California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!! [Archive] - Page 2

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 11:39 AM

No, I saw your post. I was asking about your opinion, Don.

I don't want to risk muddying the water, Jeff, by following you on your rabbit trail in this thread, confusing the current topic regarding what is "right" with your rabbit trail by asking what is my "opinion".

What do you think is right?

I think what's right is that which is:
<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">correct in judgment, opinion, or action. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">4.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">5.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">most convenient, desirable, or favorable</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I have my opinion, and I am right about my opinion.

I see. You have an opinion, and an opinion of your opinion, and you're calling that opinion "right". That's just another opinion, Jeff, an opinion of your opinion. Opinions of opinions don't define what is right. Opinions just are, and are subject to change without notice as they aren't built on anything but other opinions, well, as you just demonstrated here. What is actually "right" is definable, Jeff. It's not a matter of opinion. As soon as it becomes a matter of opinion, it's no longer either right or wrong. It's a matter of opinion. Hence, the change of reference from "right/wrong" to "opinion".

As MsTerry noted, you dance around the questions without ever answering.

When someone starts mixing apples (what is "right") with oranges (what is your/my "opinion), the opportunity for intelligent discussion dries up, Jeff.

Your input is therefore pretty useless.

That's your opinion, Jeff. One of my opinions, however, is that when one is as quick to insult as you are in this post, and who confuses opinions with with what is right/wrong, it's commonly because those individuals aren't seeking intelligent dialogue, Jeff, nor even has the ability to recognize it. As one who admittedly uses drugs on a regular basis, I would find it a challenge to take any of your opinions seriously...so I don't. I would be happy to have an intelligent discussion with you about right and wrong, but I don't do battle with people armed with nothing but their opinions. I simply don't have the time to do the endless back and forth which is always the result of my opinion/your opinion discussions. Words mean something, sir. That you cannot simply respond to my comments directly suggests that you really may not even be present while you're reading them. Throwing rocks at people who disagree with you isn't really the optimal method to engage someone in intelligent dialogue. When I'm commenting on "right and wrong" and you decide to ask my opinion about something, while I'm always willing to offer up my opinions about things, I prefer that it might be a thread seperate from another (this one, for example), so the water doesn't get muddied up, as it's prone to do when Liberals seek to attack those less Liberal than they.

Now I think you're just lying. I think you do have opinions and strong ones at that.

I've never claimed not to have strong opinions, Jeff. I've never "lied" about that. Where do you think I'm "lying"? Why don't you quote what you think I'm "lying" about, so that we're both clear about your comment?

It's weird to me that you post on this forum, make sweeping statements and then are too timid...

Timid does not describe me at all, Jeff. Again, one of your opinions, in my opinion distorted. You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried, Jeff, which is what suggests your perception might be at least a bit affected this morning.

...to apply your notions of absolute right or wrong to an individual act.

A notion is an opinion, Jeff, and absolute right and wrong aren't matters of opinion. Absolute right and wrong are called that because they are that. They've left the realm of opinion, and entered the realm of reality.

You are a poor judge and your posts lack wisdom.

In your opinion, Jeff. Hooray for your opinion. What is it based on, exactly? Oh, that's right: other opinions. Real fodder for intelligent dialogue, Jeff...oh, wait. No it's not.

You appear as a person who is very fearful of exposing anything of substance about himself.

I've spoken quite openly about myself and many of my beliefs here, Jeff. I'm not fearful of anonymous discussion. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else here, or perhaps your perception is simply a little affected this morning.

That's not an attack...

It's a personal opinion of yours. I get it, Jeff.

... so don't go all defensive on us as you usually do. It's an observation and an opinion based on observation.

I see. An opinion of an opinion again. You're not offering much substance here, Jeff, with which to even respond. Your generalities and opinions appear to be venting, and while that's your perogative, it doesn't facilitate intelligent dialogue, except with someone who wants to trade opinions back and forth with you. I prefer to engage in intelligent dialogue whenever possible, as the back and forth of opinionated arguing can go on forever, whereas the sincere seeking of intelligent dialogue always ends up somewhere real.

Maybe I'm wrong and you're just storing it all up to share with us in some kind of mega post.

Maybe you are, Jeff.

See, Don? That's how you do it. It's called communication. Perhaps you could practice it once in a while. You're invited.

-Jeff

Gosh, Jeff. Not a lot of intelligent or thoughtful comments this morning. Perhaps your next post to me might be better thought out. :thumbsup:

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 11:42 AM

Don, I guess you will never get it.
No it isn't about opinion it is about interpretation.
And which interpretation do you think is right, yours or mine?

I can see that you didn't read the definitions of the word "right" yet, Ms. Terry. I'll wait...

Braggi

06-14-2008, 12:02 PM

Let's try again Don. Here are some questions. You can just copy and paste them into a post and put "Right" or "Wrong" after each one. That way those reading here may begin to understand what you think is right or wrong. You say these are not matters of opinion but of "truth" and you claim to be "TheWholeTruth" so it should be easy for you to pass judgement on each statement or question.

Thanks for sharing your truth.

-Jeff

Don, I think you and I have different opinions about some things that are considered "right" or "wrong," and that the "truth" is that you and I have different opinions, not that one of us is right and the other wrong. Of course, in my opinion you are wrong and in your opinion I am wrong, but that's just because we have different opinions about "the truth." Interesting?

For the record, I am a man. That is "truth" we can both agree on.
Don, is it right or wrong for me to like another man?
... to live with another man?
... to love another man?
... to be "in love" with another man?
... to touch another man?
... to kiss another man?
... to sexually stimulate another man?

Where do you draw the line? When does "right" become "wrong" in "your opinion?"

Is it wrong for me to bring another man to orgasm?
Is it wrong for me be monogamously sexual with another man?
Is it wrong for me to be a legally recognized "domestic partner"...?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if it's legal in my state or in my country?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if I'm already married to a woman?

Please inform me as to your opinion on these matters. I have a feeling your opinion is different from mine in several areas and yet I am correct. That is "the truth" because that is the truth for me. YMMV.

-Jeff

PS. Feel free to abbreviate by defining "the line" between "right" and "wrong" if you wish.

Braggi

06-14-2008, 12:07 PM

... As one who admittedly uses drugs on a regular basis, I would find it a challenge to take any of your opinions seriously...so I don't. ...

Insults are what you descend to on a regular basis, Don. Perhaps you could change that tactic and respond to the substance of other people's posts.

People would take you more seriously.

-Jeff

MsTerry

06-14-2008, 12:33 PM

Oh Don, this is getting old again.
You accuse to excuse yourself.
I said we can go over it line by line, but since you haven't had the time to read it , I'll post it again

OK, let's go over this definition of what is good, line by line.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. </td></tr></tbody></table>tell me Don, is this my right conduct, your right conduct or an Iraqi's right conduct?

and I'll repeat this again too, just for you

.
No it isn't about opinion it is about interpretation.
And which interpretation do you think is right, yours or mine?

I can see that you didn't read the definitions of the word "right" yet, Ms. Terry. I'll wait...

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 03:05 PM

Insults are what you descend to on a regular basis, Don.

From your last post to me, Jeff:

"Your input is therefore pretty useless."

"Now I think you're just lying."

"It's weird to me that you post on this forum, make sweeping statements and then are too timid to apply your notions of absolute right or wrong to an individual act."

"You are a poor judge and your posts lack wisdom."

Ironic, isn't it, Jeff, that you would accuse me of resorting to insults after that barrage you heaved at me? :thumbsup:

Perhaps you could change that tactic and respond to the substance of other people's posts.

People would take you more seriously.

-Jeff

Likewise, Jeff.

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 03:17 PM

Let's try again Don. Here are some questions. You can just copy and paste them into a post and put "Right" or "Wrong" after each one. That way those reading here may begin to understand what you think is right or wrong. You say these are not matters of opinion but of "truth"...

No, I didn't say that, Jeff. I said just the contrary, that these are matters of opinion, Jeff, that your sex life is a matter of opinion. It's hard not to refer to your drinking and drug use when you accuse me of saying things where are exactly the opposite of what I've actually said, sir.

...and you claim to be "TheWholeTruth" so it should be easy for you to pass judgement on each statement or question.

Thanks for sharing your truth.

-Jeff

There is no such thing as "your truth", Jeff, or "my truth", for that matter. It's either your opinion, my opinion, someone else's opinion, a lie or "THE truth". Again, right and wrong aren't a matter of opinion. If something is right, it's right, and that's why it's called "right". If it's just your opinion that it's right, then it's just your opinion. Get it now?

I'll get back to you about my opinions, since that what you're asking me for. And please, Jeff, have a cup of coffee or something before you post back to me again. It's gotta be embarrassing that you can't even recall my comments when they're right there in front of you. Perhaps you're dyslexic or something. I don't recall you doing this to any of your Liberal friends here, however, so it must be something else.

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 03:21 PM

Oh Don, this is getting old again.
You accuse to excuse yourself.
I said we can go over it line by line, but since you haven't had the time to read it , I'll post it again


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">OK, let's go over this definition of what is good, line by line.
<TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD vAlign=top>in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>tell me Don, is this my right conduct, your right conduct or an Iraqi's right conduct?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Right conduct, Ms. Terry. Not your opinion, my opinion, or an Iraqi's opinion. It's defined as "right conduct".

and I'll repeat this again too, just for you

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">.
No it isn't about opinion it is about interpretation.
And which interpretation do you think is right, yours or mine?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That's a matter of opinion, Ms. Terry, not "right" or "wrong".

Lenny

06-14-2008, 04:15 PM

Don, it took me a while, too long I am embarrassed to write, but some folks here do not have the same notion of the truth. They have no truly objective Truth, nor any guide to such. Their ears have been tickled by everything else they have sought and all the resultant noise has drowned out the small quiet voice of the real deal. The very notion that you stand upon is foreign, and when considered it is mocked or disdained. It is a very Zen setting here. As in Zen whatever one points to for insight, the master says, "No, that is not Zen", and so it goes on infinitum, or until the student realizes, there are no words for "it". There is no bridge to the issue; simply a leap. The best to you in trying to "get over".

No, I didn't say that, Jeff. I said just the contrary, that these are matters of opinion, Jeff, that your sex life is a matter of opinion. It's hard not to refer to your drinking and drug use when you accuse me of saying things where are exactly the opposite of what I've actually said, sir.
There is no such thing as "your truth", Jeff, or "my truth", for that matter. It's either your opinion, my opinion, someone else's opinion, a lie or "THE truth". Again, right and wrong aren't a matter of opinion. If something is right, it's right, and that's why it's called "right". If it's just your opinion that it's right, then it's just your opinion. Get it now?
I'll get back to you about my opinions, since that what you're asking me for. And please, Jeff, have a cup of coffee or something before you post back to me again. It's gotta be embarrassing that you can't even recall my comments when they're right there in front of you. Perhaps you're dyslexic or something. I don't recall you doing this to any of your Liberal friends here, however, so it must be something else.

MsTerry

06-14-2008, 07:25 PM

Right conduct, Ms. Terry. Not your opinion, my opinion, or an Iraqi's opinion. It's defined as "right conduct".
.
And here I thought you were a bright man, a stand up guy. Why do you have so much resistance to the fact that everybody INTERPRETS what they think it means what "right conduct" is.
Do you think for one moment that an Iraqi suicide bomber thinks he is doing the wrong thing? No, he thinks it is "right conduct".
Does that means it is "right conduct" or does it mean it is not "right conduct"??? What is your opinion?

just for you Don, since you have such a hard time reading what people write, here is the difference between opinion and interpretation. I can see why you want to call everything "an opinion" because that way you don't and can't learn from other people. LOL

opinion (plural opinions (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opinions))
A subjective (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective) thought that a person (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/person) has formed about a topic (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/topic) or issue (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/issue).

interpretation (plural interpretations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interpretations))
The act of interpreting; explanation of what is obscure; translation; version; construction; as, the interpretation of a foreign language, of a dream, or of an enigma.
The sense given by an interpreter; exposition or explanation given; meaning; as, commentators give various interpretations of the same passage of Scripture.
The power or explaining.
An artist's way of expressing his thought or embodying his conception of nature.
The act or process of applying general principles or formulae to the explanation of the results obtained in special cases.

