WaPo Story Honoring House for LGBT Teens Has Zero Space for Disagreement
You know you’re reading the liberal Washington Post when a story rejoices in the D.C. government offering "a measure of freedom she has never had" to "slip on a flower-print blouse and shave her face." The place is Wanda Alston House, named after a lesbian activist staffer of NOW and the Human Rights Campaign who was stabbed to death in 2005.
The top story in Sunday’s Metro section was headlined: "A Haven from the Streets: For lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths, who face a higher risk of becoming homeless, D.C.’s Wanda Alston House offers refuge where they don’t have to fear being themselves." Reporter Theresa Vargas was typically all sympathy and zero skepticism for the politically correct cause:
As the District takes significant strides to advance the rights of LGBT residents — for example, recently legalizing same-sex marriage — the youths who pass through the Wanda Alston House tell of the vulnerability the community still faces. The house, named after an LGBT leader and mayoral adviser who was killed in 2005, is one of a handful of transitional houses in the nation that cater to people who experts say are more likely to become homeless and who, once in that category, pose challenges most shelter systems are unequipped to address. Should a transgender female be placed in a shelter with men or women? Where should a transgender male who still has the anatomy of a woman shower?
..."These kids get swallowed up in the system," says Brian Watson, who manages the house through the District’s Transgender Health Empowerment program. He says he has seen young people come from shelters who have been sexually abused, ridiculed and, in one case, made to sleep in a common living room instead of a bedroom because she was transgender.
"These are good kids, really good kids," Watson says. "They just need a chance."
The story not only dominated the front page of Metro, but all of page C-4. There were also two videos, also unanimous. In one, Watson explains "There’s just a lot of non-understanding of what is a transgender person, what is gender identity. I think that our GLB youths are at risk, but our T youth, our transgender youth, are definitely at a higher risk." Everyone in the Alston house are good, and all who fail to accept their moral choices are bad:
In Room 1, Devin [a female transitioning to male] sits on his bed, a broken guitar and Bible nearby, reading a poem he has written:
I don’t subscribe to their norms. So I must be the enemy. Unsurprisingly, both they and I share the same make up, the same creator, and some of the same sentiments. I too delight in the breeze on a warm summer day. I enjoy traveling even though I haven’t gone very far. I appreciate companionship, a listening ear, a warm heart. Yet somehow these human similarities are disregarded, and I become reducible to a "he/she" or an "it." An animal, an alien, a traitor. (Italics theirs.)
In the second video, there's more in this prose poem from Devin, including hostility to critics:
That is why I hold my humanity near to me. I hide it. I cherish it. I pray over it and ask it never to abandon me. Enough people are trying to steal it from me. They are telling me that I don’t deserve it, that I am not allowed to have it. I detest these statements, these actions, these ignorant and emboldened proclamations. This life, this joy, this fortitude was given to me by my creator, and in order to survive, I have to slip it into my pocket and hide it from the thieving populus...I deserve the same amount of respect as everyone else. It becomes terribly tiresome to become the only civilized individual in a crowd of decision-making organisms.
In addition to all the raging inaccuracy of pronouns -- where the transgendered person in question gets to define which sex they are regardless of the biological realities -- we get strange phrases like "biologically born men," as opposed to the inauthentic kind:
Devin’s girlfriend, who had only dated biologically born men before meeting Devin in college, says the hardest part of his transition has been his family’s "abandonment, just their not being able to handle it." At the beginning, his mother couldn’t talk to him on the phone without crying and telling him he was going to hell, but now Devin says they have brief conversations. "I hope, and he doesn’t have a choice but to hope," his girlfriend says, "that someday she’ll be able to spend time with him."
This is the closest the Vargas story gets to an opposing point of view – hoping for the "heartbroken" mother to convert to the pro-LGBT point of view, as the Post suggests everyone eventually must, and will.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hay, wait a minute!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:03pm.
"one of a handful of transitional houses in the nation that cater to people who experts say are more likely to become homeless"
Hay, wait a minute! I thought the "experts" all agreed that race was the biggest factor for determining the risk of becoming homeless? At least, that what it was just a few short months ago. If I remember correctly, the "experts"claimed it was race that determined where someone would be fiscally able to support a household, not sexual preference, the argument being that the economic downturn would adversely affect the Black population the most, thus causing the Blacks to suffer a disproportionate percentage of homelessness! WHEN will they get their talking point straight?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Stop with the Gays and Lesbian agenda stuff. Geessh.
Submitted by Less1leg on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:06pm.
When you watch Main Stream TV you'd think that normal or traditional life was abnormal and being gay or lesbian or any other form of deviant sexual lifestyle was dominant. The MTV crowd is doing backflips selling girl on girl, or guy on guy interest stories that tells the public that being Gay is normal. You'd even believe that not being gay is wrong, and you'd better get your head together because Ozzie & Harriet family matters doesn't exist anymore. Being Gay is "IN", and being Straight is wrong. Young people are being sold through the media that there are dominant numbers of Gay people so, join them or you don't belong. Young people want to belong, to a group, to a team, to just about anything. And our MSM is selling this ideology that being Gay is good, and being Straight is wrong, and not progressive. If you have a hundred people in a room, today's liberal media would lead you to believe that most of the people in the room are guess what, GAY!
But in actuality, the Gay segment of society is much, much smaller. But not in the liberal world. Gay is the only place to be, just watch MTV or the network MSM programs.
They'll soon rebel.
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:26pm.
The younger generation will soon rebel against that new lifestyle, just as they rebelled against the "straight" sexual lifestyles over the last 20 to 30 years, the "oppressive" sexual lifestyles (Free Love, anyone?), of 30 years before that, etc. Once the latest LGBT "Teens" become adults, especally middle aged adults, the generations which follow them will reject their lifestyle, just as they always do. In a decade or so, Straight, monogamous sexual lifestyles with be back in vogue with the teens and the now "old" LGBT practitioners will be wondering just WTF happened!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Help... say a prayer!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:52pm.
Say a prayer for me. My Christian RINO spouse thinks I am a bigot because I am against gay marriage. When I said marriage has meant man and wife for thousands of years, she said words change meaning over time. Earlier she had said that the TEA party does not even know what the Constitution says. Looks like the NPR and LSM is working to break up even Christian families. This POV (Traditional Marriage = bigot) is truly bigoted in every sense. The media needs to be strongly confronted and accountable for spreading such bigotry. It is working! Call them out. Pretty soon, no freedom of Religion.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
She's right; you're a bigot.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:40am.
She's right; you're a bigot.
Satchmo the bigot then...
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:45am.
Bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. That would describe you. They can have a civil union but that does not make it marriage. Thanks for your support as you have proven my point.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
The state says whether two
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:11am.
The state says whether two people are married or not; it's a legal contract. If two people love each other and want to get married, what skin is it off your nose, other than your having stuck it in someone else's business? It doesn't affect your life and liberty or threaten your marriage one single bit.
Hello? No affect?
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:52am.
Although I did not want to post this story, I felt it was important to show hatred and bigotry already shown to those who believe in "traditional marriage."
I in return don't hate homosexual people or want to stop them from practicing deviant sexual behavior. As a matter of fact I don't know of anyone who hates "gays." What we hate is the bigoted PC political activism that forces it down society's throat as normal & beneficial behavior. Data proves it is not healthy or normal.
AND I don't want it taught in our schools as being normal when medically and psychologically it is not. No, it is indeed deviant. Deviant is "fun" to rebellious people and that is the attraction. To be counter-culture against moral behavior. That is now hip & kids do want to be cool.
So, no I do not want schools to be legally required to teach homosexuality as normal & already bringing in "gay role models." They are teaching that lie to all our children when it is proven destructive behavior. That is not good or loving. And you ask, how does that not affect me?
So how about we bring in adulterous couples as role models? Or how about swingers? They are consenting. We should teach that as normal too. It is all just behavior, as a matter of fact, period. It has nothing to do with hate.
It is not "good" behavior IMO, and I am not going to be forced to endorse it via government and intolerance the media dishes out to us.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
That's right, no effect. Two
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:58am.
That's right, no effect. Two gay people being married in no way whatsoever effects your life, liberty, property, or your own marriage.
As for homosexuality being normal, do you realize that homosexuality (for lack of a better word) exists in other animal species, from insects to birds to mokeys to other ape species? Still, whether you think it's normal or not is beside the point. The point is that you fit the definition of bigot, and that two gay people being married doesn't effect you at all.
It is not what I think: it is
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:47am.
It is not what I think: it is medical & psychological fact. The PC police have also shuts down any talk from ex-gays. And why would that be? So much for freedom, understanding, and open communication. No you don't want that. You want it shut down.
The religious intolerance has already started. Already worse in UK, EU, and Canada. In the UK, a family was refused to allow to adopt because they would not renounce that part of the Bible. Do you think I am stupid? It would be stupid not to act on this issue now. Why wait till there is no free speech (if you want to keep your job that is) or freedom OF the Christian religion? I am already being IMPROPERLY judged.
It is good, necessary, and normal for any society to judge behavior, but you do have to actually look fairly at what people are doing and professing. The PC "MSM" goes out of its way to unfairly demonize conservatives; plain & simple. They withhold the true conservative message & just say they are haters of the poor & all. Yet it was conservatives who freed the slaves.
As for animals: I have seen animal show "experts" say it more than once very clearly that apparent "gay" behavior of animals is not gay at all but is a strong way to show dominance (and show submission by the other). Like for male dogs to mount other male dogs. Are we dogs? No I would say we should desire a higher level of behavior. Is that wrong? When proven safer, productive, and happier? Yet, you would be against that, and go on to improperly judge me as being hateful.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
It is neither medical nor
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:10pm.
It is neither medical nor psychological; it is biological.
And to be clear, I am not saying anything or anyone should be shut down, nor did I say I am against a higher level of behavior, so drop the straw man.
Animal show experts...that's funny.
Cheating, swinging, z** s*x,
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 3:37pm.
Cheating, swinging, z** s*x, hump dancing your hetrosexual partner for an hour in public at a public rock concert is all biological too. What's your point? As a matter fact the public concert event is what set this all off.
She said they out to get a room and I said they were acting like white trash on meth. Man did she go off & said she did not want my hate spread to the kids. Never mind that she judged them "to get a room" and judged me also as having some sort of evil intent. Then she warned me sternly that I better not be corrupting them with my thoughts about homosexuals. Told me to get out that night since I would not apologize for the white trash remark. Said that was bigoted and judgemental. YET I AM WHITE and they were white. Does not Jay Leno use this term in making fun of white people? To me, it means they are embarrassing you as a fellow white person. Black or other people using the term may have another more derogatory meaning. I don't know. I hear it quite often in comedy is all I know.
As for your "Animal show experts...that's funny." I put expert in quotes. They are on TV & have their own show, have degrees, so I would think that does make them some sort of behavioral expert. So I guess you know better... What it tells me is that the pro-gay thug lobby has not YET threatened to ruin them if they don't change their tune fast. Pretty soon the PBS & nature shows will be speaking out about some suffering gay animals.
Here is the true 1973 story about homosexual activists threatening the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
Interesting history of this event not told by colleges: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
Next was the Church and they are still working on getting that fully done. These threats are strong and work because no one is calling them out with the truth of the situation. They just go on with their demonizing attacks 24/7.
This is a quote from someone against the conservative Christian message:
"If your traditional values include going back to the barbaric dogmatic ignorant rules of Leviticus, including being a racist, being a homophobe, hoping to install a theocratic dictatorship, enacting the death penalty for virtually everything they consider to be a crime against 'god', and the wanton abuse of our planet, as well as other far right wing policies of destruction of humanity and our world, then this group may be for you! Otherwise you'd be best to work in the interest of marginalizing and eliminating dangerous groups such as this one. "
NOTE the last sentence above: "you'd be best to work in the interest of marginalizing and eliminating dangerous groups such as this one. "
Need I say more... that sums it up & it is working.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
false
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:20am.
Even the most rudimentary understanding of the biology of sexual reproduction makes it very clear what the organic purposes of the sex organs are.
There is absolutely nothing "bio-logical" about it.
Chemical imbalance in the brain, or imbalances in sex hormones? Perhaps. But that's not "biological" any more than someone suffering with anorexia or bulimia, or "predisposed" to pedophilia.
Famous satchmo the perv quotes.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:35am.
Here's one of yours: "The
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:39pm.
Here's one of yours:
"The European Jews had to be identified, notified, collected, & transported. And their wealth disposed of."
Yipes.
You are really kind of stupid ain't you?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:47pm.
The troll troglodyt has taken a quote out of context to smear me as an antisemite.
Yea, they need to cut bait
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:59pm.
For real
They're your words. Own it.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:59pm.
They're your words. Own it.
~That's really, really funny coming from you
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:07pm.
You sick little perv.
Whatever unbanned troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:47pm.
Looks like you have gone full on troll. I proved you do advocate late term abortions right up to the moment of birth. Your response -- pull an old quote out of context when I was talking about Soros work with the Nazi's.
Now tell us you ain't a troll and we got you all wrong.
You called me a liar. I showed you up to be the like little snit you are. You want to fall on this sword, have at it. I will not stop showing you to be the lying abortion advocate you are.
I have no doubt you think so.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:29am.
I have no doubt you think so. But how does your own medicine taste?
Continue your game of lying King Beclowner.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 4:27am.
Right into getting yourself banned permanently this time. It is your reputation you are driving straight into the shit-hole by lying, falsely calling others liar, and then pulling out of context quotes in an attempt to get the spotlight off your monsterous quotes.
I rightly pulled the quotes on you, in context, with full meaning intact. Had I not. You could have pulled the full quotation easily and shown me to be a liar. You did not because you could not.
Whereas you pull an out of context quote in an attempt to malign someone that actually bothers to be truthful here. A quote from a post discussing the actions of George Soros helping the Nazi's round up and dispose of the wealth of the European Jews.
It is your reputation you malign King Beclowner. You continue down this road. No skin off my back. Pulling out of context quotes from my old posts will not stop me from pointing out your every stupid and lie. Ever.
Oh, I'm not falsely calling
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:41am.
Oh, I'm not falsely calling you a liar; you lie constantly, especially when using your loose definition of lie. But others have pointed it out a number of times, along with the rest of your blatant hypocrisy. I generally ignore you because of your ugly, trollish behavior and because I genuinely feel sad for you. Seeiously. I think you really do need mental help; you are not a stable person. You should get out of the house and try to live sometime. That may help some.
Speaking of liars
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:47am.
Why dont you point out one, said by someone other then yourself
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:00am.
Notch up the troll factor all you want. I already said it is no skin off my back. It is your account.
Incestmo
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:11am.
We all know he quoted you in context. We've seen your droppings here before. Stop being a little mommy diddler and own up to your words. Your sick and twisted perversity is on display all over these boards. You can't run from them. You can't hide from them. They are yours.
Oh, and you are one sick puppy.
Actually, it's tedious bigots
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:02am.
Actually, it's tedious bigots like you who are besides the point.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Just curious, Jack...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:40am.
Are there homosexual mokeys in the UK, and if so, are they allowed to marry?
I am pretty sure Jack is
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:02am.
I am pretty sure Jack is responding to Satch. A little hard to tell with how the column line up. Thanks for you support!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Yeah, I know, Max
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:20am.
.
Going Gaype
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:35pm.
SoL -- yes, I hear the gay monkey scene is all the rage in England.
People are going GAYPE over it -- involves multiple bananas apparently. One's top banana, the other's bottom banana.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Satchmo, Good one!!! LOL you
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:33pm.
Satchmo,
Good one!!! LOL you just compared homosexuals to mindless animals who only care about pleasure. WOW!!! Why do you insult homosexuals?
so, because animals do it it is ok for human beings to do it? Do Liberals think beyond the echo chambers they reside in?
Animals kills their young, is it ok then for a human being to kill their young?
Animals eat feces, is it ok then for human beings to eat feces?
Animals rape, is it ok then for human beings to rape?
You might want to rethink your ridiculous pro-homosexual arguments.
And of course two gay people affect my marriage. It removes the importance of marriage, it devalues marriage. People no longer see my marriage for what it is suppose to be. You are a prime example of it. You have been utterly confused and brainwashed into believing that homosexual "marriage" is good. Sad.
Anyway, you might want to step back from comparing animal actions to human beings. In your defense you are claiming that humans and animals are no different, thus making the point of why homosexual "marriages" are wrong. WE ARE NOT ANIMALS, INSECTS BIRDS, MONKEYS. Well, at least most of us, I am not sure about too many Liberals.
false again
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:43am.
"Homosexuality" does not "exist" in other animal species.
You do realize that you've just categorized pretty much all of humanity from the dawn of history until the present day minus about 10 years (including the sitting President) as "bigots," do you not? It's only been in the past 10 or so years (out of thousands of years) that a very small, but vocal and powerful minority in affluent parts of the world have succumbed to political pressure and amorality. However, even so, the vast majority of the world's population would be considered "bigoted" by you, especially those in the 3rd World, who don't have the luxury to even think about such utterly useless and narcissistic concerns.
The shear arrogance in such thinking is mind boggling, dare I say, even "bigoted."
Homosexual behavior most
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:38pm.
Homosexual behavior most certainly occurs in other species. This is an observable, scientific fact.
no, it does NOT
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:17pm.
Re-read what I said without misinterpreting it. I did not say "homosexual behavior does not occur in other species." I said that homosexuality does not exist in other species. There's a difference.
Next question.
Same incestmo, second verse*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:57pm.
Now where have we seen this argument before? Sure is familiar. . hmmmm
That's such a bollocks
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:01am.
That's such a bollocks response. Pathetic and infantile.
But let's descend to your "logic". You're a bigot, asshat.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Spot on
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:09am.
Thanks for the observation.
She's wrong
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:06am.
And so are you.
Shaving her face?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:26pm.
He chops down trees
He wears high heels
Suspenders and a bra
He wish he'd been a girlie
Just like his dear mama
So there really is another side to NOWs one trick pony pro-abortion meme?
Ain't buyin' it. NOW couldn't attract enough real women to their altars so they resort to reaching out to fake women.
The Lumberjack Song!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:29pm.
Dude, your age is showing!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
→ So what Cobra?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:11am.
I enjoy getting older. Beats the heck out of the alternative.
True
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:20am.
True, who wants to be Mork? HEH! (Now who's showing their age, eh?)
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
→ Shazzbot
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:25am.
Actually, I remember the Danny Thomas Show "Make Room For Daddy" which spun off the pilot for the Andy Griffith Show.
Yep, that's old.
CA
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 10:44pm.
I remember them also but it is because I stayed at a Holiday Inn.
I object to that post, many
Submitted by The Glen on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:23am.
I object to that post, many of my friends are liberals, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Sincerely, Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong, Mrs.
Cool Arrow to the rescue
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:41am.
This thread needed a good bit of scathing sarcasm. Thanks for the laugh.
What opposing view?
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:57am.
What exactly is "the opposing view" to offering homeless kids a place where they can feel safe? If they happen to need that safe place because they are gay or transgendered, so what? They still need it, and if the opposing view is "leave them on the streets," then I'm not surprised the Post didn't find anyone willing to say that out loud.
Also, it really is silly to be offended by criticism that comes from an abused teenager's poetry!
Exactly. What is the opposing
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:14am.
Exactly. What is the opposing view supposed to be? No, let's not allow private entities to solicit donations in order to provide a shelter for some kids? Or no, let's not allow private entities and individuals to shelter kids?
Awwww how cute.
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:51pm.
Mamabear and satchmo must be related. Keep your flirting to PMs.
Mamabear and Satchmo,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:41pm.
Mamabear and Satchmo,
Exactly, KIDS!!! what the hell does a kid know about sexuality, transgender, homosexuality, etc!
Our society loves to impose this garbage on our kids. That they are homeless, it sounds that it is out of their own choice, at least the story that the Washington Post put up. These poor emotinally wrecked individuals decide to lead abnormal lives. The parents do not like it and the kid runs away.
What is a safe place, Mamabear? a place that allows these kids to drown in their own immoral behavior? Yes, sadly, as our system works now, in too many cases the kids would do much better being homeless than getting stuck in a system that wants to use them for social engineering!!! Both are horrendous, but at least as a homeless you aren't being used by the the Washignton Post or any other radical, wacked our Liberal group for their own purposes.
Anyway, it never ceases to surprise me how those who claim to be pro-homosexual love to treat homosexuals, transgenders as animals who can't overcome their sexual desires like monkeys, birds, insects...what other animals did you compare homosexuals and transgenders to, satchmo?
The fact that you two can't tell the difference between animal and human behavior speaks volume of how sick the Liberal mind has become. Sad!
It's not about can, it's about have to
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:57pm.
Anybody is able to overcome their natural desire for intimacy, sex, and love. People both straight and gay live without it all the time. If you think that's what separates us from animals, then I think you are a little twisted, but so be it. The point isn't that people can or cannot resist the desire to be close to another person they love, it is whether they should have to as a condition for a dignified, safe life. I don't think they should have to, and I don't think that teenagers, who are essentially kids discovering an identity that includes sexuality, should have to choose between that identity and their health and safety.
mamabear, Of course how we
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:52pm.
mamabear,
Of course how we deal with our sexual impulses is a huge part of what seperates us from animals. How we deal with the countless of animal instincts that we are inherently born is one of the many things, but a key thing that seperates us from animals. Self-control is a human quaility, giving in to our animal instincts, whatever they may be, is acting like an animal. This is a huge part of what seperates humans and animals, amongst many other things. But nice attempt to present an argument that I never gave.
Homosexuality, transgender has NOTHING to do with safety! In fact, these lives prove to be full of all types of risks starting with STDs. Safety is far from what individuals like you are worried about, if you were, you wouldn't promote homosexuality.
and quite twisted of you to believe that a homosexual or transgender life is a dignified life. You can have these impulses. A dignified life of someone with these type of urges is one that controls them and lives a life of celebacy and does not give in to his/her animal impulses. No different than a heterosexual who is married and does not give in to the impulse of sleeping with the gorgeous office secretary.
What the Washington Post is doing is presenting a falsehood and so are you! Of course all kids deserve to be safe, but if my child chooses to run away from home because I did not accept under my roof his life style, whatever that may be, it is HIS/HER choice and society should not be burden with the trantrums of teenagers.
and once again, it is a lot safer to live in the streets than to be used as an experiment by the Washington Post and the militant pro-Homosexual groups as it is clear that these poor kids were used.
I don't know about you mamabear, but I know that all human beings, including those who have homosexual and transgender impulses are human beings who must be treated with dignity and not thought as victims and animals who can't control their sexual impulses. But that is just me. Liberals tend to think, as you and many others have proven on NB, that humans are pure animal sexual beings who must give in to their sexual impulses in order to live a dignified life. Talk about twisted. Sad.
Our sexuality does define our gender and in a world where we are teaching boys to be girls and girls to be boys and that there is no difference between the genders, no wonder so many people are confused!
Yes, there is a difference between the genders, physically and mentaly, but the second these lines are blured we get the societal confusing we have today. Sad.
Completely disgusted
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:17pm.
Our legal system does not hold children responsible for their actions, because it is the job of adults to take care of them. We don't rationalize statutory rape as something a 12 year old girl "chose" to do, because we recognize a number of ways in which that choice is taken away from her by the power and maturity imbalance in the relationship. Parents have the power in their relationships with their children, and they are the mature ones. Not every child can be controlled, but we don't consign kids to homelessness because they chose to run away from an abusive or intolerable situation. No civilized society ever would.
You think that heterosexual love is something to be cherished, but homosexual love is an animal urge to be resisted. Minimizing human qualities in a minority population, likening them to animals while holding yourself higher, is the foundation of bigotry. Thinking that what someone else experiences is fundamentally less worthwhile that what you experience is dehumanization, and it is the insidious beginning of every human rights tragedy.
Homosexual people fall in love with each other, the same way that heterosexual people do. Denying that is the way you rationalize your bigotry, but it is transparent. I thought I was coming at this issue this time with a sense of what people at NB thought-- that though they resented the attention paid to gay kids when others were suffering too, they didn't actually want to condemn those kids to suffering. I guess I was wrong.
Mamabear, Hmmm...are you
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 12:49am.
Mamabear,
Hmmm...are you honestly claiming that sexual desire equates to love? At no point in my posts have I claimed anything about love! However, it is obvious by your posts that you confused sexual attraction, ,desire with love. My goodness!!! wow!
When have I said that I am superior to anyone? where in my posts have I held myself higher to anyone? You assume too much woman! and nice red herrings you are throwing out there. Acts of homosexuality are NOT a human quality, you and the rest of the militant pro-homosexuals can claim this all you want, but acts of homosexuality are not even close to a human quality, these are human deficiencies. No different than a married heterosexual who is promiscuous!
You can be have homosexual urges and be a great man or woman! Stop putting words into my mouth and stop with the red herrings! You are attempting to twist the argument so you feel good about your pro-homosexual stance. Homosexuals are human beings too who deserve to be treated with respect and human love. However, this does not mean accepting their immoral sexual behavior, just like loving a heterosexual who cheats on his wife does not mean accepeting his immoral behavior.
"Thinking that what someone else experiences is fundamentally less worthwhile that what you experience is dehumanization, and it is the insidious beginning of every human rights tragedy." What a bunch of Liberal propaganda and Liberal bleeding heart silliness! Is this what passes as intellectual in your school? wow! I am sorry, but you are wrong! Yes, it is fundamentally less worthwhile when a murder feels satisfaction when he/she kills someone else! Yes, the murderers experience is less worthwhile! I can assure you that believing this about the murderer and his experience in no way gets close to any type of human rights tragedy! Do you Liberals put any thought behind your silly rhetoric? It sounds pretty, but it holds no water! Heterosexual sexual acts can also be far from a quality! It is just that ALL homosexual sexual acts are immoral. Heterosexual acts outside of marriage, with more than one man and one woman inside of marriage, are as immoral as homosexual sex acts. It doesn't start or stop only with homosexuals. Stop putting words into my mouth, Mamabear. You love doing this!
It is YOU, like most Liberals, who feels superior, who feels you are the real compassionate person because you accept homosexual sex acts. It is you the one who believes that not accepting these abnormal behavior somehow equates to bigotry. How truly sad! It is YOU who has a superiority complex who is coming in here and telling me that not accepting abnormal sexual behaviors is a human rights violation. Are you serious?
So, when are all women going to accept cheating men because you know, it was out of love that men cheated. It was the cheating men's experiences and geez, thinking that what someone else experiences is fundamentally less worthwhile than your experience is dehumanization, and it is the insidious beginning of every human rights violations!!! My goodness, would you look at that, women who do not accept cheaters, who dislike cheaters, who claim that cheating is wrong are violating the human rights of their cheating boyfriends and husbands! Can't women understand that men fall in love with their office friends, secretary, workout buddies? How dare women not allow men to experience things? Why are women dehumanizing their poor cheating boyfriends and husbands? All these wanted was to experience love?
and geez anyone who claims that pedophilia is wrong, who claims that the experience of a pedophile is a less worthwhile experience is violating the human rights of pedophiles. Think before you type bleeding Liberal heart nonsense, Mamabear.
Mamabear, your logic is completely flawed. Honestly, do you pro-homosexuals think beyond the rhetoric that you hear in you Liberal echo chambers?
Real compassion for a homosexual, real human love for a homosexual is teaching them that homosexual acts are immoral and that one can be a great, amazing, incredible, well worth while individual who can do great things in society with out giving in to these sexual urges. No different than teaching a heterosexual that you can be celebate, control your sexual urges and be an amazing human being.
Sorry, unlike too many pro-homosexuals, I know that ALL human beings, including homosexuals, are worth a lot more than their sexual animal instinct, which exists in both, homosexuals and heterosexuals, but we can all overcome this animal urge. And let's start teaching society, specially women! that love doesn't equals sex!
No, sex is not the same thing
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:25am.
No, sex is not the same thing as love, but homosexual people FALL IN LOVE with one another, and then they tend to want to have sex with each other. The fact that you think sex is okay in a heterosexual loving relationship but not a homosexual loving relationship is what makes you bigoted. If I'm putting words in your mouth, then please tell me what it is that you expect gay people to do when they fall in love with someone of the same gender.
Mamabear, Please stop with
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 7:23pm.
Mamabear,
Please stop with the silly human rights violation meme. It is ridiculous and it is used by the pro-homosexuals in order to shame those who know homosexual sex acts are wrong into silence. C'mon now!
No, I do not believe that all heterosexual sex done out of love is ok and normal.
Heterosexual sex, which is done out of love, between more than one man and one woman is immoral as immoral as ANY homosexual sex act.
heterosexual sex, which is done out of love, between one man and one woman who are not married is as immoral as ANY homosexual sex act.
Heterosexual sex, which is done out of love, between one man and one woman who are married to another man or another woman is as immoral as ANY homosexual sex act.
I guess, using your logic, I am violating the human rights of the heterosexuals engage in the heterosexual sex acts described above which I know to be immoral. I mean how dare do I claim that any sex which is done out of love between heterosexuals as immoral?!
Mamabear, do you not see how ridiculous it is for you and the pro-homosexuals to use the ridiculous "human rights violations" argument? It is false!
and furthermore, where does it stop? This is something that no pro-homosexual ever wants to address. Where does it stop? If we accept homosexual sex acts between two individuals who have fallen in "love". Why not accept sex acts between five people who have fallen in "love"? Why not accept sex acts between a 50 year old and a 14 year old who have fallen in "love"? Where does it stop Mamabear? So, do you pro-homosexuals get to define what are the moral sex acts and not anyone else? Oh bigot you, Mamabear, how dare you violate the human rights of those individuals who you believe engage in immoral sex acts?
Using your logic, Mamabear, you are violating the human rights of ANY individual whom you believe has engage in immoral sexual acts.
The only moral sexual act is that which is done between ONE man and ONE woman who are married. This is the only moral sex act. Anything and every thing else, whether it involves homosexuals, heterosexuals, transgenders or whatever else you can come up with that it doesn't involve one man and one woman who are married to each other is immoral.
Additionally, I am bigoted? why because you said so? Once again, using silly insults to shame people into agreeing with you. "Oh no, I am being called bigoted! I am not bigoted, thus I must accept homosexual sex acts." Why are you attempting to bully me into accepting what I know to be immoral? Why is the militant pro-homosexual movement full of bullies?
Please!! You are the one that is a bigot, using your logic. Why? Because you aren't opend minded enough to accept my point of view. You are a bigot against individuals who think like me. You bigot you! how dare you be a bigot?!
The problem we have today is that people do not know what the word Love truly means. I also believe that the English language in a way leads to this since love is used in so many things. Example, "I love that car!" is not the same as "I love my wife!" In Spanish, there are different words for this type of love.
As much as you want to claim, as you did in your post below, that homosexuals eventually stop being promiscuous this is not true. As I have always been told, using personal experience in any type of debate or exchange is not valid. Statistics and studies show that the average homosexual men, regardless of age and race will have about 9 partners a year!! These are facts! Imagine if a heterosexual married man had 9 other women in one year. What would women like you call him? Rightly so, a pig!!! a whore, a depraved human being who is in need of desperate help! correct? Why do all of a sudden do women throw out the rules they use against heterosexual men when it comes to homosexula males?
Too many in the world today believe that compassion, friendship, helping someone else is accepting who an individual is regardless of where it leads the friend. They believe that compassion, friendship, helping someone else is accepting their immoral behavior. Real friendship, real compassion towards another human being is having the fortitude, the knowledge, the backbone to tell a friend that they are wrong, that they are leading a wrong life and that they must change or things will get much worse.
If I have a friend whom I know is cheating on his wife or husband, I will tell them that they are doing wrong, just like I would tell and I have told my friends who have engage on homosexual sex acts that these action of theirs is immoral. This is real love for a friend, family member. This is real compassion.
Why are there so many sheeps, so many mindless sheeps in the world today? why are people so afraid of being called a bigot when stating the Truth, the facts? Mamabear, call me a bigot all you want. It will never, it will not change the facts that the pro-homosexuals are 100% wrong in their stances. And why is it that the pro-homosexual militant movement is full of so many bullies?! and this is not only my observation. I have friends who are homosexual that 100% agree with me on this last observation and they readily acknowledge that the pro-homosexual movement is full of radicals and bullies who are the real bigots who refuse to accept, even listen to opposing views. As I was told once by a friend of mine who has homosexual urges, "the militant pro-homosexual movement is a human travesity who constantly violates the human rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals! They aren't doing any human being any favors!" Bullies? Bigots? The militant pro-homosexual movement is full of them and they can careless about violating the human rights of the Mormons, Catholics and anyone else who dares tells them that homosexual sex acts are immoral!
Time for some research, but first...
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:42pm.
So you are equating any homosexual act, even one in a monogamous relationship, with adultery. But of course, you've also decided that gay people can't marry, so now sex is okay only within a club that they aren't allowed to join. So now you've defined the categories such that it is impossible for gay people to be moral unless they abstain from relationships altogether. That's what makes you a bigot-- deciding that your love can be okay, but theirs can't. You may have an excuse for your bigotry-- the Bible perhaps-- but that doesn't change what it is.
