Time: God 'Surely Has Bigger Fish to Fry' Than Opposing Gay Marriage
On page 2 of the July 11 issue of Time, the magazine's editors touted as a "top read" a personal celebration of New York's gay marriage vote by Time news director Howard Chua-Eoan and "how religious institutions still frown on same-sex marriage." Time plucked out how one reader wrote: "If God exists, surely he has bigger fish to fry."
Chua-Eoan complained that "in one very important way, gay marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York," and that's the refusal of religious people to honor gay marriages. Everyone must be compelled into acceptance, and exemptions must be banned:
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now also rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.
The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here, we will have to continue to march in parades and sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up Saturday morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.
Twenty years ago, MRC's Quote of the Year: Time's Howard Chua-Eoan blames American homophobia for Jeffrey Dahmer's murders, cannibalism
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It's not the fish that will be frying.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:14pm.
"'If God exists, surely he has bigger fish to fry." You may want to reword that, buddy. I do recall something in the Bible about a lake of fire. You know, the place where the sinners end up?
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.
Recalling holy scripture
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:25am.
Jesus turned the water into wine at a marriage ceremony (Cana) between a man and a woman. The marriage ceremony is on the top of His list.
Frying fish?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:00pm.
Remember, he wound up with more fish in the leftovers than he started with. And if he can count all the hairs on your head—and everybody else's—he can fry a lot of fish, big and small, at the same time.
You.....
Submitted by peteydee on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:17pm.
You accept it,I reject it it.Such is life
.It is indeed ironic how certain groups love to drag God around when it suits their agenda.It is not enough that NY now recognizes homosexual marriage ,now there is still a lament about being deprived of a "religious ceremony".
Spare me your whining,be content with your victory.
Why does.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:03pm.
Why does "camel's nose under the tent" come to mind?
There he hits on their REAL goal...
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:20pm.
Even the devil can quote a scripture verse if he thinks he can use it to mislead. But here, this Chao guy cuts away the tripe and gets to the real goal of the so-called 'pro-gay' movement.
To FORCE churches to change their doctrine at the point of a government bayonet.
I've read the gay rights advocates blogs and comment threads. They couldn't care less about 'marriage equality' or 'equal rights' or any of it. When they speak, and when they write, they trumpet each case like this and say things like 'soon we'll be forcing them to perform gay marriages in their temples!', and 'Take that, god-boys!'
I've said afore and I say again - the pro gay movement may try to hide behind a mask of 'love' and 'tolerance'. But they are a movement based on, founded in, and feeding off of hatred, spite and revenge.
And this Chao character got as close to letting the cat out of the bag as anyone in the liberal media has ever gotten.
this Chao guy cuts away the tripe
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:03am.
So right! The gay, and liberal, definition of tolerance is not "to tolerate", but rather "fully accept even if it violates your own belief system." I don't hate gays and can tolerate them in society. What I can't tolerate is changing the legal definition of words that have had the same meaning for centuries.
As they have banded together with transgenders, they will eventually align with pedophiles until the definition of "adult" and "consenting" are legally changed too. After all, according to their own arguments, all "loves" should have equal privileges.
Marriage must now be done without a Bride and Groom
Submitted by ThisnThat on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:08am.
The queers are now forcing marriage to be conducted without a bride and groom. Read here.
So, it's not enough to change the definition of marriage, is it? Nope. Now --- we have to completely eliminate certain offending words like "bride" and "groom" let the sensibilities of these depraved people become hurt. And by the way -- make sure our religious institutions completely change, also.
Unlike you, tugboat, I will make the claim that I truly despise these perverts. They will go to any length to try to destroy society for their own selfish and depraved purposes, and to me, there's zero tolerance for accepting such people in our society.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Quite a leap you've made
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:31am.
Quite a leap you've made there to think a person encouraging wedding planning sites to acknowledge a new customer base and market to them somehow equals "we have to completely eliminate certain offending words like 'bride' and 'groom'". Your heart is filled with hate and your bigotry is ugly.
That's right
Submitted by ThisnThat on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:40am.
