Sad day in USA for both Parties (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Geeez, Hollis, maybe you should move? I'm ornery enough that I'd be outside washing my car in the shortest shorts I could find. Oops, did my tshirt get wet? Seriously though, the dude sounds like he is throwing off some serious darkness. BLAH. I feel for ya. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() run4yrlif - 2006-11-08 2:51 PM possum - 2006-11-08 2:45 PM More important than poverty, I asked? he said yes. Man...i would so have loved to ask him how many scripture references there were involving poverty, versus homosexuality. The problem with that is poverty can't be legislated against the same way, and it isn't a sin. Besides, you can help someone in poverty and make yourself look like a super-Christian. You can't really support a gay couple and look the same way. I'm not arguing your point, Jim, nor am I mocking anyone. Ok, maybe I'm mocking those fundamentalists who have never questioned their faith, but still. And, if I may take a moment to add here....Don, Jim, et al., that is the one thing that I think separates many of the conversations on this board from other conversations. Most of the people who speak up on an issue do so from a standpoint of having spent there lives asking questions and seeking answers, rather than blindly following what they've been told. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 1:32 PM Don, my point (which I neglected to actually make (anyone have a statistic for the # of people who use the Bible as an excuse for not making a GOV'T (not church) sanctioned "union" available for gay people, who are also legally divorced..?? Wow - it seems to me like you just abolished the whole foundation that our fore fathers used to create our nation in the first place. Our nation was founded by people that based their beliefs of freedom and justice from the bible (despite how much people are trying to ignore that). Just because people's religious beliefs oppose your own views does not negate the basis in which they develope those beliefs. Are people supposed to totally ignore their religious beliefs in our government system when for some those religious beliefs are their primary basis for making decisions? I also don't accept that just because I don't believe that we should have gay marriage that it means I am full of hate. I work with gay people and have gay people living on our street. I try to act towards them the same as I would with anybody else. I don't have them. I don't agree that their lifestyle is right just like I don't agree with some of the decisions that my best friends make are right. I don't even feel like some of the things I do are right. Does that make me hateful? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 1:45 PM This kind of fanaticism from the Christian right is as scary as Fundamentalists from other traditions. Hollis I agree totally
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 2:45 PM He would very much like all of us women in long skirts, as that is what he believes is God's will. OMG! I think we just found where Osama's been hiding!!! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() possum - I asked him that, and he said, "That is an irrelvant question." Well, I'd ask him where in the Bible it says that the Bible ought to be the only thing used to make claims about God's will.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
molto veloce mama ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2006-11-08 1:20 PM autumn - 2006-11-08 2:05 PM plus, not all couples HAVE children. my uncle and aunt don't. she's been supporting him for the past 5 years as he's been struggling with depression...and has slowly turned into a giant ****** (as my cousin said - being clinically depressed is a disease, being an ****** is not). if they were not able to do a no-fault divorce, he would be entitled to part of her pension...which is just wrong. she's 60 and has been taking care of him for long enough. just one example of where no-fault needs to be applied. He's automatically entitled by law? Then why not change that aspect of the law, vs. allowing no fault divorce? Let me say this......My wife's parents are getting divorced. The impact this has had on my wife, her sister, and me has been more than I can really say. Some of it has been positive, but the negatives are tremendous. And this is at the age of 30. my understanding is that if they have a regular divorce, he can lay claim to things like her pension and would probably get some of it. under no-fault, he has no claim to it. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() oh yeah, the Founding Father's argument... So should non Christian immigrants to the US just suck it up? The Jews, The Chinese (who practically built the entire network of railroads out West...) The Muslims.... |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 3:08 PM oh yeah, the Founding Father's argument... So should non Christian immigrants to the US just suck it up? The Jews, The Chinese (who practically built the entire network of railroads out West...) The Muslims.... And the fact that we started out by escaping religious persecutiuon. Therefore, I'm not sure the founders thought it was OK to persecute fellow citizens based on their religious beliefs. Edited by run4yrlif 2006-11-08 2:13 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() triingforsept07 - Our nation was founded by people that based their beliefs of freedom and justice from the bible I think the creed our nation was founded upon is not necessarily Bibically derived: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I believe Christianity is true, and I believe that the creed that our country was founded upon is consistent with Christianity. But the foundation of that creed, I believe, flows from Natural Law which can be a philosophically deduced notion. A person can be at least a-religious, and perhaps even a-theistic, and still believe in Natural Law. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() autumn - 2006-11-08 1:58 PM MikeJ - 2006-11-08 12:34 PM At least we live in a country where we know that lunatics aren't going to start bombing coffee shops or markets simply because their party or religious affiliation has been voted out of majority power. right.
Sorry autmn but i dont think that sick bastard's actions had anything to do with which party was in power. Maybe it was a statement against the government in general, but not because he had a problem with our democracy.