Setting rules for behavior is not what is bigoted-- setting different rules for different groups based on a characteristic they can't control, that's what's bigoted. Gay people can control their behavior, but you have different standards for their behavior than you do for straight people, based not on what they do but who they are. That's discrimination.
I think your numbers for partners are out of date. Here are some modern studies-- one using self-reporting but the other an analysis of a huge internet dating system:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508672&page=1
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/
What these and several other studies will tell you is that gay men have only slightly more partners than straight men.
And here is a very good refutation of the idea that group statistics tell you about some quality that every individual in the group has
http://timrfisher.tripod.com/dgstats.htm
This also points out a feature seen in OkTrends-- that a very small percentage of gay men are having an awful lot of sex. But if you look at the other end of the spectrum, gay men are more likely to be celibate through their lives than straight men, and most gay men are behaving essentially like straight men in terms of the number of partners.
Tell us about the gay sex spinsterbear.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:47pm.
It is your favorite topic. Describe the gay anal sex. That is your favorite theme here.
"That's what makes you a
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:48pm.
"That's what makes you a bigot-- deciding that your love can be okay, but theirs can't."
No, it means he has an opinion. It's not about bigotry or hate, but you have to make it about that or else you don't have an argument. He may disagree with you, that doesn't make him a bigot or wrong, it means he has a DIFFERENT OPINION.
Get it?
Mamabear, Why the need to
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:10pm.
Mamabear,
Why the need to define my stance against homosexual sex acts, against homosexual marriage as bigotted? why? why the insults, why the bullying? why?
do you think that your believe or that of anyone else that my stance against homosexual sex acts is bigotted will change my mind?
why are you attempting to insult me into agreeing with you?
so, anyone who has a different opinion than you on homosexual sex acts and gay "marriage" is a bigot?
why do YOU get to define marriage? Answer this question! Why do you and the pro-homosexual community get to define the morality of marriage? Why should I adhere to your morality if you aren't even open minded enough to consider that you are wrong?
let's get to the core of the issue....Define marriage, define love and why is married necessary for a community to function. Let's start there. Believe me, your use of the words "biggotted", "sick" are only making you look like a fringe, like an angry and irrational individual. Take a step back and think a little, use less emotion, Mamabear.
I deny to anyone that which goes against the Laws of Nature, the Laws of God. If this makes me a bigot in the eyes of the world, I am more than glad to wear the badge of a bigot, as defined by you, with pride.
By the way, are those who deny pedophiles a relationship between a 50 year old and a 14 year old bigots?
I am angry
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:33pm.
There are no laws of nature, and there are definitely no Laws of Nature! God may have laws, but I happen to think that if this is one of them, it is a bigoted one.
I don't get to define marriage, but there are lots of other ways we could define it that would also be discriminatory. Our current definition has a history, but history is full of traditions that we no longer adhere to because we think they are wrong. We modernize them. We let women inherit property and vote, we let black people marry white people, we prevent the exploitation of child labor. Those are all things we changed, despite the fact that in the past, we thought those traditions were good for society. This is another tradition that needs to change. Marriage is important to our society, and by excluding a set of people from it, we are creating outsiders. Outsiders cause all manner of trouble, for themselves and others. They always have, and they always will. You don't solve that problem by building the walls higher, you solve it by opening the door.
No. You can't get married.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:02am.
One reason is your constant focus on anal sex to the exclusion of everything else.
The other reason is THE NAME IS TAKEN. IT IS IN USE. CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE.
That is why you are angry. Like a little child, you are told no and you think throwing a tantrum will take it away. It won't.
No. It will not happen. Stop whining about it and comparing it to real situations where wrongs were righted.
No homosexual on the planet is being harmed by not being able to change the definition of marriage. So shut up and sit there and stew like the angry little toddler you are.
No. You can't have a cookie.
Idiot.
Who me?
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:03am.
Well, I can get married, but that's beside the point. Personally, I think that civil unions granting all of the same rights as marriage would be a huge step forward. But I'm not gay, and if gay people don't feel like separate but equal is really equal, I'm not going to tell them to be satisfied with it. Not having legal protection in some form or another absolutely does harm people.
civil unions
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:16am.
I think many people out there are now becoming comfortable with the idea of civil unions. I'd still prefer not to have them in fear of the slippery slope, but in the spirit of democracy I'd be willing to concede on these. They would certainly provide the solution to all the secular concerns raised by "same sex marriage" advocates. And if it's considered "not good enough" by some of those, well, welcome to democracy, where the name of the game is compromise. Except, of course, if you can Alinsky-fill the courtrooms with radical judges who can rule from "above" via oligarchical fiat.
lotr, But that is just it.
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:04pm.
lotr,
But that is just it. It will never be good enough for the militant pro-homosexuals who preach the nonsense that our immorality should be seen as equal under the law.
I am of the mind that if you give an inch to immorality, you will truly be giving up yards upon yards, not merely an inch.
Mamabear has stated as much here and I have heard countless of militant pro-homosexuals admit that their ultimate goal is to get Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc, etc to marry homosexuals under their place of worship.
democracy does not mean giving in to immoralities because the majority now believe that what is immoral is now moral. I believe, there is a huge misconception about democracy and this is one of them. Of course, as John Adams and many other Founding Fathers stated. The Constitution they created only works in a Christian nation. It is, but a matter of time, if we haven't reached the point already, that the Constitution is becoming meaningless in the eyes of such individuals as Mamabear who can't even acknowledge that this nation was founded under Judeo-Christian values, not secular values.
Additionally, Mamabear, is throwing out a whole bunch of strawmen and red herrings. Homosexuals can and do have sex with other homosexuals. Homosexuals can and many live together with other homosexuals. There is no special police force in the USA that tracks down, hunts down homosexuals and jails them or forbids them from doing the aformentioned actions. Homosexuals have the Free Will to do as they please in the USA. What they do not have a Right or Freedom to do is to redefine marriage and force you and me, as they want to to either accept this new definition or silence us if they are unable to force us into agreement.
Mamabear talks a great game about equality under the law. Hogwash! If she wanted equality under the law, she would not be calling the opinion of others bigoted, immoral, human right violations and every other single name she can think of in order to shame people into agreeing with her. Mamabear, like so many Liberals beleives that her opinion, her morality is superior to ours. Sadly, she has been unable to answer what is her authority that allows her to believe her morality is superior to ours.
I have zero doubt, as I have heard countless of pro-homosexuals in colleges, in my job that pro-homosexuals want to criminalize anti-gay marriage speech and thought. In fact, they have already done so through anti-Free Speech laws known as hate speech. In Canada, for example, priests, rabbis, ministers have been brought up on charges for telling their flock that homosexual sex act are wrong, immoral, a sin. This is what the militant pro-homosexuals want to bring here.
In fact, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign fired a professor of religion who was teaching a class on the Roman Catholic Church. He was teaching what the Church said was moral and immoral. He stated, he was teaching that the Roman Catholic Church states that homosexual sex acts are wrong. He was asked by a student if he agreed. He said as a Roman Catholic, he did. He did not tell anyone in the classroom that they were evil, bad or anything for being homosexual. He was teaching a religion class, it was the week, month to teach about the Catholic Church. He stated the position of the Church on homosexual sex acts and that he agreed with it. A student complained and the professor was fired!!!! This is what Mamabear and those who agree with her want. They are NOT seeking equality under the law, they do not believe in it.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instruct...
and in fact, in a way they have done so. Today you are called a bully, sick, immoral, a human rights violator if you dare speak the Truth of the sin that homosexuals acts are. Mamabear is a prime example of this.
There is no negotiating morality, the Truth even when we live in a democracy. If we do not stand up strong against the likes of Mamabear, this nation will be doomed and the radical, anti-Christian nation my children will grow up in will lead to persecutions. Don't take my word for it, history proves as much.
The other day I was watching a Bulls game and I was shocked to see how a stupid commercial was scolding people for saying, "That's so gay!'. Freaking ridiculous!!! They want to shame us into silence!
The real problem is that individuals like Mamabear believe they are the only ones with the Right to tell everyone else what is immoral, but if anyonne that disagrees with her claims as much about her, about homosexual acts then we are sick, human right violators, etc. See, she can state that I am immoral, but how dare anyone dare make such a claim about anyone else's morality. Sad.
All good points, futbol, and
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:40pm.
All good points, futbol, and I agree with you in principle 100%, but am approaching it more from a pragmatic angle here. Civil unions are something I could live with ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"), but "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron and abomination before the Author of Nuptial Love.
Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Lotr, I do see your point.
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:34pm.
Lotr,
I do see your point. In fact, I am of the belief that if two, three, ten, fifty individuals want to do whatever sex act behind closed doors, that is on them. Who am I impose on their Free Will.
My biggest beef with the homosexual community is their attempt to force people to accept their sex acts as normal. Mamabear can scream and cry all she wants, but all we have to do is look at how the homosexual community reacted in California when they lost. They attacked blacks, since these was one of the largest groups that voted against homosexual marriage. The attacks were truly disgusting and racist!
Homosexuals went to the business place of many an individual who gave money against their cause and they started to insult them, attack them, etc. The Mormon Church was attacked.
This is what Mamabear refuses to acknowledge or even address. The Homosexual community loves to claim that their cause is not different than the Civil Right movement for blacks, but interestingly enough, when blacks did not back them up, the biggest racist and real xenophobes, Mamabear, were the homosexuals!!! Care to address this rather inconvinient truth, Mamabear? Or too hot for you to handle?
too many homosexuals who flaunt their sex acts and those who supported them love to claim how they are bullied, how the "breeders" impose our morality on them. Then they turn around and do to use exactly what they claim we should not do to them, they impose their "morality" on us and if we do not accept it as normal and moral, they attempt to isolate us and shame us through insults.
Again, ask the questions you want answered
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:30pm.
I haven't addressed gay activists behaving badly, because you haven't asked me to. I'm not avoiding anything. You also haven't addressed attacks that gays suffer-- beatings, murders, the Westboro Baptist church. Are you trying to avoid the issue? I assume not, it just hasn't come up. For someone who wants me to tone my rhetoric down, you certainly keep your side of the argument at a somewhat hysterical pitch. If you want me to talk about something, just ask me to talk about it without preemptively accusing me of refusing to address it!
Gay people are not saint's they behave badly sometimes like anyone else. I wish they didn't, but the important point is that the majority of gay people also wish they didn't. Extreme activists are a minority. Just like you wouldn't want to be judged by the actions of real homophobes who attack and kill gay people, gay people don't want to be judged by the members of their ranks who take protests too far and hurt people.
Us vs. them
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:57am.
As is common with xenophobic mindsets, you see everyone who disagrees with you as monolithic. In this last post alone, you have accused me of thinking at least three things that I have never said or thought, simply because you have heard other people who also think homosexuals should be allowed to marry say those things. Just like you and lotr can disagree on the issue of civil unions but still fundamentally both be opposed to what I would like for this country, there is a diversity of opinions on the liberal side of this argument. I am not a stand-in for every liberal idea under the sun!
I do not want churches to have to marry gay people if it goes against their teachings. I have never said anything of the sort, so you are simply lying with that accusation.
I do acknowledge that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. I have never denied that, so that is another lie. I simply think that we are now more than just a Christian nation, and that another aspect of the founding fathers' vision that was just as important was the openness to other ideas and beliefs and a commitment that it was not the government's place to dictate religious life in this country.
I also do not want to criminalize thought or speech. I don't think that professor should have been fired. Every college and university I have worked at has included in their obligations to employees a statement of academic freedom, but when schools are afraid of scandal they fail to uphold that commitment. It is a real failure and a betrayal of their employees. I don't like it.
You really can't handle people thinking you are wrong, can you? You make this big deal about the fact that I disagree with you, but you disagree with me! I'm not whining that you are trying to claim moral superiority, or think that you are the only person who gets to decide what's right or wrong-- get over yourself, this isn't about you! This is about other people who I think your beliefs do a disservice to. We are two people who disagree, I don't think that my opinions are any more valid than your, except that I think my opinions are right. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have them!
I think it is interesting that you are so concerned about the word "bigot" when it is used against you, but you can't understand why someone might object to a descriptor of themselves being used as an insult.
Mamabear, I addressed this
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:25pm.
Mamabear,
I addressed this post of yours below, but I have to address something that I did not talk about below.
Our Founding Fathers said nothing about openess, inclusion, etc. In fact, Our Fouding Fathers were incredibly closed minded when it came to our type of government and the type of values that influenced it. They were so closed minded about this that they secluded themselves, they closed themselves to the world until the Constitution was completed so there would be no outside influence!!!
1) they wanted only Judeo-Christian values in our Constitution, not Muslim, not Atheist, not anything else, but Judeo-Christian.
2) We are not more than just a Christian nation, we are still an incredibly vast majority of Christians in this nation, last I read it was about 90% or more. Hmmm.... That individuals who are not Christian live in the USA is something else, but we are still very much a Judeo-Christian nation.
and like I said, please get off the insults, it gets tiring and honestly, they do nothing to advance your position other than make you look like a fringe. You claim y ou are not, then start acting as such. Geez, Mamabear, you've called me sick, immoral, a xenophobe, a bigot. LOL I find it amusing, if I must be honest with you, since you are acting like the typical pro-homosexuals that wants to shame people into silence with insults yet you claim you aren't one of these.
Religious freedom
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:31pm.
is built into our Constitution. That didn't happen by accident, they did that on purpose. I know we are a Christian nation, that's why I said we are MORE than just that. I didn't say we AREN'T a Christian nation. But like it or not, intended by the founding fathers or not, our state now has to serve the interests of diverse people with diverse beliefs.
Mamabear, What? what the
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:37am.
Mamabear,
What? what the heck does Freedom of Religion have to do with our arguments? And Freedom of Religion means that the Federal Government has no right to impose a religion on you, or me or on anyone else.
However, the State has no duty to serve the interests of Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, even of Christians. A democracy, or more accurately described, our Representative Democracy, our Republic has the duty to serve the interests of the majority when these interests do not go against what is Moral. Unlike you proably teach your poor college kids, unlike I was taught in high school, our Constitution does not protect the interests of the minority! It protects the interests of the majority!!! Tell me, when was the last time that we had a President who did not receive the majority of the Electoral Votes? If you were right, if the LIberals were right about this type of thinking, we would already have had a President who received a minority of the electoral colleges. but no, it doesn't happen that way. The majority rules, even you admitted in a posts from days earlier.
when the interests served by the State are immoral, wrong, whether these serve a majority or minority, we have the moral duty to oppose our government.
When you vote for a President, and your choice of President loses, does the State have a duty to put this individual in power so your interests as a minority are served? Of course not! As we all know, Obama is not serving any of my interests, or that of my children. He is serving the interests of the majority that elected him. My choice for President was asked to take a hike. As a minority, in the last Presidential elections, my interests along with that of millions of otehrs are not being served. According to your own defintion, Obama is not fulfilling the duties of our government!!! LOL thank you for admitting as much, even though you are wrong about the interests the State is suppose to serve.
Well, religious freedom has a
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:24pm.
Well, religious freedom has a lot to do with what it means that we are a Christian nation. It means something very different than a Christian nation with a state-sponsored religious system. There are other countries that have that, we don't.
There are plenty of protections for the minority built into our system of government! Just one example is the organization of our legislative houses-- one based on population to represent the majority, one with equal representation for each state to make sure the states with fewer people are not just completely subject to the states with the majority of the population. How did you get through high school without learning that!
Mamabear, Plenty of
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 12:55am.
Mamabear,
Plenty of protections for the minority? really? When was the last time that a law was passed when it received a minority of votes? Laws, Constitutional amendments pass with majorities, super majorities, 2/3 votes, etc. No laws, no constitutional amendment will ever pass after receiving a minority of the votes.
I am sorry Mamabear, but it is a Liberal lie, which I was taught and I know is wrong, that the Constitution was built to protect minorities. The Constitution was created to protect the will of the majority of the people.
The House of Representatives was built to give representation to the smaller States, but by no means is it equal or was it ment to equalize the power of the big States vs. the small States. You could say the Senate does this, but it is literally counter balanced by the House of Representative. No matter how the Senate votes on a law, if the bill does not receive a majority of the votes in the House of Representatives, it is not a law and vice-versa.
No, it is a Liberal lie that the Constitution protects minority. It is like the Liberal, anti-religion lie that religions have caused more wars and deaths than any other ideology. This is a huge lie. Atheism and secularism have caused, by millions, upon millions, more deaths and more wars than any other ideologies.
"My anal sphincter is angry" by spinsterbear.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:01am.
Looks like we have a new show in the field of xxxx Monologues. Tickets go on sale June 1st.
Sorry
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:01am.
I am not clicking on any links that you put X's in front of!
Iz not stupid troliez. iz not. honext.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:00pm.
Yeah Stupid, the links are there to mock you. They are there for others to click and see what the joke on you is. Whatever. You whine on because you diapers are full and you are too scared to click on words the word bully put on a page. Scary words that scare trolls and make their diapers overflow. Scary word bullies and their scary word bully links.
I got something to take away spinsterbear's angryness.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:26am.
Here you go spinsterbear --- Enjoy.
Nice one, NC---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 1:27am.
Zackly right.
MD
choose identity vs. their health and safety -Mamabear
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:25pm.
Reply to Mamabear post above (not linked right)
Oh please! Statistically choosing a homosexual life is not nearly as healthy as married. Ever hear of AIDS, STDs, or suicide? Higher addiction rates (drugs, etc.) I would guess, but feel free to prove me wrong. How is that safe? '
I would guess again that more Christians get attacked and discriminated against more than homosexuals. I can only think of few cases, while whatever the number be, that many Christians likely get attacked (and fired from jobs) each WEEK due to their Christianity.
Your killing them with kindness by NOT suggesting some lifestyle that is more healthy. Do you recommend drugs since that doesn't hurt anyone else either? As they say, sometimes, the road to hell is paved by good intentions. You have good intent in encouraging them. But it is to do something harmful as proven, and also goes against our social norms. Just as adultery and swinging is. Or is that also cool?
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
So let them marry!
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:25pm.
Promiscuity is harmful whether it is in a gay or straight relationship. Gay women are not more likely to get diseases from one another that straight women are. In fact, in a straight relationship, a woman is more likely to contract AIDS from a partner than a man. Does that mean it is immoral to be female? Does that mean we should encourage straight women to become gay so that they are safer from STDs? Of course not.
Equating risky behavior with immoral behavior is fallacious to begin with, but every sexual relationship carries risk. Most of these kids will engage in that risk at some point in their lives, and if they are on their own then there is no one to teach them that promiscuity is a bad idea. No one to teach them that drugs are a bad idea. These kids need help. Demand good behavior in order to get that help, sure, but don't demand that they change who they are. The more you do that, the fewer you'll reach.
Hello? You can't get AIDS if
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:54pm.
Hello? You can't get AIDS if you are both virgins when you get married! That is the ideal norm. If not that, agreed that the more promiscuity is harmful. It is your idea of equating risky behavior with immorality! Where did I say that. I thought I was saying what was safe ! How is not doing something changing who they are? You can't drink till your 21 yrs. old. Are they therefore somehow harmed? Not acting out on behaviors such as drinking is good! Restraint from inappropriate s*x is good too. If they are "changed" it is certainly for their own better mental & physical health interest!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
So then you are in favor of
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:26am.
So then you are in favor of gay people staying abstinent until they marry each other? That would definitely keep them safe, and I think that sounds like a good ideal to have. Glad to see someone approaching this issue reasonably! Now, can you help me convince other people that the best way to keep everyone safe is to let EVERYONE marry, thus supporting their responsible monogamy?
So Mamabear
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:49am.
Gays can't be monogamous because they are not allowed to marry? I was unaware the state or the institution of marriage was so powerful.
It is powerful. Telling
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:11pm.
It is powerful. Telling someone that the socially accepted contract of monogamy and commitment isn't meant for them, that their feelings and relationships don't belong there, encourages promiscuity. How could it not? You tell them No, you cannot seal yourself to another person in the eyes of your community and your place of worship... what on earth do you expect to happen?! Some of them are strong enough to rise above it, and believe in themselves even though they are told their relationships are meaningless. Others aren't.
sorry to butt in, butt....
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:57pm.
.... not all human relationships are created equal. That is an incontrovertible fact of life.
I don't think I understand your point
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:28pm.
What do you mean by that? In what way are relationships "created" equal or unequal?
"Created" is taken in the
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:03am.
"Created" is taken in the exact same sense as "all men are created equal." It refers to an objective reality that is beyond our subjective opinion.
If it is more clear, then we can easily modify the sentence as:
"Not all intimate relationships are on equal moral footing. That is an incontrovertible fact of life."
Does that clarify things?
Okay
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:01am.
I guess I'm not clear on how morality can be an "incontrovertible fact of life." Lots of people disagree with that statement, how is it incontrovertible? Is there some objective fact you appeal to to justify that claim?
OK, if it weren't clear enough
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 1:14pm.
You have essentially just admitted that a man who loves his mother should be able to marry her. Or his sister. Or siblings. Or co-ed dorm hallmates. Or his Great Dane. Or himself.
According to you, there's no objective morality. Therefore, you have zero basis to object to any of it.
This is called following a premise to its logical conclusion.
Been there, done that
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 5:38pm.
Hydro has gone to great lengths to explain why thinking that there is no absolute morality in the world does not mean that you must necessarily have no morality. There are great thread in the forums on the issue. Maybe for you abandoning the morality you think is absolute would require you to have no morality in its place, but I am not similarly constrained.
Carrying something through to its most extreme conclusion is not the same as carrying it through to its logical conclusion!
Yes, I too have been there and done that
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 8:42pm.
I've spent a great deal of time debating Hydro at length on the existence of the Absolute, probably more than anyone else here. And he was not able to provide any satisfactory answer, IMO, other than we agree that we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.
But there does exist an objective morality. Indeed, in this very debate, each side is assuming the other to be in breach of a commonly held morality. Aside from our positions, the only difference between us is that one side is logically consistent to admit its existence, the other side illogically cutting off the very branch it sits on.
If there is no absolute morality, then you absolutely have no basis whatsoever to lecture anyone (e.g., liberallies) about who's "bigoted," or who isn't, nor do you have any basis whatsoever to place any value judgment upon anyone on what constitutes an acceptable "relationship" -- all of the above relationships are equally valid outcomes of your premise.
Extreme or not, these are the logical conclusions of a premise. Either you must accept them as a valid consequence, or you must reject the premise.
And don't tell me that you do not. We are having a logical, rational discussion. If the rules of logic apply only to me but not to you, then rational discussion cannot proceed.
I reject your conclusions, not the premise
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 9:58pm.
No, you still don't get it. If I don't believe in absolute morality, then we are just two people arguing about what is right. Neither of us has any authority to which they can appeal, we just need to argue our positions on their merits and try to convince each other. That is exactly what we are doing. Somehow you seem to think that not believing in an absolute morality means I can't argue about it, but of course I can! I hold no authority over you, but I can still tell you that, according to MY moral code, liberallies is bigoted. Clearly, according to his moral code, he isn't. I think my moral code is right, and I'd like to convince more Americans to adopt it. But I am arguing that based on those commonly held beliefs (which are not "objective" simply because they are commonly held, by the way) and why I think other positions violate them. I am not saying My Word Is The Law and Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Going To Hell. I just think everyone who disagrees with me is doing some harm to people, and I don't like that.
no, YOU'RE the one who doesn't seem to want to get it
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:00pm.
Sorry, but those conclusions follow from your premise ("that all intimate relationships are created equal"), every bit as much as the "same sex marriage" conclusion.
If there's no objective morality, then why are you even bothering arguing with me? I am right every bit as much as you may be right. And how dare you call anyone "bigoted" -- their point of view is every bit as valid as yours. You have no "moral high road" in this discussion whatsoever because there is no "moral high road."
Apparently we are holding a "debate" where the rules of logic are suspended. And I am therefore beginning to realize it's a complete waste of my time. Perhaps this why some of my NB colleagues don't treat you very "nicely" -- why should they bother with "niceness" and "rationality" when logic and an objective standard, the bases for civil, objective debate, are tossed out the window by the antagonist.
Oh come on!
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:41pm.
So, according to your logic and your standards for civil, objective debate, you get to have a moral opinion because you believe in absolute morals. But because I don't, I cannot have an opinion, or try to convince anyone else that my opinion is correct.
How incredibly convenient it would be for you if I followed your rules for this discussion! You would automatically win, and I would shut up. I'm sure you'll understand why I think that that is the exact opposite of "debate" of any kind.
Here's what you are getting wrong: "I am right every bit as much as you may be right."
No, you MAY be right, and I MAY be right. We are arguing to try and see who is. You do not get to be right just because you say so! I don't think your point of view is as valid as mine. It COULD be, there is nothing certain that I can look to to determine that, but I don't THINK that it is. Are you following me? I can THINK that someone is a bigot. I could also be wrong, but I don't THINK I am.
There is no AUTOMATIC, PREDEFINED moral high road, but I think my road is higher than yours. There is nothing illogical about that. Thinking that there can be different moral systems does not mean that you have to think that each option is equally valuable or worthwhile.
Mamabear, Ahhh....but that
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:02am.
Mamabear,
Ahhh....but that is just it. In order to assert that your morality is superior, you must first assert why this is?! Thus, why is your morality superior to anyone else's who disagrees with your stance? You have been unable to answer this question.
Additionally, you state a Moral Absolute when you claim, "There is no AUTOMATIC, PREDEFINED moral high road..." Honestly, do you realize that you are stating an abosolute moral statement?
Once again, as I have always seen and known. Moral "relativists" use Moral Absolute when it suits their needs!! LOL
Hey Mamaber, so...hmmm....you only think that pedophile could be wrong, but the pedophile could be correct? You debate teh issue and attempt to make each other see how the other's morality is superior, in each other's opinion?
According to what you state above, you answer would be yes.
So, you can THINK that pedophile is wrong. You could also be wrong, but you don't think you are. WOW!!! Do Moral Relativist honestly not see how dangerous Moral Relativism is? How it opens the door, as it has, to accepting all types of immorality as moral and normal?
You state, with great assurance, that pedophile is wrong. But according to your own arguments, you could be wrong! yes, you do not have to accept that the pedophiles morality is superior to yours, equal or worthwhile, but by your own admission, you just do not know. You merely have an opinion of what is moral and what is wrong. You could be Right, you think you are right, but you could be wrong.
You've tried this before
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:33pm.
Absolute statements ABOUT morality are not the same as absolute morality. By your logic, because you said that my system of beliefs allows for pedophiles to be right, you must think that pedophiles are right. Seriously, it makes no sense, you are trying to equate apples and oranges.
The reason I think my moral system, at least in this case, is better than yours, is because I think that it is more fair and more free. Expanding marriage to include homosexual relationships gives them legal protections that can prevent harm, and puts their monogamous relationships on equal footing with those of heterosexuals, thus bringing more equality to the institution. I think that gay people should be free to be public about their relationships and to have them recognized as valid by the state.
See, I have no authority to claim that my moral system is superior to yours, but I can still make the argument that it is.
Sadly for you, you can also be wrong, even though you think you KNOW you are right while I THINK I am right. Christians have been wrong before, there is nothing about belief in an absolute moral authority that makes your belief system any less vulnerable to mistakes than mine. The difference lies only in whether we acknowledge the potential for mistakes. I do, and you don't.
~My favorite author applies, again
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 4:32pm.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
"Unless a man becomes the enemy of an evil, he will not even become its slave but rather its champion."
— G.K. Chesterton
Mamabear, Absolute
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:05pm.
Mamabear,
Absolute statements about morality ARE absolute morality. You stated with absolute morality that there are not predefined moral standards. The second you say this, asseret with absolute certantity anything about morality, you are making a moral absolute. That you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this because it destroys the silliness Moral Relativism is, is something else.
And wrong! Of course I acknowledge that I can make moral mistakes. When the heck have I said I, as a Christian, can never make moral mistakes? Liar, liar pants on fire. LOL
You are once again comparing things in your mind that you can't equate! admitting moral mistakes to having moral convictions! Two completely different things. I can and have made many a moral mistake. This, however, does not mean that I lack moral conviction. and of course, it also does not mean that moral absolutes od not exist.
However, as Brunette quoted from her author, those who love to scream tolerance lack any type of moral conviction.
Having moral conviction does not even come close to believing one can't make moral mistakes. Next time you attempt to make fun of others because you believe they lack critical thinking skills, please Mamabear, make sure that your logic and critical thinking skills are well polished. Yours are obviously not.
I addressed something you seemed to think was important
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:00pm.
The only reason I made the point about mistakes is that you made such a big deal out of how terrible it is that I only THINK I'm right. You used a lot of exclamation points. But if you can make mistakes then you only THINK you are right, too. So what's the big difference between thinking your morals are based on some absolute, divine truth and thinking they aren't? Both of us could be wrong, and you are no more likely to be right than I am.
mamabear, acknowledging and
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 8:42pm.
mamabear,
acknowledging and knowing one's moral weakness and mistakes does not even come close to claiming that there aren't moral absolutes!
being human and making moral mistakes does not mean that there aren't moral absolutes. I know where my morals come from and why they are absolutes. I personally and unfortunately, have not abided by these morals my whole life.
but in no way does this mean that making moral mistakes somehow equates to there being no moral absolutes and that there is no big deal between MOral Relativism and Moral Absolutes.
no, you come on
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 5:23pm.
That said, I did take note of your response to my other post, but after I posted the above -- I probably would've backed off since you had conceded that not all intimate relationships are on an equal moral footing -- this was the premise in question.
Oh, and BTW, staying on topic
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 8:39pm.
Before we get too distracted on this philosophical tangent, I take it your rejection of the "extreme" conclusions above to be a tacit concession of my original statement -- that "all relationships are not created equal"?
Sure
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 9:50pm.
Oh I don't believe that all relationships are equal, I just found your wording strange. I think relationships that are non-consensual are different than those that are consensual, for example. Thus negating any attempt to stick me on a slippery slope and insisting I need to let pedophiles do whatever they want. You haven't tried that yet, but inevitably someone does!
That makes no sense
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 11:48am.
How could it not? Well....how could it. If LOVE really exists, they don't need anyone or anything to recognize it. A bond can be sealed even without the eyes of the community.
That sounds fine
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:02am.
So then no one needs marriage. Let's just do away with it entirely-- everyone gets a civil union to protect their legal rights and if they want a church marriage they get one that is recognized by the church.
I agree
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:13am.
But this has never been about equal protection under the law which marriage for heterosexuals/civil unions for gays provides. It's about legislating acceptance.
I disagree
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 5:46pm.
The reason people care about what you or anyone else think of gay people is that a lack of acceptance stands in the way of equal treatment. We don't tell people that they aren't allowed to be racist, but we do try to make sure that their racism has as little effect as possible on the people they are bigoted towards. We do that through laws and social norms. Nobody needs to change the way you think about gay people, although it would be nice if people were more accepting of others, but we do need to change the way they are treated, and the way other people's feelings about their lifestyle affect them.
So this is about acceptance, at least as I see it, only because that is a step on the way to equal treatment, not instead of equal treatment.
No grislybear, this is NOT about---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 8:17pm.
acceptance, as in "free will".
It is about "forced", or legislated acceptance.
Period.
You can rationalize your ass off; it will not change that fact.
MD
How do we legislate that, exactly?
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:01pm.
There are no laws about what you think. There are laws about how you act, and sometimes about what you say-- but even plenty of liberals feel iffy about the ones that affect speech.
"We" don't legislate acceptance, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:56am.
you liberals do.
Proposition 8 in California ring a bell?
Put on the ballot, voted down; resurrected, voted down again; and no sooner were the votes tallied the second time around than the homosexual activists started in with their plans to get it on the slate for another attempt down the road.
If you don't see that as "legislating" acceptance, how about calling it "legislating cramming it down our throats because we won't accept it without forced legal action".
MD
Matthewdean, Yes, but
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:17am.
Matthewdean,
Yes, but according to Mamabear, it is merely a minority of these homosexuals who are activists, who are racist, etc.
Proposition 8 was defeated and what did the homosexuals in California do? Go crazy, nuts, they attacked blacks, used racist attacks went after business and churches who dared went against them.
Of course homosexuality is being rammed down those of us who know it is wrong. Look at public schools, Giving children books such as Two Mommies, or two gay penguins or having kindergartent and up sex ed curriculums which teach homosexual sex as normal and attracting between people of the same gender as normal.
Nah, but what are you talking about Matthewdean, you crazy! Homosexuals are such poor victims, they would never shame you into silence with insults. They would never go after Disney World, baseball players, hockey players for saying that homosexuality is wrong. They would never go after the Prime Minister of Canada for claiming homosexuality is a choice. nah, no way. I mean Dan Savage, who is a homosexual with a huge following, he wouldn't be applauded and held in such high stature in the gay community after his sick, depraved attacks on the leader of another nation.
Too many homosexuals and as many if not more heterosexuals who agree with them want either to force you to accept homosexual sex acts as normal or they want to do everything in their power to shut you up.
Put simply, homosexuals, like way too many people today, do not want to hear that they are leading an immoral life if they are giving in to their homosexual desires.
