Jesus and has served as an interesting diversion for me at best. I do find your continued attempts to make me seem a zealot amusing, however. Until my government comes and orders that I'm nailed to a cross for a slow, agonizing death because I believe in Jesus Christ, until someone blows my head off for it or kills me directly because of it, things like this are relatively nothing. I've hardly lobbied for martyrdom, and certainly wouldn't do it on a message board if the notion crossed my mind.

 

We've successfully ruined this thread with childish nonsense on both our parts. The rest of you, attempt normal conversation again.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Jes' do as the man says, chillen. Go an' be wunnerful people.

[Guest EricMM]

SP why do you think homosexuality is wrong?

 

I mean, just because it doesn't result in reproduction, doesn't mean it's a big problem. Just because two guys or two girls want to get off together or live together or get married or anything and everything in between, why is that bad or wrong? Why is it negative in any way? Tell me how anyone is harmed negatively by a consentual homosexual relationship. Tell me why you should care.

 

Cuz right now I feel your position is practically undefendable.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Uh, what? The Republicans could be HELPED by the Fundies leaving. They turn off the middling voters who swing either way, just like the article mentioned.

That doesn't mean it's an issue. As for helping the party? How so? More "moderates" join, and bring the party to the left. For me, it's not a matter of gays joining. The more the merrier, if they don't wanna make the party into Democrat Lite. Oh, difference of opinion is perfectly fine, but when you add voters who are nothing but Liberals. I fail to see how it helps anyone.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

SP why do you think homosexuality is wrong?

 

I mean, just because it doesn't result in reproduction, doesn't mean it's a big problem.  Just because two guys or two girls want to get off together or live together or get married or anything and everything in between, why is that bad or wrong?  Why is it negative in any way?  Tell me how anyone is harmed negatively by a consentual homosexual relationship.  Tell me why you should care.

 

Cuz right now I feel your position is practically undefendable.

I'm sure SP can handle this but I thought I'd jump in.

 

The Church's position is that every sexual act must serve two purposes, a love-giving and a life-giving function. Sex purely for pleasure is wrong (which explains why contraception is prohibited). Conversely, fertilization procedures such as IVF are looked down upon because it eliminates the love-giving function. Obviously, homosexual sex cannot serve the life-giving function so it is considered wrong.

 

Homosexual sex is considered wrong, not homosexuality in general.

 

I pretty much agree with the Church's position (although I think it should be redefined to every sexual relationship). However, it is each individual's choice if they want to follow this guideline. And it certainly isn't my place to judge them. All I can say is "The Church teaches us differently". In the end, all of a person's choices are b/t them and God. All that is truly important to me is if they love Christ.

[Guest JMA]

That doesn't mean it's an issue. As for helping the party? How so? More "moderates" join, and bring the party to the left. For me, it's not a matter of gays joining. The more the merrier, if they don't wanna make the party into Democrat Lite. Oh, difference of opinion is perfectly fine, but when you add voters who are nothing but Liberals. I fail to see how it helps anyone.

Why exactly is it considered Leftist to accept homosexuals? The Fundies just want to shoe-horn religion into goverment. Period. They would be happy under a theocracy. A concept that is Un-American (a good buzz-word), IMO. As a former Christian and someone who still respects the faith, I can safely say they don't follow Christ's example. If I was still a religious man I would say "Hate fundamentalism, not the fundie." But I'm not, and as such I have no pity for whatever happens to them.

 

Back on topic: What's wrong with Liberal Republicans? There are liberal, moderate, AND conservative Democrats. It's not as simple as Democrat=Left and Republican=Right. Hell, Archie Bunker was a Democrat. And let's not forget that the Dems were on the wrong side when it came to freeing slaves. At the end of the day both parties are just clubs.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yeah, and btw...

 

NO MATTER HOW LIBERAL THEY ARE, IF THEY VOTE REPUBLICAN, THEY'RE STILL DOING WELL FOR YOUR PARTY.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

As for helping the party? How so? More "moderates" join, and bring the party to the left.

Not really. This doesn't mean the party gives up it's fiscal stance. Or it's environmental stance. Or it's gun control stance. Or it's abortion stance. Or anything like that.

 

Please also remember that they don't have to join your party, and that moderates who are registered Dem can vote for Republicans too. I did that like crazy last election.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Yeah, and btw...

 

NO MATTER HOW LIBERAL THEY ARE, IF THEY VOTE REPUBLICAN, THEY'RE STILL DOING WELL FOR YOUR PARTY.

I've heard the argument that these people still vote for the Republicans. Honestly it can be a good thing, and realistically my biggest concern is with the members of congress more than the voters.

[Guest Fallen Angel]

If they (left-leaning Conservatives) join the Republican party, then they gain sway with the party's elected officials, which they can use to push the party's agenda to the left. Simple. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to an individual's own opinion.