MsTerry

06-14-2008, 07:35 PM

Right conduct, Ms. Terry. Not your opinion, my opinion, or an Iraqi's opinion. It's defined as "right conduct".
.
OK. then every thing that is good would be "right conduct", right???
Like good sex or smoking a big fat joint?

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 09:57 PM

Thank you, Lenny, for the heads up. It may cool my jets here now that I understand what the think is. I mean, really: words mean something. Didn't we all learn that in public school here in America? Now, all of a sudden, the truth is just a matter of opinion? LOL And my opinions have suddenly taken on great weight and importance because they're being referred to as "my truth"? ROTFLOL

I do hear you, Lenny, so don't mistake my continued effort (should I decide to make it) to dialogue about this for ignoring your appreciated heads up. In the groups I've been in prior to this, I've never found a Liberal yet who would risk civil intelligent discussion in order to explain how opinions have become "truths" and how the words "right" and "wrong" have suddenly lost their meanings and instead mean whatever we want them to mean. I've never found anyone yet who was willing and/or able to sufficiently explain it in a way that other intelligent people could finally understand. In my experience, they throw their rocks and then they slip back into the darkness. But this is Sonoma County, and I'm hoping I can expect a more intelligent level of discussion about this here than is commonly found on Yahoo or Excite message boards.:thumbsup:

Don, it took me a while, too long I am embarrassed to write, but some folks here do not have the same notion of the truth. They have no truly objective Truth, nor any guide to such. Their ears have been tickled by everything else they have sought and all the resultant noise has drowned out the small quiet voice of the real deal. The very notion that you stand upon is foreign, and when considered it is mocked or disdained. It is a very Zen setting here. As in Zen whatever one points to for insight, the master says, "No, that is not Zen", and so it goes on infinitum, or until the student realizes, there are no words for "it". There is no bridge to the issue; simply a leap. The best to you in trying to "get over".

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 10:00 PM

OK. then every thing that is good would be "right conduct", right???
Like good sex or smoking a big fat joint?

Whether sex is good or smoking a big fat joint is right is a matter of opinion.

Braggi

06-14-2008, 10:04 PM

... In my experience, they throw their rocks and then they slip back into the darkness. But this is Sonoma County, and I'm hoping I can expect a more intelligent level of discussion about this here than is commonly found on Yahoo or Excite message boards.:thumbsup:

OK, Don, please show us how to do it intelligently: is it right or wrong for a man to have sex with another man, assuming fully consensual behavior? Please explain if your answer is your opinion, the truth or both.

Thanks,

-Jeff

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 10:07 PM

I don't need you to remind me what those words mean, Ms. Terry. I'm very well aware that words mean something, and have made the effort to know what particular words mean. Unlike you, I might add, who still hasn't shown that you understand what the word "right" means. It's not a matter of opinion, Ma'am. It has a meaning. Look it up. If an Iraqi bomber's behavior falls into those definitions, I would be surprised. If you think an Iraqi bomber's behavior is "right", then we probably won't benefit much from further communication.

Sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize killing babies before they're born, Ms. Terry, or the equivalent thereof, albeit about what is "right" and what is "wrong". People still think they can justify killing babies they don't want, you know, as long as they kill them before they're born.

I know, I know. I'm just as amazed as you are.

Oh, btw: When you start interpreting right and wrong, you've fallen into the "opinion" zone again, Ma'am. When you start interpreting the truth, again, your interpretation is not necessarily the truth or it wouldn't be called your "interpretation", now would it? Rhetorical question, Ma'am. No, it would be called the truth if it's the truth. Look that word up, perhaps. That might help us understand one another.

And here I thought you were a bright man, a stand up guy. Why do you have so much resistance to the fact that everybody INTERPRETS what they think it means what "right conduct" is.
Do you think for one moment that an Iraqi suicide bomber thinks he is doing the wrong thing? No, he thinks it is "right conduct".
Does that means it is "right conduct" or does it mean it is not "right conduct"??? What is your opinion?

just for you Don, since you have such a hard time reading what people write, here is the difference between opinion and interpretation. I can see why you want to call everything "an opinion" because that way you don't and can't learn from other people. LOL

MsTerry

06-14-2008, 10:41 PM

Whether sex is good or smoking a big fat joint is right is a matter of opinion.
That is correct Don, EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion.
and opinion change, just like right and wrong have shift with time

MsTerry

06-14-2008, 10:45 PM

thewholetruth

06-15-2008, 07:04 AM

OK, Don, please show us how to do it intelligently: is it right or wrong for a man to have sex with another man, assuming fully consensual behavior? Please explain if your answer is your opinion, the truth or both.

Thanks,

-Jeff

Does it fall under the umbrella of "right conduct", Jeff, in accordance with what is morally, ethically, legally, good, and proper? Is it appropriate? Is it socially approved, desirable or influential? That would define the action as "right".

Is it NOT in accordance with morality, goodness or truth? Does it cause one to pursue an immoral course or become depraved? That would define the action as "wrong".

Next time, look up the definitions yourself.

And if you're still interested in my opinion about you having sex with other men, I couldn't care less who you have sex with as long as it's not anyone in my family. :rofl2:

thewholetruth

06-15-2008, 07:06 AM

Please don't be so shifty Don, the Q was clear
Does the Iraqi bomber think he is doing the right thing?
And if he does, does that make it "right conduct"?

Are you 8 years old, Ms. Terry? If not, then you can look up the definitions of the words in question yourself.

And whether or not he "thinks" he's doing the right thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's right conduct. Can you see that?

Probably not.

thewholetruth

06-15-2008, 07:13 AM

That is correct Don, EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion.

Wrong. There you go, you've given me a perfect example to show you what "wrong" looks like. What you've said is untrue, Ms. Terry. Just because you HAVE an opinion about everything doesn't mean they are all MATTERS of opinion. Is having sex with an 8 year old right or wrong, Ms. Terry? I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if you believe it's right or wrong. Is driving drunk and keying someone's car right or wrong, Ms. Terry? Can you manage to discern that one?

...and opinion change...

Yes, opinions change.

...just like right and wrong have shift with time

Wrong again. Right and wrong don't change. The words mean exactly what they've always meant. Whether or not something is right or wrong is not a matter of opinion. Whether you are morally and/or ethically capable of discerning whether it's right or wrong is the only question, and it appears to be quite the question in your life.

MsTerry

06-15-2008, 09:11 AM

Are you 8 years old, Ms. Terry? If not, then you can look up the definitions of the words in question yourself.

And whether or not he "thinks" he's doing the right thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's right conduct. Can you see that?

Probably not.

That is only your opinion. LOL
and by the way, my 8 year old is able to look things up.
that means you are 2 down
three strikes and you are out

MsTerry

06-15-2008, 09:23 AM

Is driving drunk and keying someone's car right or wrong, Ms. Terry? Can you manage to discern that one?

"driving drunk and keying someone's car " is quite an accomplishment to do it at the same time!
But just for your pleasure, I'll consider it that they are 2 separate issues.
"driving drunk "? you know it depends on where you do it. The Mojave desert would be a great place to cool your wheels.
"keying someone's car "? I've keyed my own car accidentally on a number of occasions. Should I go to jail for that? Are you going to turn me in?

theindependenteye

06-15-2008, 09:51 AM

>>some folks here do not have the same notion of the truth. They have no truly objective Truth, nor any guide to such. Their ears have been tickled by everything else they have sought and all the resultant noise has drowned out the small quiet voice of the real deal.

To return to the original subject, if that's possible:

In my opinion, legalization of gay marriage is right. By that I mean it's a good thing for our society to do, that it will result in more good stuff than bad stuff. I see nothing wrong with it practically, morally, or theologically.

I agree totally that this is a radical redefinition of the word "marriage" and certainly one I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. But I don't see any fundamental difference between redefining a word and redefining the laws related to that word. In the case of "marriage," those laws have changed radically throughout history. Gay marriage is a very sudden change, even more so than the repeal of miscegnation laws, and so it's understandable that there's enormous opposition.

But the actual arguments against it that I've seen come down to these:
a. It undermines heterosexual marriage.
b. It's against God's will or against Nature.
c. Important words should have absolute, unchanging meanings.

To me, the first is totally incomprehensible. The second relies on a belief in Revealed Truth -- whether from Jehovah or from Science -- that I don't share. The third has never been true linguistically or culturally, even in religiously totalitarian societies.

All my statements above I would categorize as "opinion." Yet I resist Lenny's suggestion that anyone who believes there is "no truly objective Truth" is simply subject to ear-tickling faddishness and can't hear that "small quiet voice of the real deal." [I like that phrase, by the way.] My Quaker orientation leads me to listen hard for that voice even as we're assaulted by Society's megawatt loudspeakers blaring their own versions of Right and Wrong.

Of course, that orientation also leads me to try my damndest to accept that even those people I find impossibly misguided nevertheless have something of God in them that needs to be heard. So I guess the result is moral relativism, which, for all its traps & pitfalls, I embrace.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

06-15-2008, 01:24 PM

Avoiding the question completely again, Ms. Terry? Shame on you. It's gotten to be a habit with you, Ma'am. :thumbsup:

"driving drunk and keying someone's car " is quite an accomplishment to do it at the same time!
But just for your pleasure, I'll consider it that they are 2 separate issues.
"driving drunk "? you know it depends on where you do it. The Mojave desert would be a great place to cool your heels.
"keying someone's car "? I've keyed my own car accidentally on a number of occasions. Should I go to jail for that? Are you going to turn me in?

MsTerry

06-15-2008, 09:59 PM

Avoiding the question completely again, Ms. Terry? Shame on you. It's gotten to be a habit with you, Ma'am. :thumbsup:
Wrong again, Don!
I did answer your question, you just don't like the answer!
Because it doesn't comply with your opinion!

MsTerry

06-15-2008, 10:11 PM

Are you 8 years old, Ms. Terry? If not, then you can look up the definitions of the words in question yourself.

And whether or not he "thinks" he's doing the right thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's right conduct. Can you see that?

Probably not.
Don
You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.
You seem to have the notion that you can distinguish between right and wrong and even aspire to know what right behavior is.
Look at the post above and tell me is your taunting and degrading tone in your posts Right Conduct?
Is it right or wrong for someone like you to dismiss people in the way you do?

Zeno Swijtink

06-15-2008, 10:33 PM

My friend wrote : "Marriage unions ought to be a matter of a civil contract. Those people who, additionally, wish to have a religious ceremony ought to be free to do so. Those religions which choose not to offer their religious ceremony to same sex couples ought to be free to do so. Those who do not agree with this policy are free to join other congregations or other sects.

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,038 adults nationwide, including 930 registered voters, interviewed by telephone May 30-June 3, 2008. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. The error for the sample of registered voters is plus or minus four points."

Changing Views On Gay Marriage
CBS News

Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.

Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay coupleâ•˙s relationship.

Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that stateâ•˙s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.

Americansâ•˙ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage.

More than six in 10 Democrats think same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions. Fifty percent of Republicans are against either of these options.