I point out that a tiny minority of perverted individuals have managed to threaten and badger judges and a few ultra-liberal groups to completely re-define our way of living to meet their deviances, and you drag your holier-than-thou a$$ out to try to convince me it's ok, thereby showing your complete disdain for anything other than support of such insanity. Exactly what I would expect from you. Thanks for not disappointing me.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Incestmo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:51am.
You're head is filled with rocks and your morals are non-existent.
Good point
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:35am.
Good point
My pastor and I
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:21pm.
discussed this. He says as pastor he can decide who does and does not get married in our church, that he cant be compelled to marry anybody. I told him that was going to change. He's a young pastor, and I am considerably older than he is and I respect him. But I know the changes I have seen in my life. He will either be forced to marry same sex couples or he will go to jail. It will be called a hate crime.
misterbee
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:25pm.
I agree. Remember when there was a "conscience clause" for medical personnel? It meant they could refuse to perform or assist in medical procedures such as a abortion if their conscience forbid it. Obama repealed it.
There will come a day gays will demand to be married in every church by every religion, with the exception of Islam.
I remember it...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:48pm.
because it's still around. Obama didn't repeal it.
Jer
So, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:14pm.
you saying that Obama would be against doing so, period; or is there a possibility he just hasn't found time between his rounds of golf to do so?
As a lib, surely you have some inside info on that situation.
MD
Worse ....
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:01pm.
Pedophilia advocates are already demanding the APA remove pedophilia as a disorder' from the DSM.
This is precisely where the Gay movement started in its campaign to 'normalize' homosexuality and was a predictable outcome of the normalization of deviant sexual practices.
This will never happen.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:35pm.
This will never happen.
Incestmo
Submitted by goodone91 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:36pm.
The ball's in your court. Prove it.
Goodone, you don't
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:34pm.
mean, by providing links, or quotes, do you? A certain poster, who should have been banned, can't do that. Just accept his word, he's the expert, and if you don't believe it, it'll tell you so.
Neither proposition is "provable".
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:40pm.
However, in this case at least, Satchmo's argument benefits from the advantages afforded by reason and the US Constitution.
Jer
Democrats and reason have
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:13pm.
Democrats and reason have parted company long ago.
Talk about a non sequitur.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:29pm.
Talk about a non sequitur.
SatchelMouth has NEVER argued with an advantage---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:19pm.
afforded by reason, and it appears to me that this administration views the U.S. Constitution as an impediment to their progress.
MD
So predictable...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:22pm.
Many of us knew that once gay marriage was legal they would push religious institutions into recognizing and accepting it.
Reminds me of...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:43pm.
the movie "The Break Up" where it just wasn't enough for Vince Vaughan to do the dishes. He had to "want to" do the dishes.
And, for someone like Satchmo, who brings out his pseudo-moralistic BS whenever he can use them as weapons, I am 'tolerant'. I don't go around bashing gays. But one thing they can't make me do is accept what they do as "normal". It isn't.
Oh boy, so many things I could say...
Submitted by TeachertT on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:42pm.
Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?
Well, he can have all the "bells and whistles" if he wants to. There are churches, even ones who claim to be Christian who would give him all the "bells and whistles."
But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries....
And there it is, he also wants to be "accepted" by those he considers rich and influential. I wonder why?
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls.
When I see someone who says they are deeply religious anything, I just roll my eyes. That is usually code speak for "I am religious when it suits me" or " I really like the ritual of religion not the relationship.". Then he says in the rest of his statement that his focus isn't on the almighty, but himself and what he can get out of his religion.
The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong.
Do they? I think that is the ultimate plan. To make those religions who do not recognize gay marriage to change. Since it has been tried in Sweden, I bet it will come as hate speech. Come to think of it, a pastor in Ireland was talking to people on the street and was giving his opinion about gay relationships and someone was offended and the pastor was arrested. That only happen a few months ago. I think that is the end goal. Make the religions tow the line or try to abolish them somehow. It is also why I think churches shouldn't be tax exempt any more, makes them beholden to the state. I mean, if the government can tell you what to buy, why can't they tell you what to eat and what religion to practice. I think China does that, tell you what religion you can practice. So many liberals appear to like China.
There is great cognitive dissonance...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:07am.
...in claiming to be a Christian while proudly waving the flag of your pet sin.
