Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2012-10-22 1:00 PM

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by AcesFull 2012-10-22 1:02 PM


2012-10-22 1:05 PM
in reply to: #4463676

Champion
10550
500050005002525
Austin, Texas
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever

Agreed! 

I had the link on my FB page as soon as I saw it.   

2012-10-22 1:17 PM
in reply to: #4463676

Melon Presser
52116
50005000500050005000500050005000500050002000100
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
I saw that. I liked it.
2012-10-22 1:37 PM
in reply to: #4463676

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever

So, I think we all know where I fall on the Evangelical Right-Wing Nutjob litmus test...

But, I was thinking this through before I saw this and moreso as this guy was going through his opening remarks: "WWJD"

Fact: In ancient rome, there were same sex partnerships and same sex behaviors.

Fact: Jesus never stood in front of a Roman official (like Pontius Pilate) and said "You need to tell people to stop having same sex relationships or orgies." In fact, I don't think any of the apostles ever went in-front of government officials to tell them what to do period.  They taught the word separate from the government.  The whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.  Jesus definitely spoke on marriage.  Paul later wrote on Sexual Perversion.  But they didn't go to the gubment to change things.  If they're the model, then why would Christians (even Evangelical Right Wing Nutjobs like myself) feel the need to go to a city council and lobby for something like this.

When he flipped his message 4/5ths of the way through (which was somewhat predictable as he kept going with a long speech), it was somewhat of an affirmation to me of this theory.

In other words, religious people should say what the bible says to say, but we shouldn't really be forcing government to do or enforce what the bible says.  Vice versa, Freedom of Religion specifically means that the gubment shouldn't be sticking their nose inside a church.

Still thinking through this one.  So I apologize if I'm a little scatterbrained about it.  Am I making any sense?

2012-10-22 3:14 PM
in reply to: #4463769

Pro
6767
500010005001001002525
the Alabama part of Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 2:37 PM

So, I think we all know where I fall on the Evangelical Right-Wing Nutjob litmus test...

But, I was thinking this through before I saw this and moreso as this guy was going through his opening remarks: "WWJD"

Fact: In ancient rome, there were same sex partnerships and same sex behaviors.

Fact: Jesus never stood in front of a Roman official (like Pontius Pilate) and said "You need to tell people to stop having same sex relationships or orgies." In fact, I don't think any of the apostles ever went in-front of government officials to tell them what to do period.  They taught the word separate from the government.  The whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.  Jesus definitely spoke on marriage.  Paul later wrote on Sexual Perversion.  But they didn't go to the gubment to change things.  If they're the model, then why would Christians (even Evangelical Right Wing Nutjobs like myself) feel the need to go to a city council and lobby for something like this.

When he flipped his message 4/5ths of the way through (which was somewhat predictable as he kept going with a long speech), it was somewhat of an affirmation to me of this theory.

In other words, religious people should say what the bible says to say, but we shouldn't really be forcing government to do or enforce what the bible says.  Vice versa, Freedom of Religion specifically means that the gubment shouldn't be sticking their nose inside a church.

Still thinking through this one.  So I apologize if I'm a little scatterbrained about it.  Am I making any sense?

I would just add (coming from the leftie liberal pinko commie POV) that using religious beliefs to determine your own behavior is fine. Using it to tell OTHER people how to live their lives is not. If you want to never use zippers, shave your beard, or use electricity, go for it. Don't sleep with people that have the same parts as you, if that's what you believe is the correct way to behave. But don't presume to tell others (either through the implementation of laws, or just coming up to them on the street) how THEY should be living.

And if, as a person shepherding the flock from your pulpit, you choose to tell them how to vote (sticking your church's nose in the government that serves ALL of us), then you should expect to lose your privileged tax-exempt status, and be held to the same standards and rules as the rest of us.

2012-10-22 4:01 PM
in reply to: #4464001

Pro
5761
50005001001002525
Bartlett, TN
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
I wish churches would give up their tax exempt status so they could preach out from the pulpit on issues without fear of losing that status!