Only Mamabear gets to tell others that their sexual lives are immoral. She claims that no way is there a slippery slope since she is absolutely sure that no animal can't give consent and no child can give consent. LOL She is a Moral Absolutist when it suits her purpose, but when it doesn't, she quickly becomes a Moral Relativists.
Um, wrong
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:37pm.
Proposition 8 in California ring a bell?
You are getting confused, Prop 8 was the California Marriage Protection Act, which defined marriage in California as between a man and a woman. It DID pass, and is being challenged in court.
So by your logic, Prop 8 was clearly an attempt by conservatives to legislate the way I think about homosexual marriage... right? Or is it only bad when liberals try to use laws to change behavior, but not conservatives? Damn you sneaky thought-police!
mamabear, Are you serious?!
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:14pm.
mamabear,
Are you serious?! Proposition 8 in California was needed because homosexuals in California decided to redefine marriage through City Halls!!!! LOL
Homosexuals and individuals like you attempted to redefine marriage through local ordinances, legislations, and your attempts were slapped down with Proposition 8! Nice way to turn things around in order for you to feel good about your way of thinking!
Proposition 8 was a defense measure, a reply, against radical, wacked out, hate the will of the people homosexual militants who through local ordinances and legislatures in California were redefining marriage.
and Proposition 8 passed and the homosexual community in California went nuts. They called blacks every single racist name in the books, attacked the Mormon Church. Remember that?
grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:29pm.
Liberallies reply to you is absolutely correct reference Prop. 8.
The statement "you are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts", comes to mind.
You are amazingly consistent on your support for homosexuality, illegal aliens, and abortion.
While I absolutely disagree with all you say and everything you stand for, I will at least give you that consistency as a plaudit.
MD
Exactrly
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:07pm.
But that's exactly what I am talking about-- the majority of people in San Francisco are okay with gay marriage, and in San Francisco gay people were getting married. So along come the conservatives to use those horrible laws to change their behavior thus, by your logic, trying to legislate intolerance. It was an attack on our (I lived in SF at the time) moral system, and an attempt to impose their moral code on us.
That's terrible, right? Because you think it is terrible when liberals do it, but are apparently perfectly happy with conservatives doing it. Personally, I think that's crap. I think it was an attempt to change behavior, not thought, and I think it is the same thing when liberals try to enact legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. You are free to feel however you want about gay people, but you are not allowed to refuse to give them a job. So stop feeling so terribly oppressed, no one is invading your thoughts and forcing you to change them.
Mamabear, Hmmm...you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:19pm.
Mamabear,
Hmmm...you are missing the whole point!!! Marriage laws are a State matter. They are not at the village, town, city or Federal level, right? Are they? Marriage laws are a State matter. My marriage license was given to me by the State of Illinois. While I picked it up at Chicago's City Hall, it the State of Illinois that issued it.
San Francisco and its immorals came along and attempted to redefine marriage for everyone in the WHOLE State of California, not merely in San Francisco!
Proposition 8 was a reaction, a defense, a reply to San Fracisco going against the will of the people in California. Through local ordinances, radical, wacked out individuals attempted to force down the throat of all San Franciscans and all Californians their particular definition of marriage.
A moral code has existed in the USA, in States regarding marriages for over 200 years. It wasn't impose on anyone, you along with pro-gay marriage homosexuals have chosen to live in States that define marriage as between one man and one woman. If you do not like it, instead of attempting to impose your moral code through local ordinances on everyone else, you can easily move to a nation that has the definition of marriage that best suits your moral code!
YOU and the pro-gay marriage people did everything within their power to impose your redefinition of marriage on others. These individuals went nuts, crazy when through Proposition 8 the standing definition of marriage was backed by the vast majority of the Californians.
Honestly, Mamabear, how you attempt to turn things around in order to feel good about your radicalism. Pro-gay marriage people attempted to redefine marriage in San Francisco and other parts in California. The people respond to YOUR ATTACK on marriage and you claim that it is us imposing our values on you. LOL. WOW!!! honestly!
You and the pro-gay marriage people are like the bully who starts a fight with someone who decides to defend themselves from the bullying and then the bully blames the person that defended himself.
Because we defended ourselves through Proposition 8 from your bullying, your redefiniton of marriage, from your attempt to shove down our throats your redefinition of marriage we are attempting to impose our moral codes on you? Isn't amazing Mamabear, Libearls even when they attack and bully somehow still feel like the poor victims.
That's not the point
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 4:19pm.
Fortunately for the civil rights movement, the moral code that came first does not always win! San Francisco was taking a stand for something they believed in, but they weren't forcing any other towns or counties to do the same. You are right, marriage is a state matter. While I disagreed with and voted against Prop 8, I believe that the people of the state of California have the right to make laws about marriage.
My point was that doing so does not equate (by which I really mean equate) to using laws to change the way people think. It isn't the same thing when conservatives do it, and it isn't the same thing when liberals do it. If the people of the state had voted to define marriage as between two people of the same sex, you'd be blowing a gasket about how they were legislating acceptance and forcing you to think like them. But you don't see conservative legislative action the same way. It is hypocrisy.
Mamabear, 1) Please stop
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 1:09am.
Mamabear,
1) Please stop insulting me, my family, my friends, all of us minorities by comparing the Civil Rights movement to the homosexual "struggle". These fights aren't even close to being the same! thank you!
2) But that is just it. it was a minority who had decided that blacks and whites were not the same. It was a minority which imposed this on blacks in the South and other areas in the USA. these became loud and powerful minorities! However, at the end, the majority spoke, the Civil Right laws were passed and slowly, but surely, the Right MOral Code which has existed since the beginning of everything won out. All Men, Women regardless or race, color of skin, national orgin are created equal with the same rights. As a minority, I can attest that the Civil Rights movement worked. Sadly, there are too many on the Left, Liberals who wish to keep open the wounds of back then and refuse to let these wounds close. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, pretty much most politicians on the Left as well as the political pundits need these wounds to stay open so they stay in power and make millions out of Americans being divided along racial lines.
3) I would have not blown anything if Californians passed a law for gay marriage. I would have sadden, very sadden that this nation is allowing immorality, just like it did before the Civil Rights movement, to become our laws. I would have been sadden that a minority, but loud and experts at bullying and emotionalism were able to manipulate so many just like the racist in America had done for so many decades.
don't attempt to tell me how I would have reacted to anything since you clearly do not know me. Thank you.
4) You still do not get it and I know you won't. Proposition 8 was a reaction, a defense, a reply to an action by the pro-gay marriage people. Proposition 8 would have never come up to vote, it would have never been placed in the ballot if it had not been for the pro-gay people shoving their agenda down the throats of Americans and redefining marriage. Get it yet?
No one is forcing any gay to live in the USA. No one. All gays can easily go to Canada and get "married". there are countless of countries in Europe who are going back into the Dark Ages and allowing all types of immoralities, including gay marriage. No one is forcing any gay person who wants to marry to stay within the borders of the USA. You have the choice to leave or live in the USA. If you choose to stay and live in the USA there are laws, rules and morals you have to abide by, if you do not like them, no one is forcing you to stay. Thus, no one is forcing anything on anyone, as you claim! Gays choose to live in the USA and this choice has consequences, but like everything else in the USA people do not want to face the consequences of their actions instead they want to force people to accept their deeds as moral.
Using your logic Mamabear, is murdered not legislated against? Why Mamabear, do we have laws against murder? Men, talking about forcing laws on people, right? Poor murderers, a minority that is legislated against. of course, murder is wrong and we all know murder is wrong, even if you aren't religious based on thousands of years of common law, of roman law. But shoot, those poor murderers, we must treat them with equality, right? Of course, you can replace murder with any and all laws that legislate against any and all crimes and indicent behavior.
History much?
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:21pm.
2) "However, at the end, the majority spoke, the Civil Right laws were passed and slowly, but surely, the Right MOral Code which has existed since the beginning of everything won out. All Men, Women regardless or race, color of skin, national orgin are created equal with the same rights."
That moral code has existed since the "beginning of everything?" That is a modern moral code you are espousing. I like it, but I don't think it has existed since the beginning of everything. Did God promote it in the Bible? Has the Christian church followed it? Other religions still don't follow it today, and we have only just barely reached the point where we can claim we follow it in the US.
3) The "blowing a gasket" comment was directed at matthew, with whom I began this exchange. I wasn't presuming to tell YOU how you'd react to anything.
4) "Proposition 8 would have never come up to vote, it would have never been placed in the ballot if it had not been for the pro-gay people shoving their agenda down the throats of Americans and redefining marriage. Get it yet?"
You are still doing it-- liberals shove things down people's throats, conservatives just restore sanity. It's bias, plain and simple. Who did it first doesn't matter, otherwise you'd have to make the same complaint about the struggle for racial equality.
5) Ah, love it or leave it, the ultimate cop out. We all love this country, and are trying to make it great in the way we think it should be great. Yes, gay people could leave the US. So could conservatives who don't like Obama, or our budget crisis, or social programs. Anyone who has a part of this country they wish was different could leave, but saying that like it's a solution is just lame.
Murder hurts people. It kills them, in fact! There should be laws against it. But a gay couple getting married doesn't hurt anyone else. There's no reason to legislate against it.
Shut up.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:26pm.
We are sick of going to look at our tracking and finding a comment on a blog entry only to find it is some long dead blog entry where YOU WON'T SHUT THE HELL UP.
First it was tolerance
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:11am.
We've given them that. Civil unions ring a bell?
Now they want acceptance? Not gonna happen with me. I don't accept a lot of things, but I tolerate an awful lot.
Of course, I believe marriage to be a religious institution, and even heterosexuals not married in church aren't "married". If the state is collecting fees, and giving power of proxy and visitation, etc..., then it is the same.
And don't give me the separate but equal bullshit either. Water fountains and restrooms are not religious ceremonies.
You are right
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:41pm.
Religious ceremonies should stay religious, and they should marry whomever they want. Ideally, I think no one should get a marriage license from the state. Everyone should get civil unions, and leave marriage to religious institutions so that people can choose what it means to them.
Mamabear, That is a
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 7:38pm.
Mamabear,
That is a falsehood which you have stated above. Just because two individuals get marry, does not mean that they will not be promiscuous, not get STDs, etc. Sadly, given the state of the moral fiber of our nation, of the world, which is in decadence, too many married men and women cheat bringing all type of emotional and physical issues to their marriage. 50%+ of marriages end up in divorce. Why? because the meaning of marriage has been distorted! the meaning of love, has been distorted.
Do you believe that homosexuals will not have sex with other homosexuals because they have "married"? please!!!
The best way to avoid STDs, the best way to keep heterosexuals and homosexuals safe is by re-introducing the true meaning of marriage, of love, of sex!!!
Once you accept homosexual sex acts, how can YOU define what is a moral sexual act? monogamy? You claim that those of us who know homosexual sex acts are immoral cannot define what is a moral sex act. Why then do you, why do the pro-homosexuals get to define it?
We have distorted the meaning and purpose of marriage, sex and Love. And it is taking the Western world down the path of decadence. All great socieites who have widely accept homosexual sex acts as normal have entered the end of their civilization. Study history, it proves as much!
You are getting what you want
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:13pm.
When you tell a group of people that monogamy, as recognized by the law, and religion, and society, in the form of a marriage contract, has no place for them-- some of them are going to believe it. You are actively trying to keep them out of the only socially mediated recognition of monogamy, and then blaming it on them when they run in the direction you pushed them. It's sick.
mambear, I tell pedophiles,
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:18pm.
mambear,
I tell pedophiles, a group of people, that monogamy, as recognized by the law, and religion, and society, in the form of a marriage contract, has no place for them when they engage in a relationship that involves anyone16 and under. I hope that you agree with me on this. Does this make us bigots?! I hope they not only believe it, but realize how abnormal it is!
I am actively forcing homosexuals not to have sex? LOL are you serious? I believe in Free Will and if a homosexual want ot have sex with another homosexual, they will have to answer to God. I am FAR form attempting to force anyone to do anything.
Why are you attempting to define this argument in terms that make you feel comfortable bullying those who disagree with you?
You are doing everything within your power to shame people to agree with you by claiming that homosexuality is a human rights issue, that those who disagree are bigots and sick. Why?
None of your insults will change my mind, Mamabear. Not one. Homosexuality is not a human rights issue, those who do not agree with you are not bigots and neither are sick. You can repeat this insults over and over again, they will not change the mind of one person. Your bullying will maybe silence some, which is ultimately the goal of the militant pro-homosexuals, to silence opinions that do not agree with them, but I can assure you, you will not change one mind. Why do you wish to silence with insults and bullying tactics those whom you do not agree with?
Answer this question. why do YOU get to define marriage? Why must we accept your definition of marriage? What superior authority do you hold over us that we must accept your opinion of marriage?
Define Love, define marriage and define how these are important to a community, family, children, to the world.
I'm insulting you because I'm mad!
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:27pm.
I don't get to define marriage, clearly, you do. I just think that your definition is discriminatory. If I defined marriage as something only tall people could have, would you consider that discriminatory? If I defined marriage as something that can't happen between a white woman and a black man, as many did in this country until recently, would you consider that bigoted? So what is different about your definition that keeps it from being discrimination?
Mamabear, You are insulting
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:34pm.
Mamabear,
You are insulting me because you are mad? LOL
And nice attempt of answering questions with questions.
Answer the questions I asked first. Why do YOU, why does the militant pro-homosexuals get to define marriage? You swear that you are morally correct on this. What authority do you have over anyone who disagrees with you which gives you the Right to define marriage as you see fit?
I promise I will answer you questions above once you answer mine.
And believe, insulting me is not going to change my mind. According to everything you have said here, you are are as much of a bigot, using your logic, as you claim I am. So, take a step back and think. Less emotion, more thinking.
Why do you get to define marriage? You clearly do and want everyone to agree with you. If they don't, we are bigots, violating human rights, sick. So, obviously you have some type of superior authority that backs up you morality. Why do you get to define marriage?
I did answer
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:39pm.
I answered your question, in the very first sentence of my post. I don't get to define marriage, you do because you are in the majority. We live in a democracy, and I am in the minority-- for now, anyway! The way this works is that we both argue for our interpretation of marriage, and the side with the most voices wins. Sometimes the side with the loudest voices wins, but mostly the system works.
This is a social question, not just one about laws and votes, but those are decided pretty much the same way, just more fluidly. The tide is changing, Gallup just reported a majority in favor of gay marriage for the first time since they started tracking it. But until the pendulum tips, you and people who agree with you define marriage for this country.
Mamabear, Please tell me you
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:58pm.
Mamabear,
Please tell me you are not serious with your post above! So, if the majority agrees on something, then it is the "moral" thing to do?
so, if the majority in America believed that all Jews should be killed you would claim this action to be moral because the democratic process says it is ok? According to what you said above, yes!!
Honestly, Mamabear, do you think beyond the Liberal echo chamber that you so clearly live in?!
and since you claim to have answered my question, which you haven't, I will answer yours.
I don't get to define marriage. I never have or will. God gets to define marriage. It doesn't matter how many agree or disagree with me. I can be the only person in the USA that believes gay "marriage" is wrong, it doesn't mean that the majority is morally correct!
Being tall, black, small, Latino, and anything else that we are born as physically is something we cannot control. I was born a Latino, I cannot control this. However, I can control who I have sex with, who I sleep with. I can even control my emotions. If I fall in love with an office co-worker who I fine incredibly attractive, cute, amazing, I can control not doing anything with her because I am married. Using everything you have said so far in defense of pro-homosexuality and gay marriage, society is denying my Right to be happy and in love with one woman. Think about that. IN fact, if I divorce, I would destroy the life of two young children and a my wife. For what? because I fell in love with another woman. This would be selfish, thus I would control my emotions, my attraction to another woman.
Why do you want to deny homosexuals the human dignity that they deserve? Why do you claim that homosexuals can't control their sexual urges, their feelings, their emotions? Why do you treat homosexuals as mere animals who have no self-control over their emotions, their feelings, their sexual urges?
Another problem with your argument is that according to you people deserve to be married. Sorry, wrong! No man or woman, homosexual or heterosexual deserves, has the Right to get married. This is another falsehood which homosexuals use in their arguments. Even in the law, I have no right to get married. I had to ask permission from the State of Illinois in order to get a civil union. I had to ask permission from the Roman Catholic Church and both of them could have denied me! NO human being in the USA has a Right to get married regardless of their sexual urges!
and obviously, you do feel you get to define marriage. Your definition may not be accepted, as you claim, but you feel that your definition of marriage, while in the minority, is the correct one, the moral one. So, I ask again, what superior moral authority do you have which gives you the Right to believe that your definition of marriage is the moral one, the correct one?
Keep up
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:10am.
You didn't ask me if it was MORAL for the majority to define marriage, you asked me who gets to do it. Clearly, you do, and just as clearly, I don't think your definition is the right one. I think it is discriminatory, and therefore IMMORAL. I'd think the same thing if the majority of Americans were somehow transformed into Nazis. If you want to ask me a question, ask it. Don't ask me one question and then get upset because I didn't answer a different one.
God does not define marriage in this country. God defines marriage in your religion, and that's fine. Your church is free to deny marriage to whomever it wants. But the state serves the interests of people with a variety of religious beliefs, and not all of them agree with you. So I on't think that it is right for the state to accept your interpretation of God's feelings on gay marriage. Because you are in the majority, it does. I think it is wrong.
"Why do you want to deny homosexuals the human dignity that they deserve? Why do you claim that homosexuals can't control their sexual urges, their feelings, their emotions? Why do you treat homosexuals as mere animals who have no self-control over their emotions, their feelings, their sexual urges?"
Sorry, I thought you didn't like people putting words in other's mouths. I have repeatedly, clearly said that they CAN, but should not have to exert any MORE control over their urges than straight people do. Strawman.
"So, I ask again, what superior moral authority do you have which gives you the Right to believe that your definition of marriage is the moral one, the correct one?"
All men are created equal, that's the moral principle from which I derive my certitude that people should be treated fairly under the law. It is no less valid than the moral certitude you derive from religious teachings.
Mamabear, You still have not
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 11:34am.
Mamabear,
You still have not answered the question! WOW!!! and you are a teacher? Answer the question.
What moral superiority do you hold that is above my morality? Why is your moral correct and mine not? Stating where you morality comes or that you are certain that your morality is the correct one does not answer the question I have asked you!
You clearly feel and believe that your definition of what you have decided to call marriage is superior, better than mine. You have gone as far as calling my morality immoral. By calling my morality immoral you clearly feel that your morality is superior to mine. You can be certain that your morality is correct and state, as you have done so, why you are certain, but under what authority do you claim it to be superior than mine? You are answering things I NEVER asked!
And it is NOT a strawman. Many people have to control their sexual urges, even when they are married to one man or one woman. My wife had a miscarriage, I had to wait two months before her and i could do anything sexually. I controlled my feelings, my urges, so did she.
I know heterosexual with AIDS, who received it through transfusions or other means that were not sexual. They control their feelings and emotions so they do not hurt anyone else.
Why shouldn't homosexuals have to control their urges, emotions, feelings, sexual urges just like countless of heterosexuals also have to? Homosexuals shouldn't control their feelings, emotions and urges? Once again, why do you treat homosexuals as lesser beings? I hold the same standard for all human beings.
and under the law, I cannot have a civil union without the permission of the State of Illinois just like any and all homosexuals. Under the law, homosexuals have the same Right as I do, ask permission from the State to have a civil union. Are you saying that homosexuals can't go inside City Hall in Chicago and ask a judge to marry them? Of course they can!
and geez, using your equal under the law poor pedophiles, such discrimination, how dare anyone deny them access to a civil union to a 14 year old.
and geez poor polygamists, using your equal under the law, polygamists are discriminated against since they can't have civil unions to more than one person, the State doesn't care if one individual has fallen in love with three women, they can't marry three women. How dare the law discriminate against polygamist.
How dare we ask pedophiles and polygamists to control their emotions, feelings, urges. Such discrimination against these two groups, right Mamabear? Using your logic, of course.
Once again, Mamabear, what superior authority does your morality hold that you have called mine immoral?! Can you finally answer the quesiton?
I'll try again
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:15am.
I am telling you that I think my opinions on morality are right, and yours are wrong. Therefore, by definition, I think your ideas are immoral. But you think the same thing about me. I am not claiming that I have any moral authority that should make my opinion count any more than yours, I just think that I'm right, the same as you think you are right. You can keep asking me why I think I have authority, and I'm not answering because I don't think I have moral authority! I have an opinion, and if I didn't think that opinion was right, I'd have a different opinion!
I think you are just not reading what I write at this point. I didn't say that homosexuals shouldn't have to control themselves, I said that they shouldn't by their very nature have to control themselves to such a greater extent than heterosexuals do.
By your morality, as I understand it, heterosexuals are allowed to get married to someone they love, and then express their sexuality in most cases with the person they are married to. Sure, there are times when they need to refrain, but there is an outlet for them to enjoy intimacy with someone. Homosexuals, however, cannot get married to someone they love, and therefore can never enjoy express their sexuality with that person, ever in your book. That is fundamentally different treatment of two classes of people, and therefore it is discriminatory. I think that that moral system is a bigoted one. This is not a case where you require both heterosexuals and homosexuals to control themselves to the same degree. You require homosexuals to never express their sexual desires, while heterosexuals get to in some instances. That's, quite simply, not fair.
Now, I know life isn't fair, but I believe that where we have control, we should be trying to make it as fair as possible. So I disagree with you-- I think we can decide as a society to give homosexuals the same outlet for their desire-- monogamous sex with someone they are married to-- and so we should.
Mamabear, 1) I have no
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:12pm.
Mamabear,
1) I have no problem debating with you. In fact, I enjoy it. If I did not, I would reply. Thus, I ask you stop with your insults which do nothing to advance your position. So far you have called me a bigot, immoral, sick and now a xenophoe. Geez Mamamber, seriously? Are these words the best way to chance someone's mind?
Lotr hasn't called me one name yet and I do not expect to ever do so. You on the other hand have pretty much used every single stereotypical insult against me. If we are two people that merely disagree, why insult me? LOL
2) You have refused to address the fact that sexual morality, marraige morality is "biggoted" as you have chosen to label it to a lot more than merely homosexuals. It is also "biggoted" to heterosexuals who fall in love with under age kids, is it not? It is also "biggoted" to heterosexuals who fall in love with more than one man or one woman and they want to marry all of them, you know, discriminatory against polygamists and pedophiles.
According to everything you have stated so far, it is not fair that our laws that our morals discriminate against minority groups, against anyone. Well, our laws and our morals do discriminate against heterosexuals not only homosexuals. So, please get off the "discrimination against homosexuals" this is simply not true!
There are heterosexuals who are required to never express their sexual desire.
3) With what Right do you call my morality immoral, wrong if you admit to hold no moral superiority? In order for my morality to be wrong it means that your morality is superior to mine. With what authority do you back this up? You may think that you are right and I am wrong, and that is great on you, but you hold not Right to impose your morality on anyone else, but on you. Unless of course, you finally answer the question I have asked, what moral superiority do you hold that you claim that you are right and I am wrong?
If you hold no moral superiority, with what Right do you attempt to impose on anyone your beliefs, your creed? It is great that you hold an opion, but if you hold no moral superiority, why should your opinion matter at all? Of cousre, the problem with moral relativism!
and here is a a good one for all moral relativism. If morality is relative, dependent on the individiual, as a moral relativist you must acknowledge that other individuals have different morals, which you may not agree with, but they exist. Thus, you must acknowledge that my morality exist. You may disagree with it, but my morality exists. Thus, you must then agree that there are moral absolutes as a moral relativist. Why? because that is my morality and that of many others. And of course, if there are moral absolutes, which you must accept as a moral relativist that these exist since I and many others as individuals hold moral absolutes to be our morality, then moral relativism is flawed. Moral relativism negates itself. Simple logic.
4) You did say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry in place of worship. I urge you to read the posts that you have written. You can find it in at least one.
5) I am very glad to hear that you disagree with the professor being fired. But what you may not understand or refuse to believe and or acknowledge is that there is a militant homosexual movement that is not merely looking for civil unions, rather, they are looking to force people into accepting homosexuality sex acts as morals, regardless of the individuals beliefs. If the person does not agree, then they are silenced through insults, shame, etc. I place you with the latter group since so far all you have done is insult me with ridiculous and quite childish terms. Getting angry is not an excuse to insult anyone.
6) You can't compare the skin color, height or any physical attribute to homosexuality as you attempted to do and you are attempting to do by claiming that the homosexual "struggle" is equal to racism. I can't control the color of my skin, my height, etc. but once again, I can control my sexual urges, my emotional desires, my feelings.
7) but once again, I ask you. What is the purpose of marriage, of love, of a family in a community? You have not addressed these. You seem to believe that marriage and love are merely for two individuals to live together to express their feelings for each other and completely forget that marriage, love and family have a very important purpose in a community, in a nation. Starting with the fact that the purpose of the sex act in matrimony is two fold and it goes together and these can't be seperated. To exprese our love for our spouse and together we open up ourselves that this ultimate love is expressed with the creation of a new life. Children are the ultimate expression of the union between one man and one woman in marriage. Yes, that it has been distorted by hetereosexuals as well as homosexuals does not give anyone an excuse to act immoral when it comes to the sex act, heterosexual or homosexual.
8) and yes, there exist Natural Law, it is well and alive and I can guarantee you that you follow it. If you deny Natural Law then that is when you destroy societies. Natural Law clearly states, for example, that murder is wrong. This is an action that has been wrong through out the ages in every society. Natural Law does exist.
Boo hoo
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:15pm.
I won't use the word bigoted any more, but the only difference in the way we are treating each other is that instead of using charged language, you insult me through charged questions. Why do you treat homosexuals like animals, mamabear? And you're a teacher? Do you put any thought behind your silly rhetoric? Why are you such a bully? --The only difference between us is that I'm less passive-aggressive when I insult someone!
2) Homosexual marriage would be a consensual relationship among equals. That is not true of pedophilia or polygamy. Therefore, logic does not insist that I extend the same rights to people interested in those other type of relationships. We don't allow people to force other people into relationships. Protection against discrimination does not have to protect people committing crimes or hurting children.
3) By your "logic," if I acknowledged that you believed in ghosts, and that belief existed and was real, then I would suddenly be forced by "logic" to believe in ghosts! You aren't making any sense at all!
4) Innocent until proven guilty. You claim I said something, find it. I know you can't.
Mamabear, Hmmm......polygamy
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:28am.
Mamabear,
Hmmm......polygamy wouldn't be consensual marriage amongst equals? Hmmmm.....there is plenty of polygamist living together consesualy!
Pedophile, I would give it to you, but sadly, there are 15 year olds with 21+ year olds and it is consensual, so once again, you are wrong!
Mamabear and you are crying about people not being logical and lacking critical thinking? LOL If you had any of these two, you wouldn't be so pro-homosexual gay marriage!
No Mamabear, I am talking about morality, relativity and absolute. NOT about ghosts. You cry about not comparing and equalizing things and you just equalized believing in ghosts to morality. Please tell me you aren't teaching your kids critical thinking, you can't teach what you do not know or practice! and don't get offended about this since you just pretty much told quite a few people here that they are illogical individuals who do not have teh ability to do critical thinking, Ms. Illogical. Stop comparing things that can't be compared!
Let's try logic, again. You have proven, so far, that it is not your forte. Please before you attempt to belittle people, try to study some logic and critical thinking yourself.
Moral relativists claim that morality is dependent on the individual, correct? Yes you do! Moral Relativist claim that all types of morals exist, each moral law dependent on individuals. We don't have to agree with all of them, in fact we do not have to agree with any, except your own, as a Moral Relativist. But you acknowledge, or Moral Relativism acknowledges, that other people have different moral laws. Thus, you must accept that my morality exists and while you do not agree with it, it exists. This is VERY DIFFERENT than acknowledging that I believe something exists, as your illogical example of ghosts! In this case the logic of moral relativism acknowledges that other moral rules exist, not merely acknowledging that someone else believes that they exist. Or are you taking back, as a Moral Relativists, now, morals do not depend on the individuals? As a Moral Relativists uou must acknowledge that my morality exists, not merely that I believe that my morality exist. However, the second you do this, you admit that there are Moral Absolutes and you negate your own morality. It is the conundrum of the Moral Relativists. The only way to claim that morality is not absolute is to negate a premise of Moral Relativism, that all morals believed by individuals exist, that morality is dependent on individuals.
lol
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:48pm.
"You cry about not comparing and equalizing things and you just equalized believing in ghosts to morality."
Seriously, read my post at the bottom of the page again. Drawing an analogy between two things is NOT EQUATING them.
Polygamous relationship are inherently unequal. I suppose they wouldn't have to be, but in every way that they are currently practiced they are. And whether a 15 year old and a 21 year old are allowed to have a relationship depends on the state-- we set those numbers based on when we think people are adult enough to make decisions like that. If you think your state's age of consent is too low, you should lobby to have it changed.
I have to acknowledge that you have a moral code, but I do not have to accept your belief that it is somehow superior to mine simply by its very nature because it is divinely inspired or an inevitable consequence of existence. I think your moral code is the same as mine in terms of where it is derived-- human thought and ideas. You just believe that it is something more, but I don't think it is. So while I get that you have a moral code, and you think it comes from God or the universe, I think it just comes from history and tradition and family and experience, same as mine. Therefore, I can acknowledge that you have a moral code without accepting your explanation for where it comes from.
Mamabear, There you go,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:26pm.
Mamabear,
There you go, doing it again, distracting from the facts. I have not said my morality is superior to you. You are the one who threw that argument. LOL not I. I have asked you a few questions that you are just not capable of asking.
1) Why do you believe that your morality is superior to mine? Where does your authority come from that makes you believe this?
2) You say, "I have to acknowledge you have a moral code..." You in fact have to do a lot more than to merely acknowledge that I have a moral code. As a moral relativist you must also acknowledge what this moral code is and that it exists. As a Moral Relativists, the whole premise of it, is that morality depends on the individual and that the moral code exists at least within one particular individual. My individual moral code is an absolute moral code, as a Moral Relativists, you have zero choice, but to admit that my moral code exists, not merely that i have a moral code. You are literally circling around the obvious logic that destroys Moral Relativism, but you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the logic that proves you wrong. LOL At least Hydro was honest enough to admit that as a Moral Relativist he has to accept, acknowledge and admit that there are other moral codes in existance besides his own. He was honest enough to admit that as a Moral Relativist this has to include acknowledging the existance of a moral code which includes the belief that killing Jews is morally correct. Of course what he did not realize when he said this is that he also has to acknowledge that my morality exists, absolute morality and if he or any other Moral Relativist acknowledges that my morality exists, then they acknowledge that moral absolutes exist. Once again, the conundrum of the Moral Relativists. It negates itself.
3) I am not talking about where my moral code comes. I am talking whether moral codes are relative or absolute? Moral Relativism, the whole premise of it negates itself. The second you acknowledge that as an individual my moral code exists, it negates Moral Relativism.
I am not talking about where this Moral Absolute code comes from.
4) Do you honestely believe that you are a logical person? You are emotional, you give emotional based arguments. Nothing of what you have said so far is grounded on any type of logic or critical thinking.
5) Do you believe that it is absolutely morally wrong for a pedophile to ever have sex with a child?
You also claimed that animals cannot give consent. You claimed this with absolute certainty. Thus, you do have moral codes which are absolute! You just refuse to acknowledge it! LOL Unless of course, you believe that while you may be right, you could be wrong and that it is all about debating the pedophile and the zoophile to see who is right or wrong?
My head is bleeding
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:13pm.
You are back to the ghosts. The fact that you think your moral code is absolute does not mean that I have to think your moral code is absolute. Some people in this world think that there is no such thing as morality, that it is absolute in its non-existence. By your logic, the instant those people think that, you and I both have to admit that morality is a lie. Because they think that, and we know they think that, therefore it is true. The reasoning you use to try and make my morality blink out of existence is patently ridiculous.
There is truth, and fact, and evidence. That is what I base my conclusions about children and animals on. The fact that I don't think morality is dictated by those same facts does not mean that I can't believe in facts.
mamabear, Wow! you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:49pm.
mamabear,
Wow! you are proving more and more that logical and honest you are not. I have asked questions of you which you refuse to answer! and well logical, what one has to do is read your "logic" to realize how illogical you are.
No. Do not include me in your example since I know there are moral absolutes. Thus, I have to admit to nothing from anyone when it comes to morality since I am not a Moral Relativist!
You, as a Moral Relativist, would have to admit to the existance of the morality of those who believe that morality does not exist and that it is absolute in its non-existance. yes, as you stated, YOU, not I, would find yourself in a moral dilema since you are a Moral Relativists who claims that many moralities exist which are dependent on the individual. Yes, you would have to admit that morality is a lie. I, on the other hand, know there are moral absolutes. I know that their way of thinking about morality is wrong and I do not have to accept that their morality or yours exist.
get it yet? c'mon, use some of the brain power God put between those ears! And please tell me you do not teach your students logic or critical thinking!