What would we think of an unrepentant bank robber who claimed to be "a deeply religious Christian" and lamented that the Christian church would never allow him to steal from those congregating "within its walls"? Or an unrepentant adulterer, sad that the Christian church didn't want him cheating on his wife "within its walls"?
Unfortunate.
--Mike
I am sure God can multitask. He can send you to Hell while...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:52pm.
...doing other things.
If churches won't marry you, form your own God Damned Church.
I'd love to see Gays try what they are doing here in a Muslim country, demand recognition and acceptance. Any acceptance Gays have here is because this country is basically a Christian Nation.
Remember in Iran there are no Gays. I'madingydingdong said so.
It's not about gays, but . . .
Submitted by pylgrym on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:08pm.
I saw this article this morning:
"No God" film angers Tunisian Islamists (Reuters)
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/no-god-film-angers-tunis...
Red Jeep---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:27pm.
Like.
MD
What is the bloody problem,
Submitted by kangaroo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:24pm.
What is the bloody problem, let them get married, they will eventually find out it sucks. The bloody country is going down in flames, I mean come on, this should not be a polly or church issue!!
WE want lower taxes, more jobs and less gov, get rid of the illegals, crikeys people pick the battles that count would ya
"When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on"--Thomas Jefferson
hello kangaroo
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:17am.
Perhaps you should stop and think that after so many degenerate generations of people raised in dysfunctional homes, educated by public teachers who emphasize PC tolerance over common sense, and brainwashed into believing that all Republicans are stupid - these are the folks who vote for people like Obama.
The country's economy is going down in flames precisely because past generations "picked their battles" far too scarcely.
~And all God's people
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:32am.
said, "Amen".
Amen!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:45pm.
.
Why weren't the following two
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:57pm.
Why weren't the following two sentences highlighted?
"The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong."
First of all, it's already
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:12pm.
First of all, it's already happening in Canada. Pastors who preach against homosexuality can be thrown in jail. So, don't be so quick to say it won't happen (from another of your posts).
As to this one, let's look at what is said. The church could still believe that gay marriage is wrong, but still be forced to perform it.
And, even if you would never do this, you're naive to think that some homosexual crusader wouldn't challenge a church to allow them to get married. You know it's coming.
This isn't Canada; it will
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:31pm.
This isn't Canada; it will never happen here. I disagree with your reading of his comments. Read the two sentences that follow the highlighted bit. Sure, a challenge may be coming, but I doubt anything would come of it.
" it will never happen
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:12pm.
" it will never happen here"
And if you asked people just 50 years ago if gay marriage would ever be allowed in the US, they would have said the same thing. But, alas, it not only is happening (in a few select states) there is a major push to have it happen everywhere. You can't say with any certainty that it will never happen in the US. The groundwork is being laid right now.
At some point it didn't happen in Canada and now it does. It could happen here. And the more it is generally accepted by society, or at least is politically correct, the more likely it will happen at some point.
If Canada were founded upon
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:20pm.
If Canada were founded upon our Constitution, then I might agree with you. No matter how accepted it is, churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages. It's just not going to happen.
Our Constitution
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:29pm.
is totally irrelevant to our politicians. Look at the situation in Libya, "hate crimes" which give some people more protection than others, the mandate in Obamacare requiring us to buy a product. I could go on.
You cannot say with any certainty that our Constitution will protect us when our "leaders" don't respect it.
I'll say it with absolute
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:03pm.
I'll say it with absolute certainty. I'll accept your flawed premise for a moment though: The Constitution may be totally irrelevant to politicians, but voters and votes aren't. This will never, ever happen.
Incestmo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:31pm.
Well that's one of your stupider comments, and you've made a lot of them here. The voter's voted in a man with no governing experience, no foreign policy experience, and no military experience. I could go on, but you're dense.
You are shortsighted and
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:54pm.
You are shortsighted and can't tell the difference between politics and religion. As I alluded to below, look at the black population for example: historically politically Democrat, religiously conservative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR200811...
You have no room to call anyone or their comments stupid.
Wrong, SatchelMouth,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:39pm.
and if you weren't so mind numbingly dense you would note that votes on your stupidity run close to 100% "guilty as charged" on these threads.
MD
MD, aside from
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:20pm.
what I suspect are Incestmo's other personas on here, who would subtract from !00%?