 

For all the backlash Christian Fundamentalists get, you'd think they were coming to people's towns and burning their homes. They have an agenda, like every other group of human beings out there. But because theirs involves religion, a dirty word to some people, they seemingly get singled out.

[Guest JMA]

If they (left-leaning Conservatives) join the Republican party, then they gain sway with the party's elected officials, which they can use to push the party's agenda to the left. Simple. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to an individual's own opinion.

I don't think there are left-leaning conservatives. Just as there are no right-leaning liberals. The way I'm always seen it is that a political party is just a party. The three philosopical themes of liberal, conservative, and moderate can apply to any member of both parties. But there are right and left-leaning moderates, though.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

If they (left-leaning Conservatives) join the Republican party, then they gain sway with the party's elected officials, which they can use to push the party's agenda to the left. Simple. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to an individual's own opinion.

A fringe group of religous fanatics is not going to be what keeps that from happening, as I really doubt they're what's keeping the GOP anchored to it's conservative base. I don't think that "hey, why don't we stop demonizing gay people" is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. They won't be completely unified with the fundies, but as a party they'll still be a well-oiled machine and still doing what they usually do.

 

Such a change as we've discussed in the Republican side would fly against guys such as that Santorum fella, who's the third (I think?) guy in command of the party, and you're telling me that they'll try and sell him on abortion rights next? Don't think so. Anyone who tries to radically reshape the status quo will be fought every inch of the way.

[Guest Fallen Angel]

What I'm saying isn't that the far right leaners are going to change their views. The issue is that more left-leaners in the party (and by this, I mean more "moderate" conservatives who vary from party lines) could affect the way Republican leaders vote on issues, in attempt to please their constituency. And, over time, if the party shifts enough this way, it may not be this "well-oiled" machine anymore and again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, as it's a matter of individual opinion and what direction people want to see the party go in.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I thought Marney *was* a Christian, and I also think that Joan of Arc is a fraud and a fucking psychopath to boot.

 

Being a Christian, I take more of a humanistic approach towards things. No matter how unnatural homosexuality is, that doesn't mean that I will condemn them. All sin is equal after all. Even with abortion, I think it's wrong, but I gots no evidence, so I can't prove it.

 

Just thought I'd chime in o-- YEAH WHATEVA~!

[Guest SP-1]

Paragon said something key: all sin is equal. End of story, from the whitest lie up to murder, it all resulted in Christ having to die to universally make amends.

 

And Eric, why is it suddenly something that has to be "defended"? Because you don't agree? Or because it's a religious issue? In either case, I don't believe it's right because of the scientific reasons stated above. If you paid close attention, I said that it goes against the natural order of things. God created the world to work in a specific way. Christ used marriage as a prime example of God's love for us. Sex itself has it's own book of the Bible (Song of Solomon), and unless I missed it somewhere it's between a man and a woman. Not two women. Not two men. Adam and Adam weren't created, Adam and Eve were. Sodom and Gammorah were hosts to sodomy and all sorts of sexual and other sins, but the sexual things were focused on in the account and, IIRC, subsequent sentence for the two cities. A sentence, thankfully, that Christ took upon himself for those of us that would come after Him.

 

Now, if I said that God should have never sent Christ and that everyone should be burned alive and their cities destroyed if homosexuals lived there, then it would be undefendable. But as it is I belive in Grace, and in Hope. I don't believe the act is right, I don't believe it ever has been, nor will it ever be. Scientifically it doesn't hold weight, and biblically it doesn't hold weight. If anything, it itself has a problem with defense, other than, "We wanna."

 

And Haggis, I think you're leaning more towards a Catholic view of sex. In the Protestant/Reformed world, sex between a man and wife simply for pleasure if just fine. It's prohibited nowhere in scripture, within the context of marriage.

[Guest SP-1]

Also, if you'd take notice, nowhere have I condemned homosexuals to a fiery death. If you take notice, I myself have struggled with it and have friends who have come out of it. I have friends who are gay, presently. Disagreeing and condemnation are two totally different things. I don't appreciate the assumption that I partake in the latter.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

For the record, I don't think it's wrong, but even if one believed that it were, they shouldn't force them to have a lack of rights, such as marriage which was sanctioned in Toronto a few days ago actually.

[Guest SP-1]

For the record, I don't think it's wrong, but even if one believed that it were, they shouldn't force them to have a lack of rights, such as marriage which was sanctioned in Toronto a few days ago actually.

I'm all for a seperation of church and state, as long as the state doesn't interfere with the church's rights. If the government wants to allow it, that's the government's call. I don't think people can be forced into turning away from sin. It has to come from a work of God within.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

What I'm saying isn't that the far right leaners are going to change their views. The issue is that more left-leaners in the party (and by this, I mean more "moderate" conservatives who vary from party lines) could affect the way Republican leaders vote on issues, in attempt to please their constituency.

Well, that would be how political parties work, so if a huge flood of less staunch conservatives joined the party, that would make sense such a change would happen, no?