As Hydro said, a Moral Relativist has to admit that there are other moral codes, including the moral code that it is ok to kill Jews. This is what a Moral Relativist has to admit and the whole premise of Moral Relativism is based on, there are many moral codes which are dependent on the individual. Thus, as a Moral Relativist, not a Moral absolute, you must admit that my morality exists, if you deny that my morality exists, then you are not a Moral Relativist. However, if my morality exists, which is a moral absolute, your Moral Relativism is doomed!
Yes, I don't doubt that your head is bleeding, it is not easy to introduce logic to such an illogical, but super emotional individual like you. The bleeding will stop the second that you are honest and admit that logical you are not and there is no way to escape the fact that Moral Relativism negates itself.
And you never answered, conviniently.
1) do you believe that it is absolutely morally wrong for an adult to ever have a sex with a child?
2) do you believe that it is absolutely morally wrong for a human being to ever have sex with an animal?
answer the questions!
and facts and truth? by your own admission these are your facts and truths and they only exist in you! Are you saying now that your facts and truths transcend you and time?
With teachers like you in our colleges, no wonder our education is in such grave danger! no wonder critical thinking is a lost art in the USA!
My logic is sound.
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 4:29pm.
You asked me earlier to stop insulting you, and I have. I'm going to ask you to do the same.
I did answer your question. I think it is always wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. I think I expanded on that thought, so I'm not going to repeat myself. While I understand how you get out of the no morals dilemma, I still think your logic is faulty, for all the reasons I've explained ad nauseum. The fact that you think your morals are absolute does not magically make all people who know about you have to have absolute morals!
Mamabear, No, your logic is
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 1:20am.
Mamabear,
No, your logic is not sound and you demonstrate with your reply that you do not understand, get or grasp what I am telling you.
the whole premise of Moral Relativism is that other morals exist beside our own, correct? Yes.
Moral Relativism acknowledges the existance, as you have done so, of other moral codes, laws. Yours is just one moral code amongst millions that may exist. This is what a Moral Relativist believes.
you merely do not acknowledge that I have a moral code. You, as a Moral Relativst, go beyond that. You acknowledge that my moral code exist since moral codes are dependent on the individual. For example, you have created your own moral code. A moral relativist may disagree with your moral code, but he/she has to acknowledge that your moral code exists in you. Correct? As such, you as a Moral Relativist must acknowledge that my moral code exist, at minimum within me. The problem is the second you acknowledge my moral code exists, as you must as a Moral Relativist, you are acknowledeging that there are moral absolutes since that is part of my moral code. Thus, when you acknowledge that my moral code exists, you negate Moral Relativism.
It is not merely about knowing me, thus you must accept moral absolutes. I NEVER said this! You misunderstood completely! I am unsure where you get this from. It is about you, as a Moral Relativist, acknowledeging that other moral codes exists which are dependent on the individual. I, as an individual, have a moral code. You as a Moral Relativist must acknowledge that my moral code exists, if you do not do this, you go against the premises of Moral Relativism. However, if you acknowledge that I as an individual have a moral code that exists, you are acknowledging that moral absolutes exist since this is part of my moral code! Thus, the second you acknowledge that my moral code exists, which you must do so as a Moral Relativists, you negate Moral Relativism.
Honestly, it is a very logical premise which I am presenting.
If you were right I couldn't think what I think
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:26pm.
but I do! No paradox has caused the world to implode. I know that you have a moral code that you think is absolute. I acknowledge that it exists. I just think you are deluded as to its absoluteness. You code is just one of the many I think humans can have. Just because you don't think there are many, doesn't mean I can't.
You have a great many
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:31pm.
You have a great many opinions about what is moral and what is immoral for a moral relativist, which you CLEARLY are.
"All men are created equal, that's the moral principle from which I derive my certitude that people should be treated fairly under the law"
You aren't even literate. You have postulated that all men are created equal, then conclude that means they should be treated "fairly" under the law. The only logical conclusion you could reach from your postulate regarding the law is this : All men should be treated EQUALLY under the law. Liberal notions of 'fairness' do not come into play here.
It is entirely likely that equal treatment before the law will be treated as unfair by you. Indeed this is the case. All persons, regardless of sexual preferences, are eligible to participate in marriage provided they are legally consenting adults not already married and the other party is a member of the opposite sex. The law makes no distinctions. YOU in your hubris and arrogance deem that this is UNFAIR, and declare that persons should be permitted to "marry" members of the same sex. You assert that the legal definition of marriage should be altered to include 'unions' of the same sex. This makes you a moral relativist.
Reductio ad absurdum : The same defective logic could be applied to persons who wish to engage in deviant sexual practices with their pets. Such persons are treated UNFAIRLY by the law which denies them the legally sanctioned society and companionship of their favorite sheep. Therefore, marriage laws should be re-written to include unions with animals.
Yawn, slippery slope
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:45pm.
I derive my notions of fairness from the idea that everyone deserves an equal chance at happiness, and I paraphrased that in a convenient way. I recognize the difference between equality and fairness. But I don't think that letting someone marry a person they would never want to marry is "equal" to letting them marry someone they might want to marry.
The slippery slope is a joke. Pets cannot consent to relationships, neither can children. It is stupid to try and equate consensual relationships with non-consensual relationships and then insist that I can't allow one without allowing the other.
You derive your notions from Marx.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:53am.
"I derive my notions of fairness from the idea that everyone deserves an equal chance at happiness"
This is Karl Marx speaking through your mouth. It ignores the distinction between equal results and equal opportunity.
Our Founders expressed the following "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" This is Jefferson speaking. Jefferson doesn't say here that everyone has an equal chance at happiness. He says everyone has a right to pursue happiness. Attainment thereof is not a right. This is a distinction between Jefferson and your notion of fairness.
"But I don't think that letting someone marry a person they would never want to marry is "equal" to letting them marry someone they might want to marry"
The moral relativist speaks again. According to this twisted piece of reasoning, if a man wishes to marry a woman that is already married to someone else, this should be permissible, that is, grounds for divorce.
How do you know animals cannot give consent? Just because a LAW says they can't? A law says two men can't marry, but that does not stop you from declaring that law unjust and immoral. This is some of the twisted thinking that passes for philosophy from those who seek to excuse bestiality. And there is more here : "Zoophiles argue that animals can give consent in their own manner"
If the legal definition of marriage can be altered to differ from God's definition, then it can assume any form that governance will permit, even the recognition of bestiality. A slippery slope you say? You should know. You're smack dab at the bottom of it.
Read more carefully
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:54pm.
I'm not ignoring the difference between results and opportunity. I said equal CHANCE on purpose. I didn't say everyone deserves equal happiness, I said everyone deserves an equal CHANCE at happiness. You think the founding fathers would have disagreed?
People who think animals can give consent are idiots. I don't need a law to tell me they can't, they would fail any test of cognitive capacity one could administer to try and prove they are able to consent to something. Whether or not animals are self-aware is something that science is still debating, but no one knowledgeable on the subject thinks they are capable of exercising judgement, forethought and planning, moral thought, or decision-making the way a competent person can. Animals can do amazing things, but consent to sex with a person is not one of them!
There are clear lines that we draw to determine if someone is mentally competent. There is no logical reason why letting gay people marry means you have to erase all of those lines and let anyone do whatever they want.
"I said equal CHANCE on purpose"
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 4:11pm.
Equal chance is the same as to say equal results, given many repetitions. Its called the Central Limit Theorem and its usually studied in statistics. Apparently that's not taught in biology.
The founders explicitly disagree with you, Karl Marx, Engels, Hegel, Nietzsche and all other statist morons. They clearly saw that a government with the power to assign probabilities of success was tyranny.
We return to the original point : All persons, regardless of their personal sexual perversions, are eligible to participate in the institution of marriage. This is what it means to be EQUAL under the law. ALL persons. Some persons, as a product of their sexual perversions, do not wish to participate in the institution marriage. That is also permissible in the civil society envisioned by our founders. No one is compelled to participate in this institution. It is entirely voluntary. You divorce yourself from our founders by arguing that it is unfair that marriage is defined to be a sexual contract between a man and a woman, one of each and therefore its definition should be altered to include other kinds of pairings.
This is what Thomas Jefferson thought of sodomy : "Thomas Jefferson himself authored a bill to penalize sodomy by castration. - Thomas Jefferson, "Writings of Thomas Jefferson", Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments.""
So you still think the Founders would agree with you? Instead of spewing forth false assertions you should do a little research.
You, NL207, flat out kicked---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:35pm.
grislybear's ass.
Full disclosure: I don't much care for grislybear.
MD
Weird statistics
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:31pm.
Your math only holds if people have a near infinite number of choices to achieve happiness. Anyone over 30 will tell you that is not true! A much better use of the math would presume each person to be a separate roll of the dice-- you can give them all equal chances, and most of them will tend towards the median, but some will fall in either tail.
I very specifically did not say that I thought that the Founding Fathers would agree with me on gay marriage, simply on the idea that people should be treated equally. They almost certainly did not mean gay people when they said that, but they didn't mean black people either, so I'm inclined to take their social feelings with a grain of salt.
Mamabear, WOW!!! just WOW!!!
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:56pm.
Mamabear,
WOW!!! just WOW!!! have you ever read, heard or studied anything beyond the Liberal echo chamber that you admit you live in?
Many of the Founding Fathers knew that their Constitution ment puruse of happiness for all, including blacks!!!
Many of them wanted slavery to end and realiazed the contradictions in their quest for freedom and blacks not being given this freedom!!!
Read some of the private letters between John Adams and his wife. Read the letters exchanged between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams after both had left politics!!!
Read some of the private writings of George Washington and countless other Founding Fathers.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al realized that they could only cause one cultural revolution at a time. It was already a huge shock that they were seperating from England. They knew that if they attempted to also free slaves, the USA would have never come to be. But most of them knew and wrote that a Civil War would be fought over slavery and they first wanted a nation to be born and be around for a while so the nation could survice the incoming civil war.
Read some history beyond whatever it is that you read!!!
I see you failed mathematics.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 9:10am.
"Your math only holds if people have a near infinite number of choices to achieve happiness"
You understand neither the CLT nor the number of individual choices people make in their daily lives. This might help you with CLT. There are about 310 million people in this country. Everyday, each and everyone one of them makes one or more choices to pursue happiness. For some it is whether to have fries with their burger. For others, it might whether to apply to college, enlist or get married. Literally thousands of millions of choices are made daily. So there aren't enough points to apply CLT?
"Simply on the idea that people should be treated equally."
You have not argued that people should be treated 'equally'. You have most emphatically argued they should be treated 'fairly', i.e. there should be special rules made for special people. You wish to re-write 5,000 years of common law to redefine marriage to include sexual contracts between same sex couples.
"but they didn't mean black people either" More liberal claptrap from someone who, as a liberal, rejects the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Were your unsubstantiated and spurious claim true, there would have been NO limitation on the slave trade written into the Constitution. Such is not the case. The Constitution contains within itself, language that terminated the further importation of slaves into the US after 1808. The Founders clearly rejected the future of slavery by putting in place a framework that would never tolerate it.
John Jay : "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
Oliver Ellsworth : "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves"
Patrick Henry : "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil."
In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it."
Statistical literacy
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 4:40pm.
1) Your math is such a mess I don't even know where to start. First of all, you said that giving everyone equal chance means that you will get equal results because of repetition. The CLT predicts that taking repeated measures of independent data points produces a normal curve, whereby MOST results will be clustered around the mean. Not ALL results, MOST results. Some results will be at the two tails of the normal curve. That is precisely why giving everyone equal chances does not produce equal results. The biggest problem with your math, though, is that people's lives violate the most important assumption of the CLT-- the data points must be independent. That means that the choices one person makes can't affect another person. Most importantly, the choices a person made early in their life would have to have no effect on the choices available or the outcome of those choices later in life. That is completely nonsensical. You can't use the CLT if the data isn't independent.
I never claimed that the founding fathers were all avid slave owners, but they wrote into the Constitution differential valuation of people based on race. Was the a step forward given the times? I imagine it was. But my point was that when thinking about social issues there are lots of cases where we modernize the thoughts of the Founding Fathers to fit new understandings of, say, the mental capabilities of women. So we don't really need to care if the Founding Fathers would have wanted gay people to marry, specifically.
~Oh, really?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 4:56pm.
I never claimed that the founding fathers were all avid slave owners, but they wrote into the Constitution differential valuation of people based on race.
Please quote the passage to which you refer.
Not TRUE! The slave
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 10:38pm.
The slave OWNERS wanted the slaves to count for a FULL vote so the slave owning south could have much more political power. The States AGAINST slavery negotiated the lower valuation on slaves "value" specifically to limit the power of the south (in passing or obstructing legislation).
This is a clear case of twisting history or not knowing it. I suspect the latter since history is now twisted by PC text book writers. The result is180 degrees different than what is implied, and actually helped to work against slavery.
This is a FACT.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
So it is true
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:27pm.
In an attempt to limit the powers of the slave states, the founding fathers valued slaves differently than other men. That is basically what I said. The REASON for their choice is what you seem to be huffy about, but I'm not making a point about their reasons.
I show you time and again
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 5:41pm.
I show you time and again references clearly showing the founding fathers are absolutely contrary to your your position; you and are unable to show any reference supporting your claim; and you continue to insist they would agree with you. I was even kind enough not to show you the numerous state laws circa 1800 that established death as the punishment for sodomy. Jefferson was quite ahead of his time supporting castration for this offense. The notion the Founders would endorse laws sanctioning homosexuality or any other kind of perversion or extend special legal privileges to such persons is utter nonsense.
I can only conclude you are delusional.
Slow down
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:28pm.
I didn't say they would endorse homosexuality. I said there are a lot of other social changes that we take for granted today that they also wouldn't have endorsed, so why should we feel limited by their social norms?
Mamabear, Honestly, c'mon!
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 1:27am.
Mamabear,
Honestly, c'mon! where do you get your history from? Thank goodness the Northern States were able to force the South to accept the 3/5 compromise, the alternative was horrific!!! The South, with a smaller number of whites than the North, wanted to count slaves as a full person. Why? do you know why? Because this would have given them complete control over the United States government! And if this would have happen, we would live in a very different USA.
As you can see, a minority, the South, was doing everything within its power to impose its immorality of slavery on all of the USA. Gosh, where else have we heard about a minority imposing its beliefs on others? hmmmm.....
The North, to keep the Union together and the Constitution working, said slaves will only count as 3/5. Not because Northerners believed a black person to truly be merely 3/5 of a person, but they realized that with the compromise, they woudl keep the United States and the Constitution intact and not give complete power of the USA government to the South!!!!
C'mon Mamabear, please, honestly, remove yourself from the Liberal echo chamber that you work and live in. You truly need to open up your mind. See what things are truly about and not through the eyes of a Liberal.
and the mental capabilities of women? once again, you know little about the Founding Fathers. They also saw and knew that contradiction of creating all men equal, but leaving women out of it. But once again, they knew that making one huge, incredible cultural change, through a horrific war, was as much as their new, tiny nation could survive for the moment. But the Foudning Fathers never thought women had less mental capabilities than them!!! Where do you get your history from?
Read the private letters between John Adams and his wife! They are incredible to read and they shot down pretty much 99.9% of the smears and lies that Liberals throw against our great Founding Fathers, incredibly visionaries, who like all of us were humans, but they were all learned men who read in their life times 10,000 to 20,000 books and some more and Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin.
New Jersey did it
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:52pm.
New Jersey gave women the right to vote when they joined the union, so it isn't as though it was an impossible goal. They were the only state to do it.
But here's a hypothetical question: the Founding fathers did not ensure that black people or women would be able to vote when they created the government. You presume that they wanted to, they just couldn't manage to get it done. But imagine that they didn't want to-- imagine that all of the founding fathers thought black people and women were inferior to white men and incapable of voting. If that were true, would you have let that stop us from changing the laws when we discovered that attitude to be wrong? Is it your contention that we should continue to adhere to the social norms of the 1700's for the rest of this country's existence, no matter what we learn about ourselves and others in the modern world? Because if you answer yes, THEN the founding fathers' feelings on homosexuality are a good reason not to allow gay marriage. Otherwise, it is meaningless.
Ahem,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 10:27pm.
You still haven't affirmed or denied the reason for your bitchiness this morning?
Bitchy?
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:14pm.
Really? Pointing out that you had the wrong person is bitchy now?
NL207
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 9:22am.
Excellent posts -- thanks.
Mamabear, Are you aware that
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:45am.
Mamabear,
Are you aware that there are pedophiles and as NL pointed out zoophiles that make the same arguments that you are making? are you aware of this?
Check out NAMBLA and various other digusting pedophile groups and they will inform you and attempt logic games to get you to agree that children and animals can give consent!!!
so, no, the slippery slope is not far off, ti is right there. It is here! That you NEED to ignore it because you know it destroys your arguments is something else!
There are already polygamist making the same arguments as homosexuals AND there are already siblings making the same arguments for sibling sex and marriage.
Are we discriminating against the groups above for not letting them marry?
What moral superiority, what moral authority do you have or subscribe to that your morality is above that of pedophiles and zoophiles? Why are you Right and they Wrong?
So, Mamabear wants to tell others how to live. She wants to discriminate against other human beings, but how dare anyone discriminate against the groups she has chosen to support.
If you were as logical as you were so "humble" to acknowledge at the bottom of this forum, you would see how illogical your arguments are and how they can and are actually being used today by countless of other groups.
but, I guess your morality is superior. You want to define marriage, who gets to sleep with whom/what, but how dare anyone else define this and decide. Only the pro-homosexuals can decide for everyone else who to marry and who to have sex with.
Amazing how quickly you turn into a moral absolute when it suits your needs!!! LOL So, you are stating that it is a moral absolute that children and adults should not have sex and you are also stating that it is a moral absolute that animals and human beings should not have sex.
will you agree with me, Mamabear, that it is a moral absolute, it has been, it is and it will always be wrong, no matter the culture, the time, age that an adult having sex with a child is a terrible, terrible wrong ALWAYS?!
Once again, the conundrum of the Moral Relativists. LOL
Try again
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:25pm.
Incorrect use of an argument to justify something does not invalidate the argument. For example, people have used your argument that morality is handed down from God and they know exactly what he wants them to do to justify all kinds of crazy things, some of them really horrible.
Here's a good example that you brought up yourself-- polygamy. Fundamentalist mormons think that polygamy is part of a moral life, as handed down by God's law. They are essentially using the same argument as you to justify something completely different. By the logic you are attempting to use against me, you must agree with them! After all, you are both believers in moral absolutes, so there must be nothing to prevent you from having to accept their version of God's morality.
But of course, you don't have to accept their use of your argument, any more than I have to accept the use of my argument by people who I think are getting it wrong.
This really is about logic, and you seem to be terrible at it!
Mamabear, Why do you answer
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:01pm.
Mamabear,
Why do you answer the questions I never ask? LOL
Answer the question!
Is it absolutely morally wrong for adults to ever have sex with an under age kid?
Is it absolutely morally wrong for anyone to ever have sex with animals?
Are you absolutely sure that animals can't give consent and neither can under age kids?
Everything else you said is not only wrong, but also a way to distract from answering inconvinient questions for Moral Relativist.
Fine
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:34pm.
I think it is always wrong, because that is my moral code. My code does not involve it sometimes being right and sometimes wrong. But other people disagree with me. I just think they are wrong. You seem to think that because I acknowledge that other moral systems can exist, I must only mean mine some of the time. That's a strange idea.
Now address the issue of people using the same argument as you for different ends. If my reasoning is bad because it is used by pedophiles, is yours bad because it is used by polygamists?
Mamabear, LOL, I am sorry,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 8:05pm.
Mamabear,
LOL, I am sorry, but you have not answered the questions. All you did is state your personal moral code, nothing less and nothing more. Thank you for stating your moral code. Now can you please, my goodness, answer the questions.
copy and paste the question, if you want, or use numbers to indicate which question you are answering to and simply type, YES or NO.
1) Is it absolutely morally wrong for any and all adults to ever have sex with an under age kid?
2) Is it absolutely morally wrong for anyone to ever have sex with animals?
3) Are you absolutely sure that animals can't give consent and neither can under age kids?
There is much more to say about your post, but you seem easily distracted by the extra that I type. Thus, let's concentrate on the three above questions. Once and for all answer them.
Of course, just like you have been unable to answer how you can think your moral code is the right one when you can't point to the moral authority behind your moral code other than you. LOL
Yes to both statements,
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 4:41pm.
Yes to both statements, except that I would use "absolutely" to mean "in all cases," not the same way you do. If you are asking if I think that everyone must think that it is wrong to have sex with kids, because that is a moral absolute that everyone has to agree with, I would say, demonstrably, no.
Mamabear, So as a Moral
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 1:43am.
Mamabear,
So as a Moral Relativist, for you, in all cases, it is morally wrong for an adult to have sex with a child or for a human being to ever have sex with an animal. This, however, is for you alone. correct?
However, you acknowledge that there are individuals that have a moral code different than yours. You acknowledge that there exists moral codes which claim that an adult having sex with a child is morally correct and the same with an animal, correct? you are acknowledging that these moral code exists, which is 100% different than yours, right?
So, in other words, you are saying that there are times that it is ok for an adult to have sex with a child since this is what the individual believes to be morally correct.
I know what you are going to say, but in order to prove so, you must first answer the question you have refused to address, one of many, why should anyone follow your moral code if you have completely failed to prove that it is superior to anyone elses? If you can't prove that your moral code is superior, you must accept that you can't tell an individual who thinks having sex with a child is morally right, that they are morally wrong. I mean, you can say it all you want, but you can't prove tha tyour morally is the right one.
As a moral relativists, you think that you are right, but you could be wrong. You would need to debate with the pro-child sex individual and who ever wins, well that is the new moral.
I know this is very hard for Moral Relativists to accept, but it is the reality of where the logic of Moral Relativism leads to. A reality that 99.9% of Moral Relativists deny.
i will give it to Hydro who had no problem admitting that yes, as a Moral Relativist one must accept, as hard as it is to do so and so incredibly uncomfortable, that there are moral codes which believe killing a Jew is the good moral thing to do. You do not have to accept that their morality is equal to yours or good for you. But you must accept that it exist and if you can't prove your is the correct one the one that should be follow, well with what moral authority do you tell a pedophile to stop his actions? you have no moral authority to do so. Another grave problem with Moral Relativism. All you have is to debate each other opinions. But you have ZERO moral authority to impose your morality on him/her.
Anyway, you acknowledge the existence of other moral codes. You just refuse to acknowledge the existance of my moral code because well, the second you acknowledge the existance of my moral code, your moral code goes poof! it negates itself. But geez, you have zero problem acknowledging the existance of the moral code which says that pedophile and zoophile are moral goods, but you have an incredible hard time acknowledging the existence of my morality. why? As a Moral Relativist, you are FAR from being consistent. You are being convinient!
I have no authority
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:58pm.
to make anyone stop doing something that I think is morally wrong. What I have is a RESPONSIBILITY to try and convince them to agree with me. That is the difference between a relativist and an absolutist. You think your moral code has absolute authority over me. You are right because you say so, or because the bible says so, or because it just IS. When I argue about morality, I have to explain WHY my moral code is better, on its merits, not simply its existence. And yes, if everyone else in the US thought that sleeping with children was okay, I would lose that argument. But frankly, I would lose that argument even if I thought that I was espousing a moral absolute! No matter what your personal beliefs, our society is relativistic. We used to allow people to own slaves, because enough people thought that was okay to force the rest of the people to put up with it. That happened despite your contention that the correct moral code has always been and always will be equal creation of men and women of all races. My relativistic belief system allows that society might make the wrong choice, but the fact is that your absolute belief doesn't stop that from happening either.
Yawn; it's NOT the slippery slope argument
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 10:04pm.
It's not a slippery slope argument. "A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect" (from Wikipedia).
The argument is not that "same sex marriage" will lead to "multi-partner marriage" (which, while it does seem like it's around the corner, nobody has used as their argument), which will lead to "sibling marriage," which will lead to "parental marriage," etc. ad nauseum.
The argument is that the premise (i.e., "equal protection") is manifestly false because of the myriad of equally valid conclusions that one can draw from it in addition to the "same sex marriage" conclusion.
Mamabear, Hmmm...it is a
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:06am.
Mamabear,
Hmmm...it is a fact that gay men have much higher rates of STDs. They lead a much more risker life than any other group, this is a fact that you wish not to address, instead you concentrate on Lesbians, which is less common behavior in women than gay is in men.
Of course risky behavior equals imoral behavior. Any time we purposedly endanger our bodies, it is immoral!
Every sexual relationship carries risk? What depraved world do you live in mamabear? I can assure you that it is you who is passing all fallacies! Maybe your sexual relationships carry risks since you do not know what your sexual partner is doing, but I can assure you that there are countless of sexual relationships, which started well, who went much deeper than sex, who married and then had sex which have ZERO risk! honestly, what depraved world do you live in?
The real problem that exists with these kids is that they hear the type of nonsense that you have been typing away here on television, from radical teachers, from screwed up friends, from the news and they start to believe that their behavior is ok. However, something inside of them, called natural law, is fighting their behavior. These kids end up all screwed up thanks to the falsehoods preached by the militant pro-homosexuals.
I do agree, however, that these homosexual, transgender kids are all screwed up in the head, thanks to people who make them believe that their risky behavior is normal. I am sorry, in order to get good behavior you must demand that they change who they have been made to believe they are. You cannot save anyone by making them believe that their homosexual acts are normal. This is once again, false compassion. And this goes with any type of risky behavior, abnormal behavior that a teenager engages in, not merely homosexuality. It includes the use of drugs, heterosexual sex if not married, sniffing crazy smells, joining a gang. In oder to get a kid to leave a gang, I can assure you, you must first help him change who he/she is before they realize that staying ini a gang is bad. Or should we just let them be who they have been and attempt to remove them from teh gange?
I used to work with tweens and teenagers, you are throwing out a lot of nonsense, Mamabear.
You want to help this kids by saying, "Your behavior is good, being homosexual is good, just do not go sleeping around. Promiscuity is bad". this is false compassion. You can't change what is moral and what is not in order to reach people. The Truth is the Truth. yes, you can have real compassion, you can be kind, but you can't change the Truth in order for some not to keep on running to a place which is going to accept their abnormal behavior.
Yes, these kids do need help, moral help, physical help, emotional help. Telling them that their sexual homosexual acts are normal is a far cry from helping them. It is harming them even more.
What you want to do to these kids is the real human rights violations!!
You misunderstand
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:36am.
When I said every sexual relationship carries risk, I meant it in a broader sense than just STD's. Pregnancy is risky-- not very, but it is riskier than not being pregnant. My point was that risk is not the only criteria by which we judge straight relationships, but it seems to be a major reason why people condemn homosexual relationships.
Promiscuity is, sadly, a part of homosexual life, but in my opinion that is very easily stopped. In the friends that I've had, promiscuity was a youthful backlash against being an outsider. All of my gay friends who are past 25 have settled down with monogamous partners, and some of them have now been with the same person for over 10 years. What changed was that they accepted themselves, and matured enough to stand on their own and feel worthwhile despite what society was telling them. They stopped struggling with their identity, and they found love.
If you want gay people to be safer, then stop making them feel worthless. Stop telling them that the way they feel is wrong, and maybe they'll stop having such a giant hole to fill with risky behavior. Young people will always be drawn towards the outre-- straight kids do crazy, stupid things too! The way we channel their energy into positive behavior is by being involved, not by leaving them on the street to figure it out for themselves.
"If you want gay people to be
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 12:53pm.
"If you want gay people to be safer, then stop making them feel worthless. Stop telling them that the way they feel is wrong,"
----------
How do "we" MAKE them feel worthless? They attack us falsely in a very bigoted way (saying hate, hate, hate), furthermore, they don't share our values and slam our values. Therefore the traditional marriage people should likewise feel worthless & wrong by your logic. I can assure you this would not be the case.
Two opposite things cannot both be true at the same time. Perhaps God was right and they are fighting & rebelling against God. That will NEVER make you happy with yourself in the long run. Sin, when it is fully mature, results in death. Yes, there is indeed a spirit that works against you. First saying: Go do it and have fun!! Freedom! Then when you do it (eat the apple), he condemns you and laughs at you. Then you are caught in a rebellious addictive trap called sin! That would be Satan doing all this and laughing the whole way.
I can also testify to my experience in being a slave to multiple sexual sins and the freedom God provides. Over a long period I lived with it and never succeeded breaking them. But I found that truly, with a whole heart, drawing close to God, set me free. You have to pray that you no longer be turned over to it. And at some point, you hate the sin itself, and don't want to do it, because it divides you from Him. If this was just some social/human Religious non-sense, I would not take the time to make these posts. So you will know what I say has meaning & value.
Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why people terminate themselves with no real cause. I have felt that way when enslaved. The media is pulling out all the stops to blame this on "bullying." Yet the anti-bullying movement is a growing bully pulpit against Christian's free speech. And again wrongly so since no hate is involved. Just two values that conflict; 180 degrees apart.
If we can't speak out, then homosexuals should not. The homosexual revolution against society should NOT be taught in schools. Why don't schools stick to the cores subjects... math, reading, etc. That would be nice!
People use to make fun of me growing up. Make fun of my glasses. Harshly. Even later in school I would avoid one older guy that had threatened me. I didn't like it, but I survived. Testing makes you stronger when you are innocent. I would fight to defend my friend too.
But then, if you are indeed guilty of something. Then perhaps that is why one feels guilty? People have a conscious until they harden it. But when they are at that point, it takes very little to make them lash out at those with opposing values in an outright mean way. That is my observation.
Interesting web page: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223635/k.5E6A/Answering_the_B...
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I have no idea what to title this post.
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:24pm.
I should have known it would only be a matter of time before someone tried to blame these kids for killing themselves. How hard-hearted do you have to be to even think that? These are KIDS committing suicide. They aren't hardened, they aren't lashing out at you, they are drowning. I'm glad that you were strong enough to survive being bullied, but I don't understand how anyone who has been through pain like that could have so little sympathy as to suggest that others who aren't surviving must therefore deserve the treatment.
Pathetic, bear
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:32pm.
No where in his post does he suggest anything of the kind. This is slander pure and simple.
You owe him an apology
I'd love to think he meant something different
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:50pm.
He'll get an apology is he can explain how saying:
"Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why people terminate themselves with no real cause. I have felt that way when enslaved."
is not a suggestion that people kill themselves not because of how they are treated, but because they are sinful.
Or that:
"But then, if you are indeed guilty of something. Then perhaps that is why one feels guilty? People have a conscious until they harden it."
immediately following a paragraph about bullying is not a suggestion that gay kids get treated that way and feel bad because they are guilty of something.
If you can explain how those are not attempts to blame the victims in these horrible cases, then I will apologize.
You think? Since when?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:57pm.
Your not convincing, but your projection is vile.
Giving reason for a topic, does not mean you support it.
Then why say it?
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:22pm.
People bring things up for a reason. No one goes around suggesting horrible things that they don't think are true or want people to consider! If that was a strawman, or a rhetorical ploy of some sort, an attempt to provoke a strong reaction by saying something outrageous, then he's going to have to explain that. Because that's not how it sounds. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.
So, you admit you projected on
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:28pm.
His thoughts.
Now all we need is the apology.
Dont bother replying with-out one
We're both projecting, you know
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:42pm.
You are just projecting something different. I think he meant it, you think he didn't. Neither of us knows for sure, so I'll apologize just as soon as we find out that you are right.
Please gay teenagers.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 1:17am.
Don't kill yourselfs. Everytime a gay teenager kills hisself, spinsterbear kills a kitten in revenge.
My experience in this...
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:53pm.
This is a complicated subject, but I'll share my observations from life so far.
"with no real cause" = What I mean is from the POV of the outside observer, sometimes even family and friends. There was no significant clue given to them. To us on the outside, something may seem minor, but to someone depressed & not thinking straight, it can be so big they can kill themselves, sometimes very abruptly, since they see no hope.
Bullying is wrong and can indeed cause people to kill themselves. So much so that this can happen even when they have done nothing morally wrong. No that is not their fault, as you suggest I believe. Even if they did something wrong, say sexually, no one should bully them: Which means to me, to MAKE FUN OF in an ongoing, concerted & malicious way. That is mean and destructive.
However when someone says you did wrong, like Dad or anyone, correcting you for whatever, that can make one feel bad. Maybe because you know better (moral issue), or you were doing it wrong (technique) but didn't even know. Anyhow, I want to ensure that correcting someone is not to be confused with bullying. Correction is good & a fool turns away valid admonition and correction. (Study the book of Proverbs, they are pretty amazing).
When I was growing up, a man from Church killed himself due to financial issues. This was likely depression brought on by the finance issue.
In college, an older extremely brilliant student, PHD material, who lived off-campus and would hang with us at times (drinking beer). He never gave any indication of any problems, & then one weekend, he blows his head off in his basement. I would say depression here also. Overwhelmed and had no hope.
As for me, I would say I felt that way because I didn't live up to what I thought I should be. Moral issues. Cutting small corners. Not working as hard as I should be. Not as successful as if maybe I had done more with my life. Not providing more for my family. This is more of a "midlife" crisis tied with depression. Here I did condemn myself because that is what the law God does.
