View Full Version : 86 year old republican retired vet on gay marriage
What an 86 year old republican retired vet has to say about gay marriage. Not really looking to open the topic to debate per se (as I doubt this vid will change anyone's position) but I thought the man earned (and then some!) the right to be heard. I don't have to agree with a person to respect their opinion (although I don't disagree with him) when they have earned the hard way respect due to deeds and honor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 11:30
Good stuff, thanks for posting.
I can't stand Republicans that mix religion and politics.
Good stuff, thanks for posting.
I can't stand Republicans that mix religion and politics.
I can't stand any politician that mixes religion an politics.
Other than gay households being less desirable for adoption of children I'm not aware of a single other issue specific to homosexuals that I could give a damn about.
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 12:08
I can't stand any politician that mixes religion an politics.
Agreed. I mentioned Republicans specifically because I think the religious nutballs and the big gov't Republicans go hand in hand and hurt the causes I believe in.
I'm concerned about the prospect of marriage being considered a "right" only in so far as that could be used to force churches to marry gays. If some churches decided to do it of their own free will, good for them, but no church should be forced to marry anyone.
I'm of the opinion that government shouldn't have any role whatsoever in marriage.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-11, 12:12
Let's do a poll of the remaining service men who stormed Omaha beach on if they were there fighting for gay rights and call the whole issue complete based on that.
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 12:14
Let's do a poll of the remaining service men who stormed Omaha beach on if they were there fighting for gay rights and call the whole issue complete based on that.
That's not what he said specifically. You are twisting his words.
I'm concerned about the prospect of marriage being considered a "right" only in so far as that could be used to force churches to marry gays. If some churches decided to do it of their own free will, good for them, but no church should be forced to marry anyone.
I'm of the opinion that government shouldn't have any role whatsoever in marriage.
Are any churches currently forced to marry anyone? If a mixed race couple wanted to marry in X church, and church refused due to their being mixed race, is that cool with you? Not cool with me.
Not my area of expertise, but does a Catholic church have to marry to Luthrans if that Catholic church does not wish to? I don't think so, but someone else can clarify.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-11, 12:27
I'm concerned about the prospect of marriage being considered a "right" only in so far as that could be used to force churches to marry gays. If some churches decided to do it of their own free will, good for them, but no church should be forced to marry anyone.
I'm of the opinion that government shouldn't have any role whatsoever in marriage.
Let me clarify...
Too simplistic. They don't want to be married in the church, or specifically, that isn't the real goal. The concept is that as they 'legalize' the gay lifestyle and put it in terms of the civil rights cases based on race. Once you have that in place, real religions will be attacked legally as being discriminatory and marginalized as some kind of modern KKK.
It isn't about gay marriage. The radicals see it as a way to tear down and marginalize religion with the courts. It started with cries that since something may be 'immoral' it doesn't mean it should be illegal- just look at the Texas sodomy law that was struck down. I can understand that, but the pivot is that they now try to define morality as what is legal. We have gone from it what is immoral is illegal, to if it is legal it must be moral.
This isn't just about gays. You let the gay uncle in and all of sudden he brings his crossdressing friends, his post-operative transexual buddy while they wait for the NAMBLA guy to bring the medical marijuana.
They show the nice glam lesbian couple or the yuppie gay couple, but they are really selling the tranny hooker as teh next speaker at career day.
Yeah, yeah. I'm just a conservative asshole who is repressed. That is what they said about Rick Santorum when he said striking down the Texas sodomy law would be used to further gay marriage. He just happened to be right.
Sorry to see old people loose it. Hope he signed his estate over to the GLBTT groups, wonder how his gay son would feel about that.
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 12:33
Wow, just wow. A secret conspiracy to "tear down religion" through legalizing gay marriage and an insinuation that marijuana is evil.
Not only a religious bigot but someone who believes in the righteousness of the "war" on drugs.
Couple that with an adolescent insult linking belief in gay rights to "losing it" at the end. Classy, Frommywhatever...
Too simplistic. They don't want to be married in the church, or specifically, that isn't the real goal. The concept is that as they 'legalize' the gay lifestyle and put it in terms of the civil rights cases based on race. Once you have that in place, real religions will be attacked legally as being discriminatory and marginalized as some kind of modern KKK.
It isn't about gay marriage. The radicals see it as a way to tear down and marginalize religion with the courts. It started with cries that since something may be 'immoral' it doesn't mean it should be illegal- just look at the Texas sodomy law that was struck down. I can understand that, but the pivot is that they now try to define morality as what is legal. We have gone from it what is immoral is illegal, to if it is legal it must be moral.
This isn't just about gays. You let the gay uncle in and all of sudden he brings his crossdressing friends, his post-operative transexual buddy while they wait for the NAMBLA guy to bring the medical marijuana.
They show the nice glam lesbian couple or the yuppie gay couple, but they are really selling the tranny hooker as teh next speaker at career day.
Yeah, yeah. I'm just a conservative asshole who is repressed. That is what they said about Rick Santorum when he said striking down the Texas sodomy law would be used to further gay marriage. He just happened to be right.
Sorry to see old people loose it. Hope he signed his estate over to the GLBTT groups, wonder how his gay son would feel about that.
Let's do a poll of the remaining service men who stormed Omaha beach on if they were there fighting for gay rights and call the whole issue complete based on that.
He said no such thing. You know that and so do I. You are either being intellectually dishonest or you didn't actually listen to it.
If we were to ask surviving vets if they stormed the beach fighting for the principles of the US Const, some of which he mentions, I'd bet vast majority will say yes.
If you were to ask some of them (consider the time now...) if that also included black people given equal rights to whites, some might say no...