Edited by jford2309 2012-10-22 4:02 PM


2012-10-22 5:04 PM
in reply to: #4464001

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
gearboy - 2012-10-22 3:14 PM
GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 2:37 PM

So, I think we all know where I fall on the Evangelical Right-Wing Nutjob litmus test...

But, I was thinking this through before I saw this and moreso as this guy was going through his opening remarks: "WWJD"

Fact: In ancient rome, there were same sex partnerships and same sex behaviors.

Fact: Jesus never stood in front of a Roman official (like Pontius Pilate) and said "You need to tell people to stop having same sex relationships or orgies." In fact, I don't think any of the apostles ever went in-front of government officials to tell them what to do period.  They taught the word separate from the government.  The whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.  Jesus definitely spoke on marriage.  Paul later wrote on Sexual Perversion.  But they didn't go to the gubment to change things.  If they're the model, then why would Christians (even Evangelical Right Wing Nutjobs like myself) feel the need to go to a city council and lobby for something like this.

When he flipped his message 4/5ths of the way through (which was somewhat predictable as he kept going with a long speech), it was somewhat of an affirmation to me of this theory.

In other words, religious people should say what the bible says to say, but we shouldn't really be forcing government to do or enforce what the bible says.  Vice versa, Freedom of Religion specifically means that the gubment shouldn't be sticking their nose inside a church.

Still thinking through this one.  So I apologize if I'm a little scatterbrained about it.  Am I making any sense?

I would just add (coming from the leftie liberal pinko commie POV) that using religious beliefs to determine your own behavior is fine. Using it to tell OTHER people how to live their lives is not. If you want to never use zippers, shave your beard, or use electricity, go for it. Don't sleep with people that have the same parts as you, if that's what you believe is the correct way to behave. But don't presume to tell others (either through the implementation of laws, or just coming up to them on the street) how THEY should be living.

And if, as a person shepherding the flock from your pulpit, you choose to tell them how to vote (sticking your church's nose in the government that serves ALL of us), then you should expect to lose your privileged tax-exempt status, and be held to the same standards and rules as the rest of us.

So you don't agree with "thou shall not kill" being forced on the masses?  It's a religious belief, that I believe to be the correct, that has been imposed on society through laws.

I know you believe murder is an OK law to have, but I'm trying to make a point that lawmakers have to make laws to keep order in society and they base those laws on moral/ethical/religious things.  Many people agree and don't agree with different laws that are passed (gay marriage, drug use, etc...) but we as a society elect officials to represent our viewpoints to pass laws based on the opinions of the masses.  If the laws violate someones constitutional rights then they are invalidated through the judicial branch.  It's our system, and it's not perfect.

Also, I'm not aware of any laws trying to force anyone to shave their beards or not use zippers.  If there were I wouldn't support them and nor would our society.

2012-10-22 5:08 PM
in reply to: #4463676

Veteran
312
100100100
St. Paul
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
Wonderful

(coming from the crazy ??wing Libertarian POV)
2012-10-22 5:15 PM
in reply to: #4464210

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever

Nathanm74 - 2012-10-22 5:08 PM Wonderful (coming from the crazy ??wing Libertarian POV)

Well if you're not the right wing or the left wing I guess that makes you the fuselage.   

2012-10-22 5:39 PM
in reply to: #4464221

Veteran
312
100100100
St. Paul
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
tuwood - 2012-10-22 5:15 PM

Nathanm74 - 2012-10-22 5:08 PM Wonderful (coming from the crazy ??wing Libertarian POV)

Well if you're not the right wing or the left wing I guess that makes you the fuselage.   



I've described my political leanings as "to the right of the republicans and to the left of the democrats". I don't know if that makes any sense, but it feels right. (that said, dispite my views on the topic of this thread, I'll be voting for Gov Romney)
2012-10-22 5:52 PM
in reply to: #4464206

Expert
758
5001001002525
Port Colborne, Ontario
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
tuwood - 2012-10-22 6:04 PM
gearboy - 2012-10-22 3:14 PM
GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 2:37 PM

So, I think we all know where I fall on the Evangelical Right-Wing Nutjob litmus test...

But, I was thinking this through before I saw this and moreso as this guy was going through his opening remarks: "WWJD"

Fact: In ancient rome, there were same sex partnerships and same sex behaviors.