The law is there to make us fail. God says that clearly, and wants us to see the futility of even trying to save ourselves. God says we can not live up to it. That is where and why God prepared Jesus to come in and fill the gap. Once you truly seek God and live through Jesus, (not just go to Church) things start looking better. You know you are on your way and each day is a new day studying his Word. At some point, and for me, I can't say when exactly, the Spirit comes into play. You must request that from God. I thank the Daily Audio Bible & Christian radio for aiding my growth closer to God. As they say, Faith comes by hearing. And this is really true if your not a big reader. I never liked reading from books (but fine w/computers). So, anyhow I can recommend sticking it on your iPod or phone.
I can testify again, that my deliberate & chosen sinful behavior did cause depression by causing a separation from God. That is my personal experience and is what I was referring to. The Bible seems to back up that from what I have read, but does not mean all suicides are due to this.
Unfortunately, we think we can handle everything by ourselves. That is our own ego. That is not healthy. That is us wanting to be god. So we do need to reach out to others (and God) and provide loving support & help to those who need it and are willing to accept it.
So I am bad (quoting Mama)? "tried to blame these kids for killing themselves. How hard-hearted do you have to be to even think that? .... enough to survive being bullied, but I don't understand how anyone who has been through pain like that could have so little sympathy... "
PS: I have been trained as a Stephen Minister. Look it up if you don't know what it is about Mama. You may like it. I HAVE worked with people hurting. Even paid a person's home payment. Bought a truck for another. An no pay fyi. Is that the kind or person your bigoted view of me conjured up?
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Thank you
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:19am.
That's a much kinder explanation than I expected. I still disagree that being gay is something that people naturally feel guilty about-- it is impossible to know when there is so much outside influence convincing people that they are wrong. But it sounds like even though you cite that as a reason, you aren't being judgmental about it, which was the way I first interpreted your statement.
Therefore, I'm sorry that I said you were hard-hearted and accusing the victim of deserving their fate. Just to be clear, I think your attitude-- that being gay is something natively shameful-- is harmful to those kids. That is the outside influence that is making them feel guilty, even if they wouldn't on their own. But I don't think you intend to harm, or feel hateful towards them. These days, that's something to be really appreciative of!
"every sexual relationship carries risk" - LIE
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:11am.
Monogamous married heterosexual relationships, AKA what we currently call 'marriage', CARRY ZERO RISK.
Really?
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:11am.
Pregnancy carries zero risk? I think doctors disagree with you.
~That's right
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:14pm.
You cannot develop an STD from being pregnant. All of the pitfalls of inappropriate sexual behavior are completely circumvented by simply abstaining till marriage.
You're equating pregnancy with an STD?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:19pm.
I don't know why I am not shocked.
~Oh no
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:37pm.
Pregnancy is much worse than an STD!
Yeah, tell me about it.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:43pm.
Plus the ensuing 21 years of recovery is pure hell.
Oops, sorry, it's 26 years now.
Slippery
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:24am.
I most certainly am not equating pregnancy with STD's! I'm simply pointing out that risk comes in many forms, and it does not equate to morality! Pregnancy carries a small amount of risk. That does not make it a small amount of immoral, right? Therefore if sex between two consenting, married, monogamous homosexual men (let's just say, because you guys refuse to acknowledge that this pattern is the complete opposite for gay women) is slightly more risky than sex between a heterosexual couple, that does not automatically make it less moral than sex between a heterosexual couple.
You can decide that you have other reasons why homosexual sex is less moral, as clearly many of you do, but you can't cite risk as the reason if you don't let risk affect your view of morality in any other case.
I'm sorry, I know logic is difficult for some people here, but it is really a useful way to evaluate your thinking. You should try it sometime.
Sorry, this may get graphic
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:19am.
Allowing penises to be inserted into the rectum is risky behavior, so of course lesbian sex is probably less risky than homosexual sex. Women have two holes to choose from, (well, three, but I digress). Contrary to what porno may tell us, most women don't enjoy sodomy, so it stands to reason that any man made device deployed during lesbian sex would not include the rectum, but even if it does, said device is likely to be more sterile than a penis, which is ridden with bacteria.
Men don't have that second option, so the rectum is involved at a much higher rate. How does the rate of risk compare between homosexuals and straight women that engage in sodomy regularly. That would be comparing like sexual activity, not comparing lesbian sex to heterosexual sex.
Hmmm, come to think of it, the transfer of bacteria from the anus to the penis probably ain't good either. Further proves my point.
And would you explain your bitchy post from this morning?
That is being "smart" but maybe not so much?
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:32pm.
Mama quote: "Pregnancy carries zero risk? I think doctors disagree with you"
YES YOU ARE RIGHT! Feel better?
A major purpose of sex is to get pregnant. Some "risks" are good, even blessed, and necessary for the continuation of mankind. May we presume you don't get out in cars and airplanes much? Work carries risk too, yet work is a blessing. Unnecessary, foreseeable, significant risk should be avoided, yet necessary risk should only be minimized, and certainly not avoided.
PS: Mama, please take your own sign off quote to heart. Many of us here have changed our thought process as we have aged and now look at both sides of the issue. Liberal thought such as NPR only presents their one sided version of the "facts." That is what started this. Conservative sources do look at both sides. Then they specifically state how the liberal side has been proven time again how it does NOT work. Progressive ideas are not even "new" or enlightened as sold to be.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
~Max
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:35pm.
Mamabear is a passionate abortion advocate, her pregnancy associations are all negative.
She lacks much of the wonders of life*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:51pm.
My healthiest and happiest times were when I was pregnant. Joyful even as I endured the pain. My "pregnancy associations" today are 41 and 37 and continue to fill my life with joy.
Mamabear will never know that joy. For once, I feel sorry for her.
I never realized what an odd choice
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:02pm.
her screen name was until now.
Huh?
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:30am.
What makes you think I'm not planning on having kids? I'm quite envious of my friends who are parents-- almost all of whom are also pro choice.
~Please
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 6:42am.
Please, please, do not ever inflict yourself on a helpless, innocent child in that fashion. There is too much suffering in the world already.
Whoa there!
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 10:47pm.
Sorry, I thought we were having a debate-- heated for sure, but otherwise pretty reasonable. If you'd rather be attacking each others' family and personal lives, then I'm sorry, but I'm just not into that. If it's a "Who's the biggest jerk" contest you are looking for, I cede you the crown right now, you win.
Crown heads
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 11:07pm.
That crown you refer to has been on your head so long the bones of your skull have grown around it. You spend a lot of time being arrogant on this site so it's a bit late to act self-rightous about personal attacks.
How anyone can be a parent and be pro-killing unborn babies is unimaginable to me.
Arrogance is not the same
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 7:06pm.
as personal attacks. I've never made fun of anyone's family or lack thereof, and I never would. I think only mean people do that. You guys have just about got me convinced that I'm arrogant, but I know I'm not mean.
~Anyone who has promoted and defended abortion
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:53pm.
with such tireless rigor as yourself should realize that it's a little late to get starry-eyed about prospective motherhood and have anyone take you seriously.
The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 5:17pm.
but you know that, you are just trying to piss me off.
Of course they have to do
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 5:46pm.
Of course they have to do with each other!
Anyone who believes that it is morally correct to murder their daughter or son while he/she was inside of the womb, will have a hard time selling to anyone that they can be a good parent.
I also find it amazing that you are so worried about making up rights for homosexuals, yet you are unwilling to give the most basic and most important right to human beings inside of the womb, the Right to Live regardless of what the woman carrying wants.
Pro-abortionists impose on human babies their beliefs, yet many, if not most of these same individuals, demand rights that do not exist for homosexuals.
Equality for all human beings includes babies inside of the womb of a mother. But in the world of Liberals, some are more equal than others and made up rights must be given to sexual deviants to make them feel good about themselves. Because at the end of the day, that is what is all about. individuals who are desperate to believe that they sexual actions are not wrong and who can't stand anyone telling them other wise.
Unrelated
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:45pm.
There are plenty of pro-choice parents out there, and they do a fine job.
LOL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:47pm.
And cannibals make great dinner guests.
~Oh, I have not yet BEGUN
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:26pm.
to try to piss you off.
If you can't see how ridiculous you look getting mushy about motherhood on the same site where you've shocked the living hell out of people with your views on abortion, then you're hopelessly divorced from reality.
Awwwww. nwahsbear getting a little squeezed?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 9:21pm.
iz a reverse trolliez suck real bad huh sucktroll? Iz a squeezybear gonna pop?
Yes!
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:28am.
"A major purpose of sex is to get pregnant. Some "risks" are good, even blessed, and necessary for the continuation of mankind. May we presume you don't get out in cars and airplanes much? Work carries risk too, yet work is a blessing. Unnecessary, foreseeable, significant risk should be avoided, yet necessary risk should only be minimized, and certainly not avoided."
Thank you, that is exactly my point. People get joy from children, so the risk is worth it. Homosexual people get joy from intimacy with the person they love, therefore the risk is worth it. Every person will value those risks and rewards differently, and hopefully everyone will take precautions to minimize the foreseeable, avoidable risks, but if they are worth it to you they shouldn't be avoided.
A very eloquent argument against the assumption that homosexual sex is wrong because it is risky, thank you.
Mamabear, did you just
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 9:53pm.
Mamabear,
did you just equate the joy of sex with the joy of having a child? Did you equate the joy of homosexual sex with the joy of having a child? Oh my goodness!!!
You certainly do not have children. And you do live in an echo chamber as you admitted, most of your friends are pro-abortionists. Get to know people out of your echo chamber, it will hopefully make you a lot more open minded and respectful of those whom you disagree with.
Okay, here's a little logic lesson...
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:20pm.
... for everyone here.
Comparing two things, or drawing an analogy between them, is not the same as equating them. I do not think that every pair of things that shares qualities or characteristics between them are exactly the same. I do not think that pregnancy is the same as an STD, just because both of them involve risk. I do not think that having a baby is the same as having sex, just because both of them involve joy. I do not think that grape jelly is the same as wine, just because they both involve grapes.
The more time I spend here, the more I worry about teaching critical thinking skills to college students. I really hope my students aren't going out into the world this poorly equipped!
Mamabear, A logical person,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:08am.
Mamabear,
A logical person, you have proven so far to not be!
Let's use words that you will better understand. Did you just compare the joy of homosexual sex with the joy of having a child? LOL
you do know that compare and equate are synonyms, right?
Wrong
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:31pm.
Compare means to look for similarities between two things, equate means to call them equal to one another, the same. For instance, I could compare the number 1 to the number 2, because they have similarities. They are both positive, whole, real numbers lower than 10. However, the fact that I am comparing them does not mean that I think 1 = 2. I suppose people may use the two words interchangeably if they are sloppy with their language, but I'm not. They mean different things.
mamabear, All you had to say
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 4:39pm.
mamabear,
All you had to say is that you do not know that compare and equate are synonyms. Open up a thesarus! LOL
Or if you have time, type the words on Miscrosoft Word, click on it, scroll to synonyms and vuala! equate and compare are synonyms. LOL
Uh No.
Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 4:54pm.
If Microsoft Word thinks that compare and equate are synonyms then their progammers are idiots.
It's like the old math joke that 2+2=5 for large values of 2.
We don't speak Canadian on this website.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:17pm.
In English, we have this phenomenon where words have more than one definition.
++
Main Entry: compare
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: liken, equate
Synonyms:
allegorize, approach, approximate to, assimilate, balance, be in the same class as, be on a par with, bear comparison, bring near, come up to, compete with, connect, correlate, distinguish between, draw parallel, equal, equate, hold a candle to, identify with, link, make like, match, notice similarities, parallel, put alongside, relate, resemble, show correspondence, stack up with, standardize, tie up, vie
++
Merriam Webster --- compare: 3: to be equal or alike <nothing compares to you>
++
freedictionary -- compare 1. To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken
++
dictionary.com -- compare 5. to appear in a similar standing: His recital certainly compares with the one he gave last year.
++
dictionary.com -- equate 1. to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance
merriam Webster -- equate 2: to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
++
Why don't you apologize to the man for trying to make him look like a fool when he and Word were largely correct and you were the fool from trying to denigrate the man.
That would be a nice start to you actually being accepted by the community here. Act like a man.
See compare defined for kids or Canadians that come here and make fools of themselves trying to make a fool of someone else.
Wow
Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:26pm.
That is a lot of effort put into a slapdown..I am impressed and I apologize. However, I still maintain that Microsoft programmers are idiots. I know this first hand.
Apology accepted frosty blue troll of the north.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:39pm.
I take back the whole acting like a man thing too. You take reverse trolling well mr. frosty blue troll of the north.
The Vet, Thank you!! I
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:43pm.
The Vet,
Thank you!!
I swear these Liberals are Liberals because they are so poorly informed and educated. And to think that English is my second language and I know more than a college teacher like Mamabear. Mamabear is an excellent example of what is wrong with our college and universities today.
Mandrake, thanks for the apology, at least you were graceful enough to admit you are wrong.
Then your anger makes no sense
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:37pm.
You very clearly didn't use equate to mean just compare, right? You were horrified that I would equate pregnancy and STD's or sex and childbirth. So, were you upset because I pointed out some very limited similarities between them, or were you accusing me of considering them equal? If the former, then you were being ridiculous. If the latter, then you were clearly not using the word "equate" as simply a synonym for compare.
So which is it, were you getting upset because of a simple comparison, or were you using equate to mean something different than compare?
mamabear, how old are you?
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 8:19pm.
mamabear,
how old are you? wow.
Just admit you were clueless that compare and equate are synonyms (remember that part where you said that equate and compare are not the same thing, remember that rant from you). Everything else is a smoke screen for your lack of humility and that your face is full of pie. LOL
do I have to into what the word synonym means?
as I asked you, and you have not answered. Are you seriously equating, comparing the joys of having a child to the joys of having homosexual sex?
Instead of moving the debate along, all you did is make an accusation, make personal attacks and go on a rant and like always, you FAILED to answer the question.
all you had to say is yes or no and if you wanted, give an explanation of each. Instead you made a feable and ridiculous attempt at lecturing people here on logic and critical thinking. However, it backed fired and it is eating away at you.
Mamabear, the more I read what you say, the more I get the impression that you are neither logical nor honest. Unfortunately, this is what I get from most of the pro-homosexual, pro-gay marriage crowd when I engage them in a debate. The debate starts just like you did, full of insults, stereotyping by the pro-homosexual, emotionalism, anger. Then when they realize the insults and attempt at shaming does not work, they move on to call the obvious logical arguments illogical. Then they attempt to assert that their moral code is superior, but are unable to state what is the authority behind their superiority and they fail to see and/or acknowledge the countless moral absolutes they have stated in their argument. You are a classis case, Mamamber, classic case.
Next time, instead of getting on a pedastel and believing that you are superior to me or anyone else and that only you are capable of critical thinking and logic, treat those whom you disagree with with the respect that you constantly demand from individuals here on NB. You lack that which you demand from me and others in NB!!
Respect?
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 4:48pm.
You haven't treated me with respect for the length of a post this whole time! You constantly denigrate my work, my intellectual ability, my honesty, etc etc. You got very upset when I called you bigoted, but you are happy to keep insulting me without pause.
I was comparing the joy of having children and the joy of loving intimacy because they both involve joy. I can't see why you found that so unbelievable. You asked me if I was equating them, and I said no. You may use the two words interchangeably, but I don't. Read any list of synonyms in a thesaurus, and you'll find lots of words with different connotations, some of which you probably wouldn't consider interchangeable. I was not calling them equal.
I'm moving in a couple of days, so you'll have to wait until the weekend for another chance to keep insulting me!
Equalities of joy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 11:14pm.
I can understand where Liberal Lies is coming from. However, since you aren't a parent you don't realize what an odd comparison you are making when you compare the joy of a child to the joy of sex with someone you love.
Loving sex is sharing something. Love for your child is all giving. 100%. In a way that is unimaginable until you experience it. There is saying, Having a child is like walking around with your heart outside of your body.
Even if you aren't equating them, I find them difficult to compare the two types of joy.
They are different
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 7:09pm.
but if they are both joyful in one form or another then my point stands.
Mamabear, 1) I did not get
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 12:47am.
Mamabear,
I did not get upset at all when you called me bigotted. I just found it amusing since it is the first line of defense that the pro-homosexual, pro-gay marriage crowd uses. Insult people into silence. Attempt to shame people into "agreeing" with you. Believe me, I wasn't insulted. I just pointed it out that it was interesting that your first reaction, like that of the intolerant militant homosexuals is to insult.
and you not only did you called me a bigot, you also called me immoral, sick and a xenophobe. You additionally claimed that pretty much everyone arguing against you lacked critical thinking skills and any type of logic. Honestly, Mamabear, how do you expect people to respond to you?
Please do not get offended when people respond to your "kindness" with the same "kindness".
And yes, two wrongs do not make a right. I have been wrong in belittling you, but Mamabear, don't complain when you do exactly the same thing to pretty much everyone here. It doesn't make it right that people respond to you like you write to them, but you are not saint.
I will do everything within my power to treat you much better than I have treated you so far and that you have treated me. Deal? I will stop the belittling and insults as you asked and as I asked you to do so also.
Hope your move went well
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 11:45am.
Hope your move went well Mamabear! May you enjoy your new location & I hope that your new "den" serves you well.
Words of wisdom from King Solomon... amazing to listen to what is contained in Proverbs, a book of learning: http://feeds.feedburner.com/dailyaudioproverb Listen to one a day, about 5 min x 31 days/chapters.
The first one gives an intro to itself: http://www.dailyaudioproverb.com/mp3/Proverbs_01_1.mp3
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Thanks!
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 7:55pm.
I appreciate the well wishes! I'm happily ensconced, though the new home doesn't quite feel like a real den yet-- still some rearranging to do. Moving went as well as moving ever does ;P
I like the proverbs, and that is a soothing voice. I think the Bible is full of wise words-- I just happen to think that it is the wisdom of mortal humans, who sometimes come up with amazing things all on their own.
YOU are entirely unqualified to teach logic
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 7:32pm.
to anyone here.
In fact, you are so unastute when it comes to logic as opposed to emotion, that I don't even derive any personal pleasure from destroying you in a debate. You are too easy.
"IMO" on Moral Relativism
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 12:32pm.
Once the Biblical moral code is up for debate; it has proven to get more and more "liberal," and then it just goes out the window for all important practical purposes. Europe first & then the USA. This is sadder for the USA because we were uniquely set up on Biblical principals.
As we slide not just farther away from the moral starting point, but even opposed to it 180 degrees. Then the majority rules with no association to the code. Then we have the NEWer social norm, and people don't even recall that the other way existed except to mock it.
But this can get quickly warped and thus society goes "down hill" with crime, vice, and selfish living. Our Founders said our law would only work for a Christian people. That is why THOUSANDS of codes have since been very recently added and our jails are brimming!
So it would be best IMO, to stick with our Founding Fathers' morals; the Bible. It has served us well and proved true. It is fine to debate the context and meaning of Biblical standards, but only within reason of what it is actually saying. Let it have the meaning that was intended, but not turn it into only what we want it to say.
How did the "new" Nazi Germany work out? The "new" atheist morals of the USSR, "new" totalitarian Italy, or Japan's literal torment of countries far & wide, China's "new" social revolution & killing of millions of intellectuals and burning all their books. No, I think our Founding Fathers were onto something "good." The Good Book.
There is a reason it is called the good book! Many a prisoner has figured out why in their "spare time." I would have to include myself.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
A Transgender Spin-Off
Submitted by rapkiller on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:07am.
[I just saw this on the web!]
A TRANSGENDER SPIN-OFF
I'm a little kid and I feel that inside of me there is a real adult.
Yes, I have what you could say is an "adult identity." I know I was born an adult because I never did choose to be an adult.
Since I'm really, really an adult deep down inside, why is it I'm not allowed to go to "adult only" places and act like adults?
I mean, kids in Palestine can carry adult guns. Kids in other Muslim places can cut off heads in videos. And kids in San Francisco can watch gays having sex in public, so why can't "adult" kids like me act like those adults?
If a man can be the "woman" inside of him, and if a woman can be the "man" she says is inside of her, I demand to live out the "adult identity" that I know is really, really inside of me!
Since a cat can be the "mouse" inside of him, and since our "Christian" President can be the "Muslim" inside of him, I demand the right to be the transbeing adult that was inside of me even before I was born!
signed, Charlie (I mean - Mr. Brown)
Mamabear, 1) I thought we
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:43pm.
Mamabear,
1) I thought we were going to be civil. Why do you call the fact that I know there is a Moral Absolute deluded? Is this how you show respect? You are quick to ask for respect, but very slow in giving it!
2) Just because humans have not followed the existing absolute morality, it does not mean that it does not exist.
Atoms were discovered when? Does it mean that atoms did not exist until they were discovered? Same thing with morality. It has always, it is and it will always be wrong to murder, to rape, to have sex with a child, to cheat. Human beings, as they have made new scientific discoveries which have been in existance long before human beings existed. The same thing is with morality. As we have become more civilized we have come to known and make moral discoveries which have ALWAYS existed.
Have all Christians followed the Moral Absolute which has existed forever and ever, and ever, no, of course not. But it is silly to argue that because someone does not follow The Aboslute Moral code it means that it hasn't always existed. That is like saying that atoms came into existance when humans beings discovered. Silly argument.
3) I would urge you to study ancient civilizations. Many of them treated women as equals. Even in some ancient civilizations slaves had the same rights as their masters. But once again, just because human beings have not followed The Moral Absolute Code, it doesn't mean that it hasn't existed forever and ever.
4) Mamabear, you just do not get it! The second that you as a Moral Relativst acknowledge that my moral code exists, you acknowledge that there are moral absolutes. As a Moral Relativist, you MUST acknowledge the existance of my moral code, but the second you do this, you negate your own MOral Relativism. And no, of course the word is not going to explode, what the heck are you talking about. It won't force you to change your mind. But I guarantee you that you are not understanding the obvious logic of the problem with Moral Relativism, if you understood it, you would see how Moral Relativism negates itself.
Furthermore, as you said, you have no superior moral authority to point to that will say that your morality is THE one. You must argue your beliefs with your own personal authority and unless you can prove that as a human being you are superior to me, your moral code is merely, purely and sadly humanistic. Since all human beings are equal, even according to you, you admit that all morality is equal since no human being is above another. The ONLY way to claim that your mere humanistic morality is superior or better to anyone elses is to believe that you as a mere human are superior to another. Another great problem with Moral Relativism. If you believe that your morality is superior, you believe that you as a human being are superior to others.
5) Hmmm....can you please point out where I said i want to force my morality on you? When and where have I ever said this? You have Free Will Mamabear, you and the rest of humanity have the Right to be Wrong. LOL You can act, do and say as you please. The only thing is that your Right to be Wrong through Free Will does not mean that YOU and pro-homosexuals have the Right to impose your definition of marriage on anyone else.
No one is imposing the Traditional and Correct definition of marriage on you. No one is forcing gays to marry a heterosexual individual of the opposite sex, correct? Is this happening? No, all we are saying is that if you choose to live in a nation with Judeo-Christian values, you must accept the consequences of living in it which means accepting the laws, rules and government, as long as this government abides by The Moral Codes.
On the other hand, pro-homosexual marriage people want to do to Americans what they claim it has been done to them. You want to force people to accept and acknowledge gay "marriages".
Additionally, there is a way to measure the goodness of a moral code, the fruits that it bares. Why is cheating wrong, for example. It breaks up families, it destroys the life of children. These children of broken family, as studies show, have less of a chance to succeed in life. How do we know murder is wrong? Because it literally ends a life which leads to grave consequences to the love ones of that individual. By the fruits it brings forth, is a way to measure what is Wrong and Right.
And yes, gay marriages affects me, my children, my wife. 1) It lessens the value of marriage and it devaluates what marriage is all about, creating children, loving a spouse and raising a family. All of these go together, hand in hand. You can't seperate one from the other. Gay marriage cheapens the value of marriage, of a family and of the value of having children. 2) My children will start seeing immoral behavior, abnormal behavior as "normal". They will be morally confused, as too many human beings already are.
At the end of the day, Mamabear, no one is forcing you to do anything. Gays can live together, engage in abnormal and degrading sex acts, Free Will. Do as you please, but don't force me or anyone else to accept as moral, as good, as normal behavior homosexuality. Like it or not, accept it or not, homosexuality sex acts are Wrong, immoral. But I would never stop you from engaging in your Right to be Wrong, Free Will.
6) I do not presume that the Founding Fathers wanted to give Rights to women and blacks, but could not. I know so! Read and study some history. Read and study first hand letters of our Founding Fathers. I am NOT presuming, I know so.
Now, once again, you compare Civil Rights for blacks and women to homosexuals attempting to gain the ability to marry. There is ZERO comparison. It is such an immense insults to minorities for anyone to make this comparison.
I as a minority, as a Latino cannot help in any way shape or form, no matter how hard I try the fact that I am Latino! that I am a bit darker than the average American, correct? Women can't help that they were born female, can they? NO!
Homosexuals, on the other hand, can help and control their emotions, their impulses.
Homosexuality is not where near being the same as being born with black skin or as a female.
This is very long, so I will stop here. I would ask that if you want to continue this, you give the respect that you asked for. Calling someone's beliefs deluded is FAR from giving the respect that you constantly demand from others on NB.
Not trying to insult
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:36pm.
I think you believe something that isn't true. That is the definition of a delusion, but if you find that term insulting feel free to pick another one and I will use it.
So, I get that you think your moral code is absolute, has always been the right one, and will always be the right one. But in the past people have followed different moral codes, including good Christian people. Do you think they thought the same thing-- that their code was absolute, had always been right and will always be right? How do you know you aren't just as confused as they were? Where's the "absolute" in your absolute moral code? What's the source that you know is incontrovertable?
Debates are not about which person is superior, they are about which argument is superior. I do not have to be a better person than you to convince you of something, and I do not have to think that because people deserve to be treated equally, everything that everyone says is precisely equal to everything everyone else says. I honestly wonder where you come up with this stuff!
You are still assuming that a statement about morality is a moral. It isn't. If I say the sky is blue, that statement isn't blue. It is about blue, but it isn't blue. Saying that you believe in moral absolutes is not a moral absolute.
By your logic, every straight couple who can't produce children is also devaluing your marriage. Why don't you demand that they stop being married?
they are about which argument is superior ...
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:37pm.
Which is why you lose.
Mamabear, 1) The term
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:02am.
Mamabear,
1) The term delusional has a negative connotation to it. I would hope that as a college professor, you would know this. Please stop playing silly games. This is the problem with Liberals, they can never say, "ooops, I made a mistake". They are too proud and lack humility!
Why the heck would I pick a term for you to use against me when I know with 100% accuracy that you are 100% wrong? LOL get real.
2) So what in the past Christians or anyone else followed different moral codes which they honestly believed were absolute. How does that make my argument any less valid? Scientist in the past worked on science before they knew the atom existed. They 100% believed their science was correct. Does this make the scientist of the past who didn't know about the atom any less scientist? Of course not.
I find it quite interesting that you didn't dare step on my "discovery of the atom" analogy. I would urge you to read through your own posts here. You even use the term, "discover" when relating to morality. You can only discover that which already exists, not that which you create out of thin air.
Of course you know the answer to the question you ask. Absolute morality comes from God which we find in the Bible. But you won't accept this since you do not believe in it. However, even without believing in God and the Bible, as I pointed out, there are ways to find out that morality which is absolute. The example that I gave you of by their fruits you know what is moral and right. In fact, I bet you that everyday you make decisions based on "by their fruits you shall know...". You even stated to me why murder is wrong which I agree with you. The difference is, between you and I, that I will say, murder is wrong for everyone, it has always been wrong, it is wrong and it will always be wrong for everyone. you on the other hand will tell me, "well, it is wrong for you and I, but it may not be morally wrong for someone else". To which I ask you, then," if it is not morally wrong for some, what Right do we have to impose our belief that murder is wrong on those who honestly believe that murder is not wrong?" This is a question that neither you nor any Moral Relativist I have ever debated can answer. If you, Mamabear, if our society, has the right to impose your morality, that murder is wrong, on someone who believes that murder is morally correct, why can't I, then impose on you that homosexual sex acts are wrong and that gay marriage is wrong? Think hard and long before you answer these questions. I know you can't be consistent when answering these.
3) LOL nice try with your "...the statement is not blue..." rhetoric. I have heard it a million times from countless of Moral Relativist. Sorry, the statement is both, it is a statement describing morality about morality. It is a moral statement to say that Morality is Absolute or that Morality is Relative. You are talking about morality while you are describing it! It is a moral statement about morality. I can ask you the same demeaning question, where do you come up with your Moral Relativistic rhetoric? (Once again, you ask for the respect that you refuse to give). Leave the editorials aside and if you can't, please move on. You were quite upset when you felt I was demeaning your profession, but you have zero problem demeaning the beliefs of others. Be a bit more consistent or is it that your Moral Relativism demands that you ask others to give you the respect that you feel entitled to, but you are under no obligation to also give it?
When you claim that all Morality is Relative, you are stating an absolute truth about morality. You are in essence describing morality with an absolute moral statement. That Morality has been, it is and will always be relative. Simple logic which Moral Relativist MUST deny in order to feel comfortable in their Moral Relativism.
And is this not what you believe, Mamabear and isn't it what all Moral Relativist believe? That Morality has been, it is and will always be relative? You are making an absolute moral statement about morality, that it has been, it is and will always be relative. You state an absolute about morality and then turn around and claim there is no such thing as Moral Absolute.
And as I said, you simply do not get the fact that the second you recognize the existence of my morality, which is absolute morality, you contradict your morality. Moral Relativism and Moral Absolute can't co-exist. It is an impossibility. It is either the one or the other. So, you must choose whether my morality exists or not. The problem is that as a Moral Relativist you acknowledge the existence of other moral codes different than yours. You even admitted that you acknowledge the existence of a moral code that says having sex with children is good and that having sex with animals is good. But in the world, in logic, two contradictory statements cannot exist together at the same time.
So, I ask you straight out, Do you, Mamabear, acknowledge the existence of my morality? Yes or No? Once again, answer this question very carefully.
4) Hmmmm....no, by my logic nothing of the sort of what you said about couples unable to have children is true. Spouses who naturally can't have children are not trying on purpose not to have children. Their sexual act has the possibility to produce a child. In fact, the way tot hink about it, is this way. Every time married spouses have sex will it end in conception? Of course not! Does this mean that it is demeaning sex and marriage every time a married couple has sex and do not conceive? Of course not! because the sexual act has the possibility to conceive. Additionally, The same sex act on a fertile couple will produce a child. If the former couple did nothing unnatural to prevent a child, they are not demeaning my marriage. However, if the former couple uses contraceptives to prevent conception, then yes, they are also demeaning marriage. However, there has NEVER and there WILL NEVER be the case that sex between two men or between two women will ever end with conception.
5) Mamabear, once again, you just don't get it. let me take you through it again, slowly.
You have your argument and I have my argument. You claim that all of us human beings are equal, correct? Yes.
You also informed me that you have no higher authority, no superiority over anyone. Correct?
So, explain to me, then, how can your arguments be superior to mine, above mine which gives you the right to impose your beliefs on me?
You keep on saying, "We are all equal" then you turn around and also claim, "this does not mean that everything that everyone says is precisely equal to everything everyone says". Really? says who? you? Prove it! Prove that your statement do not have the same weight as mine, as average joe doe and jane doe who live down the street from you. Prove it!
Are you saying that you know with absolute certainty that your moral statements are superior? or that the moral statements of someone else are? really? How do you know this? if you are going to make a statement claiming that everyone is equal, but what they say is not equal, you better have prove of this. What makes your statements superior? I asked you this question in earlier posts and you claimed that your statements were not superior, no ones were. Only through argument and debate would a moral statement become superior. Why? What authority gives the moral statement that become superior the power to be superior?
6) I also find it interesting that you refused to retract your statement that I am attempting to force my morality on you as you claimed. I am still waiting for you to show me the post, sentence, words which I used proving that what I want is to impose my morality on you. Please show it to me or I would ask that you retract and apologize for your erroneous statement. Thanks.
I always tell people, we all have the Right to be Wrong. Free Will, it is God's gift to humanity. What none of us have a Right to is to force anyone to believe that immoral actions, immoral lives are normal and good. Well in fact, none of us have the Right to force anyone to do anything. If God does not intervene, if you are not harming anyone physically or spiritually, I am actually doing wrong if I impose anything on you. I have the moral duty to tell you what is Right and Wrong, but I do not have the Right to force you into anything, as long as you are not physically or spiritually harming anyone.
7) I have to go back, though, to two questions I asked you a long time ago on this forum which you have overlooked or purposely ignored. I am hoping it is the former.
a) What is the purpose of marriage? b) what is Love? I can guarantee you that neither one is about the want and need to fulfill selfish needs, wants or emotions.
8) and once again, homosexuals can, as you admitted, control their emotions, desires, animalistic arousal. However, Latinos, Blacks can't control being born Latino, Black. The Homosexual movement has NOTHING to do with Civil Rights. A minority in the South forced slavery and segregation in the USA. Today, a minority in the USA is attempting to force Americans to accept immoral sex acts as moral. Why? For the simple reason that these individuals do not want to believe or feel like they are doing wrong.