There are regional differences, too. Four in 10 of those living in the western portion of the U.S. favor same-sex marriage - the highest of any other region. Americans living in the south are least likely to support it.

Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.

Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals and weekly church attendees are groups that are least likely to support the idea.

thewholetruth

06-15-2008, 10:57 PM

Don
You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.
You seem to have the notion that you can distinguish between right and wrong and even aspire to know what right behavior is.
Look at the post above and tell me is your taunting and degrading tone in your posts Right Conduct?
Is it right or wrong for someone like you to dismiss people in the way you do?

Firstly, I'm not "taunting" or "degrading" you. I'm responding to your remarks. What would you have me do instead, Ms. Terry, kiss your behind and ignore the fact that you aren't making sense? I dismiss the absurdity of your comments. That is, after all, what we're doing here: trading comments back and forth, sharing thoughts and opinions, dialoguing. When you can't discern between opinion and fact - and you've proven you cannot - someone's going to say so. It just happens to be me right now in this thread. I've seen others take issue with you over similar misconceptions you have about communication and reality. I dismiss your attempts to distort reality. I dismiss your refusal to communicate honestly here. I dismiss your foolishness because none of us has time to waste on anything less than reality, IMHO. :2cents:

thewholetruth

06-15-2008, 11:02 PM

Wrong again, Don!
I did answer your question, you just don't like the answer!
Because it doesn't comply with your opinion!

Wrong, Ms. Terry. You didn't answer my questions, as they were "yes" or "no" questions and I saw no "yes" or "no" in your reply.

Again: Is driving drunk and keying someone's car right or wrong, Ms. Terry? Yes or no? Can you manage to discern that one? Yes or no?

Lenny

06-16-2008, 05:31 AM

I think eating one's own arm is a matter of opinion.
But then that is my own :2cents:

MsTerry

06-16-2008, 08:13 AM

:heart:

Firstly, I'm not "taunting" or "degrading" you.
maybe you aren't able to read what you write, or maybe it is a way of life for you to put people down

I'm responding to your remarks.
In a taunting and degrading way!

What would you have me do instead, Ms. Terry, kiss your behind and ignore the fact that you aren't making sense?
I DO make sense to others, Don (check the gratitude #)

I dismiss the absurdity of your comments.
that is only your opinion

That is, after all, what we're doing here: trading comments back and forth, sharing thoughts and opinions, dialoguing. When you can't discern between opinion and fact - and you have proven you cannot ( this is taunting, Don) someone's going to say so. It just happens to be me right now in this thread.

I've seen others take issue with you over similar misconceptions you have about communication and reality. I dismiss your attempts to distort reality. I dismiss your refusal to communicate honestly here. I dismiss your foolishness because none of us has time to waste on anything less than reality
Jeff has written several very similar about your responses

, IMHO.:2cents:
that is probable the right value :thumbsup:
D

Braggi

06-16-2008, 08:15 AM

Wrong, Ms. Terry. You didn't answer my questions, as they were "yes" or "no" questions and I saw no "yes" or "no" in your reply.
...

This is very, VERY rich coming from you, Don.

-Jeff

MsTerry

06-16-2008, 08:19 AM

Firstly, I'm not "taunting" or "degrading" you. I'm responding to your remarks.

Are you 8 years old, Ms. Terry? this is a putdown not a response to my remarks

If not, then you can look up the definitions of the words in question yourself. this is a putdown not a response to my remarks

And whether or not he "thinks" he's doing the right thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's right conduct.
Can you see that? this is a taunt not a response to my remarks

Probably not.this is a putdown and a taunt not a response to my remarks

Overall, I think it is fair to say that you don't bother with right conduct, or maybe even more accurate is it to say that you don't practice what you preach.

MsTerry

06-16-2008, 08:20 AM

LOL
I forgot to add that

This is very, VERY rich coming from you, Don.

-Jeff

Braggi

06-16-2008, 08:21 AM

Yes, opinions change.
... Right and wrong don't change. The words mean exactly what they've always meant. Whether or not something is right or wrong is not a matter of opinion. ...

Actually Don, you're wrong here. :): That hasn't changed.

Right and wrong differ based on the maturity and the values of the society in question. There was a time when it was right to own slaves in the United States. That time has passed. There was a time when it was right to prevent same sex marriages in the US. That time is passing. We are watching history unfold.

The meaning of marriage (in this country) is in transition. And Don, the meaning of words change all the time as a culture matures and changes. Pick up a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and follow the changes of meanings of various words over the years. It's an interesting exercise.

-Jeff

MsTerry

06-16-2008, 08:27 AM

Wrong, Ms. Terry. You didn't answer my questions, as they were "yes" or "no" questions and I saw no "yes" or "no" in your reply.


I did answer, I gave you a different perspective,but you didn't answer my questions that followed out of your inquiry, but then again, you never do answer questions with yes or no.

Again: Is driving drunk and keying someone's car right or wrong, Ms. Terry? Yes or no? Can you manage to discern that one? Yes or no?Don, by now you should know that it is hard to answer two different questions lumped together in one sentence. It doesn't make sense even with your little taunt of "Can you manage to discern that one?"
Can you, Don, manage to discern that ?

Neshamah

06-18-2008, 02:52 PM

Morality is complex, and reasonable people can disagree on moral questions simply because, being finite, we cannot see all ends. The application of moral principles can be relative to specific people or environments, but that does not mean morality itself is relative.

Personally, I believe certain people are created more heterosexual or more homosexual than others, and that G-d or nature or whatever intends them to be who they are.

[quote=theindependenteye;61554
Of course, that orientation also leads me to try my damndest to accept that even those people I find impossibly misguided nevertheless have something of God in them that needs to be heard. So I guess the result is moral relativism, which, for all its traps & pitfalls, I embrace.

Peace & joy--
Conrad[/quote]

theindependenteye

06-18-2008, 05:49 PM

>>The application of moral principles can be relative to specific people or environments, but that does not mean morality itself is relative.

Dear Neshamah--

Not to quarrel with your statement, but just to worry it around the edges: what do you mean, exactly? What is there in the world except specific people and specific environments?

We can say, for example, that murder is wrong. But what's murder? To some, it would be any killing of human beings. To some, killing of humans for some reasons but not for others. To some, the destruction of a species. To some, stepping on an ant. It seems the only way you can say that's not "relative" is to appeal to belief in a divine revelation, but again that's the province of specific people in specific environments: my revelation is your bullshit. To derive it from scientific reasoning, e.g. "what is natural is good," or "what promotes species survival is good" is inevitably subject to tortured logic & selective evidence.

So it's in that sense I embrace moral relativism. For me, some things are good and others repugnant simply because I can't conceive them any other way: they're in my bowels. Some, because a particular "morality complex" seems to promote behavior that seems to be good for me and the people I'm closest to and my vague projections about what's good for the rest of the world. That's why the basic moral tenents of Liberal Christianity work for me, right alongside the neo-pagan "If it harm none, do what you will." Some, even, because it's my instinct to set up a "Satan" to question my deepest presumptions and give them the horse laugh.

I guess this puts me in the camp of the French Existentialists, accepting the responsibility of manufacturing a morality & a life purpose out of ... blackness. (cf. the Hebrews ordered to make bricks without straw) Certainly, I have a gut belief that my world view, my instinct, my core being is in touch with something primal, infinite in spirit, even -- ye gods! -- divine. But that's just my ego nattering. Over at the side is my little comic/devil self saying, "Gee, you're cute, but you don't have a clue."

Well that's my blurb. So tell me, where do you find a moral absolute?

Peace & joy--

Conrad

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 12:31 AM

Right and wrong differ based on the maturity and the values of the society in question. There was a time when it was right to own slaves in the United States.

Wrong. There was never a time when it was right to enslave another man here in America, Jeff. Like killing babies before they're born, there was a time when it was LEGAL, but that didn't make it "right". Sorry, but it's always been wrong to enslave another man, and it's still wrong today, Jeff. Whether or not it was right is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, and the fact remains that it's not right to enslave another person.

There was a time when it was right to prevent same sex marriages in the US. That time is passing.

If it was once right, it's still right. I don't agree that it's either right or wrong. I believe it's a matter of opinion. We'll see what happens come November. I believe that it will still be what you referred to as "right" to oppose changing the definition of the word "marriage" in order to include homosexuality.

We are watching history unfold.

We've already seen "history unfold" once in San Francisco. The door to "history" was quickly slammed shut. November is but a few months away. It will be interesting to see the public weigh in on this matter AGAIN.

The meaning of marriage (in this country) is in transition. And Don, the meaning of words change all the time as a culture matures and changes. Pick up a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and follow the changes of meanings of various words over the years. It's an interesting exercise.

-Jeff

In your opinion. I don't believe America agrees that the meaning of marriage is in transition, Jeff. Again, we'll see come November. You Liberals tend to be at least a little deluded about what America thinks. :wink:

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 12:40 AM

I did answer, I gave you a different perspective,but you didn't answer my questions that followed out of your inquiry, but then again, you never do answer questions with yes or no.

You attempted to dilute my questions, Ms. Terry. I refused to take your bait and simply asked for a simple yes or no, which you still have not provided. I get it.

Don, by now you should know that it is hard to answer two different questions lumped together in one sentence.

No it's not, when you are aware of the exact situation I'm referring to, Ms. Terry. You can feign ignorance and then pretend it's difficult to answer, but the true answer to my question is "No", it's not right to drive drunk on public streets and key someone else's car because they parked in front of your house.

It doesn't make sense even with your little taunt of "Can you manage to discern that one?"
Can you, Don, manage to discern that ?

Oh yes, I can. I can discern that you weren't able and/or willing to admit that you understood (discerned) my question, that you chose to be disingenuous rather than answer a simple question. I get it, Ms. Terry. This is why I ignored your posts for a couple months. You like to play games rather than embrace the truth. Your Liberalism, your agenda is more important to you than the truth. That's why you dance the way you do around simple and direct questions. Gotta protect that Liberalism, eh Ms. T? :thumbsup:

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 12:45 AM

this is a putdown not a response to my remarks
this is a putdown not a response to my remarks

And whether or not he "thinks" he's doing the right thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's right conduct. this is a taunt not a response to my remarks
this is a putdown and a taunt not a response to my remarks

Overall, I think it is fair to say that you don't bother with right conduct, or maybe even more accurate is it to say that you don't practice what you preach.

Look up the words "taunt" and "putdown", Ms. Terry. What I've engaged in is neither. I've challenged you to step up the plate and have the courage to commit to whatever your convictions are. You've played games here for as long as I've been here, always avoiding the truth in favor of protecting the undeniable blur between right and wrong that rationalization creates.

Overall, it's both fair and accurate to say that you don't appear to be able to handle the truth. :hmmm:

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 12:52 AM

Thanks for posting those statistics, Zeno. I'm always fascinated with statistics, including the way they are so easily manipulated depending upon so many variables. But when I think it's been a fair polling, I'm always fascinated by what we think collectively.

Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals and weekly church attendees are groups that are least likely to support the idea.

Of course there is a reason for that. Homosexuality is addressed in God's word both OT and NT. Believers either believe it's the word of God or it's not. Those in church every week, I imagine, tend to believe that it is.

My friend wrote : "Marriage unions ought to be a matter of a civil contract. Those people who, additionally, wish to have a religious ceremony ought to be free to do so. Those religions which choose not to offer their religious ceremony to same sex couples ought to be free to do so. Those who do not agree with this policy are free to join other congregations or other sects.

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,038 adults nationwide, including 930 registered voters, interviewed by telephone May 30-June 3, 2008. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. The error for the sample of registered voters is plus or minus four points."

Changing Views On Gay Marriage
CBS News

Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.

Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay coupleâ•˙s relationship.

Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that stateâ•˙s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.

Americansâ•˙ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage.

More than six in 10 Democrats think same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions. Fifty percent of Republicans are against either of these options.

There are regional differences, too. Four in 10 of those living in the western portion of the U.S. favor same-sex marriage - the highest of any other region. Americans living in the south are least likely to support it.

Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.

Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals and weekly church attendees are groups that are least likely to support the idea.

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 01:09 AM

Don
You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.

I have self esteem, Ma'am, if that's what you're referring to, which comes from choosing to practice principles in my life. I don't recall stating that "I have a very high opinion of myself" here, however. Do you?

You seem to have the notion that you can distinguish between right and wrong and even aspire to know what right behavior is.

Generally speaking, Ms. Terry, I can. So could you if you weren't habitually rationalizing things. Words mean something, Ms. Terry. Definitions of words aren't a matter of opinion. That's why they're called "definitions". You might look that word up if you aren't tracking with me right now. The truth is that I was taught to discern the difference between right and wrong, and even to identify "opinion" when it shows up. It's not prideful to acknowledge that I'm aware that words mean something, nor to ask you to acknowledge that same thing. Frankly, I suspect maybe your accusation at me isn't so much about me, as it is about how you feel about yourself, perhaps due to your habitual avoidance of the truth. I can see how I might think someone thinks they're "high and mighty" who points to both "right and wrong" and separates them from "opinion" if I were a moral relativist.

Look at the post above and tell me is your taunting and degrading tone in your posts Right Conduct?

I disagree with your opinion that I've a "taunting and degrading tone" in my posts. I'm simply dismissing your intentional feigned ignorance, Ma'am, in your replies to me. Again, perhaps look up the words "taunt" and "degrade".

Is it right or wrong for someone like you to dismiss people in the way you do?

I haven't dismissed anyone. Read my post again. I'm dismissing your attempts at blurring the line between right and wrong, Ma'am. I'm dismissing your comments. I'm not dismissing you personally. Are you your comments? No, Ma'am. Your comments are not you. They are simply thoughts which come out of your head that you're putting online here in this forum. Don't personalize my comments. I'm simply responding to your comments, Ms. Terry.

Lenny

06-19-2008, 06:59 AM

Well that's my blurb. So tell me, where do you find a moral absolute? Peace & joy--Conrad

I.E. If you haven't yet, why ask him? Confounding is the above, "where do YOU....". He may have found it and lives with it well, and tolerates the rest that haven't, maybe? As you pose no absolutes for yourself, does that negate his finding of something you've yet not found? What scares so many is the "absolute" part. If one finds it, then does the imperative demand having others think the same? Kind of like a reformed smoker?
As gentle as you are, know that this is not a chide, just another consideration for approaching what the above question raises.

MsTerry

06-19-2008, 07:34 AM

Look up the words "taunt" and "putdown", Ms. Terry.

Here it is Don,
It perfectly descibes your behavior
to taunt (third-person singular simple present taunts (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taunts), present participle taunting (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taunting), simple past and past participle taunted (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taunted))
to make fun of (someone); to goad (a person) into responding, often in an aggressive manner.

What I've engaged in is neither. I've challenged you to step up the plate and have the courage to commit to whatever your convictions are.
Only you seem to have not been able to hear what I have to say.

You've played games here for as long as I've been here, always avoiding the truth in favor of protecting the undeniable blur between right and wrong that rationalization creates.
This is an extremely important statement, Don. It indicates that you don't think right and wrong are rational

=DoncOverall, it's both fair and accurate to say that you don't appear to be able to handle the truth. And what might that truth be, Don, that I, in your opinion am not able to handle?

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 07:44 AM

Here it is Don,
It perfectly descibes your behavior
to taunt (third-person singular simple present taunts (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taunts), present participle taunting (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taunting), simple past and past participle taunted (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taunted))

to make fun of (someone); to goad (a person) into responding, often in an aggressive manner.I haven't made fun of you, Ms. Terry. I've simply pointed out your refusal to have an open and honest discussion with me here, opting for, instead of open honesty, muddying up the water with rationalization. You refuse to answer simple questions yes or no. I haven't made fun of you, Ma'am. I've simply pointed out how reluctant you are to answer simple questions. And I've never needed to "goad" you into responding. You do that all on your own.

Only you seem to have not been able to hear what I have to say.

I've head what you have to say. I've just refused to let you drag my questions into muddy water, so I point back to my original questions and ask them again. You see, you haven't answered them. Oh, you've offered responses to them, but as an intelligent adult, I would expect that you would simply answer them and then add your commentary or muddy the water like you do, AFTER answering them. You see, when you don't answer them first, it appears that you didn't understand the question, which both you and I know that isn't the case. So it isn't a case of you not understanding; it's a case of you being unwilling to be honest about your answers.

And what might that truth be, Don, that I, in your opinion am not able to handle?

Well, in the case of my questions to you, you can't handle the truth that it's not right to drive drunk and key someone's car. You didn't answer me "yes" or "no", opting instead to try to come up with details which appeared like it was impossible for you to commit to an answer, which, btw, is what criminals tend to do. FYI.

MsTerry

06-19-2008, 07:47 AM

MsTerry wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=61651#post61651)
Don, by now you should know that it is hard to answer two different questions lumped together in one sentence.

No it's not, when you are aware of the exact situation I'm referring to, Ms. Terry. You can feign ignorance and then pretend it's difficult to answer, but the true answer to my question is "No", it's not right to drive drunk on public streets and key someone else's car because they parked in front of your house.

Don, now I understand why you are so confused.
you think it is OK to mingle two different questions and then blame it on me that you can't see straight.
you modified your Q above and then answered it yourself. That might appear clever, but it is like selling snake-oil. It's WRONG DON.

This is why I ignored your posts for a couple months.
Now that is a flat out lie, Don!
Do you believe lying is right conduct, Don ?
You used to call me sweet after i urged you to stay on board. Has your memory gone all potty?

MsTerry

06-19-2008, 07:51 AM

[/list]I haven't made fun of you, Ms. Terry. .
:biglaugh::rofl2::biglaugh:

MsTerry

06-19-2008, 08:37 AM

Don,
The most interesting aspect of this you're wrong/I'm right exchange, is that you are so blindly attacking me and calling me a liberal that you haven't noticed that we actually agree on something, the thing that started this thread. LOL

Barry please separate all this bickering from this thread.

theindependenteye

06-19-2008, 12:14 PM

thewholetruth

06-19-2008, 08:54 PM

MsTerry wrote: Do you believe lying is right conduct, Don ?
You used to call me sweet after i urged you to stay on board. Has your memory gone all potty?

I remember that, Ms. Terry, when I first joined up here. Then, you fish-flopped into someone who attacked everything I said. When I noticed you doing that to others, as well, I stopped reading your comments.

Lying isn't right conduct, Ms. Terry. *head tipped a little sideways and forward, peering as with a jaundiced eye* :heart:

MsTerry

06-19-2008, 10:02 PM

Don, maybe you are so twisted that you can't seperate the truth from the lie you are living.

fact 1. Don joined 3/24/08, that is almost 3 months ago
fact 2 Don claims he didn't post to me for 2 months
I get it, Ms. Terry. This is why I ignored your posts for a couple months.
fact 3 Don posted this 6 weeks ago https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Dry Humor (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57322#post57322)
fact 4 Don posted on 4/24/08 to me https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Illegal Aliens (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=56279#post56279)

conclusion; Don doesn't tell the truth

Fact 5 people who don't tell the truth are called liars
Fact 6 people who lie and and call other people liars, are in serious need of counseling
Fact 7
Lying isn't right conduct,

I stopped reading your comments.

Don, you make my point very well, you don't read what I write, but you respond anyways, blindly without looking for common ground.

Lenny

06-20-2008, 07:12 AM

>>Well that's my blurb. So tell me, where do you find a moral absolute? Peace & joy--Conrad

>I.E. If you haven't yet, why ask him? Confounding is the above, "where do YOU....". He may have found it and lives with it well, and tolerates the rest that haven't, maybe?

That's fine. I was asking him the question because he made the statement, and being a writer I'm interested in how people think. If absolutes work for you, and yours don't impinge on me, I cheer you on.

I apologize. I did not realize that I was impinging on you.

>As you pose no absolutes for yourself, does that negate his finding of something you've yet not found?

Nope, not at all. I did elaborate a bit on my own thinking about it, as a means of deepening the inquiry. I'm not intending to evangelize for moral relativism as an absolute.

Is the above sentence an oxymoron? There must be a word for it. It is an excellent twist of meaning succinctly put!

>What scares so many is the "absolute" part. If one finds it, then does the imperative demand having others think the same? Kind of like a reformed smoker?

Well yes. As in the above example: as far as I know, Jesus told him to turn his own life around, not to stomp around on the lives of others. Peace & joy—Conrad

So he told you! Is that stomping on your life? He didn't have to tell you, but his imperative, due to absolutes, mandated such. And it changed your life.
And as you are not desperately "holding on" to the idea that moral relativism is absolute, then there is a chance that........
Of course, there is no "stomping on" if one quietly "knows" that there is such. And the "absolute" can mean that the source and message is Absolute and free, and if others do not want to come to it, well, that's their free choice. So I suppose the 'absolute' has no moral imperative or duty. Thanks for helping finger this out.
One time I looked at one of those large conch shells that twisted into itself. This exchange reminds me of that.

Lenny

06-21-2008, 09:10 AM

I am LIVID.

This mornings news, PD, has gay advocates petitioning the Cal Supreme court to stop the November initiative regarding gay marriage.

Is this a kind of "gay democracy" we now practice?

The two arguments are, as I understand it: those signing the petition were to stupid to know what it said.
And (lawyer talk) the initiative would "revise" rather than "amend" the Constitution.
The blurb indicates that any judge may remove the petition since it has already been signed off by the secretary of state. What is the Office of Administrative Law doing if it was constitutionally illegal to begin with?

I can see this thread is almost dead, and if there is no response then we'll start a new one. Maybe "Gay Democracy"?

I am mad enough to spit!:intcombust:

Braggi

06-21-2008, 09:46 AM

I am LIVID.

This mornings news, PD, has gay advocates petitioning the Cal Supreme court to stop the November initiative regarding gay marriage.

Is this a kind of "gay democracy" we now practice?
...

Hey, don't be so livid. Not good for your blood pressure.

Try to understand this Lenny: rights aren't subject to "democracy" because they are rights. The constitutional courts (read: Supreme Courts) are in place to prevent rights from being taken away. Protecting a right isn't "activist." It's what the Supreme Courts are supposed to do.

Any law that denies equal protection is unconstitutional federally which means a state can't do it. It will eventually be overturned by the Supremes (While Diana Ross sings) if passed by mob rule (democratically).

Remember that the Consitution was designed to protect rights and prevent mob rule. The mob can't take away rights.

-Jeff

PeriodThree

06-21-2008, 09:50 AM

Lenny

06-21-2008, 11:54 AM

Hey Lenny,
It is not that the people who signed the petition were too stupid to know what it said, the argument is that you can't take away fundamental rights through the petition process.

The PD article today has, "its (the initiative) impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to put on the ballot".

How the "Equality California" lawyer can determine that millions of people did not know the impact in so short a time, I'll never know. Maybe those millions didn't know "lawyer talk" but wish to have the issue addressed to and responded by the public? Were there polls? Is that how that lawyer knew? Or simply does he know what millions think? Or is there a "new think" or "re-education" program that must first be promulgated prior to the election? If so, bring that on. Tell us "how to think" or view this matter? Then let the election proceed.
BTW, in this thread Marbury v Madison was mentioned but let us note in 1820, just 17 years after the Marbury decision, Jefferson lamented to a friend in a letter, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
So please, let us not visit that again.