And, I don't think that "mind numbingly dense" even comes close to describing the Incestmo.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:10am.
I noticed Mr. Brain of a Zombie, and even ol' Uncle Jer trying to fade the heat from Satchelmouth.
I think George Armstrong Custer had both a better shot and more secure odds when trying to kick Sioux ass on the Greasy Grass.
MD
And as has been demonstrated
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:38pm.
And as has been demonstrated countless times, the Supreme Court interprets what is meant by the Constitution. Nothing will prevent this Court or a Court a hundred years from now from interpreting the Constitution to allow for gay marriage or on any other issue. As is said by many of our leaders, the Constitution is a "living document", open to re-interpretation with the times. At least, that is what many believe.
Darth Dutch...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:56pm.
That may indeed be true with respect to the issue of gay marriage. After all, the recent California ruling striking down Prop 8--endorsing the arguments advanced by conservative and liberal constitutional scholars, Ted Olson and Laurence Tribe respectively--relied upon the application of due process and equal protection guarantees.
But, as long as there are enough justices--historically of a liberal bent--recognizing a First Amendment imperative strictly separating church and state, there is no chance any religious body would be forced to perform or accommodate same sex marriages. On the other hand, there are many conservatives who insist on chipping away at the "wall", and if at some distant and improbable point in time they were successful in completely dismantling that barrier, the constitutional implications would be incalulable.
Jer
Not to mention historically
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:59pm.
Not to mention historically Democratic groups that would resist this entirely. i'd like to see a Congressman try telling some black churches or Catholic churches in hispanic communities that he'll be voting for legislation compelling them to perform gay marriages. It will never happen.
I agree that the political
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:47pm.
I agree that the political climate probably isn't there to make that change now. But I'll say again, we have no idea what the political climate will be 50 or 100 years from now. But we can make educated guesses based on the foundations that are being laid down now. And, the past 20-30 years has seen a huge growth in things like political correctness, rights of various groups, etc. So to say it will never happen, as you keep insisting is to claim something you have no way of knowing. It's true that I may be wrong in my assessment too, but at the very least you have to admit it's possible; and I would say based on what I've argued that there is a better than even chance that it will happen at some point.
After all, the labels of Republican & Democrat have changed drastically since the 1800's in terms of what each group is associated. At best you can say you disagree with my assessment, which is fine, but to say it will absolutely never happen is, as I pointed out before, naive.
One word ... abortions.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:17pm.
One word ... abortions.
What about it?
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:30pm.
What about it?
I'm not meaning to only reply
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:51pm.
I'm not meaning to only reply to your posts Satchmo, and I don't claim to speak for Dan the Man, but I would say the Roe v. Wade decision 40 years ago is a classic case in point of the Court doing a 180. Up to that point, abortions were strictly defined and were not a constitutional right. Roe v. Wade was such a landmark case because it was an about face of what was the precedent before.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but while the Court may look to precedent to help establish its decisions, it is not beholden to it and has the authority (whether one agrees with them or not) to change course without explanation. While the Court today may be too divided to make sweeping changes on some things, nothing is to prevent the Court in the future from swinging way Left and passing such laws.
Good thing, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:46pm.
that no liberals would ever "chip away" at any of the "walls" in the U.S. Constitution.
The "implications" would be incalculable.
MD
Darth Dutch...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:20pm.
What Canadian law would criminalize a pastor's sermon against homosexuality? Does the government now require all religious denominations to perform same-sex marriages? What is the stance of the Catholic Church vis a vis such laws? Would you kindly link some authority?
Jer
Hmm....as I glance back over the thread
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:09pm.
it appears that in order to elicit a response from Darth I'll need to change my screen name to Satchmo.
Jer
Good one, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:14pm.
Good one, Jer! That was actually pretty funny.
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.
Jer, you'll forgive me for
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 11:49am.
Jer, you'll forgive me for not checking back on Newsbusters every 10 seconds to see who has posted, especially when you post a question at night time and then write back 3 hours later with your comment.
As Satchmo answered, it absolutely has happened. Just do a simple Google search.
Excuse me, Darth, but you were the one
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:42pm.
who flatly asserted that in Canada churches can be forced by the state to change their beliefs and that a pastor can be jailed for preaching against homosexuality.