9) Sorry, once again long, but I have a lot to say. I also drank a capuccino, which I am not used to and it has me awake at 2am CST. and I drank the darn thing at 5pm. I have way too much energy for this late in the night! Or early in the morning. LOL
Like I said
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 11:59am.
if you don't like the term delusion, I'll try to use something more neutral. I didn't make a mistake, I meant to say delusional, but I didn't expect you to find it so insulting.
Scientists do not believe that what they know today is 100% correct and will stand forever as truth, and if scientists in the past thought that then yes, that did make them less of a scientist. That's the difference. You think you are 100% correct and that your moral code has always and will always be the right one. Our scientific answers are unlikely to continue to be the right ones for very long. We come up with the best answers we can, and then those serve us until we come up with better answers. I think that some common threads will (hopefully) run through human morality until we go extinct, but I don't think that everything will stay the same. I hope, for instance, that people will change their mind about homosexuality. It is happening, there was a national poll recently, Rasmussen, I think, where for the first time a majority of respondents supported gay marriage. The issue breaks down strongly by age, so over time I think the number of people who share your specific moral beliefs on this issue are going to decrease.
I've always wondered how people who look to the Bible for moral guidance deal with all of the stuff that we no longer think is right. I mean, we don't think it is okay for men to sleep with their servants in order to have kids if their wives can't have children, right? So how do you decide which stories and statements are moral guides, and which are outdated or reflect some special circumstance that shouldn't be emulated? Probably obviously, my questions are leading to-- why hasn't the prescription against homosexuality gone the way of the handmaiden thing?
I don't really see the point in continuing to tell you that I acknowledge the existence of your morality but don't think that means I have to agree that your morality is absolute. Clearly, we disagree on this, and both of us have tried multiple avenues to convince the other that their logic is wrong. I still think you are wrong. You still think I'm wrong. We aren't going to convince each other.
As for authority. If I say 1 + 1 = 3, and you say 1 + 1 = 2, we may both be deserving of equal treatment, but that does not make both of those statements equally valid. I think that there are objective facts in the world, things that are true or aren't true. I just don't think that morality is one of those facts. So I don't think that all opinions about factual things are equal. I've explained at least three times that I don't think I have any authority to tell you what to do or impose my morality on you, but I think I have a responsibility to try and convince you to adopt the morality that I think is the best. Because I think that makes the world a better place.
I don't think I accused you of trying to force your morality on me, but you think that your moral code is objectively right and true. Therefore you think that I am objectively wrong, and you are trying to convince me of that. We share the same society, so how you think that society should be run affects me. I don't think there's anything wrong with that-- I'm trying to affect how this country is run too. You did seem to be arguing further up the thread that changing marriage laws was forcing my morality on you, but that's no different than making me abide by laws that reflect your opinion on moral issues. Personally, I think it is okay to try and change laws to reflect morality, and when I lose those arguments, as I did with prop 8, I don't cry about people forcing their morality on me, I work harder to try and convince people to change their minds next time around.
I'm not purposefully ignoring anything you say. Your posts are way too long for me to have time to respond to everything! So if there are things you want me to address, just remind me.
I can't tell you the purpose of marriage, because I think it means different things to different people. Most of my friends are non-religious, so for them marriage is a symbol of commitment, a chance to celebrate a relationship with friends and family, and a set of legal protections that support a shared life. But that's not what marriage means for everyone. Love-- that's a complicated question! There are different kinds of love, different things that affect love, but I do believe that people fall in love, and that there is a specific type of love that is reserved for someone you want to be a sexual partner and possibly raise a family with.
FYI on the hand maiden part
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 8:49pm.
snip: I've always wondered how people who look to the Bible for moral guidance deal with all of the stuff that we no longer think is right. I mean, we don't think it is okay for men to sleep with their servants in order to have kids if their wives can't have children, right? So how do you decide which stories and statements are moral guides, and which are outdated or reflect some special circumstance that shouldn't be emulated? Probably obviously, my questions are leading to-- why hasn't the prescription against homosexuality gone the way of the handmaiden thing?
The Bible simple reports what happened! Lots of bad stuff reported on because that is what happened! That in no way should be confused with the actions being endorsed or giving a moral code. Like King David stealing Bathsheba then having her husband killed! You really need to listen to the Bible because it really, really helps understand it vs. just reading it IMO.
Sarai is the wife of Abram, and Hagar is the servant of Sarai. It was a middle eastern custom in those times that a wife could give her slave to her husband and the child thus conceived would be counted as the child of the wife ("perhaps I can build a family through her"). Israel has paid a dear price for that sin. All extremely accurately foretold in the Bible!
http://www.giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html
snip: OLD TESTAMENT POLYGAMY
You may be surprised to learn that Abraham was not a polygamist -- that David completely repented of it -- that God's legal statutes made polygamy illegal in ancient Israel!
God did not sanction polygamy in Old Testament times. Contrary to the suppositions many have accepted, God forbade it -- and PUNISHED for it!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I don't know, Maximus
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 8:49pm.
I'm pretty sure it was Jesus who set the record straight on polygamy. When was it outlawed in the OT?
Maximusbraveheart, Well
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:13pm.
Maximusbraveheart,
Well said.
I think that Mamabear has never sat down and read the Bible. The Old Testament if full of history and stories which if one bothers to read one can clearly see where it went wrong and where it went good for the protagonist in the story, David, Abraham, etc.
Additionally, and this is more for Mamabear, reading the New Testament, Jesus Christ clearly spells out what shall be followed and what should not be followed from the Old Testament.
The type of question that Mamabear presented I always get it from individuals who love to attack the Bible, but have never sat down and read it from cover to cover.
The Old Mosaic laws in the Old Testament did not always equate to God's Law. This is something that Jesus Christ, God Himself, addresses in the New Testament.
God's Law, Absolute Morality, have been, currently are and will always be. Just because human beings, including those who claim to follow and believe in God, did not always and in some cases never followed God's Laws, does not mean that absolute morality does not exist.
What about Leviticus?
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 5:56pm.
As I understand, that is one place where people looking to find condemnation of homosexuality in the bible go, right? But there are plenty of other proscriptions and punishments in there that we don't follow any more. Like not eating mutton, or stoning adulterers. So how do you take one section of the bible, all of which was presumably set down at the same time by the same person or people, and pick one part to follow and one part to ignore?
Could you point me to the place in the New Testament where Jesus Christ condemns homosexuality? I'd like to read it, the only sections I know related to it are in the Old Testament.
~So ignorant
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:21pm.
Many cuts of mutton are kosher. The only parts that aren't are the sciatic nerve and some of the fat of the back half of the sheep.
Every culture prohibited homosexuality in Biblical times. They weren't exactly the lone religious nutcase holdouts.
There's more to the New Testament than just the Gospels, you know.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10
Is that in the book?
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:48pm.
I don't know anything about keeping kosher, but Leviticus just says don't touch sheep because they have cloven hooves. Where does it explain which parts you can eat and which you can't?
~Wow
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:55pm.
No, it doesn't say any such thing. Would it kill you to look this stuff up before pontificating on it and making a complete and utter fool of yourself?
Leviticus 11
1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Newsflash: Sheep "cheweth the cud" and have cloven hoofs. Thank you for once again exposing your ignorance and demonstrating your laziness.
Sorry
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:21pm.
I read it too fast. You aren't allowed to eat any fat from a sheep, or a cow. Apparently, some code explains further which pieces of fat, but Leviticus just says "fat." Isn't there cow fat on any decent cut of beef?
Either way, though, Christians stopped following those laws. If Leviticus isn't the right place to find the proscriptions against homosexuality, because those laws no longer apply, then where is?
Mamabear, And why do the
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:55pm.
Mamabear,
And why do the Mosaic Laws found in Leviticus no longer apply? If you read the Bible and are as well versed as you have attempted to claim you are, you would know the answer!!!
The reason why Christians no longer follow Jewish traditions when it comes to food can be found both in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles!
but that is just it, you can here attacking Christianiaty without knowing much, if anything, of where our teachings come from.
Honestly, and I mean this with all the respect in the world, please thoroughly educate yourself about Christians beleifs and where they come from. AND going on the internet, to website you are comfortable with to find the answers is NOT educating yourself.
Umm...
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:00pm.
That's why I'm asking. I know I don't know, and I know the internet won't do it. You guys seem to think you know what you are talking about, so I'm asking you where I should read. Knowing where your beliefs come from is probably not going to change what I think about them, but it could change what I think about the people who hold them.
"so I'm asking you where I should read"
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:29am.
So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ. Romans 10:17
Direct listening: http://dailyaudiobible.com/Groups/1000043454/Daily_Audio_Bible/Hidden_Ho...
Or podcasts (more convenient, can listen anywhere or at bedtime). Enter this link if your device can do podcasts (about 30min/day):
http://feeds2.feedburner.com/dailyaudiobible
and 5 min of proverbs: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/dailyaudioproverb
-------------------snip from another site I have not been to but gave a good summary http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/cbnteachingsheets/Gifts_of_the_Spirit.aspx -----------
How Do I Receive The Baptism In The Holy Spirit?
You only have to do two things.
First, once you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you just have to ask God to baptize you in the Holy Spirit. The Bible says, "Ask, and it shall be given to you" (Luke 11:9).
Second, believe you have in fact received this gift from God. The apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians, said, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith?"
(Galatians 3:2). The answer, obviously, is faith. You have to believe that if you ask, you will receive.
Pray this prayer if you sincerely desire to receive the baptism in God's Holy Spirit:
"Heavenly Father, at this moment I come to You. I thank You that Jesus saved me. I pray that the Holy Spirit might come upon me. Lord Jesus, baptize me now in the Holy Spirit. I receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit right now by faith in Your Word. May the anointing, the glory, and the power of God come upon me and into my life right now. May I be empowered for service from this day forward. Thank You, Lord Jesus, for baptizing me in Your Holy Spirit. Amen."
Now, having asked and received, begin to practice the power of the Spirit. An ideal place to begin is where the first apostles did, praising God in a new language. To do this, begin praising God out loud in whatever words come to you. Tell Him how much you love Him. Thank Him, worship Him, and yield your voice to Him. Now let Him give you new words of praise you never heard before. Praise Him with those words, too. You'll find that thiscan be a very rewarding experience of communication with God that will build up your faith. Continue to pray to God each day in the language that the Holy Spirit has given you.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Mamabear, 1) I know you did
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:01pm.
Mamabear,
1) I know you did not make a mistake using the word "delusional", but are you going to stand there and claim that delusional does not have a negative connotation to it?
Use whatever word pleases you. I was just pointing out that while you have constantly ask for respect, you always seem to be short on giving it. That was my point on pointing out that the word delusional has a negative connotation to it.
2) What is it with the science lesson. That wasn't my point at all!! My point is that just like there are absolutes in science, the existence of the atom, for example, there are absolutes in morality. Just like in science, just because scientist do not know something exists, like scientist did not know atoms existed at one point, correct? Did it mean that atoms did not exist until scientists discovered the atom? Of course not! The atom have always existed since the universe began. The same thing with morality, just because we do not know all of the morality that is absolute, it does not mean that absolute morality does not exist. Just like we make discoveries in science, there are also discoveries in what morality is absolute.
3) I agree that little by little there is more acceptance for gay marriage, why? Because there is a huge push to brainwash the younger generations into accepting this abnormal behavior. Furthermore, there is also a huge push for Moral Relativism. Both of these things combined, both of these propaganda's combined in elementary, junior high, high schools along with time in college have truly confused the younger generation. In States like California, Illinois, and other radical Liberal States, public school curriculums have popped up in which kindergartens all the way through 12th grade are taught about sex, how it is done, about homosexuality. Ridiculous books like, "tim has two mommies" are being read to kids by public schools. Of course the younger generations are going to accept it since they have been conditions and forced from a young age to do so. However, as I said, just because people, a majority of people accept something as moral and good, it doesn't make it so.
Going with your philosophy that the majority decides what is morally good, killing Jews in Nazi Germany was a good thing since the majority of people believed it to be so. Polls are meaningless when it comes to morality regardless of which way they go. Acceptance of an abnormal behavior by the majority of people does not make the abnormal behavior all of a sudden normal.
4) Well, the second you acknowledge the existence of my morality, you are acknowledging that moral absolutes exist. I just think you can't bring yourself to say this because it would throw your morality into chaos.
5) So, you get to pick and choose which facts are objective and which ones are subjective? That is quite convenient, don't you think? 1+1= 2. yes, an objective truth, it can't be changed, it is absolute. But then you turn around and claim that this does not exist in morality? Very, very, VERY convenient. Objective, absolute truths exist all around us in science, history, math, philosophy and yes morality too.
and just like you feel compelled and obligated to tell others what you believe to be morally good is your moral duty since you believe, as you mere human opinion, that it will make a better society. So do I. You know the difference, and I think this is a point that needs to be addressed....
Your secular humanism has a voice in the public schools, in the public arena. Christianity, moral absolutes, are losing a voice in public schools, in the public arena. Not only are they losing a voice, they are being shut down. It has been made illegal to speak of Christian values, of the Bible in public schools, correct?! YES Yet, your secular humanism can be spread wide and far, wide and near to any and all public school attendees. So, secular humanist, atheist do believe that their morality is superior and that Christian morality must be shut down since it is inferior.
This of course is not the first time in history and probably won't be the last that Atheist do everything with in their power to shut down Christian virtues. It was done during the French Revolution, the so called Enlightment. The French Catholic Church was persecuted by the Atheist, those who proclaimed the goddess of reason was the only thing to be worshiped. The Christian calendar was changed to a secular calendar, just like today it has been done so in archeology and other academic places. Countless of priests, monks, nuns, lay men, women and children were slaughtered all in the name of secular humanism, of Atheism. Of course, this is just but one example. There is the Cristero Wars in Mexico, where the same thing happened. There is Communism USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, N. Korea.
Where ever secular humanism, atheism, Moral Relativism wins, there is a slaughter of human beings unlike anything that has been seen previously in human history. Atheist do not like competing ideas, they kill, literally, competing ideas once they get into power.
Atheist governments, secular humanism governments, Moral Relativist governments have mass murdered, slaughtered many more hundreds of millions of human beings than any religion and than all religions combined. This is a FACT of history that Atheist, secular humanist either deny or refuse to acknowledge. But it is a fact of history, it is an absolute that no matter how much anyone denies, it happened! and it happens every time Atheist win.
6) While you may not have cried when you lost Prop 8, many a homosexual and heterosexual that was against Prop 8 not only cried, by they persecuted, publicly attempted to shame and physically attacked anyone and anything that was for Prop 8. The Mormon Church was horrifically attacked. Businesses that were found to have stood up against gay marriage were attacked.
I am sorry, this is imposing, very different than arguing, debating, etc.
7) Your marriage answer was a bit evasive, so I will ask it a different way. What is the purpose of marriage for society?
8) I have to address something you said to LOTR about me.
I believe whole heartily that homosexuals and heterosexuals are all equal human beings. Both created by God and God loves them equally. God does not hate homosexuals. God wants the salvation of homosexuals as much as He wants the salvation of all heterosexuals. I treat homosexuals as my equals, not my inferiors.
However, I do not treat homosexual sexual act as equal, as normal. You seem to equate accepting someone's behavior with equality. That is no different than me not treating the act of cheating by a heterosexual as good, as normal. Sexual acts of homosexuality are as abnormal as sexual acts of heterosexuals which are not between one man and one woman who are married to each other.
Equality does not mean accepting the behavior of anyone as good or moral. I treat my son and daughter with respect and I treat them fairly. However, just because I scold them and tell them what is Right and Wrong and do not accept all of their behavior as good, it does not mean that I do not consider them equal human beings who deserve everything good in the world.
Treating individuals equally does not mean treating their behavior, their actions, their wants and needs equally.
Sure
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:35pm.
Delusional does have a negative connotation, but I'm saying I think you believe something that isn't true. Is there any way to say that without a negative connotation? I don't think so. If you find "delusional" more insulting than any other way of saying it, like "wrong," I'll change words. But this is an argument-- it is going to be difficult to have it if I'm not allowed to say I think you are wrong!
Atoms do exist before we discover them, but not everything we think we've discovered actually exists. I may think that there is a spaghetti monster in the sky. If there is a spaghetti monster in the sky, then it doesn't matter if I think it's there or not. But I could also be wrong about the spaghetti monster. But you said more than that about scientists-- that they thought they were 100% right and that's just like you. I was disagreeing with that.
I never said that something becomes good or right because the majority thinks it is. I said that we live in a society in which the majority determines what is allowed and accepted. The fact that that may be wrong is why we all have to keep arguing and working for what we think is right. If we could just rely on the majority to always do the right thing, we could all just relax and stop worrying!
Atheists, and especially secular humanists, do not think that Christian morality has to be shut down because it is inferior, they just think that religious precepts should not be forced on people who don't believe in that religion. If you look at the moral code of your average atheist and your average Christian in this country, there is a lot more similarity than there is difference. You may think that's because morality is objective and universal, I think it is because those people share both biology and social environment with each other. There are other avenues for Christian morals to be taught to children. The idea is that public spaces become neutral ground, blank, without religious imprint. The problem is that Christians see no religious imprint as the imprint of non-religiosity. I don't know very many atheists who are actually hostile to religion, or who care in the least what you teach each other on Sundays, but the attempt to keep public spaces safe for people of any religious practice is seen as an attack. I don't buy it.
And religious people kill each other, and atheists, all the time., They have historically, they do today. It isn't atheists killing Christians in Afghanistan right now, it's Muslims. It isn't atheists killing Hindus in India, it's Christians and Muslims, and vice versa. All of the cases that you cite are cases where governments or movements tried to FORCE religious people to give up their beliefs. That is always violent, and always a horrible idea, the same way it is always violent and always a horrible idea when one religion tries to force the conversion of another. That is not what atheism has to be, and it isn't what atheism is in this country, or in Europe today.
I agree that treating people the same doesn't necessarily mean treating behavior the same. However, I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, and thus denying homosexual behavior is denying homosexual people a type of happiness, comfort, and love that heterosexual people get to have. Also, homosexuality does not harm others-- it doesn't destroy other people's marriages or cause anarchy or stunt children. Therefore, I see no reason to deny homosexuals that behavior that the rest of us get to enjoy.
Mamabear, 1) How can you
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:21am.
Mamabear,
1) How can you claim with such certantity that I believe something which is not true? In order to say this you must believe in an absolute truth!!! do you not get it? or you must believe that your opinion has more weight than mine.
In YOUR OPINION, you believe I am wrong. But it is your mere opinion and of course you have a right to state you opinion, but just because you have an opinion, it doesn't make you right. In fact, so what you have an opinion. Why does your opinion have more weight than mine? By claiming that I am wrong, you are also claiming that your opinion has more weight than my opinion.
2) Mamaber, nice try. Looking at history, looking at the facts, secular humanist, atheist have murdered and mass murdered many more hundreds of millions than all religions combined. Yes, sadly, religious people have committed atrocities. No doubt about it. However, atheist have mass murdered many more hundreds of millions than all religions combined!!
Additionally, claiming that it is governments, not people is not quite right. Why? because governments are run by people!! Why do atheist always have this defense? "It was governments, not people who did it". Who do you think run governments? people.
It has been atheist running governments who have mass murdered hundreds upon hundreds of millions more than all religions combined.
By the way, in India, it is Muslims killing Hindus. Christians are being slaughtered by both Muslims and Hindus, but from my understanding, they are a very, very small minority who hardly take up arms unless they are attacked first. But yes, religious people do kill each other and atheists. But comparing number to numbers, history proves that atheists have mass murdered many more hundreds of millions.
3) Nice excuses to not have discussions about God, religion, absolute truths in public schools. If secular humanists, if atheists valued Christians as much as they value their opinions, they would allow discussions about God, religion, absolute truths in public schools.
Secular humanists are terrified of Christianity being debated along side secular humanism and atheism.
Why should Christianity be taught in other venues while secular humanism and atheism is taught in venues where religion is not allowed? Care to explain how this gives the same value to religion and secular humanism? Of course it doesn't! As a property tax payer, my moral beleifs should be taught in public schools as much as yours. However, we live in a country where your moral beliefs have a voice in public schools land not mine!
Once again, you want equality, you demand equality, but are very slow to give it to Christians. So, homosexual point of views deserved to be taught in public schools, but not Christian point of views? I am sorry, but I can't take your demand for equality for all human beings seriously!
Funny, the pro-homosexual crowd has a heart attack when anyone dares tell them that their pro-homosexual beliefs can be taught in other venues outside of public schools! But shoot, Christians must stay silent and accept that Christian beliefs and morals have been pushed out of public schools. Is this your idea of equality? WOW!!
And you do not know very many atheists who are hostile to religion? All you have to do is go into atheist blogs, read the writings of atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Bill Maher, etc. Not only are they hostile, they believe anyone who is religious is an idiotic buffoon! I am sorry, either you live in a box or you are being incredibly desingenious!
4) And you believe homosexuality is not a choice? Says who? you? that is your mere opinion that does not have any more weight, according to Moral Relativists, than mine. Or are you saying that your opinion has more weight than mine? If it does, then you need to prove it!
and of course homosexuality harms others. It does shock children, it devalues my marriage and all marriages, just like cheating does. It devalues the meaning of sex, just like having sex outside of marriage does.
But this is the reason that people hold so hard to Moral Relativism. They need to, they must, they have to. It allows them to not feel guilty when they hold as normal, abnomral behaviors. It allows them to not feel bad. As I have discovered from most Moral Relativists, they can't stand being told that they are doing a moral wrong. Thus, they believe in Moral Relativism because when someone tells you that you are morally wrong all you have to answer is, "Well thank you, but that is your opinion. I believe I am doing a good thing so I do not have to feel bad or guilty".
Stop ranting
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:06pm.
and read what I wrote! I said "I think" you believe something that isn't true. I didn't say with certainty that I know. I disagree with you. Do you honestly think that the only time people are allowed to have legitimate disagreements is when one can be absolutely proven true or not? Thinking that you are wrong does not mean that I think my opinion has more weight that yours. It has more weight to ME, because it is my opinion. If another opinion seemed better, then THAT would be my opinion! But I don't expect my opinion to have any special weight for anyone else. That's why I try to explain it, so that it might become someone else's opinion too. So that someone else might come to agree with me, not because anyone should just accept what I say. I find it hard to imagine the world you must live in where every disagreement is so... fraught!
I don't know if your numbers are real, I'd like to see some citations that show how atheists have killed more people than religious wars. But even if it is true, isn't that mostly because atheist movements are a modern trend, and there are vastly more people alive today than there were during, say, the Crusades? That doesn't make killing people okay, but it does make the comparison kind of meaningless.
Also, I never said governments did the killing instead of people, you completely missed the point there. I said the problem was forced atheism, not just atheism. People forcing their religion or lack thereof on others is violent and bad and often involves killing. Those examples you cited were violent because people were forced (yes, by other people) into systems they didn't want to participate in.
I think students should be taught about Christianity in public schools, they just shouldn't be taught to be Christians. I don't think they should be taught to be secular humanists either, but if the absence of religion is secularism, then it is hard to avoid a secular environment if you are also going to avoid indoctrination. I read the bible in english class, and it was very interesting. But no one told me I had to base my morality on it or believe it was written by God or accept its version of the history of life on earth over that of science. That's what atheists object to, and for the most part, that's not happening, so we're pretty happy. Or at least, we were until creationism got a big revival and started showing up in science classrooms.
So, you just named three of the five atheists I know of who are actually hostile to religion. I didn't say they don't exist, but based on my experience I don't think they represent the majority viewpoint.
My opinion on whether or not homosexuality is a choice is slightly different than my opinion on the nature of morality. It is an opinion that I have formed based on my knowledge of facts. It is not yet a fact itself, but it is an opinion based on evidence, which I think is pretty strong. I do not need to think that all opinions about factual matters are equally valid in order to be a moral relativist. I am not a reality relativist.
so mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:19pm.
"so that someone else might come to agree with me"
Are you saying that you come here to NB and pontificate in order to convert others to your way of thinking?... hmmmm
Mamabear, Mamabear, 1)
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:44pm.
Mamabear,
Mamabear,
1) "Stop ranting"? Is this your idea of respect? LOL
And all you had to say in your first paragraph is that you have no moral convictions and that if one idea seems better suited to you, you will blow where the wind blows. For someone that is asking that I stop ranting you certainly do a lot of it. LOL
You are an individual who lacks moral convictions. You see, simple to say. No need for you to rant, Mamabear.
2) So what you think I am wrong. You are a mere human being with an opinion which has the same weight as mine. Unless you prove how you and your opinion are superior to mine, all you have are the opinions of Mamabear. So what you have them? Opinions are not facts.
you are trying to convince me that your ideas are better? How can you do this, Mamaber, when your moral code is that of a mere human being?
But I guess it is ok for you to try to convince others that your moral code is better. It is just that it is not ok for individuals who know homosexuality is abnormal to do the same. Gotcha! If we do it, we are xenophobes, homophobes, closed minded, disgusting. Are you truly blind to how ironic you are? LOL of course you are!
3) Atheist movements are a modern trend? It is because of humanity has more human beings? Where do you come up with this stuff? LOL
Tell me you didn't bring up the Crusades. You do know the Crusades are a respond to Muslim invation of Western Europe and Christian Jerusalem, correct? The Crusades were not an aggressive, it was in defense!
If you are going to bring up the Crusades, please know what you are talking about.
Atheist have been and ARE the aggressors. They were aggressors in the French Revolution, the aggressors in the Cristero Wars, the aggressors in the Spanish Civil War, the aggressors in Nazi Germany, the aggressors in Communist USSR, the aggressors in communist China, the aggressors in Vietnam, Cambodia, N. Korea, Cuba. The atheist decided that Catholics, Christians, Jews were not worthy and decided to mass murder hundreds of millions of them. THIS is the legacy of atheism.
If atheism was good, explain why any and all nations/governments that end up atheist end up mass murdering whole sectors of their society?
4) You read the Bible in English class? Who are you trying to fool?! Tell me you paid a lot more attention to it than your claims about Leviticus!
And sorry, public schools do a lot more than merely teach what atheism, secular humanism is all about. They INDOCTRINATE children into atheism, secular humanism. Atheist object to anyone being told in public schools that they need to believe in Christian virtues, that they need to believe in God, but they do not mind when teachers teach students to believe in atheism, secular humanism. From reading book lists to history books to science books atheism is being taught as the moral code to have in public schools. Atheist, Secular humanist indoctrination is what happens in public schools. Why don't atheist object to this?
And why is Creationism such a threat to atheist?! Why are atheist, secular humanist, anti-Christians so terrified of different theories being taught to students? Why should public schools teach only atheist approved theories?! Once again, in your mind, in the mind of Liberals we are all equals, it is just that some are more equal than others.
5) Based on your experience atheist are not hostile to religious people? And you teach science? Since when is anecdotal evidence proof of anything? Shoot, using your logic, 99% my experiences with atheist is that they are hostile, so darn they are hostile!
No Mamabear, Hitchens, Dawkins, Bill Maher and others are heroes in the atheist movement. They aren't merely part of the atheist movement. They are heroes, they are held up by atheists as individuals who should be followed, imitated. If the atheist movement was not hostile to religion and religious people, these individuals would be outcasts in the atheist movement! Their hostility would be shun. Their snobbery against religious people would be rejected by atheist. But it isn't! These individuals are embraced, are held up as heroes in the atheist movement.
An opinion based on facts? Which facts and by who? Individuals who are doing everything within their power to indoctrinate individuals into believing that homosexuality is morally correct. Atheist indoctrination is not bad when their values are being pushed, but indoctrination is bad when atheist feel Christian virtues are being taught. Again, we are all equals. It is just that some are more equal than others.
And seriously Mamabear, if you want to continue this. Learn respect! my goodness. Claiming that I am ranting, claiming that you hate to know what world I live in since disagreement is so...fraught. These are ridiculous, childish, moronic statements which have zero place in a conversation where both sides decided to respect each other. If you can't abide by the rules of respect, please don't bother replying anymore.
the ONLY times where I felt very uncomfortable, the only time where I was belittled for having different opinions is in college when I debated atheist, secular humanist, Liberal, socialist and communist professors and students. Individuals who are snobs who believe they are better educated, have more knowledge and are more intelligent than individuals who believe in Christian virtues. But what can you expect from a university, U of I, who hired a homegrown terrorist, William Ayers, as an education professor.
Now as an adult working at a university, once again the only time I encounter fraught is when there is disagreement of religion, values, etc with a secular humanist and atheist. Their snobbery, their feeling of superiority, their contempt for religious people oozes out of them. Of course, like everything else, there are exceptions. Honest atheist, however, who are willing to have an honest debate are as hard to find as a child who doesn’t like sweets.
At this point
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:38pm.
your argument appears to have just devolved into saying "NO!" to every point I make and repeating yourself continuously.
1) I have moral convictions. One of my convictions is that if someone else has a demonstrably better idea about how to go about life than I do, I should consider changing. That's not moral so much as it is intelligent.
2) It is okay for you to try and convince me in a debate like this that homosexuality is wrong. You aren't adversely affecting my life, denying me anything I care about, or making me feel like an outcast. I don't particularly feel like it is okay for you to try and convince homosexuals that who they are is immoral, because that does do all of those bad things. As an analogy, I may think it is okay for me to try and convince you to think differently about homosexuality, which is part of your religion, but I don't think it would be okay for me to tell you that it is bad to be a Christian. I think that crosses a line that goes beyond philosophical debate to intolerance.
3) I'm not saying that atheists weren't the aggressors in those cases, but if you want to claim that all secular governments become tyrannical mass murderers, you are going to have to explain the peaceful existence of modern western Europe.
4) I love you telling me what people actually think in a movement I am a part of and you are not. You have no idea what atheists like or don't like.
Once again, you dish out all kinds of insults, but don't have skin thick enough to take being told you are ranting. That isn't even an insult, ranting is a good thing! I just felt like you went running off in a completely wrong direction, and I wanted you to stop and pay attention to what I was saying. Saying that I think your world view makes disagreements more significant and thus more difficult than mine is also not an insult. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe those people you argued with were not so much contemptuous as you were sensitive?
Mamabear, 1) Ahhhh!! it
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:24pm.
Mamabear,
1) Ahhhh!! it never fails, the person who has no moral conviction hides behind the age old, "it is intelligent" LOL
Just admitted, you lack Moral Conviction. lacking moral conviction is far from being intelligent!
2) Tellling a homosexuals that their sexual life is wrong crosses into intolerance? WOW!!!
No! you telling me that it shows intolerance on my part to tell a homosexual that their sexual life, if they are practicing homosexual acts, is immoral shows complete and utter lack of intolerance from you!!
As human beings we have a moral obligation to tell our fellow human beings when they are doing wrong things! Tolerance is NOT staying quiet when you see a fellow human being leading an immoral life.
This is the problem, you hit the nail on the head!!!
Homosexuals do not want to hear from anyone that their homosexual sex acts are immoral and wrong. This is the key point in this debate. The inability of human beings, especially the homosexual community, to hear that they are doing wrong when it comes to sex acts.
3)Peaceful existence in Western Europe? where intolerance runs high, where countless of student and union marches shut down those nations on a daily basis? Peace is NOT the abscence of conflict between nations!
If you think peace exists in Western Europe you haven't travelled much! Yes, no major wars have broken out in Western Europe since WWII, but peace? very little of it exists in Western Europe. Go to their slums, go to their poor neighbors. Peace? what do you consider peace?
4) LOL ok, so since I am not an atheist and not part of an atheist movement, I have no right, I can't comment on atheism? WOW!!! thanks for showing and proving how intolerant and inconsistant you are!!!
Following your own logic, Mamabear, please stop commenting on Christianity, deal? You stop saying anything about Christianity and I will stop saying anything about atheism?!
Are you serious?!!!!!
Just a few posts above you are attempting to tell Christians what they believe, you even pointed out, wrongly, to the Book of Leviticus to back up your attack against Christians and now you mock anyone that attempts to say anything about atheism and what you believe in because I am not part of it?!!!
WOW!!! Just WOW!!! Do you honestly not see the huge hypocrisy in your statement?
But, thanks for not addressing the point that I made!!! Atheist have embraced Bill Maher, Dawkins, Hitchens, they are heroes in the atheist community! Since you cannot deny this, you bring a red herring! LOL
Intolerance and lack of respect for Christians runs rampant in the atheist community, if it did not, Hitches, Dawkins, Bill Maher would not be leaders and heroes in your “movement”. They would be shunned away since supposedly, as you claim, atheists are so nice to religious people!
Do you deny that Dawkins, Hitches and Bill Maher are heroes, held as important individuals in the atheist community? Do you deny this? You can't, thus you went on a rant, yes a rant, attempting to mock me, that I should not tell you what your movement is all about since I am not an atheist! WOW!!!
Then, YOU stop telling Christians everywhere, NB, etc what Christianity is all about since you are not a Christian!!! But of course, you have not done this. You have ZERO problem telling Christians what Christianity is all about, even though you are NOT a Christian.