Fact: Jesus never stood in front of a Roman official (like Pontius Pilate) and said "You need to tell people to stop having same sex relationships or orgies." In fact, I don't think any of the apostles ever went in-front of government officials to tell them what to do period.  They taught the word separate from the government.  The whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.  Jesus definitely spoke on marriage.  Paul later wrote on Sexual Perversion.  But they didn't go to the gubment to change things.  If they're the model, then why would Christians (even Evangelical Right Wing Nutjobs like myself) feel the need to go to a city council and lobby for something like this.

When he flipped his message 4/5ths of the way through (which was somewhat predictable as he kept going with a long speech), it was somewhat of an affirmation to me of this theory.

In other words, religious people should say what the bible says to say, but we shouldn't really be forcing government to do or enforce what the bible says.  Vice versa, Freedom of Religion specifically means that the gubment shouldn't be sticking their nose inside a church.

Still thinking through this one.  So I apologize if I'm a little scatterbrained about it.  Am I making any sense?

I would just add (coming from the leftie liberal pinko commie POV) that using religious beliefs to determine your own behavior is fine. Using it to tell OTHER people how to live their lives is not. If you want to never use zippers, shave your beard, or use electricity, go for it. Don't sleep with people that have the same parts as you, if that's what you believe is the correct way to behave. But don't presume to tell others (either through the implementation of laws, or just coming up to them on the street) how THEY should be living.

And if, as a person shepherding the flock from your pulpit, you choose to tell them how to vote (sticking your church's nose in the government that serves ALL of us), then you should expect to lose your privileged tax-exempt status, and be held to the same standards and rules as the rest of us.

So you don't agree with "thou shall not kill" being forced on the masses?  It's a religious belief, that I believe to be the correct, that has been imposed on society through laws.

I know you believe murder is an OK law to have, but I'm trying to make a point that lawmakers have to make laws to keep order in society and they base those laws on moral/ethical/religious things.  Many people agree and don't agree with different laws that are passed (gay marriage, drug use, etc...) but we as a society elect officials to represent our viewpoints to pass laws based on the opinions of the masses.  If the laws violate someones constitutional rights then they are invalidated through the judicial branch.  It's our system, and it's not perfect.

Also, I'm not aware of any laws trying to force anyone to shave their beards or not use zippers.  If there were I wouldn't support them and nor would our society.

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.



2012-10-22 6:53 PM
in reply to: #4464267

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
RVachon - 2012-10-22 5:52 PM
tuwood - 2012-10-22 6:04 PM
gearboy - 2012-10-22 3:14 PM
GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 2:37 PM

So, I think we all know where I fall on the Evangelical Right-Wing Nutjob litmus test...

But, I was thinking this through before I saw this and moreso as this guy was going through his opening remarks: "WWJD"

Fact: In ancient rome, there were same sex partnerships and same sex behaviors.

Fact: Jesus never stood in front of a Roman official (like Pontius Pilate) and said "You need to tell people to stop having same sex relationships or orgies." In fact, I don't think any of the apostles ever went in-front of government officials to tell them what to do period.  They taught the word separate from the government.  The whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.  Jesus definitely spoke on marriage.  Paul later wrote on Sexual Perversion.  But they didn't go to the gubment to change things.  If they're the model, then why would Christians (even Evangelical Right Wing Nutjobs like myself) feel the need to go to a city council and lobby for something like this.

When he flipped his message 4/5ths of the way through (which was somewhat predictable as he kept going with a long speech), it was somewhat of an affirmation to me of this theory.

In other words, religious people should say what the bible says to say, but we shouldn't really be forcing government to do or enforce what the bible says.  Vice versa, Freedom of Religion specifically means that the gubment shouldn't be sticking their nose inside a church.

Still thinking through this one.  So I apologize if I'm a little scatterbrained about it.  Am I making any sense?

I would just add (coming from the leftie liberal pinko commie POV) that using religious beliefs to determine your own behavior is fine. Using it to tell OTHER people how to live their lives is not. If you want to never use zippers, shave your beard, or use electricity, go for it. Don't sleep with people that have the same parts as you, if that's what you believe is the correct way to behave. But don't presume to tell others (either through the implementation of laws, or just coming up to them on the street) how THEY should be living.