Edited by MikeJ 2006-11-08 2:24 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 2:08 PM oh yeah, the Founding Father's argument... So should non Christian immigrants to the US just suck it up? The Jews, The Chinese (who practically built the entire network of railroads out West...) The Muslims.... Suck what up? All the people you are mentioning are free to live here, have jobs, own a home and yes, even worship as they please so I really don't know what your point is. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() weeelllll, they should suck it up if this government, which as you suggested was founded by Christian principles, should continue to be influenced to legislate so prescriptively. That's my point. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2006-11-08 2:13 PM possum - 2006-11-08 3:08 PM oh yeah, the Founding Father's argument... So should non Christian immigrants to the US just suck it up? The Jews, The Chinese (who practically built the entire network of railroads out West...) The Muslims.... And the fact that we started out by escaping religious persecutiuon. Therefore, I'm not sure the founders thought it was OK to persecute fellow citizens based on their religious beliefs. Yes the country was created in part because England dictated what religion you as a citizen had to participate in. The Founding Fathers however, never said anything amout creating a government and its principles totally void of a belief in God and the ignoring the commandments from God. These are two different things. Separation of church and state is something that was created since then essentially by people that don't believe in God and want nothing to do with laws and principles based on God's teachings. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() triingforsept07 - 2006-11-08 3:39 PM Suck what up? All the people you are mentioning are free to live here, have jobs, own a home and yes, even worship as they please so I really don't know what your point is. The assertion that our country was founded on a belief system not shared by about a billion of its citizens effectively marginalizes those people. To say that it's OK to enact laws that strip the rights from those people, based solely on religious doctrine effectively marginalizes those people. It makes them second-class citizens. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Suck what up? All the people you are mentioning are free to live here, have jobs, own a home and yes, even worship as they please so I really don't know what your point is. yup, even I, A gay American, can have a job, own a home, worship, pay taxes, vote... Yippee. If I keep my mouth shut, I can even go to war and die for my country. But I do not have the same security for my family that you do, based on a Biblically based legislation. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm positively giddy. I'm not dancing on the GOP's grave; I recognize this for the tide shift it is and I have voted for some fine Republicans in the past. I'm just giddy that people voted. I'm giddy that these people had to fight for their jobs because the idealist in me thinks that they will take the public a bit more seriously as a consequence. I'll raise a beer and toast all of us! |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 2:47 PM Suck what up? All the people you are mentioning are free to live here, have jobs, own a home and yes, even worship as they please so I really don't know what your point is. yup, even I, A gay American, can have a job, own a home, worship, pay taxes, vote... Yippee. If I keep my mouth shut, I can even go to war and die for my country. But I do not have the same security for my family that you do, based on a Biblically based legislation. Look - I started typing another response here but all it would have done is inflate this issue more which isn't going to change your mind and my opinion won't change either. I understand where you are coming from. I really do. However, we have different belief systems and as long as those belief systems are different, we will probably never agree on this. I am curious though, why is your family not secure and what makes you think that my family is any more secure? |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() triingforsept07 - 2006-11-08 3:55 PM I am curious though, why is your family not secure and what makes you think that my family is any more secure? For one, Hollis doesn't get the same survivor benefits you would. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() you voted on this issue yeterday and you don;t know the answer to that question? I am floored. I cannot receive benefits from my partner. (and vv) I can not take sick leave to care for her. I cannot visit her in the hospital or make decisions for her should she be unable (vv) I must testify against her in court if called. I can not get her pension (vv) Neither our debt nor our income is a shared entity. We have been together 5+ years. Even after 35+ years, as this legislation is written, we are complete strangers to each other legally. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-11-08 4:00 PM you voted on this issue yeterday and you don;t know the answer to that question? I am floored. I cannot receive benefits from my partner. (and vv) I can not take sick leave to care for her. I cannot visit her in the hospital or make decisions for her should she be unable (vv) I must testify against her in court if called. I can not get her pension (vv) Neither our debt nor our income is a shared entity. We have been together 5+ years. Even after 35+ years, as this legislation is written, we are complete strangers to each other legally. Word. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2006-11-08 2:47 PM triingforsept07 - 2006-11-08 3:39 PM Suck what up? All the people you are mentioning are free to live here, have jobs, own a home and yes, even worship as they please so I really don't know what your point is. The assertion that our country was founded on a belief system not shared by about a billion of its citizens effectively marginalizes those people. To say that it's OK to enact laws that strip the rights from those people, based solely on religious doctrine effectively marginalizes those people. It makes them second-class citizens. You say that this is a belief systems that is not shared by a billion of its citizens. First off, I didn't realize our population got that high but that's not the point. Our founders wrote the Constitution based on their beliefs which were very religious-based at that time which was more widely held then, wouldn't you agree? Times change and people change (for better or worse). That is why in Wisconsin (I have no idea the situation in GA) we had a referendum yesterday which (despite the very intentionally misleading commericals and phone calling effort by the left) passed pretty soundly. Despite how things have changed, people in this state at least still feel that marriage should be and was designed to be between a man and a woman so apparently of the billion people you talk about, not many live in Wisconsin. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Ok, so you voted on that issue, but you had no idea what the implications were, or were you playing dumb? |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() triingforsept07 - 2006-11-08 3:55 PM I am curious though, why is your family not secure and what makes you think that my family is any more secure? |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() triingforsept07 - 2006-11-08 4:05 PM You say that this is a belief systems that is not shared by a billion of its citizens. First off, I didn't realize our population got that high but that's not the point. QUOTE] About 75% of Americans identify as Christians. There are about 3 billion Americans, so about 750,000,000 Americans aren't Christians. I said about a billion, and rounded up for simplicity. |
|