Some times people see how the big picture fits into the smaller ones, some times they don't.
Gay anything scares the hell out of most people that age, vets or otherwise.
So, you take him at exactly what he said, and at least frame the Q fairly to what he actually said.
I agree, it might make for an interesting poll! ;)
Wow, just wow. A secret conspiracy to "tear down religion" through legalizing gay marriage and an insinuation that marijuana is evil.
Not only a religious bigot but someone who believes in the righteousness of the "war" on drugs.
Couple that with an adolescent insult linking belief in gay rights to "losing it" at the end. Classy, Frommywhatever...
Thank you!
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-11, 12:57
Wow, just wow. A secret conspiracy to "tear down religion" through legalizing gay marriage and an insinuation that marijuana is evil.
Not only a religious bigot but someone who believes in the righteousness of the "war" on drugs.
Couple that with an adolescent insult linking belief in gay rights to "losing it" at the end. Classy, Frommywhatever...
'War on drugs' is the law of the land- how does that make me a radical? Are you saying that everyone that has gotten a medical marijuana script has a real need. Please!!
Not much of a secret and I don't think it is a conspiracy. If you don't think the 'gay rights' movement is an attack on the Catholic church, you are very short sighted.
Not only a religious bigot
There, right there is exactly what I'm talking about!!!! Anyone who stands by Catholic doctrine saying homosexuaility is wrong is a bigot. Thanks for proving my point.
I don't go for classy, I go for right.
Thanks for your comments Lew.
He said no such thing. You know that and so do I. You are either being intellectually dishonest or you didn't actually listen to it.
If we were to ask surviving vets if they stormed the beach fighting for the principles of the US Const, some of which he mentions, I'd bet vast majority will say yes.
If you were to ask some of them (consider the time now...) if that also included black people given equal rights to whites, some might say no...
Some times people see how the big picture fits into the smaller ones, some times they don't.
Gay anything scares the hell out of most people that age, vets or otherwise.
So, you take him at exactly what he said, and at least frame the Q fairly to what he actually said.
I agree, it might make for an interesting poll! ;)
The reason that this video is interesting is that he is a vet of that era and a Republican to boot. If we are going to make WWII vets the arbiters of what should be legal lets ask all of them.
outrider627
04-27-11, 12:59
Wow, just wow. A secret conspiracy to "tear down religion" through legalizing gay marriage and an insinuation that marijuana is evil.
Not only a religious bigot but someone who believes in the righteousness of the "war" on drugs.
Couple that with an adolescent insult linking belief in gay rights to "losing it" at the end. Classy, Frommywhatever...
I'm just gonna quote you instead of replying to other guy. You wrote something much more civilized than what I was about do.
Are any churches currently forced to marry anyone? If a mixed race couple wanted to marry in X church, and church refused due to their being mixed race, is that cool with you? Not cool with me.
Not really "cool" with me, but that's a poor attempt at equivocation anyway. I see the argument you are trying to make, but I'm not buying it.
Gay marriage isn't a civil rights issue, for that matter miscegenation isn't either, it only becomes an issue when government decides it needs to regulate social matters in the first place, namely by the issuance and recognition of marriage "licenses," or outright bans on certain forms of social interaction (namely interracial and gay marriages). Insofar as gays demanding that they should be issued marriage licenses by the government under equal protection, they are absolutely right and to be honest, I support them in that endeavor (even though I don't personally agree with their behavior).
The problem lies in the following, homosexual activists have already stated that should Prop 8 be overturned on Constitutional grounds they are going to pursue marriage in churches that supported and sponsored the ballot initiative, specifically the Mormons. When they are denied they will sue on violation of civil rights grounds. Whether that dog will hunt is another matter, but lawsuits are expensive and they will bankrupt independent non-denominational churches, which is what the intent is anyway. I certainly don't agree with that.
This entire problem was generated when government decided it needed to regulate a social matter. Government is the problem, not the gays and not the churches that refuse to marry them.
Not my area of expertise, but does a Catholic church have to marry to Luthrans if that Catholic church does not wish to? I don't think so, but someone else can clarify.
Probably because marriage isn't recognized as a "right," yet.
montanadave
04-27-11, 13:04
Let me clarify...
Too simplistic. They don't want to be married in the church, or specifically, that isn't the real goal. The concept is that as they 'legalize' the gay lifestyle and put it in terms of the civil rights cases based on race. Once you have that in place, real religions will be attacked legally as being discriminatory and marginalized as some kind of modern KKK.
It isn't about gay marriage. The radicals see it as a way to tear down and marginalize religion with the courts. It started with cries that since something may be 'immoral' it doesn't mean it should be illegal- just look at the Texas sodomy law that was struck down. I can understand that, but the pivot is that they now try to define morality as what is legal. We have gone from it what is immoral is illegal, to if it is legal it must be moral.
This isn't just about gays. You let the gay uncle in and all of sudden he brings his crossdressing friends, his post-operative transexual buddy while they wait for the NAMBLA guy to bring the medical marijuana.
They show the nice glam lesbian couple or the yuppie gay couple, but they are really selling the tranny hooker as teh next speaker at career day.
Yeah, yeah. I'm just a conservative asshole who is repressed. That is what they said about Rick Santorum when he said striking down the Texas sodomy law would be used to further gay marriage. He just happened to be right.
Sorry to see old people loose it. Hope he signed his estate over to the GLBTT groups, wonder how his gay son would feel about that.
:lol:
Oh, wait, you were actually trying to be serious? :blink:
Threadlock in 5...4...3...
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 13:07
I cannot state forcefully enough how little I care about gay marriage's impact on the Catholic Church. Somehow you infer that gay rights is part or at the forefront of an attack on the Catholic Church?