And if, as a person shepherding the flock from your pulpit, you choose to tell them how to vote (sticking your church's nose in the government that serves ALL of us), then you should expect to lose your privileged tax-exempt status, and be held to the same standards and rules as the rest of us.

So you don't agree with "thou shall not kill" being forced on the masses?  It's a religious belief, that I believe to be the correct, that has been imposed on society through laws.

I know you believe murder is an OK law to have, but I'm trying to make a point that lawmakers have to make laws to keep order in society and they base those laws on moral/ethical/religious things.  Many people agree and don't agree with different laws that are passed (gay marriage, drug use, etc...) but we as a society elect officials to represent our viewpoints to pass laws based on the opinions of the masses.  If the laws violate someones constitutional rights then they are invalidated through the judicial branch.  It's our system, and it's not perfect.

Also, I'm not aware of any laws trying to force anyone to shave their beards or not use zippers.  If there were I wouldn't support them and nor would our society.

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

I agree with you completely.  For probably 99.99% of americans Murder is morally wrong and for 75% (I'm guessing) of the population it's religiously wrong.  Hence no argument from anyone to repeal murder.

With gay marriage I believe around 50% of the population is in favor and around 50% opposed.  There are people who feel it is morally wrong to allow it and those that feel it's morally wrong to oppose it.  Ironically there are religious groups on both sides of the issue as well.  Therefore the laws of the land reflect the moral conflict and various groups (pro and against) try to push legislation for their side with lots of opposition no matter which law gets passed.

It's a complex issue to say the least.

2012-10-22 7:32 PM
in reply to: #4463676


258
1001002525
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
Seems like gangsters and the mob are heavy into religion and they kill people left and right. Well they all seem to be wearing cross necklaces and tattoos.
2012-10-22 9:00 PM
in reply to: #4464357

Pro
6767
500010005001001002525
the Alabama part of Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever

tuwood - 2012-10-22 7:53 PM 

...

I agree with you completely.  For probably 99.99% of americans Murder is morally wrong and for 75% (I'm guessing) of the population it's religiously wrong.  Hence no argument from anyone to repeal murder.

With gay marriage I believe around 50% of the population is in favor and around 50% opposed.  There are people who feel it is morally wrong to allow it and those that feel it's morally wrong to oppose it.  Ironically there are religious groups on both sides of the issue as well.  Therefore the laws of the land reflect the moral conflict and various groups (pro and against) try to push legislation for their side with lots of opposition no matter which law gets passed.

It's a complex issue to say the least.

It's actually not that complex. Murder is wrong, because is directly impacts another citizen. If I murder you, I am depriving you of a basic right (i.e. to life). Gay marriage only impacts the people getting married. (To the extent that marriage gets additional tax benefits, I suppose you could make the argument that allowing gays to marry affects the taxes the rest of us end up having to pay, but that would be a very weak argument.). If you are using a religious argument to deprive others of the right to marry (it could be gays, it could be mixing of races, as in the video), then you are depriving them of a basic right (pursuit of happiness).

If your religion prohibits you from marrying same sex, then don't marry the same sex. Or change religion if you like. No one is saying that all churches have to perform gay marriage ceremonies. But as a civil contract with rights attendant on being married, telling the society at large that YOUR beliefs should tell OTHERS how to live is wrong. Plain and simple. 

Morals can be developed based on universal principles of ethics that basically boil down to the golden rule; or as Bill and Ted said - "Be excellent to one another". Hence it leads you to outlaw things like murder, fraud, rape. And logically, to allow marriage between people who want to be married. 

To use the argument that it is outlawed because of the commandment is ludicrous. We have not ensconced the commandments that require us to honor our parents, to only worship God, to forbid graven images, to not work on the Sabbath (Blue laws are mostly a thing of the past - even here in PA I can now buy liquor on Sundays), or coveting. Heck, the whole capitalist system is BUILT on coveting. 

If you have to rely on your religion to make a rule, perhaps it is not a universal moral rule. 

