- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
They are in your group, and I would expect nothing else from someone but to say what is on their mind.
Not if you are going to try to hold me responsible for a whole other group of people and what they say or have said, especially without even providing context for what was said. I am then going to respond to your posts in my way.
That is how you are seeing it. In reality, the majority are saying "if you have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of your faith, then you need to understand that your faith applies to you, not to others. You cannot force others to live by your faith. That violates our rights and freedoms as Americans." Only a minority accuses people of being bigots.
I haven't called anyone racist, nor have I seen very many others do so, at least not debating here. (Unless there is someone who is not putting it nearly as rationally as you are, which does happen.)
Again, very few actually insult others about their stance on taking responsibility. What I have seen much of the time is people saying that it is more republican based policies that lead to others having financial problems, or simply greed, and then they are told to take responsibility when they struggle to survive in such a situation where they are dependent on others.
You are exaggerating the negative reactions and completely overlooking the negative beginning statements to those things. There is very little times when the debates ever operate with one side (in your examples, all of them, the right) being completely rational, and then the other side (again, in your examples being the left) being completely irrational and just plain jackasses in their responses. That simply isn't reality. There are rational people and jackasses on both sides.
And who pray tell in your mind is the carries for a much larger objective?
Thats funny....liberals caused state sanctioning of marriage to be expanded, but somehow this was done while not caring about the institution.However, the fact that it's an institution liberal/progressives increasingly don't care about shines a light on the bigger picture and objective. That is what I am suggesting is the greatest cause of the push back.
Perhaps, pray tell, you could construct your question in a way it could be understood.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: Justice Kennedy said this was, writing for the majority, a constitutional, fundamental right that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Yes, well, that's what he declared because that was the preference of the five justices. But I think as was convincingly argued by the dissents, and there were many of them, this is an invention -- like the invention of the right to abortion. Whatever you believe about the policy for abortion or here for gay rights, the idea that the court should decree that it's a constitutional right, something that had been hidden in the constitution for over 100 years and that nobody had ever discerned is simply a way of saying that it has been removed from the democratic arena. It can no longer be debated. All the laws are canceled and we are now in a new place.
Ironically, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's on the court today, once said before she ascended to the court that the abortion decision had prevented a stable social settlement of the abortion issue that was headed in the reform direction because it took it out of the political arena. That's exactly what happened today on gay marriage. Whatever you think about the policy, it is a huge loss for a democracy
Krauthammer on Gay Marriage Decision: "Whatever You Think About The Policy, It Is A Huge Loss For A Democracy" | Video | RealClearPolitics
you always hit it out of the park charles, you "bigot"
The only slight surprise that I had in the ruling is that Justice Roberts sided with the minority. Justice Roberts has shown an inclination to be extremely protective of his legacy. I'm surprised that he would go down as being on the wrong side of history.
Yeah, the right to marry is an "invention", just like when Justice Warren declared:you always hit it out of the park charles, you "bigot"
He was probably forced into a blood oath by bush II, since that was the signature social agenda of his party at the time (and still is)
Bush's legacy was intended to 'defend the institution of marriage' and to stop terrorism, both of which he failed miserably at
So, despite the divorce rate, child molesters, murders, riots, social injustices, declining rate of religion, especially Christianity, terrorism, lying, and so many other things that people do here and around the world, same sex marriage being legal everywhere instead of just most states in the US is what is going to remove God's light from our country? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. It's plain crap. It not only presumes to know God's mind and know what "God's light" looks like, it also places homosexuality as a much higher sin or more important sin in God's perspective than all those other things.
Yeah, the right to marry is an "invention", just like when Justice Warren declared:
" Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,""
America: can my same-sex partner share my insurance plan.I'm pretty sure the Founding fathers didn't see the need to add the definition of marriage into the constitution. they could have never realized in a million years people would actually be ALTERING the definition of marriage and make it law. They didn't understand the First World problems we now get to deal with. I'm sure they are sorry they missed it.
So, despite the divorce rate, child molesters, murders, riots, social injustices, declining rate of religion, especially Christianity, terrorism, lying, and so many other things that people do here and around the world, same sex marriage being legal everywhere instead of just most states in the US is what is going to remove God's light from our country? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. It's plain crap. It not only presumes to know God's mind and know what "God's light" looks like, it also places homosexuality as a much higher sin or more important sin in God's perspective than all those other things.
Yes, I am comparing, as I wrote, to marriage a generation or so ago. Within, perhaps, your lifetime. Certainly there was a time in human history when such an official concept wasn't even in the thought process. It's rather ridiculous in the context of 2015 to go back that far.
I agree same sex couples, in the eyes of the federal government, should be treated the same as heterosexual couples.
However, the fact that it's an institution liberal/progressives increasingly don't care about shines a light on the bigger picture and objective. That is what I am suggesting is the greatest cause of the push back.
Not really. The god from the bible approved of death, rape, and slavery in most cases and would punish people for rather minor offenses instead. Well, unless it was his people being harmed then it was a long series of plagues. Not like he cared about his people enough to help them out in the desert they were traveling for fourty years, but you get the point.
They are in your group, and I would expect nothing else from someone but to say what is on their mind.
That God got a lot nicer in the NT, which is the God that most Christians believe in, until of course there is something they don't like that they believe God is also against.
I haven't suggested you have called anyone, anything. I have, however, accurately portrayed the argument as presented by the left. While you can chose to deny it, it is indeed a fact.
I exaggerate nothing.
This strategy will most certainly backfire, as it makes enemies of those who could be allies.
Not really. The new testament is about Jesus and his beliefs of god. A prophet saying stuff does not somehow trump what God actually did.
Try reading the Bible and learn God's message and what he says about men lying with men and women who do the same.
Most Christians (not all, but the vast majority) believe that Jesus is God and/or the Son of God, not simply a prophet.
That isn't very likely. The god in the old testament had a completely different personality and approach to life than Jesus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?