But as long as we want to get into emotional land, I will match your 'livid.'
I absolutely hate the position you have. I hate it. I think your position is absolutely evil. I don't know how to reconcile my absolute hatred, disgust, and anger at the position you hold from how I might feel about you as a person. It is a hard question. I have a friend who is anti-gay marriage. It is awkward to be around him. But he is my friend.
But the position is hateful, nasty, evil, totally fucked up, unamerican, and wrong. But again, you as a person probably are not.

Well, not to get too personal, I can be, have been, and probably will be again, a truly disgusting person that one may hate with ease. I got over that a while back, and decided to pursue what is good, true, and beautiful. Fairness counts is in there some where, so that works as well. And THIS AIN'T FAIR. Straight up and honest. That is why I am livid
It is the tactic of a bully and wicked minority that fears, and in this fear there is no way to have an equitable settlement. Notice that the Civil Union thingy passed with minor fanfare. Of course there were those that were verbose, as the public square demands loyal opposition speak clearly when prodded, but it passed. Now that the tyranny of five has ruled on the Marriage issue there immediately sprung up a petition which was reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law, several lawyers, and found to be admissible by the Secretary of State. But NOOOOOO, the squeaky wheel demands remedy. Let it go to the public. Gays have a fair chance of winning in this state, no? At least that is what I can see happening.

As for your point on 'gay democracy' - that is just wrong. Your side keeps arguing about how the 'people' get to vote. And we have to listen to the people.
Well, sorry, but fuck 'The People.' Democracy is not how we determine right from wrong. (Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner).

Well, with your notion of democracy I can see the fear. It is not how "right and wrong" are determined, or at least where we all come from. That is done in a temple, pulpit, mosque, or coffee house. The stupid dictionary says (and of course definitions are BASES from which reasonable people may launch into reasonable discussions):
1.The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
2.A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
3.The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

Now, I hate to tell you this but you HAVE to listen to "the people", in spite of what you wrote above. Yes, you do. OK, well, I may be wrong, and no, you don't. But then you are crossing off the majority, you will get into trouble if you don't, and you maybe considered......well, you are not an idiot, but it would be idiotic NOT to listen and consider with an open mind the voice of the people, before you tell them to bug off.

You want to deny civil rights to other people. That is just wrong. So, if you want to get 'angry' go for it. Bring it on. Why not join your other hateful comrades and go bash some gays? Tie them up to fences and beat them to death? Abuse them until they commit suicide? You claim you are not 'that way' but there is only one way to be hateful, and it only leads to one place. So bring it on.
But before you do you might want to take a look at our Bull Connor, George Wallace, Racist asshole history and consider how you are going to look in the view of history.

Well, you do go off the deep, don't you! No talking to you while you are drowning in bile. I have never advocated what you direct me to do. It is offensive after what I've posted on in Wacco. When you calm down, we can get back to the issue.
What makes me livid is the UNFAIR. Talk about what is unfair! Or I suppose the people should have no voice, and remain the silent majority as when they do speak up obscenities are screamed in their general direction, which begets everybody into chaos. Good little Maoists, shut up and do what the state says. And all things should be run by lawyers and insurance companies only, eh? We agree, it is disgusting.

For clarification's sake:
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/21/BAC211CKE5.DTL

Braggi

06-21-2008, 12:24 PM

... Fairness counts is in there some where, so that works as well. And THIS AIN'T FAIR. Straight up and honest. That is why I am livid ...

OK, so let's be fair. Everyone has the same rights, including the right to marry. Easy, eh?

...
It is the tactic of a bully and wicked minority that fears, and in this fear there is no way to have an equitable settlement. ...

Now you're getting somewhere, Lenny. It is the responsibility of the State to protect the rights of minorities. That's one of the fundamentals this country was founded upon. No minority should live in fear if our laws are applied equally.

... Gays have a fair chance of winning in this state, no? At least that is what I can see happening. ...

It's not about gays "winning." Everyone wins when there is equal protection under the law.

... Now, I hate to tell you this but you HAVE to listen to "the people", in spite of what you wrote above. Yes, you do. OK, well, I may be wrong, and no, you don't. But then you are crossing off the majority, you will get into trouble if you don't, and you maybe considered...

Every time the Supreme Court declares a law that restricts rights and freedoms unconstitutional we all win Lenny, even if a majority of voters passed that law. Sometimes the majority are wrong; often, I would say. Thankfully we have a Constitution and a court system sworn to uphold the Constitution. Sometimes a particular Court decision is unpopular. So be it.

So stop being so livid. Take a deep breath. Let out the anger into the breeze. Equal rights are for everyone in this country of ours. Sadly, it's taken a very long time to get this close to equal protection under the law, but we're slowly heading in that direction. Legalized gay marriage is just the latest step along the way. Sometimes it's one step forward, two steps back, but even in the Bush era we're making some progress, and that's reason enough to celebrate.

-Jeff

thewholetruth

06-21-2008, 09:17 PM

Hey Lenny,

It is not that the people who signed the petition were too stupid to know what it said, the argument is that you can't take away fundamental rights through the petition process.

But as long as we want to get into emotional land, I will match your 'livid.'

I absolutely hate the position you have. I hate it. I think your position is absolutely evil.

I think your position is absolutely ludicrous and insane. Marriage is ordained by the Lord, not by the state. Marriage is, by definition, one man/one woman, bro. It's not one man/one man or one woman/one woman. Not historically, not Biblically, not by definition. That you want to change the definition to include homosexuality is absolutely ludicrous, and while I couldn't care less what homosexuals do with one another, they have lost my vote in their self-centered effort to hijack the institution of marriage.

Civil unions, brother. That's what homosexuals can do. I have no problem with them seeking the same kinds of benefits/insurance/whatever that other couples have. Marriage? They cannot marry unless they marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is what marriage is: one man/one woman.

Bastardizing the definition to include homosexuality? What next? One man/one daughter? One man/one cousin? Of course you know this is coming: one woman/one cat? Marriage is one man/one woman, couples of the opposite sex coming together as designed by nature to create new life (despite not everyone being capapable of procreation). Homosexuality is something altogether different. There will be no offspring in a homosexual coupling EVER because it is an unnatural coupling. Were everyone to engage in homosexual relationships the entire human population would be dead in 100 years. That's how unnatural it is.

Ordinarily, I'd stand with you on your "two wolves and sheep" theory. This bizarre attempt to hijack "marriage" and include homosexuality, however, is bumping up against a normal man who is sick of the homosexual agenda being pushed on me, my community and my family. The sickness that defines the homosexual community is on parade in San Francisco every year, and it's not family friendly as the entire community turns out with the intention to offend normal people. I have no sympathy for the homosexual community any longer. Their rights are the same as mine. They can marry a person of the opposite sex if they want to. Homosexual marriage doesn't exist. You can spray paint a turd gold but it's still a turd. You can call homosexual unions "marriage" but by definition it is not.

I don't know how to reconcile my absolute hatred, disgust, and anger at the position you hold from how I might feel about you as a person. It is a hard question. I have a friend who is anti-gay marriage. It is awkward to be around him. But he is my friend.

But the position is hateful, nasty, evil, totally fucked up, unamerican, and wrong.

And the promotion of the homosexual agenda is right there, as well. The homosexual insistence that they need separate "gay" rights is selfish, self-centered, narcissistic and unnecessary, and in many people's opinions equally f***** up, unamerican and wrong. Hook up, shack up, Civil Union up, and shut up. I don't care that you're homosexual. Stop waving your sexual preference in my face because I'm not interested. In fact, more than that, now y'all have pushed me and most everyone else so far away from supporting you with your incessant demand for rights that you already have. You simply want the attention of attaching the word "gay" to rights you already have. You're included in the Bill of Rights, bro, without modifying anything about "gay rights".[/quote]

But again, you as a person probably are not.

As for your point on 'gay democracy' - that is just wrong. Your side keeps arguing about how the 'people' get to vote. And we have to listen to the people.

Well, sorry, but fuck 'The People.' Democracy is not how we determine right from wrong. (Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner).

You want to deny civil rights to other people. That is just wrong. So, if you want to get 'angry' go for it. Bring it on.

It's already on.

Why not join your other hateful comrades and go bash some gays? Tie them up to fences and beat them to death? Abuse them until they commit suicide?

Why not walk down Castro with your penis hanging out, or have anal sex on a float going down Broadway in the middle of a parade? See how stupid it is that you hold up the extremists and accuse Lenny of being one?

BTW, homosexuals commit suicide because they've got mental illness issues, and have their OWN issues about their homosexuality, foolish man.

You claim you are not 'that way' but there is only one way to be hateful, and it only leads to one place.

So bring it on.

It's already on.

But before you do you might want to take a look at our Bull Connor, George Wallace, Racist asshole history and consider how you are going to look in the view of history.

We're going to look like people who understand that words mean something. Y'all, OTOH, are likely going to look like a bunch of self-centered freaks and weirdos who tried to change the meaning of words to accomodate themselves because of their own selfish narcissistic agenda.

If you want the state to acknowledge your homosexual relationship, that's fine. It's called "civil unions". Changing the definition of the word "marriage" to accomodate homosexuality? Frankly, you've failed to make your case yet. You've convinced no one, except for the codependents...and the other homosexuals, of course. :heart:

Zeno Swijtink

06-21-2008, 09:34 PM

I think your position is absolutely ludicrous and insane. Marriage is ordained by the Lord, not by the state. Marriage is, by definition, one man/one woman, bro. It's not one man/one man or one woman/one woman. Not historically, not Biblically, not by definition. That you want to change the definition to include homosexuality is absolutely ludicrous, and while I couldn't care less what homosexuals do with one another, they have lost my vote in their self-centered effort to hijack the institution of marriage.

Civil unions, brother. That's what homosexuals can do. I have no problem with them seeking the same kinds of benefits/insurance/whatever that other couples have. Marriage? They cannot marry unless they marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is what marriage is: one man/one woman.

One man/many wives, that's Biblical, Bro. Do not water down what the Lord has ordained for Man-kind, just to appease those stick-in-the-muds who do not know the Holy Script!!

MsTerry

06-21-2008, 10:12 PM

And the promotion of the homosexual agenda is right there, as well.

Hey Donc, what is the homosexual agenda?
Are you on it?

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 06:02 AM

One man/many wives, that's Biblical, Bro. Do not water down what the Lord has ordained for Man-kind, just to appease those stick-in-the-muds who do not know the Holy Script!!

I'm no theologian, Zeno, so perhaps you could show me where, in the new covenant, we're called to have "many wives". I don't recall seeing that. Hmm. That's because it's not there, just like stoning people to death isn't there, either. There's something about that New Covenant...ohhh, that's right. It shoots holes in people who throw OT rocks at Christians. :thumbsup:

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 06:13 AM

Hey Donc, what is the homosexual agenda?

The homosexual agenda establishes goals regarding the promotion of homosexuality to normal people, to establish an imaginary set of "rights" which apply only to those who engage in homosexual relationships which forces normal people to accept homosexuality as "normal". Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America.

Any of that look even vaguely familiar, Ms. Terry? It should. It's been an ongoing agenda - far longer than a decade.

Are you on it?

No Ma'am, I'm not. :thumbsup: Are you?