2012-10-22 9:13 PM
in reply to: #4463676

Elite
3972
200010005001001001001002525
Reno
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
That was awesome it reminds me why I feel so strongly About this. Just one year before my parents wedding, my own marriage would've been illegal in the state of Nevada and many other states due to misentegration laws. Had We been one generation earlier we would not have been able to marry.
2012-10-22 9:17 PM
in reply to: #4464267

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
RVachon - 2012-10-22 4:52 PM

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

It has nothing to do with morality... in this country, murder deprives me of my right to live. It goes against my rights. Though shalt not steal.... Judeo/Christians do not own that, and My Constitution protects me from it. It infringes on my rights.

Yes it can be moral, but not everyones moral system is the same. Yet there are some fundamental things our country was founded on as to apply to all people.

That's the part I can't stand about religion and politics. this has always beena pretty Puitan country, but we also have rights that are equal to all. So when any religion gets up and say you can't do that because it is against our belifs... well tough. then do do it. But that has nothing to do with my right to live my life if I see fit.



Edited by powerman 2012-10-22 9:20 PM


2012-10-22 10:08 PM
in reply to: #4464538

Pro
4824
20002000500100100100
Houston
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
powerman - 2012-10-22 9:17 PM
RVachon - 2012-10-22 4:52 PM

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

It has nothing to do with morality... in this country, murder deprives me of my right to live. It goes against my rights. Though shalt not steal.... Judeo/Christians do not own that, and My Constitution protects me from it. It infringes on my rights.

Yes it can be moral, but not everyones moral system is the same. Yet there are some fundamental things our country was founded on as to apply to all people.

That's the part I can't stand about religion and politics. this has always beena pretty Puitan country, but we also have rights that are equal to all. So when any religion gets up and say you can't do that because it is against our belifs... well tough. then do do it. But that has nothing to do with my right to live my life if I see fit.

I love it when a BTer I don't agree with often posts something I love.
2012-10-22 10:16 PM
in reply to: #4464598

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
KeriKadi - 2012-10-22 9:08 PM
powerman - 2012-10-22 9:17 PM
RVachon - 2012-10-22 4:52 PM

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

It has nothing to do with morality... in this country, murder deprives me of my right to live. It goes against my rights. Though shalt not steal.... Judeo/Christians do not own that, and My Constitution protects me from it. It infringes on my rights.

Yes it can be moral, but not everyones moral system is the same. Yet there are some fundamental things our country was founded on as to apply to all people.

That's the part I can't stand about religion and politics. this has always beena pretty Puitan country, but we also have rights that are equal to all. So when any religion gets up and say you can't do that because it is against our belifs... well tough. then do do it. But that has nothing to do with my right to live my life if I see fit.

I love it when a BTer I don't agree with often posts something I love.

And it allways bums me out when I see people say they often do not agree with me.

2012-10-22 10:20 PM
in reply to: #4464610

Pro
4824
20002000500100100100
Houston
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
powerman - 2012-10-22 10:16 PM
KeriKadi - 2012-10-22 9:08 PM
powerman - 2012-10-22 9:17 PM
RVachon - 2012-10-22 4:52 PM

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

It has nothing to do with morality... in this country, murder deprives me of my right to live. It goes against my rights. Though shalt not steal.... Judeo/Christians do not own that, and My Constitution protects me from it. It infringes on my rights.

Yes it can be moral, but not everyones moral system is the same. Yet there are some fundamental things our country was founded on as to apply to all people.

That's the part I can't stand about religion and politics. this has always beena pretty Puitan country, but we also have rights that are equal to all. So when any religion gets up and say you can't do that because it is against our belifs... well tough. then do do it. But that has nothing to do with my right to live my life if I see fit.

I love it when a BTer I don't agree with often posts something I love.

And it allways bums me out when I see people say they often do not agree with me.

Really? I think it's great we disagree on stuff and then realize there are things we see eye to eye on. Let's just say we parent very differently if memory serves and that is totally OK too. More than one way to skin a cat and all that.
2012-10-22 10:39 PM
in reply to: #4464616

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
KeriKadi - 2012-10-22 10:20 PM
powerman - 2012-10-22 10:16 PM
KeriKadi - 2012-10-22 9:08 PM
powerman - 2012-10-22 9:17 PM
RVachon - 2012-10-22 4:52 PM

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

It has nothing to do with morality... in this country, murder deprives me of my right to live. It goes against my rights. Though shalt not steal.... Judeo/Christians do not own that, and My Constitution protects me from it. It infringes on my rights.