I am sorry Mamabear, take it as you wish, insult or whatever you want, but you are not very consistent, are you? No you are not!
But hey, leave it to a Liberal to tell someone else that since you are not part of a movement you can’t tell the person that is part of the movement what many in their movement are all about.
Well Mamabear, I expect you to NEVER again say a word about Christianity on NB. If you do not follow your logic, please do not ask others to follow it!
5) Over sensitive? Ahh…the good old Liberal and Atheist defense to insult anyone and everyone they feel like. They attack, belittle, act like snobs and then when called on it they say, “don’t you think you are being a little over sensitive? “ LOL
Yes, Mamabear, when you called me intolerant, immoral, a xenophobe on this forum and I call you out on your insults I was being over sensitive. LOL You are something else.
More than one exclamation point at a time
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:08pm.
makes my eyes bleed.
I ask questions about Christianity, and not questions that are intended simply as backhanded insults. I have probably made some incorrect assumptions about Christianity when arguing here, but when corrected I have never presumed to insist that I know better what you are thinking than you do. That's what I object to. Don't tell me what atheists are REALLY like, that isn't what I've been doing to you. Feel free to comment on what you think about atheists and atheism, that's not my problem.
There is lots of racial tension in Europe, and I'm not citing it as some kind of paradise where nothing is wrong! But there doesn't seem to be much forced secularism and mass murder on the part of atheist overlords.
Telling you that it is wrong to be a Christian, or that Christianity is evil, would be intolerant. Either of us telling the other that they are intolerant is not, that's just criticism. I think you probably possess the capacity to understand the difference between those two statements, but you seem to prefer outrage to understanding.
Exclamation! Points!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:47pm.
I! guess! you! can! only! use! lots! of! exclamation! points! if! you! use! them! one! at! a! time! versus! in! a! row! Thanks! for! once! again! schooling! the! NB! community!
Spinsterbear is some kind of idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:22pm.
An idiot that whines about exclamation points. An idiot that litters it's posts with exclamation points.
Hey failed teacher.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 12:21pm.
What do they teach about exclamation points? Is this the way you teach your children to write? By riddling their every single paragraph with exclamation points? Make every single sentence the most exciting evah! Eleventy-seven! Idiot. Stay the hell away from my children. Oh look, that sentence did not need an exclamation point. It stood alone well. Idiot. Stay the hell away from all of our children. Worst teacher evah.
23 friggin' exclamation points on one page worth of posts. U just mose exzitable trollie world ovahz ain't U trolliez?
I think there is a place in non-formal writing
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:05pm.
for exclamation points. I think that one conveys all the excitement that any sentence needs. You apparently don't think there is any place for exclamation points, so Liberallies' posts must drive you crazy. Good thing I said something... you're welcome.
mamabear, really? not forced
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:24am.
mamabear,
really? not forced secularism in Western Europe? I guess you have missed all the French laws where Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other religions are forbidden to wear visible symbols of their religion on public school!!!!
I guess you have missed the public school curriculums in Sweden, England, France, Germany, Spain, etc, etc, etc where religion is not only not spoken about, but publicly attacked and belittled!!!
And of course, no answer to my question.
If atheist are such fun, loving, respectful bunch, why is it that three of the current leaders of the Atheist movement in the English speaking world are Dawkins, Hitchens and Bill Maher. Individuals who not only argue for atheism, but belittle, insult, disrespect religions, especially Christianity. Have you read Hitchens book against Mother Theresa? Have you? Or Dawkins laughable, fact challanged "God Delusion", have you seen Bill Maher's anti-religious "documentary"? These individuals do not only argue for atheism they disrespect Christianity, they disrespect religious people.
You have not addressed this point! all you have done is claim that I can't comment on atheism or tell you what the movment I am not in is all about. why do you refuse to address this point? Because the facts, as alwasy Mamabear, go against your belief that atheist are such nice individuals who respect people who have a religion.
It is like REstless1 said below. You seem to believe that how YOU personally treat others or how you THINK you are treating others equates to the whole movement.
And no, telling me that christianity is wrong or evil based on facts, history, actions, its teachings, based on reality, not make belief would not be being intolerant! Intolerant would be me forcing you or attempting to shame you into silence when you bring up historical, factual, real, logical attacks against Christianity.
You seem to have a warped definition of what intolerance is! Telling someone that they are wrong and that their actions are immoral is FAR from intolerant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes I love my exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!)
Intolerance is the homosexuality community forcing politicians and public figures into silence. Have you seen how the homosexual community has gone after the NFL football player who rightfully said that homosexuality is wrong? The actions of the pro-homosexual MSM and the homosexual community who have attacked the NFL player for speaking publicly against homosexuality IS INTOLERANCE!!!!!!!!!!
Intolerance is atheist and secularist having a heart attack and a half when during a public school ceremony a graduate "dares" speak about God, Christ and religion.
Intolerance is atheist inability to tolerate Christianity in the public eye!
Intoelrance is homosexuals attemption to change centuries, upon centuries of marital practices just so homosexuals feel good about their immoral life.
and isn't that at the end what is all about, homosexuals wanting to FEEL GOOD about their immoral sex life. They do not want to feel guilty. They do not want to feel that they are doing wrong. I mean who cares if they are doing wrong, it is just that they do not want to FEEL like they are doing wrong.
By the way, you might want to do research into European schools which are attempting to do away with words that show gender "bias" such as, "he, she" You are clueless about Europe!
Europe is a continent in decadence FAR from having peace. If you believe that the USA h as racial problems, if you believe that the USA has a poverity problem Europe has these 100 times worse!!!!
Secularism and Atheism are destroying Europe. Europe is a continent which is rottening from within!
and no, the USA was never created with the purpose of being atheist or secular. The government is not to force any religion on its people, but it doesn't mean that it can't be a Christian government. In fact, as the Founding Fathers said, Only a Christian nation can live with the USA Constitution. Once you remove Christianity from the USA, the Constitution no longer works. And that is exactly what we are seeing, the great fall of the USA. And by the way, since you were not part of the movement to create the USA"s Constitution, please refrain from commenting on what the Founding Fathers intend was, ok? I mean using your logic when you mocked me for telling you what the atheist intolerance is obvious due to their embrace of Dawkins, Hitchens, Bill Maher.
Sorry
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:25pm.
I consider anti-muslim sentiments in Europe to be more of a racial issue, but I'm hardly an expert on the issue. I also specifically said that Europe wasn't a paradise, and specifically mentioned racial issues. However, several of those countries you mentioned still have a state religion, so I'm dubious that they are attacking themselves as much as you seem to think.
You may not have noticed this before, but polarizing figures command attention. Those three are the most well-known atheists because they belittle, attack, and ridicule Christianity (and religion in general). They are not the most well known because they are the most representative. You are free to comment on the atheist movement, just not to tell me what "atheists" really think. If you want, you can say "some atheists," that would at least be slightly more accurate.
"The government is not to force any religion on its people, but it doesn't mean that it can't be a Christian government."
Yes, that's exactly what it means. It can be a government comprised of Christian people, but it cannot be a Christian government. I am subject to that government, so as soon as I start having to obey laws or follow practices that stem from beliefs other than my own, I am being forced to practice a religion I don't believe in. That's what the establishment clause is designed to prevent. It wasn't written with atheists in mind-- it was written, I suspect, with different flavors of Christianity in mind-- but it wasn't written to ONLY protect Christianity. They could have done that, but they didn't. I may not know what they intended, but I can read what they did.
And if you took the long view, you'd be a little more protective of the establishment clause. Christianity is the majority belief system of Americans now, but it may not always be. Given how wholly persecuted you feel by any move towards secularism, despite being overwhelmingly in the majority and enjoying complete cultural saturation in this country, I can only imagine how you would deal with being in the minority. That clause is there to protect religious people, not atheists. The worst thing that happens to me if someone forces me to act against my beliefs is I waste my time. People who believe they have an eternal soul and life waiting for them if they do right in the world have much more to lose to a state religion than I do.
Mamabear, I am sorry, but
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:36am.
Mamabear,
I am sorry, but you clearly know next to nothing about Europe!
Did you know, for example, that Italy and Spain have no State religion? did you know this? of course not! In fact, the current government of Spain, where all of my dad's family is from, actively attacks the Roman Catholic Church and its beliefs? As my brothers and sisters say every time they visit Spain, it is one of the most anti-Catholic cultures in the world!
I am sorry Mamabear, I will say it, professors like you terrify me and prove how little knowledge outside of your field you have. Yet you use your title of professor to pretend you know a lot and influence college age kids to think like you do! And this is the problem with America's universities and colleges today. Phds who know next to nothing outside of their field of study, but pretend that they do and use their Phd letters next to their names to brainwash kids. Not to mention that the countless of Phds who know nothing about their own field and/or who refuse to allow competing and equally valid views to be heard in their classroom.
I attended the University of Illinois. I was a bit older so I had the will, stamina and education to fight many of the lies that professors taught in their history and political science courses (my two majors) taught. I took on a professor who claimed that Nazism was rooted in Christianity. LOL Nazism is rooted in Hinduism and Budism symbolism and it turned into an atheist, full of homosexuals cult! Countless of SS and Ghestapo officers were homosexuals who hated the affeminate homosexuals. Of course this history is not taught in schools today because well, it will paint homosexuality in an unfavorable way and you know with the PC police we can't do that. But heck, we can lie, cheat and spew venom against Christianity. The anti-Catholic, the anti-Christian bigotry that filled the political science and history department was appaulling! and not to mention the science departments too! I took an archeology course as an elective and I will never forget how the professor went on a rant as to why many archeologists no longer use B.C. and A.D. for their dating. Sadly, the impresionable 18 to to 22 year olds just nodded their heads like mindless robots and the professor took advantage of them.
I have a lot more to lose with a State religion?! WHAT?! as if a State religion would make me stop practicing Catholicism. Are you serious with the stuff you put up?
The Establishment Clause was design to prevent the United States government from forcing anyone into a particular religion. It was NEVER written, as atheist and secularist claim, to prevent Judeo/Christian based laws, values and morals in our government or culture. It was written so you wouldn't be forced to be part of the Church of England or forced into being a Baptist or Roman Catholic. but it was not written to prevent anyone from obeying laws based on Judeo/Christian values. Where did you get your radical education from?
The Establishment Clause was written to protect Christianity!!! Read a book or two, maybe three about the Founding Fathers, how the Constution came about, how the Bill of Rights came about. Furthermore, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Governemnt from Establishing a formal religion for the Nation, but it does not forbid State, local governments from Establishing a religion! did you know this? of course not! The Bill of Rights limits the power of the Federal Government. Many State Constitutions have a similar Establishment clauses, but not all of them do.
I am not allow to say "atheist think"? What ever happened to freedom of speech, Mamabear? why are you attempting to control my speech? So now you are attempting to force me to speak as you wish? So, according to Mamabear, we can't tell homosexuals that their sexual behavior is immoral and wrong and we can't say, "atheist think"! Ah...it never fails, Liberals, pro-homosexuals who claim to be all for freedoms for everyone, doing everything within their power to limit the freedom of those whom they disagree with!!!!
It is like the story in Cisco Systems. An individuals who was for keeping Traditional Marriage getting fired form his job by a boss and an HR department (which has defended the actions of the boss) for merely being for Traditional Marriage and against Homosexual marriage. This is the equality you speak off right Mamabear? Are you as upset, angered by the actions of the boss, who is a homosexual, for firing an individual for his personal beleifs? Where are you insults? Where is your anger against Cisco Systems and the homosexual boss?
Be honest once and for all, the pro-homosexual militants do not believe or want equality. They want to shame and silence the opposition. They do not want equality, they want to destroy anyone who dares speak the Truth in public. They want to margenalize and embarrass anyone who tells it like it is. Homosexual sex acts are evil, immoral, wrong.
I am sorry, but atheist hold Bill Maher, Hitchens and Dawkins in very high places! This is a fact you cannot refute! They are adored, worshiped by countless, if not most atheists. That there is exception to this fact, of course. But Bill Maher, Hitchens and Dawkins are prominent, liked, embraced figures amongst countless atheists, not just some or a few. Like I said, this proves that atheist have little to no respect for Christians and individuals who are members of religions!
Wow
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:58pm.
I said "several" of those countries have state religions. Spain and Italy do not, that's great for Spain and Italy. The fact that Spain and Italy do not have state religions does not make my statement that "several" countries do incorrect. I didn't say they ALL have state religions. So if you want to prove me ignorant of Europe, you are going to have to prove that only one or zero of those countries has a state religion. Would you like to try and do that?
Do you seriously think I am trying to use my PhD to brainwash you? You clearly have no respect for academia, so I don't see how I could possibly be using academic credentials to try and pull a fast one on you. Is anyone here taking my statements at face value because I teach college? I don't think they are, certainly, I haven't seen any evidence of it. I'm not here as part of some vast elitist conspiracy to try and convince the world that Christianity is horrible.
"The Establishment Clause was design to prevent the United States government from forcing anyone into a particular religion."
I'm pretty sure that's what I said.
"The Establishment Clause was written to protect Christianity!!!"
Right, I said that too. I also said that the establishment clause was not written with atheists in mind. There's no need to convince me that that is true, I agree with you. However, I am simply pointing out that the only way you don't find the establishment of a state religion threatening to your own beliefs is if you assume that it would itself be Christian. While that's very likely, there's nothing guaranteeing it. That's the point of the establishment clause. Maybe, someday in the future, someone could try to stop you from practicing Catholicism and force you to become a Buddhist. Highly unlikely, but the founding fathers probably realized they couldn't foresee everything, and so they put it in there for insurance. Once it's there, though, it also means that I can't be forced to be Christian, or to follow Christian practices. Therefore, we can have laws that draw on our shared culture, which has a heavy Judeo-Christian influence, but not ones that are specific to a religious belief that not everyone shares.
"Not allowed" was shorthand. Of course you can say whatever you want, I'm just going to correct you if you try to tell me that you know better what people like me think than I do.
...like you telling me, once again, how atheists feel about those figures. Here's an interesting example of your faulty logic:
"I am sorry, but atheist hold Bill Maher, Hitchens and Dawkins in very high places! This is a fact you cannot refute! They are adored, worshiped by countless, if not most atheists."
Countless if not most? What on earth does "countless" mean if you aren't even talking about a majority of atheists? I think it means "some," but of course, "some" doesn't sound nearly as oppressive as "countless!"
"Like I said, this proves that atheist have little to no respect for Christians and individuals who are members of religions!"
Oh, so now this fact which doesn't even apply to most atheists is used as proof that "atheists" think a certain way? Not "some" atheists, but "atheists." So if some Christians are homophobes, that is proof that Christians are homophobes? If some priests are pedophiles, that's proof that priests are pedophiles? If some gay people are promiscuous, that's proof that gay people are promiscuous? Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to spout one of those lies, but would decry the other two as proof that everyone is out to get Christians and conservatives.
Mamabear, LOL... Please, I
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:57am.
Mamabear,
LOL...
Please, I respect academia. I do not respect, however, the Liberal hacks who have embedded themselves in academia. I AM IN ACADEMIA!!! Now please remove your foot out of your mouth. Thank you.
and yes, I have zero doubt, since I and countless others have experienced it first hand that Liberal hack professors use their PhDs to lie and brainwash their impressionable students. They use the classroom to push a Liberal agenda. Now, are you going to claim this is not happening?
And are you seriously trying to convince me of the lie that Hitchens, Dawkins and Maher are not prominenet, well respect atheist in the atheist community? C'mon Mamabear, sell your lies, your half-truths to your easily manipulated, impresionable kids in your college class.
Can you please show me the countless of atheist, the list, upon list, upon list of atheist who have condemned Hitchen's, Maher's and Dawkin's vitrolic, hateful attacks on Christianity? You give me that list of the countless upon countless of atheist who have spoken loud and publicly against these individuals and I will take everything I said back about your "movement", deal? LOL
Show me how countless upon countless of atheist have disassociated themselves publicy from these individuals.
You and I both know that these three individuals are heroes in the atheist community. Prove me wrong!
Oh come on
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:12am.
I haven't heard you say a single good thing about academics. If you have any respect for the business you are in, you haven't displayed any of it here. That's all I have to go on, what you say on this website.
I don't think PhD's make a habit of lying any more than anyone else in the world. Do some lie? Yeah, I'm sure they do. So do some people without PhD's. Academia is pretty liberal, but most of us try hard not to bring it into the classroom. I was just talking with a philosopher colleague yesterday, and he said he considers it a success if students ask him what HE believes about religion, morality, etc at the end of a class, because that means he hasn't made it obvious or been too biased. That's what we try to do.
Now, there are cases where science has some pretty clear things to say about the world that conservatives think are part of a liberal agenda, but beyond that we aren't telling students what to think. I don't even tell my biology students they have to believe in evolution, despite the fact that I think it is vitally important that they do. It is my job to give them the information, not tell them what to do with it.
There's no "list" of course, that's a stupid request. I can tell you how I feel about those three, and I can tell you that most atheists I know agree with me. I respect all three of them for bringing atheism out of the closet, so to speak. Part of the reason I don't have a list for you, is because atheism hasn't traditionally been a community. It's not like we all get together in special buildings once a week to talk about how we feel about national trends in the perception of religion. It's been kind of a shameful secret. It was an eye-opening moment for me when Dean was running for the democratic nomination, and it was clear that admitting he was an atheist would end his chances right then and there. You can be black, a woman, a catholic, heck you'd probably have an easier time running for national office as a homosexual than an atheist. I don't like that. I'd like to see atheism become more mainstream, less something to hide. These guys are changing that.
But aside from that, here's what I think-- I like Hitchins, he's a funny, witty guy. I think he goes too far in challenging people's beliefs, I think that's not the right way to try and affect the world. I can't stand Dawkins-- he's a self-righteous jerk who also happens to be something of an evolutionary extremist that I disagree with scientifically. Maher is like every other pundit in the world-- out for shock value, making extreme statements, stirring people up, and belittling people who disagree with him. I hate that crap. I also can't stand atheist groups that try to put up competing Christmas messages. There's nothing wrong with a billboard about atheism, but do it in June, for goodness sakes. Making people angry helps no one.
I know you want me to defend these horrible villains, and I get that I am a convenient target for you to use to rail against them, but I am an individual with my own beliefs, and those are the only ones I should have to defend. I don't ask you to defend every nasty Christian idea that exists out there if you don't agree with it. Maybe instead of insisting that I am a meaningless anomaly, you could take some comfort in the idea that not all atheists out there are like Dawkins and Maher. Maybe you could feel a little less universally persecuted, and focus your disapproval on "some" atheists instead of "atheists."
Mamabear, by the way, my
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:41pm.
Mamabear,
by the way, my example of Italy and Spain was to show you that not all European nations have official religions. Now, go do your homework and do the research you have obviously not done and find out how many European nations have official religions. Given the statement that you have made about Europe and official religions, you will be shocked to find out the FACTS which Liberals, as you have proven, care little about!
1) I haven't shown any respect for LIBERAL HACKS IN ACADEMIA. And that is for Liberal hacks who push their Liberal beliefs on students. I know a few, but very few, professors who are Liberals who are not hacks, but these are becoming an extinct species.
I am sorry Mamabear, it is laughable to claim that Liberal professors attempt to not bring their Liberal ideology into the classroom. This is a sad joke! Every single person that I know who has graduated from an undergraduate or graduate program, whether Liberal or Conservative, admits that they had quite a few professors who pushed their Liberal ideology in the classroom. There are stories, after stories which can be found on the internet, books after books proving the fact that Liberal professors today push their Liberal beliefs on students and this is happening in high schools, undergraduate programs and graduate programs.
Are you aware, Mamabear, that countless of professors in the University of Wisconsin system allowed their students to skip class, without any consequences, so the students could go protest against Scott Walker's proposals to reign in unions? Is this what you call unbiased Liberal professors? And it wasn't just one classroom, or one isolated professors. It happened through out the University system.
The problem, as I have seen it and as I have sat in classes of professors who students complain about, that these professors are so Liberal, so incredibly Liberal that they are clueless that they are pushing their Liberal beliefs on the students. When confronted they claim the same silliness that your philosophy professor claims, "But my students do not know where I stand!"
and heck, having professors tell me during my college years that Latinos are victims, that the word "Caucasian", "White" should not be capitalized while Black, African-American, Latino, Hispanic should. Having professors tell me that the basis of Nazism is Christianity is by no means a Liberal bias, right Mamabear? Recording countless of professors during the Presidential election telling their students to vote for Obama and that Bush is an idiot is by no means biased, right? I am unsure if you are naive, if you live in a fantasy world or if you enjoy lying.
2) And of course there is no list. You do not need to meet in a secret underground anything to have a website that you could have pointed me to where atheist are outraged by Hitchen's, Dawkin's and Maher's hateful and vitriolic attacks against Christians. I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that these three individuals are not prominent heroes of the atheist movement.
YOU claimed that atheist do not attack Christians. you claimed that atheist treat Christians with respect. I have proven you wrong by showing you that three of the most prominent figures who are held in high esteem, as heroes in the atheist movement are individuals who belittle, spew hate and vitriol against Christians. I challenged you saying that if you were correct, these three individuals would not be such heroes in your movement. And all you have done is made a personal claim that I am wrong. Great, now do you care to PROVE ME WRONG! For being a science professor you love to use very little scientific evidence to back up your claims. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO does not make it so! Just because you hold an opinion, it doesn't make it so.
Additionally, how the heck do you claim that you respect Christians, but then turn around and claim that you like Hitchens. An individual who wrote a hateful and vitriolic book against Mother Theresa? Is this the type of respect you meant when you said that atheist respect Christians? WOW!!
Feel a little less universally persecuted? You do like to project a lot, don't you, eh? You rant about homosexuals not having the same rights, you rant about an atheist never becoming our President and then you turn around and claim others are the ones who feel persecuted? Look in the mirror before accusing others of what you feel.
Stating facts, that academia is being destroyed by Liberal hacks, not Liberals, but Liberal hacks. That homosexuals do not want equality, but rather to squash and destroy individuals who dare say publicly that their sexual life style is evil and immoral is far from feeling persecuted. I have backed everything I have said with facts. Is far from feeling persecuted, it is stating facts. I know, I know facts is something that Liberals hate. I am sorry to use these against you.
But you see, this is a typical Liberal hack tactic. It is what Liberal hacks have done to Sarah Palin. They have attacked her, her daughters, her son with some of the most hateful, vitriolic, outrageous things ever seen in politics. (Atheist adored Maher being one of the main culprits) and when Palin defends herself from the vicious, vitriolic, hateful, misogynic attacks the Left claims she feels persecuted and is attempting to ramp up victimhood status to get sympathy.
It is no different than what you did here. You came here and you called me a xenophobe, a homophobe, disgusting. When I called you on it and told you you use the typical, sad, pathetic, moronic tactics of hateful pro-homosexuals you said that I should stop feeling insulted. Amazing, eh, how you Liberal hacks love to attack, spew hate, insult, but when called on it, in your mind, it is the fault of the individual you are attacking.
and you are a meaningless anomaly? eh? You are a human being, who was created by God. You deserve all the respect in the world as such, but it does not mean that I stay quiet or call you out on your half-truths, lies or things you have chosen to believe in order to feel comfortable in your Liberal bubble.
Proof? What proof?
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 9:56am.
I did look up which countries have state religions, that's why I said several. You said Spain and Italy don't, as though that somehow proves my statement about several countries wrong. Your idea of proof bears no resemblance to what one actually has to do to prove something.
And as for the rest of it, you've made the exact same kind of statements as I have here. If my friends' students ASK him what he really thinks, it is ridiculous for you to decide from afar that actually they really know what he thinks and they are asking... what, for fun? because he can't hide his liberalness. You have decided that the world is a certain way, and so any information I provide that runs counter to your perception must be faulty. Instead of integrating it into your world view, you make up, out of whole cloth, reasons to ignore it.
It is called motivated reasoning, and while both conservatives and liberals do it, everyone does it, conservatives seem to be better at it. You've decided that gay people do not want equality, despite the fact that that is what just about every gay rights group says they want. You can argue that their tactics do more to silence opposition than promote equality, but it isn't enough for you to just impugn their methods. You have to make them villains because you KNOW what they really want, better, apparently, than they do. So if I showed you 10 websites with mission statements for gay advocacy groups, which we both know would stress acceptance, equal rights, etc, you would just tell me that they are all lying. Why bother?
Finally, you've decided that atheists hate Christians. I bring you information that this isn't true of all atheists, and while the logical part of your brain occasionally manages to get you to put a "some" in front of your generalizations, for the most part you just keeping making the same statements about all atheists. You are right-- I am just one atheist (who knows, let's guess, 50 others), but that's one more atheist than you are! I am providing you with information that not all atheists think the way you think they do, and you could choose to incorporate that information into your view of atheism. You could have just a slightly more nuanced view of a group you don't belong to, and maybe a view that paints a less horrible picture. Instead, you minimize and ignore it. I could speculate as to why, but I don't really know. Do you like feeling persecuted?
It would be very tempting for me to make generalizations about what all Christians think and feel. Often, it seems like all Christians are self-righteous jerks, especially when I'm arguing with them on this site! And there are loud voices on the right, like Rush Limbaugh, just as an example, that I could use to decide that ALL conservatives are like that. That's what you've done with Dawkins or Maher. Instead, I choose to try and remind myself that not all conservatives are judgmental jerks, and not all Christians hate gay people, etc. Some Christians are very nice-- not you, maybe, but some ;) I'm asking you to try and do the same. It's a little more mental work than just going with the stereotype, but I think it is worth it to have a view of the world that conforms more closely to reality.
(That was a joke, by the way, about you not being nice. I don't know if you are nice or not)
Mamabear, 1) No, not all
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 1:40pm.
Mamabear,
1) No, not all atheist are haters of Christians and I have stated as much in previous posts, so stop claiming that I am saying things that i never said!!! S.E. Cupp is a great example of an atheist that respects Christians.
You complain about me making assumptions, but you are the one constantly jumping to conclusions without any evidence. You have gone around this website long before today and you have stereotyped Christians.
Hitchens, Maher and Dawkins, three individuals who for whatever reason are full of hate against Christians, are prominent and heroic individuals in the Atheist movement. Granted, more so to Liberal Atheist than Conservative Atheist.
You made a blanket statement that atheist are respectful and nice to Christians. My point has been that most atheist are not nice or respectful to Christians. My proof, the very high and respectful status that Hitchens, Maher and Dawkins hold in the atheist movement.
Mamaber, you even said that you like Hitchens, not all of his tactics, but you like him. How can you claim to respect Christians when you like Hitchens a man who wrote a vitriolic and hateful book against Mother Theresa?
Nuanced look at atheist? When the vast majority of atheist start denouncing Maher, Dawkins and Hitchens, instead of holding them in high esteem, I will start believing you. As of right now the atheist movement holds these three individuals in very high esteem as heroes. A few atheist who do not like them does not mean that the movement does not like them. Get it yet?
You are the one that is making assumptions based on YOUR personal feelings and beliefs!!!! But you are unwilling to acknowledge the facts. Why? Who knows. I won't expeculate either.
You want to claim that since about 1% of atheist do not like the afortmentioned atheist heroes, the other 99% also does not like them! So why don't YOU start looking at the atheist movement with more nuance. A handful of atheist who do not like these individuals does not equate to the movement, to the vast majority disliking them.
Before asking anyone to use their intelligence, please lead by example and use yours!!! Thanks!
It takes a lot of mental work to see the world as it is, Mamabear, so start trying for once!
2) As far as homosexuals. Oh give me a break! Are you honestly going to tell me that what a website says and what the homosexuals really want are one and the same? My goodness, have you taken Marketing 101? Websites are a marketing ploy. Actions, Mamabear, speak much louder than words!!!
How many companies, how many groups have websites with missions statements that they do not follow?! countless of them.
I can't believe that as a professor you are as gullible and naive to believe that the mission statement of anything or anyone is real. I judge a group, I judge a company, I judge a person by their actions not by the pretty words that they put out to the public!!! Holy Cow woman! seriously?!
YOU are the one using motivated reasoning! You have chosen to believe that gays are all nice and sweet and that they have great agenda which merely seeks equality. LOL I already told you, stop projecting your motives, your reasoning, your feelings unto me!
Here is a statement that Liberal, pro-homosexuals like you love to ignore. I can tell you of quite a few homosexuals that I know in the city of Chicago who are fed up with the militant pro-homosexuals. I can tell you that they are the ones, many have been involved in the pro-homosexual movement, who speak of the true motives of the militant pro-homosexuals who claim to seek equality. The pro-homosexual militants want to go beyond equality, they want to shove down our throats, they want to force us to believe that homosexaulity is normal and natural!!! This from the words of ex-militant pro-homosexuals who were fed up with the scare tactics, lies and repugnant behavior of pro-homosexuals militants.
I can tell you of prominent Conservative Lesbian who used to be the president of NOW or NARAL who was also involved in pro-homosexual activities who have blown the whistle on the true motives and what the Left wing pro-homosexuals really want. But this type of stuff YOU need to ignore because you much rather believe that what the militant pro-homosexuals really want is equality.
I am sorry, once again, you are a glaring example of what is wrong with academia today!!!
You accuse others of who and what you are! mentally lazy, loves to stereotype, loves to make assumptions, loves to engage in motivated reasoning. LOL
pro-homosexual websites can say whatever they want, pro-homosexuals can say whatever they want. However, the actions of the militant pro-homosexuals is not one in which they seek equality, it is one in which they seek the destruction of anyone who dares opposes them. They seek to margenalize anyone who dares publicly say that homosexual sex acts are wrong and immoral! And the Media is more than glad to help them with this. They want to force people to accept that homosexuality is normal.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS and age old and true axiom!
But that is the problem with Liberals. You believe that words are more important than actions. This is the reason why all of you flocked to your messiah Obama. You believed his pretty words of Hope and Change. Who cares about his actions or lack of actions, his words were pretty, thus he must be a great individual for the Presidency!!! WOW!!! just WOW!!!
Did you not follow how the media and pro-homosexual groups have attacked and done everything within their power to ridiculue and marginazlie the NFL player who recently spoke out against gay marriage and gay sex? This is, but one example of what pro-homosexual groups really want. Equality? Sorry mamabear, actions speak louder than some words on a website!!!!
and go for it, Rush Limbaugh is bad? says who, you? LOL Hey, he had Eric Clapton in his wedding, rememeber? and what did the pro-homosexuals militant wackos say and do about it? They attacked Clapton as a sell out for it!!!
and speaking the truth about militant homosexuals and their real motives is FAR from hating anyone.
And some Christians judgemental jerks? Wow...nice of you to make a judgement about some Christians, right? So you can judge some Christians as being judgemental jerks, but how dare any Christian be judgemental, right? Liberal "logic" it never fails to be illogical and inconsistent!!
I agree with you, it is worth having a view of the world that conforms with reality, so why don't you go ahead and try it instead of living in the fantasy, made up world you live in? come back to reality Mamabear, come back! You have been brainwashed, but it is your choice to come back now and open up your mind and use the mental capacity that God gave you to escape the pretend world you live in.
Living in the Liberal bubble you live in is FAR from living in the real world Mamaber, no matter how much your Liberal friends and you believe it.
It takes a lot of effort, intelligence and open mindness to remove yourself from the Liberal bubble you obviously live in, but many have done it. You just refuse to and are too comfortable living in your bubble.
Still doing it
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 9:49am.
"You have gone around this website long before today and you have stereotyped Christians."
Really? Where? Please show me those posts, because I am very careful what I say about people of any one religion. Maybe I've slipped somewhere, but I don't think so.
Would you also like to provide proof that Maher is a hero to the atheist movement? I have said nothing about percentages-- you are once again completely making things up. You have no reason to decide that the percentage who dislike Maher or Dawkins is 1, and the percentage who like them is 99. That's just another huge assumption you are making with no basis whatsoever. I haven't read Hitchins' book on Mother Theresa, maybe I would like him less if I did. I watched him have a very respectful and fascinating debate with Tony Blair as to whether religion was a force for good or evil in the world, and his points impressed me.
"Are you honestly going to tell me that what a website says and what the homosexuals really want are one and the same?"
Thank you for making my point, you just did exactly what I said you would! I think that non-profit and advocacy groups do usually have mission statements that reflect what they are trying to do. Whether they live up to their goals is another thing, but do you assume that religious groups and conservative charities are all lying when they say they want to feed hungry children or defend traditional marriage etc etc? No, just liberal groups are lying, right?
And it's amazing-- I say some Christians are judgmental jerks-- because that is almost certainly true! So are some atheists, and some homosexual activists want to silence people, and some professors let their liberal politics affect their classrooms. The key word is "some." Some members of just about any group are going to be bad apples, the problem is that if you don't like that group, then you judge the whole based on the bad apples, and if you are a member of the group, then you minimize the bad apples.
That's what you are doing over and over again. Christians are nice, and you don't need to worry about the ones who aren't because you know they are just outliers. But I somehow have to be able to defend the worst elements of any group I agree with in order to justify saying that they aren't all bad. It is a double standard, and you can't even see it!