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 07:05 AM

The homosexual agenda establishes goals regarding the promotion of homosexuality to normal people,
you are only partially right, Sir
this is what I found,
which points do you object to?
The Homosexual Agenda / Gay Agenda is:

To be respected as human beings
To ensure equal civil rights for everyone
To receive equal treatment under the law
To be able to give our love to those we choose, like everyone else does
To be able to form our families as we see fit, like everyone else does, and for our families to receive the same legal recognition that every other family does
To be able to provide for ourselves and our families through honest work, with the same opportunities and pitfalls as everyone else
To have the opportunity to contribute to the betterment of humanity
To be able to worship as we see fit
To be as physically safe as everyone else is
To be no more harassed by those around us than anyone else is
To live in peace and freedom without fear

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 07:09 AM

Donc,
I also found this, the site where you get most of your misinformation from;
https://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_agenda
and your post is almost verbatim from this one;
<small><small>https://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</small></small>

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 07:47 AM

you are only partially right, Sir
this is what I found,
which points do you object to?
The Homosexual Agenda / Gay Agenda is:
<LI class=list_spacer>To be respected as human beings<LI class=list_spacer>To ensure equal civil rights for everyone<LI class=list_spacer>To receive equal treatment under the law<LI class=list_spacer>To be able to give our love to those we choose, like everyone else does<LI class=list_spacer>To be able to form our families as we see fit, like everyone else does, and for our families to receive the same legal recognition that every other family does<LI class=list_spacer>To be able to provide for ourselves and our families through honest work, with the same opportunities and pitfalls as everyone else<LI class=list_spacer>To have the opportunity to contribute to the betterment of humanity<LI class=list_spacer>To be able to worship as we see fit<LI class=list_spacer>To be as physically safe as everyone else is<LI class=list_spacer>To be no more harassed by those around us than anyone else is
To live in peace and freedom without fear

I object to pretending these are "gay" rights, and to pretending they don't already have all of those rights, because they do.

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 07:48 AM

Donc,
I also found this, the site where you get most of your misinformation from;
https://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_agenda
and your post is almost verbatim from this one;
<SMALL><SMALL>https://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</SMALL></SMALL> (https://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm)

And yet, I've never been to either of those sites, Ms. Terry. You asked what the "gay agenda" is. I told you.

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 09:07 AM

LMAO,Donc
take a look at this and compare it to your post

A. But there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." That's why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause." That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.
4. "Make gays look good." That's what they've done through media campaigns, through television programs, like "Will and Grace" and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.
5. "Make the victimizers look bad." They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to "muddy the moral waters" by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.
6. "Get funds from corporate America." In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It's based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.
compare that to this

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America.
:biglaugh::rofl::biglaugh:
someone is not telling the truth!
Did a friend of yours go to that site maybe?

:rofl2:

And yet, I've never been to either of those sites, Ms. Terry. You asked what the "gay agenda" is. I told you.

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 09:09 AM

Donc,

This is not a gay agenda, it is the right wing agenda to discredit human beings.

And yet, I've never been to either of those sites, Ms. Terry. You asked what the "gay agenda" is. I told you.

Lenny

06-22-2008, 11:21 AM

Hey Donc, what is the homosexual agenda?
Are you on it?

Thought he wasn't?

Of course Kirk & Madsen's How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s should about cover it. One may laugh at the notion of a 'gay agenda', however the activists in both sides of the movement deserve attention more than derision, no? Of course, humor gets us over the rough trade.

Oh, wait. I see that you all have already reviewed this issue. Oh well, that's what I get for logging on, then going out for a few.....

Lenny

06-22-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=62184#post62184)
... Fairness counts is in there some where, so that works as well. And THIS AIN'T FAIR. Straight up and honest. That is why I am livid ...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
OK, so let's be fair. Everyone has the same rights, including the right to marry. Easy, eh?

I like the way you equivocate my meaning of "fair" as you pull it out of context. Do that often? I didn't think so, but here is one instance! I am surprised at you, as you appear reasonable, so I must wonder why you utilize such tactics.
What IS unfair is that when given the chance to have it addressed in the public square, a move such as "Equality California" pulls this rabbit from out of their hat.

Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=62184#post62184)
It is the tactic of a bully and wicked minority that fears, and in this fear there is no way to have an equitable settlement. ...

Now you're getting somewhere, Lenny. It is the responsibility of the State to protect the rights of minorities. That's one of the fundamentals this country was founded upon. No minority should live in fear if our laws are applied equally.

I suppose courts cannot make errors? Great Scott!

As you may or may not know, Muslims are preparing their way to utilize a similar legal action to address the courts in marrying 6 year old girls to old men. Do you wish thanks for paving the way? I know of some in the GLB Community that would, since they have been "identified" as a "class". The very notion of tagging homosexuals as a class, legally, is an abomination, and way outside the means. However the very vocal 3% minority has made tremendous strides in 40 years.

It's not about gays "winning." Everyone wins when there is equal protection under the law.
Every time the Supreme Court declares a law that restricts rights and freedoms unconstitutional we all win Lenny, even if a majority of voters passed that law. Sometimes the majority are wrong; often, I would say. Thankfully we have a Constitution and a court system sworn to uphold the Constitution. Sometimes a particular Court decision is unpopular. So be it.

Again, I am sorry for my poor communication skills. My upset in this issue is what is being done to keep the vote from the people, especially in light of what a couple of lawyers think even after the issue was found worthy by other lawyers and secretary of state. Maybe you didn't understand that when I last wrote the same thing.
Now I know you have no respect for the 'the people' or majority, as you state, and the company you stand with holds the same. It is endemic and a characteristic common in a community that has to stand against the majority and you have a fair amount of reinforcement and redundant support in it. As you reinforce yourselves and each other in this instance, the objective fact is that does not make it right, good, or even legal, even just as the homosexual community has proven lately.

So stop being so livid. Take a deep breath. Let out the anger into the breeze. Equal rights are for everyone in this country of ours. Sadly, it's taken a very long time to get this close to equal protection under the law, but we're slowly heading in that direction. Legalized gay marriage is just the latest step along the way. Sometimes it's one step forward, two steps back, but even in the Bush era we're making some progress, and that's reason enough to celebrate.-Jeff

Thomas Jefferson's quote again may be reviewed, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
The truth of it, ready?, is not really the 'gay marriage' issue alone, IMO. That is merely a sign or symptom of what is going on with our civilization and social structure as a whole. I suppose Stalin said it well, "To destroy the state, first destroy the family".

Lenny

06-22-2008, 12:19 PM

Hey, don't be so livid. Not good for your blood pressure.
Try to understand this Lenny: rights aren't subject to "democracy" because they are rights. The constitutional courts (read: Supreme Courts) are in place to prevent rights from being taken away. Protecting a right isn't "activist." It's what the Supreme Courts are supposed to do.
Any law that denies equal protection is unconstitutional federally which means a state can't do it. It will eventually be overturned by the Supremes (While Diana Ross sings) if passed by mob rule (democratically).
Remember that the Consitution was designed to protect rights and prevent mob rule. The mob can't take away rights.-Jeff

Wacco has been proven that I've not progressed much passed 8th grade civics, so I didn't know that our Constitution was designed to protect minority rights as you state. Sorry.
I thought it was set up to give voice to such issues and consideration by the various structures of government, not rights. I also thought that this government cannot "give" rights to anyone, only stop or restrict them, as no rights can come from THIS government, but an exogenous source.
Furthermore, when thought about the very notions of rights give rise to a democracy and their relationship is not as simply put as you attempt to make it so. Prior to this crazy nation, the very notion of common folks having "rights" was a screwy as two left feet.....and, it never was tried too much outside of a few weird instances. Now I know you feel that gay marriage is a right, and I validate your feelings, however when reviewed in light outside your notions, it ain't. Not complicated. Like the song says, "it's like trying to drink whiskey outta bottle of wine".

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 01:20 PM

LMAO,Donc
take a look at this and compare it to your postcompare that to this

:biglaugh::rofl::biglaugh:
someone is not telling the truth!
Did a friend of yours go to that site maybe?

:rofl2:

Are you familiar with the term "conclusionary thinking", Ms. Terry? That you've concluded that someone is "not telling the truth" is conclusionary thinking. Typically, intelligent folks gather factual data before jumping to conclusions. Then there are those who are so self-reliant in their thinking that they trust every thought they have, and end up looking so silly by jumping to foolish conclusions time and again. No one is lying, Ms. Terry.

I have no idea where my friends go on the internet, Ms. Terry. I got some of my info from wikipedia.com. I had never even heard of the sites you listed. :heart:

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 01:26 PM

Donc,

This is not a gay agenda, it is the right wing agenda to discredit human beings.

That's ridiculous, Ms. Terry. The right wing has simply RESPONDED to the homosexual agenda being pushed into our schools and our courts. The right wing didn't file the first lawsuits, Ms. Terry, because the right wing had no interest in the homosexual community until the homosexual community began seeking acknowledgement and attention by pushing it's agenda onto our children and through the media.

Your bias is showing, Ms. Terry, when you make statements that are 180 degrees from the truth...like that one is.

Braggi

06-22-2008, 03:06 PM

I'm no theologian, Zeno, so perhaps you could show me where, in the new covenant, we're called to have "many wives". ...

Not everyone's a Christian, Don. Words have meaning. The same word can have different meanings in different traditions, as you are describing here.

Marriage might mean something different to a Moslem, a Hindu or a Pagan than it does to you.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

No, it doesn't say Don's definition is the only definition.

-Jeff

Braggi

06-22-2008, 03:15 PM

... My upset in this issue is what is being done to keep the vote from the people, especially in light of what a couple of lawyers think ...

I understand your upset. My point is that rights are not something that can be taken away by a vote of the majority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the court systems are designed to protect human rights from "the tyranny of the majority." That's what you need to understand Lenny. Rights are not subject to a vote.

... I suppose Stalin said it well, "To destroy the state, first destroy the family".

Oh that's a good one. Please explain how gay marriage destroys the family or the state.

-Jeff

Braggi

06-22-2008, 03:46 PM

.... Prior to this crazy nation, the very notion of common folks having "rights" was a screwy as two left feet...

Check out the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederation. That's the primary document upon which our Constitution was designed. Of course, we removed all the parts that empowered women.

Read here if you want to learn some US history they would have left out of your 8th grade education Lenny: https://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=173

Also here: https://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm

You'll understand that the "great experiment" of the US was only a subset of what the Iroquois had accomplished several hundreds of years earlier.

-Jeff

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 03:47 PM

Not everyone's a Christian, Don. Words have meaning. The same word can have different meanings in different traditions, as you are describing here.

Marriage might mean something different to a Moslem, a Hindu or a Pagan than it does to you.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

No, it doesn't say Don's definition is the only definition.

-Jeff

Put down the crack pipe, Jeff, and pay attention, sir. Zeno said "One man/many wives, that's Biblical, Bro."

Do you understand what "Biblical" means, Jeff? Do you? MY Spiritual walk, Jeff. Zeno was referring to MY definition.

Zeno goes on to say "Do not water down what the Lord has ordained for Man-kind, just to appease those stick-in-the-muds who do not know the Holy Script!!"

Hmmm. Zeno mentions "the Lord", Jeff. Hmmmm.

Waste of time, Jeff.

Braggi

06-22-2008, 03:54 PM

...
Do you understand what "Biblical" means, Jeff? Do you? MY Spiritual walk, Jeff. Zeno was referring to MY definition.

Zeno goes on to say "Do not water down what the Lord has ordained for Man-kind, just to appease those stick-in-the-muds who do not know the Holy Script!!" ...

Tsk, tsk. So touchy today Don.

Biblical? Yup, the OT is the Bible too, eh? And for a whole lot of Jewish people out there, the "Lord" doesn't mean Jesus and the Bible doesn't mean the "New Covenant."

Words have meaning, Don. Not all words have your meaning.

That's my point. Thanks for making it so eloquently.