Apart from pointing out this is beyond fanciful, I just don't really give a damn if human rights affect your church's backwards and idiotic stance on anything from condoms in Africa to sheltering pedophiles to allowing women to be priests.
I. Do. Not. Give. A. ****.
As far as I'm concerned this is almost as reprehensible as your church's stance on the Holocaust during WWII and not allowing the Bible to translated from Greek or Latin.
If we are going to make WWII vets the arbiters of what should be legal lets ask all of them.
The US Const. is hopefully the arbiter of what is legal if actually followed. That's what he and others doing there: fighting for the principles of freedom, human rights, "all men are created equal" and so forth per his comments. Thus, If it can't be shown there's a compelling reason it should illegal based on Const. grounds, does not interfere with my "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and involves consenting adults, that's the major test for me personally on social issues, be it drugs, gay marriage, etc.
That's what equal rights, human rights and "all men are created equal" means to me.
Let me clarify...
Too simplistic. They don't want to be married in the church, or specifically, that isn't the real goal. The concept is that as they 'legalize' the gay lifestyle and put it in terms of the civil rights cases based on race. Once you have that in place, real religions will be attacked legally as being discriminatory and marginalized as some kind of modern KKK.
It isn't about gay marriage. The radicals see it as a way to tear down and marginalize religion with the courts. It started with cries that since something may be 'immoral' it doesn't mean it should be illegal- just look at the Texas sodomy law that was struck down. I can understand that, but the pivot is that they now try to define morality as what is legal. We have gone from it what is immoral is illegal, to if it is legal it must be moral.
This isn't just about gays. You let the gay uncle in and all of sudden he brings his crossdressing friends, his post-operative transexual buddy while they wait for the NAMBLA guy to bring the medical marijuana.
They show the nice glam lesbian couple or the yuppie gay couple, but they are really selling the tranny hooker as teh next speaker at career day.
Yeah, yeah. I'm just a conservative asshole who is repressed. That is what they said about Rick Santorum when he said striking down the Texas sodomy law would be used to further gay marriage. He just happened to be right.
Sorry to see old people loose it. Hope he signed his estate over to the GLBTT groups, wonder how his gay son would feel about that.
I don't know that I buy that.
I do know that homosexual activists have sued in the past, and have promised to sue in the future, churches on basically political grounds. Is it an attempt to tear down "religion" or just petty retribution? I'm leaning toward simple human pettiness.
As far as the claim that legality equals morality, abortion is legal and a pretty large percentage of the population doesn't view it as moral. The same can be said for premarital intercourse. Or (cringing) war.
I've never understood why people have an issue with gays. Maybe its your silly religion based on the beliefs of ancient middle eastern tribes. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable because its different. Maybe it makes you feel less than somehow or you are a closet homosexual yourself. Maybe your politician or religious leader sees it as an issue they can use to manipulate people with.
In any event its 2011. Time to get over it.
Gay people are not asking for or demanding "special" rights. They are asking for the same rights as everyone else and they should have them. Spare me the conspiratorial "liberals want to destroy religion" nonsense. Thats pitiful and weak. As if being liberal makes you somehow non-religious. If only it did.
I spent many years in the Marine Corps starting in the 70's. If gays are some of the few people willing to fight and die for this country its fine by me. From what I've seen the only military people bothered by gays are REMf's whose only claim to tough guy status is they are heterosexual and wear a uniform.
Not really "cool" with me, but that's a poor attempt at equivocation anyway. .
And I disagree. It's a perfectly valid example.
outrider627
04-27-11, 13:27
We Catholics are supposed to be the nicest of the Christian demonimations when it comes to homosexuality. All throughout catholic school I was taught to 'love thy neighbor as thy self.' Never once did I hear: 'love thy neighbor as thy self, except the .'
Catholic Catechism 2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. [B]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
'War on drugs' is the law of the land- how does that make me a radical? Are you saying that everyone that has gotten a medical marijuana script has a real need. Please!!
Not much of a secret and I don't think it is a conspiracy. If you don't think the 'gay rights' movement is an attack on the Catholic church, you are very short sighted.
There, right there is exactly what I'm talking about!!!! Anyone who stands by Catholic doctrine saying homosexuaility is wrong is a bigot. Thanks for proving my point.
I don't go for classy, I go for right.
Thanks for your comments Lew.
The reason that this video is interesting is that he is a vet of that era and a Republican to boot. If we are going to make WWII vets the arbiters of what should be legal lets ask all of them.
And I disagree. It's a perfectly valid example.
Fine.
No it's not "cool" with me if a church decides to discriminate against interracial couples, however; the 1st Amendment grants us freedom of association, which I'm sorry to inform you, includes exclusion. We are free to not associate with whomever for whatever reason.
Government has no business telling a private entity like a church who it can or cannot marry.
ETA: I do find it interesting that you apparently stopped reading my response in the first sentence.....
Fine.
No it's not "cool" with me if a church decides to discriminate against interracial couples, however; the 1st Amendment grants us freedom of association, which I'm sorry to inform you, includes exclusion. We are free to not associate with whomever for whatever reason.
Unless it's discriminatory against a specific group right? Ergo, "no black people" not gonna fly, private or otherwise yes? "No mixed couples" would pass Legal muster or "no jews"? There are double standards that exist, such as womens only gym OK, male only gym, not so much, etc. Do we accept that anyone can exclude anyone they want on grounds of freedom of association, or do we look at it as a case by case issue based on prior rulings and such?
Government has no business telling a private entity like a church who it can or cannot marry.