 

However, the people who go on about "core values" and have a strong sense of social conservatism not seen in very many countries (you know the kind, calls Europe "a bunch of Communists" and that kind of thing), well there's quite a bunch of people like those with a lot of money. And one of the thing that's become appearant in politcs in the past 100 years or so is that politics listens more to the lesser people with money than the greater people without. Here in California, the governor will pretty much put up anything for sale, but that's another matter entirely.

 

Remember that our democracy does allow for more than two parties, and those with strong conservative convictions will be represented in one party or another. I think it'll be hard to dismantle the Republicans, even if the far, far-right wackjobs left and made their own party. The party would not be as big as it currently is, but it would still be very open in communication and agree internally on a lot of things (maybe everything except pizza toppings.)

 

The Democrats can't agree on anything right now, which is their current problem.

[Guest JMA]

I'm not too big on "marriage" myself. It seems meaningless to me. I mean, how does a peace of paper make you "married"? It's not a tangible thing. If two people love each other and can be with each other than wouldn't they already be "joined together"? It seems today that marriage is just used out of tradition and maybe for a tax-cut.

[Guest SP-1]

For Christians the paper is merely so the government recognizes it legally. The true marriage is when the vows are taken for God and for one another.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The Democrats can't agree on anything right now, which is their current problem.

 

I disagree.

 

The Dems agree on a lot of things, even with the schism within (that is, the moderates and the leftists). Nearly any democrat you ask will agree to most of these values:

 

- Government Makes A Society More Free

 

- Governmental Oversight Of The Economy Increases Prosperity

 

- Government Must Ensure All Citizens A Fair Opportunity For Economic Viability

 

- Democracy, Debate And Deliberation

 

(source: Rhoades Alderson at TomPaine.com)

 

 

 

Alderson also suggests that the Democrats' problem is not with unity or disarray; rather, the problem is getting their voice out there on one issue that everyone finds important enough to press. Perhaps healthcare is the issue, though.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

That's why they're often "unions" and not marriages. Marriage means, you guessed it, something involving the church. We're still paying them and the gov, etc.

 

I could rant about my ideal world of privatized marriage businesses, but that's a waste of space.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

About the guy who said marriage isn't a big deal, maybe it isn't to you, but it is for some people. Some just want it for principle, as a sign that they have the same rights as everyone else.

[Guest JMA]

About the guy who said marriage isn't a big deal, maybe it isn't to you, but it is for some people. Some just want it for principle, as a sign that they have the same rights as everyone else.

I'm the guy who said it, I guess. I never said I minded people marrying. Let people do what they want--I won't care. I just never got the concept of it.

[Guest EricMM]

I think, SP, I think that one of my things is that I don't thing the bible is really the untainted word of god.

 

As such, I don't think that it hasn't been corrupted by small minded people 2000 years ago or more.

 

Most specifically, I have no reason to believe that god created such a single simple route for how the world to go. God created everything but I dont' think he made such strict laws about who can go down on who.

 

Specifically, I don't agree it's a sin, I see no reason for consentual sex to be a sin. It doesn't break the golden rule nor the 10 commandments.

 

The old testament is history and nothing more, and the values in it are just not the new covenant... I don't know why you care what happened then.

[Guest SP-1]

To you. But Eric isn't law either, nor the final word. So terming my views as "undefendable" is a bit harsh, especially considering I'm agreeing that homosexuals shouldn't be thrown in jail and such.

[Guest EricMM]

Then there's really no point in arguments here...

 

I mean we can just agree to disagree and I'll just drop disrespect whenever you say that homosexuality is wrong or a sin ...

[Guest SP-1]

And I care because the Old Testament was God being a badass about enforcing the laws. Laws which still hold relevance to Him and are still what He'd like for us to.

 

The covenant of Grace is simply God making a new deal so he's not striking people down left and right, because He loves us. It's not only forgiveness, but the opportunity to walk with Him and be changed, have the bonds of sin broken over time, thanks to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit that comes with knowing Christ. I care because there is still a standard of living that Christians have to at least try to go for.

 

I, personally, think that the notion that God is a God of chaos and couldn't have possibly created an order things in perposterous. It's just an easy out so that everybody can pervert the ordered, natural, GOOD world that God created into something that they can bend and abuse at their whim and not feel guilty about it. Nothing more, nothing less to me. Once you do away with order, you do away with all notions of it. INCLUDING notions of right and wrong, good and bad. You do away with order, it gives me the right to go kill someone just because I wanted to, because there's no order of right and wrong, no order of good and bad, no order of a standard of moral living to aspire to.

 

Fact is, there is authority in the world. There is authority OVER the world. And in that authority is an order. An order of righteousness and an order of sin. And sin is bad. Unfortunately in the flesh it's more or less inescapable on some small level. But we can come a long way with Christ.

[Guest SP-1]

We'll likely have to agree to disagree. We've had to before, man.