-Jeff

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 04:05 PM

Don, you are extremely disingenuous.
this is what Wiki says; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda
and it is not even close to what you copied down from a right wing site as I PROVED in post 168

Don, stop being so dishonest
If you have a different source, why don't you reveal it, like right now and right here.
Even you should be able to see not only the similarities but the same order and same words!
Are you trying to suggest that you memorized the homosexual agenda?

Are you familiar with the term "conclusionary thinking", Ms. Terry? That you've concluded that someone is "not telling the truth" is conclusionary thinking. Typically, intelligent folks gather factual data before jumping to conclusions. Then there are those who are so self-reliant in their thinking that they trust every thought they have, and end up looking so silly by jumping to foolish conclusions time and again. No one is lying, Ms. Terry.

I have no idea where my friends go on the internet, Ms. Terry. I got some of my info from wikipedia.com. I had never even heard of the sites you listed. :heart:

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 04:11 PM

Zeno was referring to MY definition.

I'm surprised Don, YOUR definition???
Have you strayed off the path that there is only ONE definition?

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 04:16 PM

That's ridiculous, Ms. Terry. The right wing has simply RESPONDED to the homosexual agenda being pushed into our schools and our courts. The right wing didn't file the first lawsuits, Ms. Terry, because the right wing had no interest in the homosexual community until the homosexual community began seeking acknowledgement and attention by pushing it's agenda onto our children and through the media.
That's another lie Don. ( you are really raking it in)
How did you think the sodomy laws came into being?

Braggi

06-22-2008, 04:33 PM

Gotta love google

"The Meaning And Origin Of Marriage"

... In the ordinary sense of the term, marriage is a social institution which may be defined as a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law, and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of the children born of it. These rights and duties vary among different peoples and cannot, therefore, all be included in a general definition; but there must, of course, be something that they have in common. Marriage always implies the right of sexual intercourse: society holds such intercourse allowable in the case of husband and wife, and, generally speaking, regards it as their duty to gratify in some measure the other partner's desire. But the right to sexual inter-course is not necessarily exclusive: there are polyandrous, polygynous, and group-marriages, and even where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage, adultery committed by the husband is not always recognised as a ground for dissolving the union. ..."

Read more here: https://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml

My point here is that the meaning of the word marriage is much greater than one man's or one institution's definition. The "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment should, in my opinion, allow for legal recognition of every institution's definition if there is any legal recognition at all (which is another reasonable topic of discussion). And no, I don't think children should be forced to marry their grandpas or their great uncles. I think the state has an obligation to protect children from abuse.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

06-22-2008, 06:59 PM

I'm no theologian, Zeno, so perhaps you could show me where, in the new covenant, we're called to have "many wives". I don't recall seeing that. Hmm. That's because it's not there, just like stoning people to death isn't there, either. There's something about that New Covenant...ohhh, that's right. It shoots holes in people who throw OT rocks at Christians. :thumbsup:

You are right, pastor, things changed, God changed His Mind.

First His conversation with Adam and Eve, then Moses receiving the Mosaic Law on Mount Sinai, then the New Covenant.

Or did He? And how did He?

There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. And Christ did not come to change the OT but to fulfill it.

OT prohibits polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), but condones polygyny, one man having multiple wives, (King David, according to Acts a man after God's heart, had many wives) and gives it a role, in the duty to marry the widow, the wife of a deceased brother, esp. when she did not bear offspring yet.

Interestingly, Messianic Christianity did not reject polygamy early on, but, as it developed in the centuries after Jesus's death, took over the strong emphasis on monogamy from Roman Law, which did not allow polygamy between free citizens.

It's not part of the New Covenant, it's a historical adaptation to the dominant pagan reality of Roman institutions.

Pastor Don, you have your conception of marriage, but to scream IT'S DEFINITION, you merely SCREAM.

And when you go on to argue "It's Biblical," "It's New Covenant," you merely show your own ignorance of history.

You are a good man. You were a drug addict and then you found your Saul/Paul moment on the road to Damascus, somewhere around Santa Rosa.

Be a good husband and father. Be a good shepherd in your choir and be their leader when they sing hymns and are an inspiration to many in our community to make a positive turn in their life.

But now you are now standing in the way of Our Lord's New, Updated, Covenant.

The Lord wants loving, committed, same-sex couples to marry in front of our community. The Lord changed His Mind. Again. Even The Lord can learn, can be surprised by the complexities and wonders of His own creation.

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 08:27 PM

You are right, pastor, things changed, God changed His Mind.

He did, and as of about 2000 years ago (more or less), it is finished. The new covenant is in place, prophesy realized, and God's grace has poured out on His people. He has not, however, suddenly decided that sin isn't sin any longer, has He, nor that about which he refers to as an "abomination" suddenly becomes a blessing? Did I miss the memo?

But now you are now standing in the way of Our Lord's New, Updated, Covenant.

Perhaps you'd like to show me upon what that opinion is based. I hadn't heard.

The Lord wants loving, committed, same-sex couples to marry in front of our community.

Please show me what caused you to make such a statement, Zeno. Will you share with me that upon which you base that startling opinion? The last I read, men were instructed NOT to lay with men as with a woman. Has He changed His mind about that now?

The Lord changed His Mind. Again. Even The Lord can learn, can be surprised by the complexities and wonders of His own creation.

I'll look forward to you sharing what you base that opinion on. You've said the same thing 3 times in this post, so surely your opinion can't be based on, well, just your opinion. Can it?

thewholetruth

06-22-2008, 08:52 PM

Don, you are extremely disingenuous.?

And you are extremely mistaken, and, I must add, extremely rude to call me that. I took some of my comment from YOUR link to Wikipedia, Ms. Terry, and I wrote some of it myself. Click on your link, then look under "Use of the Term" and "After the Ball". What do you know! There it is! Verbatim! Oh, and I accept your apology. (What's that? There's no apology coming?)

...this is what Wiki says; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda
and it is not even close to what you copied down from a right wing site as I PROVED in post 168 ?

It's EXACTLY what I posted, Ms. Terry, as I copied and pasted it from that Wikipedia site. Wake up, woman. Snap out of it. You appear to be in some kind of codependent drunken stupor, reckless in your desire to support homosexuality. Click on your link, Ms. Terry, and read the article. I won't hold my breath for an apology, because that would require humility and anyone who would shoot their mouth off, calling someone "disengenuous", "dishonest" and accuse them of "copying from a right wing site as" you DIDN'T PROVE. All you proved is that jackasses can type, Ms. Terry, and that Liberals are still blind as bats. (I apologize for that last sentence, although I can't bring myself to delete it, even upon reviewing before I hit "Submit Reply". It expresses my sentiment after being called "disengenuous" and "dishonest" when I've been completely honest here with you.)

Don, stop being so dishonest ?

So now you're calling me "dishonest"? Ms. Terry, I'm embarrassed for you right now. Perhaps talk with someone before you hit "Submit Reply" from now on. You're so lost and so wrong about this it's pathetic.

If you have a different source, why don't you reveal it, like right now and right here.

No, it's the same link you posted, Ma'am. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda and look under "Use of the Term" and "After the Ball". That's where I found it.

Even you should be able to see not only the similarities but the same order and same words!

I didn't even click on your links or read them at all, Ms. Terry, since that's not where I got my information. I got it on Wikipedia. Perhaps your Conservative website got them from Wikipedia. I don't peruse Conservative websites, btw. Not that one, and not any intentionally. I abhor propaganda from both sides.

Are you trying to suggest that you memorized the homosexual agenda?

No, I'm not. I wouldn't waste my time on that which I am reminded every single day as I watch people like you and people in the media. Why would I bother memorizing it? It's ongoing, it's blatant, and it's obvious as Hell.

Ms. Terry, perhaps you're a little too close to this issue to have an intelligent dialogue with me about it. Go back to Wikepedia and read the freaking article, Ma'am. I copied and pasted from that Wiki article. Then call your sponsor or mentor or mother or friend or whoever you call when you're over the top, because you're over the top right now.

You really drive home what Liberalism is all about, Ms. Terry. I was Liberal, you know, for 36 years of my life. You're just confirming for me that Liberalism still keeps people blind and deaf...at least virtually so...and more so now than ever.

theindependenteye

06-22-2008, 09:25 PM

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 09:30 PM

calling someone "disengenuous", "dishonest" .
Yes Don it is dishonest and disingenuous to quote someone and than pass it off as your own.

The homosexual agenda
At Wacco you can use quotation marks or the slick quote-boxes!

MsTerry

06-22-2008, 09:38 PM

Conrad, I can see why you don't agree with any of your 3 groups you have created. You made the people look so narrow minded that I can't agree with any of them either even though I am opposed to changing the meaning of the word 'marriage'

Am I correct that the central objections to the concept of gay marriage are these:

1. A large number of people feel that homosexuality is forbidden on religious grounds. Others, whether or not they regard it as a sin against God, regard it as unnatural, and we should condone only what's natural.

2. It's a radical change in the definition of "marriage," and our culture, our ethics, and/or our fundamental human relationships are threatened by changing any definitions of fundamental social institutions.

3. It's part of a gay activists' agenda that seeks to gain special, undeserved rights for gays, even including (according to one post) legalization of pedophilia, and that's already achieving a power that will abrogate First Amendment rights for those who oppose it.

Is that a fair summary of the elements of the argument? Am I missing something else that's fundamental?

And then my follow-up question is this: What tangible negative consequences does anyone foresee in the legalization of gay marriage? By that I mean, what's likely to be different about our lives, or anyone else's, ten or twenty years from now if this becomes legal?

Clearly, I'm personally opposed to the opposition, but I really mean this as a straight (no pun intended) question. I don't share any of the above viewpoints, but I'd honestly like to understand, on a literal level, what people feel is at stake.

Sincerely--
Conrad

Braggi

06-22-2008, 09:53 PM

Conrad, I can see why you don't agree with any of your 3 groups you have created. You made the people look so narrow minded that I can't agree with any of them either even though I am opposed to changing the meaning of the word 'marriage'

Along with Conrad I'd like to hear your objections, MsTerry. Thing is, in my religious tradition marriage has always been available to groups of any sex be they couples or moresomes. I think there are huge benefits to society at large and especially to the children in group marriages. So there's no change of the meaning to me. That aside, what's the possible harm? What's it with this "Defense of Marriage" stuff? Defended against what? Are all the married people going to say, "Well, now that gays can marry, our marriage is a sham so let's just get divorced and put the kids up for adoption?"

Is that what it is? It's kind of like legalizing heroin in my mind: nobody's going to change their behavior because of the law. What will change is that the harm will be lessened for myriad reasons.

So please, what's the issue? In your words.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

06-22-2008, 09:58 PM

Did I miss the memo?

You did, pastor. You are out of His Loop. Just as the congregation member in Corinth who walked out of the reading of Paul's first letter. This is a Revelation. Normal Thinking does not apply.

theindependenteye

06-22-2008, 11:00 PM

>Conrad, I can see why you don't agree with any of your 3 groups you have created. You made the people look so narrow minded that I can't agree with any of them either even though I am opposed to changing the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to make anyone appear narrow-minded; I was trying to summarize. Each of those points could be -- and has been -- expanded into reams of argument. As I said, I don't agree with them, but I tried to edit out the spin in order to ask the question: what are the practical, literal consequences that you foresee?

For example: "I believe that a larger number of people will become homosexual and will be condemned to damnation." "I believe that courts will allow people to marry their cat." "I believe that more heterosexual couples will divorce or never marry." "I believe AIDS will increase." "I believe gays will adopt children in order to have sex with them."