Specific to churches, freedom of religion would allow them to claim (as they generally have) it goes against their religious beliefs to marry same sex couples. I am fine with that, and gay couples can go find a church accepting of it. I would not be in favor of forcing churches to marry gay couples as it comes under freedom of religion.
I don't know of any valid religious position regarding mixed couples say, unless you just pulled it from your a$$ as is so common with the ilk.
ETA: I do find it interesting that you apparently stopped reading my response in the first sentence.....
Just didn't see anything I wanted to comment on. Was not honestly sure where you were coming from with your positions there.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-11, 13:57
We Catholics are supposed to be the nicest of the Christian demonimations when it comes to homosexuality. All throughout catholic school I was taught to 'love thy neighbor as thy self.' Never once did I hear: 'love thy neighbor as thy self, except the .'
Catholic Catechism 2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. [B]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
I had a lot of Catholic education and for the life of me I can't remember a single sermon or class that even mentioned homosexuality. Gays have a hard-on for the Catholic Church, not the other way around. Gays interrupt Masses with their gay kissing silliness and shenanigans. You don't see Catholics making a rukus at gay parades.
I'm all for love the sinner hate the sin. I just don't want love the sinner accept the sin forced down my throat. If you don't think the radical left sees the gay agenda as a way to destroy traditional religion, you probably should think the Chinese are building up their military to protect Tibet. I'm not saying that every or even most GLTBC person feels that way- its just a great tool for radical left to use.
And to be perfectly clear- and maybe something that Lew and I both can agree on- is that straight people have screwed up marriage far more than gays ever could. Britney Spears has done more damage than all her back up dancers ever could.
Lew- dude. For someone who doesn't give a ****, you sure do seem to give a ****? There's a lot of anger you got locked up there. Hope you figure out a way a deal with it.
If his son was not gay would he be this way ?
Some photographers have been sued for not wanting to shoot a gay marriage cause it was against their religion
instead of most gays saying dont do this to the photographer they rallied around the people doing the suing !
So they have rights but others do not ?
Simple many photographers will do this
This is whats wrong
Any group blacks gays women whatever equal rights mean equal rights ! Meaning no more suing cause of your beliefs or color etc... somehow many of these groups think their rights are more important than others ! And demand compensation
If these groups would accept this then I say sure equal but its not equal thats the issue
So the majority have to stand up against those giving it a bad name doing stuff like this ! But they dont seem to ?
I have friends from all sorts of backgrounds could care less if they are gay straight or liberal or muslim what I care is are they good people at the core !
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 14:12
I have a very real problem with censoring myself when I read bullshit.
I don't think that the problems of one misguided pop star have a thing to do with marriage in America.
I do see Catholics doing any number of morally reprehensible things. Specifically the Church itself.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-11, 14:18
I have a very real problem with censoring myself when I read bullshit.
I don't think that the problems of one misguided pop star have a thing to do with marriage in America.
I do see Catholics doing any number of morally reprehensible things. Specifically the Church itself.
Just out of curiousity Lew, has the Catholic Church ever done anything good, besides the monks brewing beer?
I can't stand any politician that mixes religion an politics.
+1. He nails it. All men are created people.
Of all our pols out there who I think that can avoid that I can think of three; Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson. Two out of the three are running for the Oval office.
Not my area of expertise, but does a Catholic church have to marry to Luthrans if that Catholic church does not wish to? I don't think so, but someone else can clarify.
Catholic here. Wife is Church of God. The only hoop we had to jump through is that we had to promised to raise our children in the Christian faith, preferably the Roman Catholic faith.
As for church's being "forced" to marry someone...they wont. There are still bigoted churches out there that won't do mixed marriages. So people can breathe easy. Therefore this cannot be used to marginalize any church organization out there.
This isn't just about gays. You let the gay uncle in and all of sudden he brings his crossdressing friends, his post-operative transexual buddy while they wait for the NAMBLA guy to bring the medical marijuana.
Wow. Just wow. Oh as for the Roman Catholic church's stance on homosexuality, the stance is that so long as gays and lesbians aren't having sex then they are welcome in the church. Gays and lesbians who are sexually active are in the same category as heterosexuals having premarital sex. Check the current catechism.
The reason that this video is interesting is that he is a vet of that era and a Republican to boot.
Sounds like a Barry Goldwater fan. Good stock there. Pitty that the Republican party left its roots.
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 14:24
Just out of curiosity Lew, has the Catholic Church ever done anything good, besides the monks brewing beer?
Yes. Doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade nor will I endorse such a bigoted, backwards, theocracy.
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 14:25
Sounds like a Barry Goldwater fan. Good stock there. Pity that the Republican party left its roots.
Precisely. Libertarians are the real conservatives now.
Just didn't see anything I wanted to comment on. Was not honestly sure where you were coming from with your positions there.
Fair enough. I'm a little fried from studying for finals and working on a research project so I'm probably not stating things very clearly.
I don't think government can discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else) with regard to the issuance or recognition of marriage licenses. I do think churches can refuse service to anyone for any reason because they are private entities. I'm concerned that the pursuit of court recognition of a "right" to marriage will be capriciously used as grounds to sue, or possibly even prosecute, churches for violating civil rights. I think this entire problem was generated by government regulation of social interaction. I see the solution of this entire issue as the abolition of government recognition (i.e. legal status) of marriage; one should not need to beg the govnah's permission to wed.
My position on most matters of governance are basically minarchist.
Does that clear it up?
Suwannee Tim
04-27-11, 15:27
Just out of curiousity Lew, has the Catholic Church ever done anything good, besides the monks brewing beer?