Yes it can be moral, but not everyones moral system is the same. Yet there are some fundamental things our country was founded on as to apply to all people.

That's the part I can't stand about religion and politics. this has always beena pretty Puitan country, but we also have rights that are equal to all. So when any religion gets up and say you can't do that because it is against our belifs... well tough. then do do it. But that has nothing to do with my right to live my life if I see fit.

I love it when a BTer I don't agree with often posts something I love.

And it allways bums me out when I see people say they often do not agree with me.

Really? I think it's great we disagree on stuff and then realize there are things we see eye to eye on. Let's just say we parent very differently if memory serves and that is totally OK too. More than one way to skin a cat and all that.

I'm offended that you skin your cats.  ok, not really.  

2012-10-22 10:55 PM
in reply to: #4463676

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever

I bet it'll take another generation but,  judging from what I hear from my kids, "gay or not gay" won't be an issue for my grandchildren.  

That'll be a good thing.



2012-10-23 12:41 AM
in reply to: #4464616

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
KeriKadi - 2012-10-22 9:20 PM
powerman - 2012-10-22 10:16 PM
KeriKadi - 2012-10-22 9:08 PM
powerman - 2012-10-22 9:17 PM
RVachon - 2012-10-22 4:52 PM

Murder is morally wrong, nothing religious about it - although some people in this world deserve a little killing.

It has nothing to do with morality... in this country, murder deprives me of my right to live. It goes against my rights. Though shalt not steal.... Judeo/Christians do not own that, and My Constitution protects me from it. It infringes on my rights.

Yes it can be moral, but not everyones moral system is the same. Yet there are some fundamental things our country was founded on as to apply to all people.

That's the part I can't stand about religion and politics. this has always beena pretty Puitan country, but we also have rights that are equal to all. So when any religion gets up and say you can't do that because it is against our belifs... well tough. then do do it. But that has nothing to do with my right to live my life if I see fit.

I love it when a BTer I don't agree with often posts something I love.

And it allways bums me out when I see people say they often do not agree with me.

Really? I think it's great we disagree on stuff and then realize there are things we see eye to eye on. Let's just say we parent very differently if memory serves and that is totally OK too. More than one way to skin a cat and all that.

I don't have kids.... but it would not suprise me that I spouted off on some opinion on raising them. I was one once.

This has been the best board I have been on regarding discussion on political/sensitive subjects. Plenty of good dialogue even if there is disagreement.

I just like it when everyone agrees with me.

On this subject though, I'm not real fond of religion dictating politics. It's a bad mix. And I have known a lot of really good religious folks that conduct their personal affairs personally. I can even admire them for how they live their life and walk their talk. But in the political arena, the only people yelling the loudest are the ones that want to impose their will.... that's not really cool in my book.  

2012-10-23 6:32 AM
in reply to: #4463676

Master
1736
100050010010025
Midcoast Maine
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
What I struggle with is the dichotomy of "less government" but let me tell you what you can do in your own home. Help me understand that one.
2012-10-23 7:21 AM
in reply to: #4464649

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever
Left Brain - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM

I bet it'll take another generation but,  judging from what I hear from my kids, "gay or not gay" won't be an issue for my grandchildren.  

That'll be a good thing.

While I hope that's the case I'm not optimistic.  Race is still a major issue 2-3 generations after civil rights.

2012-10-23 7:27 AM
in reply to: #4464804

Champion
17756
50005000500020005001001002525
SoCal
Subject: RE: Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever

itsallrelative_Maine - 2012-10-23 4:32 AM What I struggle with is the dichotomy of "less government" but let me tell you what you can do in your own home. Help me understand that one.

As an R I have a problem with this also and where I disagree with a lot of the right. The left also does this though with stay out of my Dr Office and bedroom but go into all the other aspects of my home like firearms. Both sides have serious issues that will not be fixed any time soon.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2