Those are examples of literal consequences. I'm asking if people's objections go to this literal level, and if so, what are the concrete fears? So if you find my question tendentious, then please ignore it.

-Conrad

Lenny

06-23-2008, 06:23 AM

I understand your upset. My point is that rights are not something that can be taken away by a vote of the majority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the court systems are designed to protect human rights from "the tyranny of the majority." That's what you need to understand Lenny. Rights are not subject to a vote.

How must it be put for your understanding, Jeff?
Your identified issue was reviewed by OTHER lawyers, the Office of Administrative Law, and the Secretary of State. None saw what these two lawyers saw, and are petitioning to the Supremes.

Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=62260#post62260)
... I suppose Stalin said it well, "To destroy the state, first destroy the family".

Oh that's a good one. Please explain how gay marriage destroys the family or the state. -Jeff

I feared that if Stalin were quoted, you would find it 'a good one'. Ah well.
I've not the time to explain, and me thinks it would do mostly no good, as I can trust you've heard the issues prior to today. Waste of time. Allow the brief, symbolic version: on the organ of life lies the waste of that which is dead. No family can come from such. The rest is commentary.

Lenny

06-23-2008, 06:33 AM

Check out the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederation. That's the primary document upon which our Constitution was designed. Of course, we removed all the parts that empowered women.

Read here if you want to learn some US history they would have left out of your 8th grade education Lenny: https://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=173

Also here: https://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm

You'll understand that the "great experiment" of the US was only a subset of what the Iroquois had accomplished several hundreds of years earlier.
-Jeff

You are reaching for it, eh? Is this the part where you say, "Prove it ain't so, Lenny, and if you can't neener, and I am right".
I've not read it in a while and have a busy schedule today.
If you can honestly believe that THIS Constitution was not derived from the writings of Erasmus and those that followed for next 200 years of enlightenment, but from stone age slave holders, then you can also believe that Newton stole and used the notion of Zero for calculus from the Aztecs, or there's a large orange bridge immediately south of here that's for sale, but just to me.
Yeah, OK, I suppose the "reasonable people" disagreeing is out the window.

Lenny

06-23-2008, 06:48 AM

But now you are now standing in the way of Our Lord's New, Updated, Covenant.
The Lord wants loving, committed, same-sex couples to marry in front of our community. The Lord changed His Mind. Again. Even The Lord can learn, can be surprised by the complexities and wonders of His own creation.

Eureka!
Now we get down to the Real Deal as far as I am concerned.
How do you now what this lord of yours wants?
How do you know his/her nature?
How do you know this lord of yours has new things to learn? or changed "His" mind? Or surprised? Or even this notion of "Him"?
Revealed? Oh, my gawd! Say it ain't so!
From what source? Or god talks to you?
How do you know he changed his mind?
From what I understand, if he/she did change his/her mind, then she/he wouldn't be the same lord as Don speaks about. Don's notion is that
His mind can't be changed. That is the one constant, but now you've found another. How's dat?
As far as I understand Don's notions, and they are easily accessible and seemingly everywhere to be found (though not understood since this Jesus spoke them) there has always been a notion of this Christian "loving" issue being used throughout the community, and I am sure, Z, that you've read that marriage wasn't always in the cards, even at the earliest portion of the historical event.
But back to your issue about the nature of this god and what she/he wants, and how you know it. If you would shine light on that, many may find it interesting, if not initially sexy. Or are you just patronizing Don in a language he understands?

thewholetruth

06-23-2008, 06:51 AM

Am I correct that the central objections to the concept of gay marriage are these:

1. A large number of people feel that homosexuality is forbidden on religious grounds.

I believe you are correct that many feel that way. Not my reason, but like you say, a large number of people feel that way.

Others, whether or not they regard it as a sin against God, regard it as unnatural, and we should condone only what's natural.

I have to admit that when I see homosexuals kissing, or even looking lovingly into one another's eyes, there's just something kind of creepy about it. It's clear that there is something odd about it. Unnatural? That's an apt description, IMO. But it's not, as you say, that "we should condone only what's natural". It's that the definition of the word "marriage" refers to one man/one woman, Conrad. Two men aren't that. Two women aren't, either. Frankly, there are many things people both hetero and homo do to one another that, were I to witness, I would find creepy.

2. It's a radical change in the definition of "marriage,"...

Correct, and I've not seen anyone make a convincing argument for why the definition should be changed. "Because we want to get married too" isn't a convincing argument for changing the definition of the word representing the institution of marriage, IMO.

... and our culture, our ethics, and/or our fundamental human relationships are threatened by changing any definitions of fundamental social institutions.

Not exactly. I simply see no reason WHY we should change the definition of the word in order to placate those in homosexual relationships. There is something natural about normal relationships, and something unnatural about homosexual relationships. Would you call a cross dresser who is your father your "mother"? Should we change the definition of "mother" to include male homosexual cross-dressers who adopt children? After all, one or both of the homosexual men in that relationship will be "mothering" the child, in a sense. Words mean something. I see no reason WHY we should change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include homosexuality. Homosexual relationships, IMO, are unions, but not close enough to warrant changing the definition of the word "marriage".

3. It's part of a gay activists' agenda that seeks to gain special, undeserved rights for gays, even including (according to one post) legalization of pedophilia, and that's already achieving a power that will abrogate First Amendment rights for those who oppose it.

Yes. Regarding "special, undeserved rights for gays": there aren't any rights that I have that gay men don't have, Conrad. Apparently you've bought into the "I'm a victim should have gay rights", whatever those are. Our Bill of Rights grants equal rights to all, Conrad, last I checked. (And to address your apparent skepticism regarding pedophilia, look up NAMBLA. Every member is a homosexual who wants to be able to legally have sex with boys, to 'bring them up' in the homosexual lifestyle.)

Is that a fair summary of the elements of the argument? Am I missing something else that's fundamental?

You did miss something fundamental. You're missing one vital element, Conrad. You haven't explained why we SHOULD change the definition of the word "marriage" to include those who partake in homosexual relationships. How does the meaning of the word make the leap from "one man/one woman" to "one man/one man"? Give me a reason which justifies changing the definition of the word "marriage" besides "They want to get married". I believe that letting the state recognize their relationships through "civil unions" is not only logical, but appropriate. Who the Hell are you to tell the church it has to compromise a fundamental value and bastardize the institution of marriage by altering it's definition? You might that homosexual relationships qualify as
"close enough" under the definition of "one man/one woman", but some of us don't think it lands close enough to the mark. The day that gender doesn't matter - that is, when you take the "Men" and "Women" signs off of public restrooms because gender makes no difference anymore, that is the day that I'll consider supporting you changing the definition of "marriage" to exclude the opposite sex.

And then my follow-up question is this: What tangible negative consequences does anyone foresee in the legalization of gay marriage? By that I mean, what's likely to be different about our lives, or anyone else's, ten or twenty years from now if this becomes legal?

To me, it's not about that. It's not about my fear of what happens in "ten or twenty years from now". It's about NOW. I simply don't see adequate reason to change the definition of the word "marriage" to include homosexuality. I haven't seen anyone make their case convincingly enough to change my mind. As far as I can see, homosexuality is the result of psychosocial problems. If we wish to change the definition of the word marriage to include homosexuality, we should probably throw in "drug addict" to the definition, because they love their drugs, too, and many drug addicts plan on staying with their drugs forever or at least until death do them part. Sure, and addict and their drugs aren't "one man/one woman", but since we've decided to change the very definition of the word, then...Oh, and my neighbor SO loves his cat! He loves his cat SO MUCH that why shouldn't he be able to "marry" him? Oh...I remember now. Because they aren't "one man/one woman".

Clearly, I'm personally opposed to the opposition, but I really mean this as a straight (no pun intended) question. I don't share any of the above viewpoints, but I'd honestly like to understand, on a literal level, what people feel is at stake.

Sincerely--
Conrad

In a nutshell, I haven't seen anyone adequately or convincingly make a case for changing the definition of the word, so my vote is "don't change it".

thewholetruth

06-23-2008, 06:54 AM

You did, pastor. You are out of His Loop. Just as the congregation member in Corinth who walked out of the reading of Paul's first letter. This is a Revelation. Normal Thinking does not apply.

LOL IYO, sir. It's not the truth.

thewholetruth

06-23-2008, 06:58 AM

What's it with this "Defense of Marriage" stuff? Defended against what?

Defended against the definition being bastardized, Jeff. That's all. That's pretty huge, that roughly 1% of the population wants to bastardize the definition of the word "marriage" to include them, particularly when the term "civil union" will accomplish the same thing.

Frankly, sir, I seriously doubt that the homosexuals and their codependent sympathizers will be successful at changing the definition of the word.

thewholetruth

06-23-2008, 07:00 AM

Yes Don it is dishonest and disingenuous to quote someone and than pass it off as your own.

At Wacco you can use quotation marks or the slick quote-boxes!

So I wasn't being "disingenuous" or "dishonest", but no apology from you, Ms. Terry? Just this little rabbit trail, and that's it?

I think I prophesied as much. :thumbsup:

Lenny

06-23-2008, 07:19 AM

Am I correct that the central objections to the concept of gay marriage are these:

1. A large number of people feel that homosexuality is forbidden on religious grounds. Others, whether or not they regard it as a sin against God, regard it as unnatural, and we should condone only what's natural.

2. It's a radical change in the definition of "marriage," and our culture, our ethics, and/or our fundamental human relationships are threatened by changing any definitions of fundamental social institutions.

3. It's part of a gay activists' agenda that seeks to gain special, undeserved rights for gays, even including (according to one post) legalization of pedophilia, and that's already achieving a power that will abrogate First Amendment rights for those who oppose it.

I.E., when you are clear, you are dead on the target. Thanks for the clarity.
But I find it a tad more complex and hope you can help me out in this response.
1. The religious more than "feel" it's wrong. Many point to "Their Book" which means the source is outside of their "feelings" thus giving it the weight of the universe, and then some.
The "natural" notion may be derived, however 500 years of "Natural Law" is applicable and stands alone, apart from religious notions. The issue of Natural Law is substantial in formula, writings, history, and application, and still exists with dying attempts to apply it, in my opinion. For example we take it to be "natural law" that human life is unique and has value. Why should we? The current modern and growing notion questions that.

2. True. George Orwell pointed out, among more headier linguists, that changing words changes values, ethics, the culture, and thus societies.

3. Again, your succinct statement has many undercurrents. Those rights sought were fulfilled with Civil Unions. Your "undeserved" and "special" have a weighted connotation which can sound pejorative. I don't know how the First Amendment is tied into this. Maybe light shedding is in order, as folks may hang with whom they please, and the word marriage is not found there or any where else. As the state does control marriage, then limitations are in order. The pedophilia issue looms in light of Sharia law which shall be coming down the pike in fewer than 5 or so years.

And then my follow-up question is this: What tangible negative consequences does anyone foresee in the legalization of gay marriage? By that I mean, what's likely to be different about our lives, or anyone else's, ten or twenty years from now if this becomes legal? Clearly, I'm personally opposed to the opposition, but I really mean this as a straight (no pun intended) question. I don't share any of the above viewpoints, but I'd honestly like to understand, on a literal level, what people feel is at stake. Sincerely--Conrad

Well, time, coupled with my inability to write well, does not permit the clarity you wish. Suffice to say that many find the notion of "family" to be foundational to the state. This change in marriage effects such, and many believe that change that, and the state changes, civilization changes, etc.....I find that this is only a symptom of the change in our culture, social, and political system that will alter how folks live, and this alteration I consider a demise, a negation of life, a death worship, a "life style" that does not affirm life, but negates, degrades, and leads to death. And at my age, these are serious considerations. More boring stuff to write, but that's it in a nut.