I can give you one example from personal experience, a place called St Vincent's Medical Center. "Which one?" you might ask and well you should. There are dozens of them, all over the country and the world. One eighth of the hospitals in the country are Catholic. (http://ncronline.org/news/catholic-hospitals-serve-one-six-patients-united-states). I am a Protestant but I have enormous respect for the Catholic Church and the good it does throughout the world. Ever hear of Catholic Charities (http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/)? There is one near you. Google "Catholic good works" (http://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+good+works+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) and you will get 11 million hits. If you don't know about the good works done by the Church, here is your opportunity to learn.
Rmplstlskn
04-27-11, 16:15
The so-called delusional book of fables is showing us more fulfillment in these days... Since it has turned into religion bashing, I'll add my thoughts...
Therefore Elohim gave them up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts, to disrespect their bodies among themselves, who changed the truth of Elohim into the falsehood, and worshipped and served what was created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Because of this Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature, and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying. And even as they did not think it worth- while to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper, having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, evil; filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits; whisperers, slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless; who, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practise such deserve death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them (many here fit that bill).
(Romans 1:24-32 The Scriptures 1998+)
Precisely. Libertarians are the real conservatives now.
I think Libertarian values are probably closer to original Republicans, which is to say socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" but I don't really like the terms as they come with too much baggage now.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-11, 16:21
I think Libertarian values are probably closer to original Republicans, which is to say socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" but I don't really like the terms as they come with too much baggage now.
It's not so much baggage as no one actually listens anymore to what people actually say. We have all these different ways to communicate and everyone is on send and no one on listen.
Isn't Tweeting a one way com? World, listen to my ramblings. As if blogs weren't bad enough.
Fair enough. I'm a little fried from studying for finals and working on a research project so I'm probably not stating things very clearly.
I don't think government can discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else) with regard to the issuance or recognition of marriage licenses. I do think churches can refuse service to anyone for any reason because they are private entities. I'm concerned that the pursuit of court recognition of a "right" to marriage will be capriciously used as grounds to sue, or possibly even prosecute, churches for violating civil rights. I think this entire problem was generated by government regulation of social interaction. I see the solution of this entire issue as the abolition of government recognition (i.e. legal status) of marriage; one should not need to beg the govnah's permission to wed.
My position on most matters of governance are basically minarchist.
Does that clear it up?
I suppose, but what is the answer then? The state no longer recognizes marriage? It's not a legal status? I'm not against what you are saying, just not getting my mind around what the results are of the position.
I'm all for government keeping their nose out of social issues but there's still a Const. litmus test there.
My view, nothing fu*&s up a perfectly good relationship like getting married, but we won't go there. :D
It's not so much baggage as no one actually listens anymore to what people actually say.
But that don't stop them from labeling you. Tell people you are 'conservative' and = you're a religious right wing Bible thumping nut; tell people you're 'liberal' and = you hug trees, voted for Obama, and want socialism.
Polarization and no two way communication.
I suppose, but what is the answer then? The state no longer recognizes marriage? It's not a legal status? I'm not against what you are saying, just not getting my mind around what the results are of the position.
I'm all for government keeping their nose out of social issues but there's still a Const. litmus test there.
There isn't a Constitutional litmus test involved in my version. The Constitution in its original wording does not restrict the actions of individuals beyond actual denial of others rights (like stealing your stuff or inflicting physical harm). A church saying, "We don't marry gays, go away" doesn't infringe on the rights of those denied marriage. In a free market they are at liberty to pursue marriage in another church that will cater to their request.
The government cannot deny marriage licenses because that is an active infringement of liberty, as there exists no other certifying body to provide licensure. Sure, the homosexuals or mixed couples can have a ritual ceremony at a "church" willing to provide the service, but the marriage itself will not be recognized legally. Governmental recognition and reward (through things like tax breaks) for marriage is nothing more than statist social engineering meant to promote marriage.
So I say, solve the whole thing and get the government out of the social institution of marriage. Everyone receives equal recognition, which is to say, none.
And frankly, I think the socially valuable institution of heterosexual marriage would be strengthened by a removal of government influence, contrary to what many in the anti-gay marriage movement believe. Societal norms have a startling and amazing way of self-correcting social problems without petty statist control freaks using the government as a puppeteer.
There isn't a Constitutional litmus test involved in my version. The Constitution in its original wording does not restrict the actions of individuals beyond actual denial of others rights (like stealing your stuff or inflicting physical harm). A church saying, "We don't marry gays, go away" doesn't infringe on the rights of those denied marriage. In a free market they are at liberty to pursue marriage in another church that will cater to their request.
I have no issues with that line of reasoning. My comment on "litmus" test was referring to issues of say race, or religion. In that model, does a bar with a "no blacks" policy ok? Said blacks can simply find another bar where they are welcomed I suppose.
The government cannot deny marriage licenses because that is an active infringement of liberty, as there exists no other certifying body to provide licensure. Sure, the homosexuals or mixed couples can have a ritual ceremony at a "church" willing to provide the service, but the marriage itself will not be recognized legally. Governmental recognition and reward (through things like tax breaks) for marriage is nothing more than statist social engineering meant to promote marriage.
On that I can agree. It's a business agreement between you and the state. Outdated, not pro male at all, and a bad "business deal" for many.
So I say, solve the whole thing and get the government out of the social institution of marriage. Everyone receives equal recognition, which is to say, none.
And frankly, I think the socially valuable institution of heterosexual marriage would be strengthened by a removal of government influence, contrary to what many in the anti-gay marriage movement believe. Societal norms have a startling and amazing way of self-correcting social problems without petty statist control freaks using the government as a puppeteer.
I like it. Sign me up.
I cannot state forcefully enough how little I care about gay marriage's impact on the Catholic Church. Somehow you infer that gay rights is part or at the forefront of an attack on the Catholic Church?