Mass Resistance got itself into big trouble with those fliers, and I think the fliers were bad. But gay rights groups have pride events and educational drives all the time that you don't know about because no one crossed a line, so they don't end up in the news. You seem to want to pretend that those don't exist, and that every gay activist must be just like the ones you hear about on NB, because those are the only ones you hear about. The majority of the world is less extreme than anything portrayed in the media or conveyed through news or, especially, complained about on the internet. That is true of homosexuals, atheists, Christians, conservatives, liberals, etc.
Mamabear, 1) Hmmm...please
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:49pm.
Mamabear,
1) Hmmm...please take a look at your attack against Christians when you quoted Leviticus to prove your point. Of course, you did not know the meaning of the Bible passage. Start there. Yes, you have stereotyped.
2) Not only do you stereotype, do not forget your vicious and vitriolic insults against me, what did you call me again? xenophoe, digusting, homophoe. YOU are my number one example of how the pro-homosexuals goal is to insult and shame people into silence or force them to agree with the pro-homosexual agenda. Think about that for a minute or two. YOU, a pro-homosexual advocate, acted just like you claim pro-homosexuals do not act. LOL
3) Mamabear, honestly, are you really a professor? It does not take a genius to know that Hitchens, Maher, Dawkins are heroes in the atheist movement. It is not a few that like and hold these individuals in high esteem it is the majority. As for numbers, you are right, I do not have an exact study infront of me, however, that wasn't my point!!!!
My point has been that if your blanket assumption which you made, atheist respect Christians, were true, Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher would NOT be leaders, heroes in the atheist movement. Get it yet? You are one very dense individual!
but that is just it, right Mamabear, YOU can make blanket assumptions about a group, but if you feel someone else is making a blanket assumption about a group you support you have a cow!! Are you truly this blind to your double standards?
You do exactly what Jer does. You grab unto the actions and feelings of the minority and want to push it across and make it seem as if everyone feels like you or the minority of atheist!
Once again, if the atheist truly respect Christians, Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher would NOT be leaders and held up as heroes and individuals to look up in the atheist movement. I am unsure how many other ways to explain this to you. Either you are willfully not wanting to recognize this fact or you truly believe that the pretend world you live in is the real world!
A minority of atheist not liking Hitchens, Dawkins and Maher does not equate to the atheist movement disliking them. You made the blanket assumption that atheist respect Christians. I have proved you wrong and you can't handle the TRUTH.
and geez if Atheist respected Christians why is it that in nations like Cuba, China, N. Korea, etc, etc Atheist are mass murdering Christians?!
As far as homosexuals....Mamabear, Mamabear. I judge a group, I judge a company, a nation, a government an individual based on its actions, not the pretty words they put up on a website!!! I am sorry you judge others based on their words and not their actions.
Yes, there are so called Conservative and Christian groups out there who have pretty words, pretty mission statements on their websites and who do not follow these! Yes, these exist. Just because a group claims to be Christian or claims to be conservative, it does not make it so. You are deeply under the assumption (you can make assumptions, but no else can, right?) that I trust the Mission Statement of anyone who claims to be Christian or Conservative. LOL Nice of you to make this assumption Ms. Supposedly hate assumptions and jumping to conclusions!!!
And no, I do not assume that these homosexual non-profits are lying. they have PROVEN through their actions that they are lying. GEt IT? Their actions, what they do does not match their mission statement, their pretty words!!! get it yet?
When you have leaders of the pro-homosexual movement saying that their goal is to destroy the institution of marriage, not equality, AND THEY ACT UPON THIS...I freaking take them at their word!!!!! When these same leaders are saying that it is all about transforming sexual relationships, when studies are showing that homosexuals are incapable of having a monogomous relationships as even admitted by countless of homosexuals, guess what?! I take their actions OVER their words. Their actions speak louder than anything else YOU or any blind pro-homosexual can say.
YOU have chosen to blind yourself to the truth because for whatever reason you are desperate to believe that the homosexual movement is all about nice people merely seeking equality. Then you are attempting to make my points irrelavent by claiming that I am making assumptions (of course YOU can make assumptions, but if you feel anyone else is doing it, how dare they, right Mamabear). All of my beliefs about the pro-homosexual movement are based on what this movement and the people within it have done.
Here, address this Mamabear!!!!
Here in the State of Illinois Civil Unions were legalized. On July 1, 2011 the State of Illinois decided NOT to renew its contract with Catholic Charities which helped the State of Illinois find foster parents and adopt children in the custody of the State of Illinois. Do you know why Mamabear? Because the State of Illinois attempted to force the Church to change Her religious beliefs and to change the Truth. That chidlren should not be adopted by a homosexual "family". Cahtolic Charities does not put foster kids in homosexual homes and it does not allow homosexuals to adopt. The State of Illinois has now decided to destroy the life of 3,000 to 4,000 children so the homosexuals in Illinois may feel good about their sexual acts. Sexual gratification, in the homosexual and Liberal agenda trumps the well being of children. As I said Mamabear, I judge a movement by its actions, its results. This is a great evil done to children by the homosexual movement and the State of Illinois!!!!!
3,000 to 4,000 parentless kids in Illinois will not be adopted or placed in foster homes!!!
So, the State of Illinois is attempting to force a religion to change what She knows to be True!
This is the result of your all mighty fight against the institution of marriage. 3,000 to 4,000 kids in Illinois will now never know a warm and loving family!!!
THIS is the reality that you refuse to live in! Of course, we will probably see this happen in New York State now that Civil Unions have also been legalized there.
The amazing thing is that I always heard pro-homosexual "marriage" proponents always claim that if we allowed homosexuals to marry there would be many more children adopted. Isn't incredible Mamabear how the TRUTH of the evilness that homosexual sex acts is will now destroy the lives of thousands upon thousands of children.
Because when feeling good and not bad trumps everything Mamabear, this is what you get, destruction. The most innocent of our society suffering because homosexuals want to feel good. They do not want to feel like they are doing wrong. Their self-gratification, their sexual desires and adventures are much more important than the life of countless of parentless children.
and you want to sell the pro-homosexual movement as a good thing? I judge a group, a person, a company, a nation, a government, a movement by its actions and the results those actions bring. Anyone with half a brain, who lives in the real world, who cares about others, who cares about humanity, who cares about children can easily see that the pro-homosexual movement is a great evil.
Are all homosexuals evil. Of course not, not even close. I know plenty of homosexuals who are very decent, very good human beings who abhor with great passion the homosexual culture and what you defend! Homosexuals who know that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage and that Civil Unions for homosexuals is a great evil. but nice of you to ignore what homosexuals who were in the militant pro-homosexuals movement say about it. An evil movement which seeks the destruction of marriage, Christianity and anything else that gets on their way to feel good about their sexual deviancy! But better to ignore this Mamabear, why live in the real world, right?
It isn't the media which has told me that the pro-homosexual movement is evil. IN fact the MSM does everything it can to brainwash us into believing that homosexual sex acts are normal. No, it has been the pro-homosexual movement and their actions which have shown me and proved how evil they are.
No Mamabear, YOU NEED to believe that I am making assumptions. You have to because if for one second you realized that what I am saying is true, your world would fall apart.
By the way, has anyone ever taught you that your REAL missions statement is NOT what you put on paper/webiste, but how you act? Has anyone ever taught you this mamabear? START LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD!!!!
And some Christians are judgemental? Really? Can you show me the proof of this? LOL!!! YOU are making a huge assumption that some Christians are judgemental. This is your personal opinion and you are attempting to pass it as an absolute fact!! or are you willing to say that it is an absolute fact that some Christians are judgemental?!Choose Mamaber, either this is your opinion or you are making an absolute moral statement about some Christians, that they are judgemental....CHOOSE!!!! Oh, Oh!!! Remember, YOUR OPINION, which is ALL YOU HAVE as a Moral Relativists is FAR from reality!!!! Unless of course you are willing to say that there are Moral Absolutes.
and as I said, you can make the judgement and assumption that some Christians are judgemental, but you have a cow if you feel anyone is making a judgement about groups which you support. Are you honestly this blind to your double standards?!!!
I
Mamabear, Research done by
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 1:48pm.
Mamabear,
Research done by the poster "stage9". Explain these away as the pro-homosexual militant culture being all nice and sweet. WOW!!! C'mon I dare you to open up your mind. I dare you to remove yourself from the Liberal buble which you are so comfortable living in.
or do you support pro-homosexuals brainwashing kids and teaching them to defy their parents all for the cause, mamabear?
it takes a lot of mental work to see the world as it is, Mamabear, so start trying.
Yes, we are indoctrinating children, says New York h o m o s e x u a l magazine
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/homo_admission.html
California Bill SB48: Would require public schools & textbooks to portray h o m o s e x u a l i t y and t r a n s g e n d e r i s m in positive light!
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/CA_bill_SB48/index.html
Graphic h o m o s e x u a l s e x flier given to kids at state-supported "youth pride" event
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/youth_pride/bisexual_pamphlet...
"Old Navy" stores now selling "g a y pride" shirts. Donating percentage of sales to radical h o m o s e x u a l group targeting kids.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/Old_Navy_pride/index.html
On s e x issues in elementary school: "Goal is to reach kids before they absorb their parents values," says school administrator!
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11a/herald_sex-ed_032411.html
Support traditional marriage? 'You're d e a d'
Story:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317681
Motion for Judgment:
(http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/cases/files/2011/06/209-Plaintiffs-Mot...) pdf
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/07/13/cbsnewscom-hypes-yo...
Mamabear, Here you go, more
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:44pm.
Mamabear,
Here you go, more real world for you. Read the quotes from prominent pro-homosexuals in magazines for homosexuals.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/07/13/cbsnewscom-hypes-yo...
yes, start living in the real world where militants pro-homosexuals are NOT seeking equality, but rather they are seeking self-gratification and the pleasure of sex and for their sexual abnormal behaviors to be called normal!!!
the REAL world where pro-homosexuals are not seeking equality, but rather the destruction, as has been admitted by them, of the institution of marriage.
Mamabear, Here you go.
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 4:32pm.
Mamabear,
Here you go. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/21/new-york-atheists-angry-over-heaven...
the "tolerant", "accepting", "open minded" atheist.
Equality for atheist is, "we are all equal, it is just that we and our values are more equal than you and your values Christians!"
I can't take seriously atheists who demand equality for homosexuals, but refuse to believe Christians have the same equality.
If this was a sign which somehow honored atheist and homosexual beliefs there would not have been any complaint from atheist!
Athiests' against Christianity
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:11pm.
Had to bring up this blast from the past...
http://www.northjersey.com/community/religion/Atheists_ad_blitz_calls_Ch...
I'd say atheism is becoming a religion of it's own...
sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 12:38pm.
The absolute moral does, in fact, exist. Among other things, if the premise is were true that it does not exist, then you are wasting your time (and being self-contradictory) to bother arguing anything with anybody, as our moral code is equally valid as yours, regardless of what you do or say.
Perhaps it has not been stated clearly enough by me in above posts, so I will spell it out further.
All of us, including you, are implicitly assuming a moral code that not only exists, but that the other person knows intimately about.
In your case, you are arguing that it is objectively wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. This, however, is merely a derivative of a more fundamental moral law, namely that it is objectively wrong to treat persons unfairly, given that all persons are created equal. That is your argument. We on "the other side" (e.g., myself, Liberalies, NL, et al.) do not argue "that's 'your morality' -- we 'get off on' treating persons unfairly, and believe it's morally commendable to do so." No, we agree with 'your morality' (i.e., we have the same morality). We disagree with the application -- unlike race, sex (gender), etc., we do not believe that a person is defined by their conscious behavior. But that is not a matter of morality.
Which leads me to "our case." In our case, we are arguing that it is objectively wrong for the State to grant a special status to a class of relationships defined by deviant (and in-organic) sexual behaviors. You do not disagree with 'our' moral premise, that is, you do not argue "all sexual relationships, including those involving pedophilia, incest, bestiality, self-gratification, etc. are equally valid." In your case, you have not considered homosexual acts to be deviant. But that doesn't mean that you believe that there aren't any immoral sexual acts.
So then, we all have the same moral code here -- we argue assuming an objective Morality that is well known to all involved. Period. We spend our time trying to convince the other that they are in breach of that morality. So, the "your moral code" mantra is a self-contradictory (and dare I say, hypocritical) comment that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on any rational debate.
Agree with some of that
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 11:34am.
To some extent I think you are right, and fundamentally, I think I have much less of an argument with you than I do with liberallies. The problem with Liberallies is that regardless of issues of equality, his moral code says that being gay is wrong. Therefore, he doesn't feel like he needs to treat gays equally. If I'm getting this wrong, he can correct me, I'm not trying to be disrespectful-- that's honestly what I'm getting from the conversation with him. That will always stand in the way of what I think is the correct application of treating people equally, and it appears in many people to stand separate from other considerations. THe Bible says it is wrong to be gay, and that trumps other moral concerns when homosexuality is in the picture.
Therefore, for some people, this is about different moral codes. For others, presumably, based on what you are saying here, you-- this is not about having different moral codes, it is about how we apply them. You resent the idea of making special consideration for people who are doing something you think is unnatural. Just to make a point, though, calling something "deviant" is making a judgment about it that affects morality. You aren't objecting to special status for non-deviant relationships, right? So you are choosing to classify something in a way that affects morality and that I disagree with. That is a different moral code, just still sharing some common principles.
Also, the fact that we hold a principle in common, namely treating people equally, does not make that "objective." It just makes our subjective moralities the same. I get that you think it is objective or absolute, but I can still share the same principles and think that we share them because of a common cultural background and an innate preference for cooperation, but not think that they are divine or absolute or always held in common by everybody everywhere.
And I still reject the idea that thinking that each of us is responsible for our own morality means that I can't argue with anyone. Take something completely subjective like... fashion. There is clearly no universal truth about what is the best color or style to wear, right? But I can still have an opinion, and I can think that opinion is right, and I can try to convince a friend that she is buying the wrong pair of jeans. I don't have to think that there are fashion absolutes in order to do that.
Mamabear, You know, it is
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:28pm.
Mamabear,
You know, it is great that you think the above. It is your opinion, but as a mere human being, who is equal to me. So what you hold these opinions. Who cares? Right? As a Moral Relative, you have zero authority, zero weight behind any of your arguments.
You admit that your morality is not superior to mine. That your morality is yours and yours alone. That it is your opinion. Why should anyone follow Mamabear's opinion?
This is what secular humanist do not get. They argue, and argue and argue their points of view. They claim that they know it to be the best way to live. However, as a secular humanist, yes, your opinions carry as much weight as anyone elses. Thus, there is no compelling reason to follow your opinions above anyone elses.
You keep on claiming that some facts have more weight than others. You gave the 1 + 1 = 2 to back up your argument. But it is your mere opinion that some facts have more weight than others. I have heard and sat in coversations, very quietly since I am no mathematician, where math geniouses argue whether truly 1 + 1= 2. They go into verbage and language that is well beyond me. But these are professors at some of the best engineering schools in the USA. Thus, I put some weight behind what they say. of course, it could also be a lot of nonsense.
The fact is, that without a greater authority than mere human beings, no one can assert that their morality is the right one. The closest we can get to is measure it by its fruits.
And the fruits that secular humanism has brought forth are infenitely worst than anything that has been brought forth by any and all religions.
Homosexuals are equals. They are human beings as much as y ou and I. But equally does not mean accepting the abnormal behavior of anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, as normal. This is a huge falsehood from the pro-homosexual crowd. They attempt to equate treating others equality with accepting behaivor as normal.
Using your logic, Mamabear, anyone who does not follow your moral code is not equal to you since you do not accept all of their behavior as normal and morally good. So, by your own arguemnst and your own words, you are the one who does not treat people equally.
glad to hear that
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 9:41pm.
But judging by the response, I can only surmise that it's still not completely clear. The term "objective" describes something that exists that has nothing to do with you or me -- it is not "subject" to us.
The human moral code (also called the Natural Law from antiquity), which you have consistently (if only implicitly) appealed to, is objective. I didn't invent it, nor did Liberallies, nor you, nor anyone else here at NB, and it's not exclusive to the Bible. And it's not merely "you and I" who "hold a principle in common" (that sexually deviant behaviors are wrong) -- it's all of humanity from the dawn of history up until the present day, media mouthpiece not withstanding.
The analogy to fashion (or any personal taste) does not hold as that is by definition subjective, and the same does not go here.
Calling a particular sexual behavior deviant or not is not a matter of morality -- it's a "judgment," sure, but no different than a doctor who says "in my judgment, the patient suffers from....", or from an umpire who "judges" a pitch to be a strike, a call that oftentimes a batter or manager strenuously disagrees with. But that doesn't mean there isn't a "correct" judgment. Or are you actually suggesting that there are no deviant sexual behaviors? Or that there are "deviant" behaviors, but there is nothing inherently "wrong" with them?
Sorry, but the entire notion that you would spend what seems to be a significant amount of time here arguing a point that you don't hold to be "objective" (that all persons should be treated fairly) is, well, nonsensical. You believe "your judgment" is "right" or "correct" or "better." You want to convince me of that. Fine. But what does it even mean that "your judgment" is "right" or "correct"? These very terms imply the existence of a "third" voice -- the truth.
Have you never had a debate with anyone?
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:13pm.
The fact that none of us invented our moral code doesn't make it objective. None of us invented fashion, either! I define better or best as having an outcome which results in the greatest calm, peace and happiness, and the least suffering. But that is my definition, and others may have a different one. You or liberallies, for example, might feel that the ideal world is one where people behave according to proscriptions you believe have to be followed. That's your idea of right or wrong. It isn't mine. There is no objective right or wrong in this argument.
It is true that humans have always shunned things that are different, and homosexuals have always been a minority. So yes, homosexuality has at best been tolerated in certain forms in different cultures. But the same would be said of physical deformity, difference in skin color, etc. That is not a facet of our moral history that we celebrate any more. We are ashamed of it, and we should be. I see the intolerance of homosexuality as a throwback to all kinds of other intolerance.
But even that history does not make morality objective. It is common to the whole human race. Great, there's a lot more to the universe than the human race. What evidence do you have that our morality is not based on organic causes-- ways our brains are wired that increase our survival by promoting cooperation and reducing conflict, for instance?
OK then. So I'll take that
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 9:31pm.
OK then. So I'll take that as a tacit admission on your part that there are no deviant sexual behaviors. Or that there are "deviant" behaviors, but there is nothing inherently "wrong" with them.
Until we get over this hurdle, we cannot have further debate. The conversation is shut down, and this is not merely from my end. You've said so yourself: "There is no objective right or wrong." So why are you arguing with me?
lotr, I second your facts.
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 11:36pm.
lotr,
I second your facts.
Mamabear believes that there are no objective truths. So, what is the point of arguing and debating. All we are exchaning, according to Mamabear's beliefs, are mere human opinions no different than her example of arguing about fashion. Debating about fashion is meaningless and it affects no one since my fashion is not yours or her fashion. Sadly, this is how she sees Morality.
Of course, as a good Moral Relativist, she does believe in at least one objective truth, that there are no objective truths.
the fact is that Moral Relativism has come to be and so many have chosen to believe in it out of convinience. Moral Relativism allows people to feel that they are doing good even if others say you are not. When Right and Wrong is based on your opinion then you can do whatever you want without feeling guilty. And this is what Moral Relativism is all about, it removes guilt.
Liberallies
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:23pm.
Well said, and I have nothing to add. We are all now gods unto ourselves.... in our own minds.
But, unfortunately for the self-deluded, Nature will not be made a fool.
Interesting
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 8:29am.
So morality is organic, wired in to promote survival of the species, but the natural, rational aversion homosexuality isn't?
~Contradictions collapse
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:02am.
.
Okay, claiming victory here.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 12:08am.
I not only apparently shut down mamabear's argument in total, but I managed to keep it pithy and on point per Rukus' request.
Restless1, *Applause,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:28pm.
Restless1,
*Applause, Applause*
Well done! You did in two sentences what thousands of mine could not do!
Mamabear is very stubborn. As many Moral Relativists I have debated, she is unwiling to admit to the contradictions of moral relativism. They find any and all excuses under the sun, which make sense only to them, but defy the laws of logic, in order to excuse their belief in Moral Relativism.
She admits that my moral system exists, which includes moral absolutes, but then she refuses to see and/or acknowledge how this completely opens up a huge whole in her argument. I possed the same problem to Hydro, unfortunately, I have not heard back from him in weeks.
Moral Relativism is full of contradictions, full or circular arguments, it is illogical.
As lotr said, Moral Relativists are gods unto themselves! They decide what is Wrong and Right and how dare you or anyone else tell them what is Wrong or Right. It removes guilt and it opens the door to accepting anything and everything under the sun with the excuse of, "what is Wrong and Right for you, it may not be Right or Wrong for another" A terrifying world to live in which scary enough, we are living under it right now.
Sorry Rukus, hard for me to keep things pithy! Political Science major. I love to talk and it gets me in trouble! LOL
Liberallies
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:37pm.
In light of this, Mamabear is very stubborn. As many Moral Relativists I have debated, she is unwiling to admit to the contradictions of moral relativism. They find any and all excuses under the sun, which make sense only to them, but defy the laws of logic, in order to excuse their belief in Moral Relativism. and pretty much everything else you said about mamabear, her tagline is pretty darn ironic isn't it?
Radical1979, Agreed, very
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:44am.
Radical1979,
Agreed, very much agree. Her tag line is kind of amusing coming from her.
Don't get too cocky, RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:33pm.
so did Baghdad Bob.
;-)
Jer
Don't pat yourself on the back just yet
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:28pm.
An aversion to homosexuality in heterosexual people is completely natural, and I'm sure it goes a long way to promoting the survival of our species. However, haven't we moved beyond simply ensuring our survival by producing the largest number of babies we can? One of the very careful lines you have to walk when studying this field, which is called evolutionary psychology, is ensuring that you use it simply to understand human behavior, not to excuse it.
That basic, hardwired morality, something that you can actually test an observe in pre-verbal infants, has been carried much further through human culture. We take morality further than what biology dictates, but we understand that morality a little better by understanding its origin. Another human behavioral trait I think can be traced to the same origin is xenophobia. If the biggest threat to groups of humans in our early evolutionary history was other groups of humans, then yes, we may develop all sorts of friendly cooperative mechanisms to help increase the size of our group, but we also mistrust people we don't know. That fear and hatred of the other has also been tested by psychologists-- we see distinctions among familiar people and see the unfamiliar as monolithic. I think that comes from the same history. So does that mean we have to excuse that behavior in ourselves, just because there is a reason for it? No, we don't.
An aversion to homosexuality is completely normal, but so is an aversion to anyone different. That doesn't mean that we should let ourselves treat those people poorly. We no longer treat people with leprosy like... like, well, lepers, because even though communicable diseases are reasonable things to be afraid of, we know we don't have to fear it anymore. Logically, we know that homosexuality is not a threat to the human race. Letting homosexuals marry, or giving them legal protection for their jobs, or respecting their lifestyle, is not going to cause all humans to become gay and stop having kids-- any more than the existence of celibate priesthoods destroyed the human race. So while our biology may in this case point us towards hurting someone else, we don't have to let it. I think it is great that humans have taken morality beyond its origins. I think it is great that we sacrifice ourselves for each other, try to make the world a better place not just for our own species, but others. Our brains let us take a longer view than anyone else on this planet can, and we do great things with that ability. I just think that we've decided for ourselves what is important, and then given it the name of God.
Nice try
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:29pm.
Well you might THINK that behavioral trait can be traced to xenophobia, but I THINK that is completely off base. Being mistrustful of the intentions of a stranger seem a bit different than being viscerally repulsed by an observed act, (in this case, gay sex), between persons you may be familiar with. Not to mention, the observance of a repulsive act can verify the initial mistrust of a stranger.
You also liken this to the natural aversion to lepers. Yes, it is understandable that the physical manifestations of leprosy can be disconcerting, but we have overcome this aversion with the understanding that with treatment it can be controlled or cured. Same with mental disabilities and defects.
You see, I've been hootin and hollerin around here for some time that my main grievance against the gay agenda is that it stops proper study cold. While we most certainly try to find the root causes of schizophrenia and other psychotic maladies, we do so as the means to a cure. We are not doing that with homosexuality. We are studying the cause of homosexuality as a means to prove it normal behavior and equal to heterosexuality.
I've said before that the gay agenda has attained tolerance from most, even on the right, but acceptance is not a option, as far as I'm concerned.
That said, I believe most of what we fear or mistrust is instinctual. I've read somewhere that we may have an instinctual negative reaction to the colors yellow and black when used together. It was surmised that this may be instinctual in that many dangerous animals have this color combination, (think tigers, leopards, many bees,). These are instinctual aversions to dangerous situations. Fear of the dark also comes to mind.
As such, it seems to me that the natural, dare I say instinctual, aversion to homosexual acts is a way of averting danger, through diseases being spread throughout a tribe perhaps.
BTW, you are the one that brought up a hard wired morality as a safeguard of sorts for the species, and then try to tell me that the hard wired aversion to homosexuality should be managed. I could after all turn your argument around you. Perhaps as we've expanded our morality beyond biological dictates, so too should we expand our aversion to homosexual acts, and urge those with these tendencies to seek help, or horrors!!!! explore a cure.
You have to be careful
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:59pm.
when you start talking about "curing" something that is so integral a part of people's identities. There is a Deaf culture movement that celebrates deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability, and they often resist possible cures for hearing loss. People who have to deal with being different, particularly in a way that is shunned or difficult to hide, often rally around their difference and make it a point of pride rather than shame.
I don't think it is for any of us who don't have to deal with that to judge how they do it, or to force them to change. And it isn't true that no one is looking for a "cure" for homosexuality. They are looking for it in sheep, much to the dismay of hard-core gay rights activists. Being gay doesn't hurt anyone else. We may not understand why someone who is Deaf (and I'm capitalizing that on purpose, to indicate the culture rather than the condition) doesn't want to hear, but who the hell are we to tell them they have to? If they have made that an important part of their lives, you only take it away by force with a damn good reason.
I don't think we'll find a way to change orientation, though, because it is clear that the factors that determine orientation are incredibly complex. The chances that we can find one silver bullet that flips a switch from one state to another seems pretty slim to me.
What a bunch of drivel
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:59am.
Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to do anything. I said that the zealots in the pro gay agenda make it so the rest of us can't have a decent discussion about homosexuality. Your post here further proves this.
The only people forcing anyone into anything are the pro gay activists. I think it's a damn shame that the deaf community reacts the way it does to those that seek to hear. In the case of children, it's possibly child abuse not to allow it. Who the hell are they to deny the chance to hear to those among their ranks??? Who the hell are you or any other pro gay activist to actively in engage the dissuasion of serious discussion of a cure?
You accuse me of wanting to force something on anyone??? You effin' idiot!!!! You come here time an time again wanting to force acceptance of homosexuality on those whose, (for the most part), religion adamantly says homosexuality is wrong. You try to dissuade us from our religion, as if that's the only hurdle to our acceptance of abhorrent behavior. When none of that works, you guys go to the voting public. If you win, fine. If you lose, you cry to a gay judge to overturn the will of the people. Your side marginalizes anyone who disagrees with you, including other homosexuals. You use public humiliation, mockery, and outright lies to force us to accept that which we are only willing to tolerate.
I make mention of working toward a cure, because if we ever found one, some people might want to take advantage of it.
I admit, I gotta love the irony of YOU accusing ME of wanting to force anybody to do anything. That's the mantra of the left, not mine.
You don't think we're having a decent discussion about this?
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:15pm.
Because I think we are, or we were until you got all hot under the collar. You really do just go from 0 to 60 at the drop of a hat, don't you?!
I want people to accept homosexuality, just the way many here want people to condemn it. I don't want to force anyone to accept it, because I know that doesn't work. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from their religion, either. I'm not humiliating or lying to anyone. I am discussing a cure, so I don't see how I am actively trying to stop you from discussing a cure. In fact, I'm discussing it with you RIGHT NOW. I just tried to represent what I think is the alternate viewpoint and where the concerns come from. I know some people would want to take advantage of a cure. That's exactly what I said in the post you are replying to. I think the blood-red rage is clouding your eyesight, or maybe just your thought process.
Well aren't you the little narcissist?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:31pm.
First, it was comment borne from incredulity, not anger, but still, I apologize.
Now, you are the one brought Leviticus into it, wrongly I might add. And like it or not, you comments on same come off as dismissive. Perhaps this is a result of your liberal echo chamber outside of Newsbusters here? Hell, maybe everyone you associate with speaks as dismissively of religion and conservatives as you do. IDK.
Of course, the bigger picture I was trying to draw for you is the lack of any honest discussion in general about homosexuality. Honestly, how would my comments about seeking a cure play on a liberal website? How soon would any of the presidential contenders, right or left, be out of the race stating what I have stated on a news program or in a speech?
There is nothing homophobic about my comments here, but you can bet that that is how they would be labeled by the media and the pro gay agenda.
Carrie Prejean was asked a question about gay marriage, and gave an honest answer. She was vilified for it, called names, whatever just because she stated her opinion. You have people out there "outing" other gays, against there wishes, in an attempt to humiliate them into toeing the line.
YOUR SIDE, not necessarily YOU, engages in these tactics on a regular basis. Why is it I was, at best, vaguely aware of treatments being sought for homosexuality, outside faith based ones that is? Because it is frowned upon by YOUR SIDE, not necessarily YOU, and so it doesn't get reported or discussed in any rational way.
Are you starting to see what I mean here? You can club me with that crazy Baptist church that interrupts funerals for our soldiers with their despicable antics I suppose, but I don't agree with them, and they are not endorsed by any legitimate media, left or right. YOUR SIDE is.
Restless1, Well said, very
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:29am.
Restless1,
Well said, very well said!!!!
The pro-homosexual agenda is embraced and pushed by the main stream media. The media works with the pro-homosexual community to shame people into silence.
All we have to look at is the media's treatment of the NFL player who has publicly spoken against homosexuality. How the main stream sports media, how the main stream media and how the pro-homosexual community have treated him is dispicable!!! If a pro-homosexual would have received the same treatment from the Right, the media and the pro-homosexuals would be going crazy.
I am unsure why Mamabear misses the obvious point. Either she is truly blind to the truth or she is very dishonest about what is going on in our culture today!
Hate crime firing Christians for beliefs at Cisco in CA
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:43am.
Never brought it up at work yet fired immediately. This is the now-coming "tolerance" and "freedom."
http://www.vachristian.org/sexual-purity/3-sexual-purity/365-homosexual-...
snip: According to columnist Mike Adams, the laughably entitled “Inclusion and diversity” officer, Ms. Marilyn Nagel, assured everyone that:
“Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.”
Somebody tell that to Frank Turek, who discovered by taking a hit to the wallet that Cisco most decidedly is not in fact “very welcoming of all points of view” at all. That statement is a total crock.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I'm really not trying to be dismissive
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:39pm.
I brought Leviticus into the conversation because it is the only bible passage that I know condemns homosexuality. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I'm not trying to get away with anything here.
I'm not saying that the attitudes towards a "cure" are right, I'm trying to explain them to you. Empathy, understanding, that's the goal.
Maybe an analogy would help. Imagine that tomorrow a big study came out of the NIH, which showed that religious belief was actually the result of a particular balance of brain chemicals. Scientists announce that they can turn on or off belief in God with a few zaps to a few neurons, or a few pills that you take with your breakfast. Would that attitude towards religion, whether right or wrong, feel dismissive and belittling to you? I imagine it would. If those same scientists told you that people who had their religion turned off were happier and healthier, would you tell them to go screw themselves? I would, if someone told me I could be happier switching it on!
People are, as a general rule, very resistant to consider organic causes for things that feel conscious. We like to think that we have free will, that we decide how to behave, etc. Finding genes that correlate with aggression or hormones that affect bonding with a loved one takes away a sense of control and identity. I think when you are potentially doing that to an already persecuted minority, it is especially difficult. And while YOU, taking your point, may not want to force anyone to stop being gay, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who would. The language people use against homosexuality is scary-- when people say that it will destroy civilization, start America on the road to anarchy, etc. Those are strong sentiments, and the people they are directed against rightly feel threatened by them. I know you don't like being told to be tolerant, that it feels like you are under attack too, but look honestly at the way conservative demagogues talk about gay people-- there's no comparison. Outing people, though, is just wrong.
There are already scienists positing
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:56pm.
That belief in God is organic. That "near death experiences" are simply the last firings of neurons and that the images seen are derived from impressions and memories already stored in the brain. I saw a show where one scientist had made some type of head gear that stimulated a certain area of the brain, and by doing so, brought about Holy visions in his subject.
So, they are already looking for a cure for religion. Doesn't bother me. If someone feels they need to be cured of religion at some point, then more power to them. I don't begrudge the option. So why should anyone begrudge the option of a cure to gays, the blind, the schizos, the deaf?
BTW, if empathy and understanding is the goal, we'll never get anywhere. Just because I don't go around kissing the asses of every poor little "victim" of the vast evangelical conspiracy against everything, (/sarc), doesn't mean I don't empathize or understand.
BTW again, are you now admitting that homosexuality is not organic, but a conscious choice?