And indeed if they truly cared about the threat of homosexuality to the church, perhaps they should begin in their own back yard with the much greater threat of homosexual rape of boys by priests.
Moose-Knuckle
04-27-11, 18:58
Well my grandfather is 92 and a WWII veteran. . .I wished someone would put a news camera in front of him and ask him what he thinks of "gay" marriage! ;)
Littlelebowski
04-27-11, 19:23
And indeed if they truly cared about the threat of homosexuality to the church, perhaps they should begin in their own back yard with the much greater threat of homosexual rape of boys by priests.
Their current and former popes helped covered that up.
theblackknight
04-27-11, 19:41
From what I've seen the only military people bothered by gays are REMf's whose only claim to tough guy status is they are heterosexual and wear a uniform.
That's is a big negative.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Other than gay households being less desirable for adoption of children I'm not aware of a single other issue specific to homosexuals that I could give a damn about.
AIDS research and treatment spending by the Federal government of over 200 billion total since 1981 is something I have a big problem with. While they were lobbying for this spending starting in the 80s they would attack anyone who suggested that bathhouses and other places that were central to the AIDS epidemic be closed as trying to supress "queer culture and queer values" and as homophobes.
David Horowitz writes about this phenomenon in his book "Radical Son" where he also highlights the fact that the gay rights movement was started by the same kinds of radical leftists/communists/soviet sympathizers as started the black power movement and the radical environmentalist movement.
I'm so sick of the gay rights crap. "We" have let it really become a stumbling block for the Right/Conservatives/Good Guys when there are more pressing and more wide reaching issues that affect us all no matter what our personal beliefs. Gays and abortion are two issues that have caused the Religious Right to try and cut off their own nose to spite the overall Right's face. Repeatedly. And I don't see that stopping in the future.
And I say that as someone who many in this thread would consider an absolute backwards-ass Bible-thumpin' Baptist nutjob, if we were to discuss religious doctrine. And I'm certainly no fan of the catholic church in general. But thankfully that's not what this thread is about (even if it's all over the map with tangents). Actually it's quite ironic, I'd say that homosexuality and catholicism fall in the same boat for me in many aspects: not a fan of the general concept but that doesn't keep a great number of the individual practitioners from being perfectly fine and productive people in their own regard. :cool:
I've got some strong negative beliefs about homosexuality, but it is easy for me to recognize that those beliefs are very much tied to my religious beliefs (even if some spill over into having some secular merit) and as such, it's not fair for me to try to apply them to others. I can't very well argue that being gay is bad because God/Bible says so, if you are going to turn around and say "well I don't believe in god or the bible, so screw off." It's a weak argument on my part. If only (we) Christians were as half as motivated to do good in the world and spread the Gospel peacefully as to mind others' business...unfortunately, as always, it is much easier to bear down on others with criticism than to lift them up with solutions.
For me to try to push those beliefs off on others without them (voluntarily) sharing my faith, I know how I feel when I'm told what to do by others who are minding my business for me -- such as that I shouldn't own guns because they're dangerous. Or that I have to wear a seatbelt on myself or be fined for endangering myself. Or that I have to welcomingly accept homosexuality as a perfectly wholesome lifestyle (and have it taught as such to my kids in school). It goes both ways (pun not intended, but found amusing nonetheless). If we're in a free society, two individuals' ability to force their beliefs on one another should be practically nill.
I don't discount the conspiracy FMCDH mentions entirely, insomuch as I do think that there could be a further push to really stick it to churches later. I know there was a long drawn out thread about it a while back, but to those who consider marriage a religious institution that just so happens to recognized by gov't, it's not a long jump to see a challenge to the ability of churches to follow their own beliefs about marriage, if the gov't view of marriage changes in a way that conflicts. Trying to protect my religious views and personal freedom to belief as I do, while trying to avoid stomping on freedom of others, it leads me towards civil unions. For everyone. Religious marriage would just happen to be one of the methods by which one can enter into such a union. That's about the best compromise I can arrive at.
I do believe the efforts to frame gay rights in the same picture as the racial civil rights movement is stupid, for various reasons, but this post is already too long and discombobulated (I didn't get to type it all in one setting, something about having a family life -- see what you gays are getting into? It'll interfere with your interweb posting schedule!).
Ultimately I just wish both sides would just remember that we're all better off tending to the problems of too much liberty, rather than not enough, if you'll permit a Jefferson reference. "Conservative"tyranny is only slightly less ominous than "liberal" tyranny because one restricts/imposes things I don't do anyway, and one restricts/imposes things that really screw up my life. In the end, they're both tyranny, and should be fought against in all forms.
The main problem with this discussion is the government should have zero say in ANYTHING about marriage.
Marriage is a covenant between your spouse and your "God", whatever gender or sect both may be.....
It shouldnt matter to the govt. The REAL discussion should be about the boundries the government has crossed...
Moose-Knuckle
04-27-11, 21:40
David Horowitz writes about this phenomenon in his book "Radical Son" where he also highlights the fact that the gay rights movement was started by the same kinds of radical leftists/communists/soviet sympathizers as started the black power movement and the radical environmentalist movement.
This. All bank rolled by one in the same. If you cannot defeat a nation by conflict raze from within.
AIDS research and treatment spending by the Federal government of over 200 billion total since 1981 is something I have a big problem with. While they were lobbying for this spending starting in the 80s they would attack anyone who suggested that bathhouses and other places that were central to the AIDS epidemic be closed as trying to supress "queer culture and queer values" and as homophobes.
David Horowitz writes about this phenomenon in his book "Radical Son" where he also highlights the fact that the gay rights movement was started by the same kinds of radical leftists/communists/soviet sympathizers as started the black power movement and the radical environmentalist movement.
The problem is that AIDS isn't exclusively a homosexual disease, that is why it was originally called 4H disease. Now granted, homosexually is hugely represented as one of those Hs. But the problem is not all homosexuals have AIDS so it is an AIDS issue and not a homosexuals one.
Personally I think anyone with AIDS should be quarantined, this is the only way we can hope to eliminate it. But that is probably another topic entirely.
Marriage is a covenant between your spouse and your "God", whatever gender or sect both may be.....
In a civil union, what God would that be?
Gutshot John
04-27-11, 22:07
The main problem with this discussion is the government should have zero say in ANYTHING about marriage.
That would be a problem since every state in the Union issues marriage licenses.
Alaskapopo
04-28-11, 02:53
Let's do a poll of the remaining service men who stormed Omaha beach on if they were there fighting for gay rights and call the whole issue complete based on that.
Those men fought for the freedom of all of us not just certain groups. I think that if two gay people want to marry let them its none of anyone elses buisness. Goverment has no place in peoples bedrooms.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
04-28-11, 06:11
Gay marriage doesn't effect you. Get out of their homes. I find this very simple, and one of the reasons I hate organised religion. (I am not an atheist.)
Also: the gays I've known tend to be much more peaceful, and better to children than many of the straight couples I've known.
Can somebody answer why the Catholic church is so hated by the homosexual community? The Mormon church is much worse in regards to homosexual treatment, than the Catholics, and I won't mention Westboro Baptists.
Can somebody answer why the Catholic church is so hated by the homosexual community? The Mormon church is much worse in regards to homosexual treatment, than the Catholics, and I won't mention Westboro Baptists.
Easy target I'd guess. Seeing as the catechism says (about gays): "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
There is also an article about most US catholics having no problem with gays... http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509 Actually higher than the general population.
Alaskapopo
04-28-11, 07:28
Gay marriage doesn't effect you. Get out of their homes. I find this very simple, and one of the reasons I hate organised religion. (I am not an atheist.)
Also: the gays I've known tend to be much more peaceful, and better to children than many of the straight couples I've known.
Can somebody answer why the Catholic church is so hated by the homosexual community? The Mormon church is much worse in regards to homosexual treatment, than the Catholics, and I won't mention Westboro Baptists.
That statement is based on what? I have not found that to be the case at all.
Pat
The government should be supporting peoples right to freely associate and contract between themselves. It has no business in the "marriage" business beyond that. Virtually everything the government has legislated in terms of marriage and family law has done nothing but destroy the family and every other relationship people form.
The government should be supporting peoples right to freely associate and contract between themselves. It has no business in the "marriage" business beyond that. Virtually everything the government has legislated in terms of marriage and family law has done nothing but destroy the family and every other relationship people form.
Nicely put.
dookie1481
04-28-11, 13:39
The government should be supporting peoples right to freely associate and contract between themselves. It has no business in the "marriage" business beyond that. Virtually everything the government has legislated in terms of marriage and family law has done nothing but destroy the family and every other relationship people form.
Yup. If the gov't got out of the business of incentivizing marriage everyone would be better off.
Are any churches currently forced to marry anyone? If a mixed race couple wanted to marry in X church, and church refused due to their being mixed race, is that cool with you? Not cool with me.
Not my area of expertise, but does a Catholic church have to marry to Luthrans if that Catholic church does not wish to? I don't think so, but someone else can clarify.
Technically, most churches are private property. So they can approve or disapprove any application for use of church grounds. We had this debate when they decided to open the church up for rent for weddings and family reunions and showers.
If your church still discriminates on the basis of race, you belong to a f*cked up church.
Suwannee Tim
04-28-11, 18:19
Yup. If the gov't got out of the business of incentivizing marriage everyone would be better off.
If you got the government out of the business of being in everyone's business and every bit of their business, everyone would be better off.
As far as incentivizing marriage, the government has been actively undermining marriage for decades. For decades a woman receiving welfare would loose her "benefits" if found to have a man living with her.
If your church still discriminates on the basis of race, you belong to a f*cked up church.
Most churches don't discriminate but most are segregated, voluntarily so.
Here's a thought:
The State (or Government) doesn't recognize ANY marriage. Rather they only recognize Social Partnerships (with all the same "rules" regarding who is a legal officiate, and all the same tax and legal benefits as marriage today).
Each church can decide on their definition of "marriage", and only marry people in their church that fit their description. Anyone that complains at this point can no longer hide behind fake arguments, but rather will be seen for who they are: Individuals whose personal beliefs are against homosexual partnerships.
There is supposed to be a separation of church and state after all.
Here's a thought:
I know my post was long enough that nobody read it, but I think we just agreed. The folks on the religious side of this discussion should all recognize that as a sign of the apocalypse :p
--Josh H.
I know my post was long enough that nobody read it, but I think we just agreed. The folks on the religious side of this discussion should all recognize that as a sign of the apocalypse :p
--Josh H.
I am an Atheist and even I am pretty sure this is a sign of the apocalypse.
What I have learned from m4Carbine.net's General Discussion Area:
1. That it is dangerous to assume that just because I disagree with someone on one social/political subject, I will therefore disagree with them on all issues. (I have noticed dozens of examples where I agree completely with people on this forum, and they agree with me).
2. That this assumption spread out collectively across the entire nation is why our politicians have so much power, and we are so weak as a populace. We no longer have the ability to debate as a nation, nor to discuss civilly when we disagree. We all assume that we are either "liberal" or "conservative", and our politicians are using this to rape us collectively.
3. That 95% of us could all sit down for a beer (if you drink), BBQ, and day of shooting and get along.
4. That I can't spell for shit... (Well I already know this, but if I am ever in doubt I come here).
You guys assume way to much about me... ;)
I do agree however that us being on the same page may be a sign of the coming apocalypse. Wouldn't it be funny if our agreement is what caused the second coming that is supposed to happen on May 21st?!?
Mac 5.56
agree :) except for a few troll types most of us are more alike than not
I cant write :) thats OK as I say to those that bash me for it :)
At least I know my weak points do you know yours !
As I say dont let things steam your twinkies
I dont agree with my wife and kids or parents all the time
If I agreed with everyone all the time would be boring
I purely look if they are good people at the core value levels and decide if they are friend or aquaintence or ignore :)
Magic_Salad0892
04-29-11, 14:39
That statement is based on what? I have not found that to be the case at all.
Pat
I wish I could give a better source, because I've heard about it A LOT. But here is the most well known, and easiest to prove.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/29/82433/-Head-of-Mormon-church:-Gays-have-a-problem
Jayce tells his story:
It's 1995. He is sitting in an office on the campus of BYU, where his counselor has attached electrodes to his hands, arms, torso and genitals. His Mormon Bishop gave him a referral to the counselor. Jayce is shown pornographic images of men having sexual encounters. Then, ZAP! His body tingles, then aches from the electrical shock administered by his trusted counselor. He is scheduled for twice-weekly sessions for four months. "Toward the end of the program I could press a button and it would stop the shock and then a picture of a woman would come on."
But Jayce is 19 years old and he willingly goes back for more. He gives them his college savings -- $9,000 -- for the treatments which are promised to cure his homosexuality.
"They promised me it would work, and who doesn't want to live a life that's normal and acceptable in your society and have your family embrace you?" he asks rhetorically.
Therapist Ron Lawrence of Community Counseling Center in Las Vegas says this "reparative therapy" is "equivalent to what I would call the kind of torture that people experienced in Nazi concentration camps." Jayce displays the scars on his hands and tells of more scars where the electrodes were placed "on my torso, and [breathing deeply as though reliving some excruciating pain ] on my genitalia."
The words don't come easily to Jayce as he explains why he so willingly gave up his education savings -- and put his earning potential on hold -- in order to endure what Lawrence describes as "assault and battery, abuse".
"You're taught that the leaders of the church will never lie to you, never deceive you and you're taught to believe them blindly," Jayce explains. "I believed the counselors. I believed it would work. I believed that through that [reparative therapy], faith, temple attendance and prayer and fasting I would be healed. I believe that through God anything's possible. And I was told it would work. It probably sounds really naive, but I truly believed it would work."
At least I know my weak points do you know yours !
Yes I do... ;)
Yes I do... ;)
To bad people that have to correct people like you and I dont know theirs :) hehehehehehe
Equivalent to Nazi torture in concentration camps eh? How many homosexuals have died in this "therapy" they voluntarily participated in?
Zero.
Err... How is that equivalent again?
Magic_Salad0892
04-29-11, 15:00
Equivalent to Nazi torture in concentration camps eh? How many homosexuals have died in this therapy they voluntarily participated in? Zero.
Out of the five people I've heard of, three of them died. One of the survivors were paralysed, and the other one is this guy.
Charges were brought, but nothing became of it. I'm not quite sure why.
I cant find sources on the other four, so you'd just have to take my word. Sorry.
Carry on.
I cant find sources on the other four, so you'd just have to take my word. Sorry.
Forgive me if I don't. Common sense would tell you that if people were being electrocuted at BYU in the 1990s to the point of paralysis and death that that would have been a major controversy in the national spotlight. Sounds like an urban legend.
Yeah the dailykos is such a great respectable place to get info no bias of course :)
Maybe no charges cause they found it was not the real story ?
Its amazing what some people will do to try to get others ?
Just saying if it was real and people were really killed it would be all over the place the left would use this to no end
Magic_Salad0892
04-29-11, 15:38
Forgive me if I don't.
No problem.
Yeah the dailykos is such a great respectable place to get info no bias of course :)
Maybe no charges cause they found it was not the real story ?
Its amazing what some people will do to try to get others ?
Just saying if it was real and people were really killed it would be all over the place the left would use this to no end
You mean kinda like if there were thousands of people who used guns defensively and legally each year it would be all over the news? How many times have a I/we heard that? I don't know if the accounts are true or not, but the medias interest, or lack there of, a very poor test of validity.
Regardless, there's a lot of sick twisted crap that has been done to gay people to "cure" them of their sexual orientations, which have ranged from (physically) harmless to other. A Google search for "aversion therapy for Homosexuality" got:
http://www.suite101.com/content/byu-electroshock-aversion-therapy-a33025
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
There are some sources listed at the Wiki, but obviously they need to be tracked down of validity but aversion therapies of different types and intensities have been around a long time.
Good stuff, thanks for posting.
I can't stand Republicans that mix religion and politics.
Folks always base their politics on what they believe, regardless of politics or religion
montanadave
04-29-11, 18:58
C'mon, guys. Don't you remember how they "straightened" Butters out on South Park? Good old Camp New Grace, where they "pray the gay away."
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155505/butters-arrives-at-camp
:laugh:
if gays were being killed the left leaning press most of them would be all over it ? Just like we hear about the vioent tea parties yet all the videos of the violent left protesting never make it to all the left leaning tv stations
So while they ignore conservative points they would not be ignoring gays being killed in go straight camps ?
If a alien came down watched our television they would think a quarter or more of our population is gay rather than the small 1% or so of what it is
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.