It's not my job to authenticate your claim. It's yours. If a Google search will assist you toward that end, be my guest.
As far as needling you over the lack of response, my apologies.
Jer
The outrageous decisions,
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 7:48am.
The outrageous decisions, "prosecutions," and insanity by Canada's so-called "Human Rights" Commission is well-documented and a priest (de valk) was indeed investigated for a hate-crime in writing a letter explaining the church's stance on homosexuality.
cf. Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant
The state can force marriage between homosexuals to be legal
Submitted by DaMav on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:54am.
but can never make it legitimate.
I dont agree
Submitted by rob.man on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:06am.
I dont agree with gay marriage, If you ask me if your homosexual you ought to be glad you dont have to go through the potential hurt of marriage. No matter what people tell me i believe its between a man and a woman. that's how it has been and its part of our foundation. the only thing we would get out of it is more divorce lawyers getting richer. I do however support Civil Unions. I personally dont believe that you would go to hell if you are homosexual though because most people are just born that way and cant help it....trust me im one of them. i didnt ask. in fact i tried all my teenage life to stop and reverse it but it would not happen, but im still a man and value it to the fullest. how can God send you to hell for being born a certain way? Its like sending me to hell because i was born black.
rob
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:13pm.
Being black isn't a behavior. Practicing homosexuality is.
going to hell for being gay
Submitted by sojourner on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:54pm.
rob.man, I agree - God won't send people to hell for being gay - gay Republican here also. I do disagree that we are born this way, but that is off topic - I could list things in my life that I believe made me turn out gay, but being born wasn't one of them.
However, the Bible DOES condemn sex between 2 people of the same gender. I know, sucks to be us, and I haven't "arrived" yet. I also agree- Civil unions - should be enough, but the militant gays want it all, and in spite of everyone's denial, the day will come when they are suing churches and pastors for not marrying them - wake up, that is what they do. They sued eHarmony.com to get a gay dating site, never mind there are tons of gay dating sites online - they have sued photographers for not doing their civil union, sued a church for not renting them a beach patio for a civil union - so wake up people - they will sue churches and pastors, and they will win! And this is coming from a gay man.
Sojourner
Submitted by HelenS on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 5:54am.
I admire your integrity and your honesty. I am not gay but I could learn volumes from you on how to look at my own postitions on other issues and how to be fair and rational on topics that affect me personally or that I feel strongly about.
Thank you for your calm and kindness. Although it was tinged with sadness, that was a refreshing post.
Godspeed, Sojourner
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
God is not there for your amusement liberals or one liners
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:00am.
He is there for your salvation.
If gays want to marry then let them do it outside of he church. I vehemently oppose gay marriage and articles like this are a cloaked attempt to mainstream the process by invoking religion.
For a group of people who want God out of the public square so to speak they sure do mention Him a lot when times get hard.
Hmmm interesting...
OXYMORON with the accent on the moron
Submitted by LaVallette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:18am.
FTA": " And as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity."
This self proclaimed "deeply religious Christian" writer is pleading for a "compelled act of charity" without even realizing that it is an oxymoron. In the Christian tradition compulsion and charity do NOT fit together.
Secondly: tolerance and diversity beng applied in one direction only is a contradiction.
PS In the secular tradition there is that "nasty" First Amendment to the Consititution, on this case particulalrly the phrase ".......or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So this article is a plea for the exercise of tyranny by the gay mafia. Success means persecution of religion, its leaders and adherents unless they acquire "protection" by yielding to the gay marriage demand
Absolutely!!
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:39am.
Next it will be a "hate crime" to deny certain "rights"
AND
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:39am.
Moral foundations are one of God's "fish" to fry
This guy is not speaking of
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:07am.
This guy is not speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God we know knows all and can handle everything. He has made him up a god that he can he manage. This is exactly why the commandment states, You shall have not other Gods before me.
A variation on something I read once:
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:18am.
Man, created in the image of God, is stupendous and incredible.
God, created in the image of man, is manageable and safe.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Why we must rightly think about God
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:23pm.
Many years ago I read the book The Knowledge of the Holy by A W Tozer. It was profound. It is some deep reading. Try at least chapter 1. Seeing God as anything other than how he portrays himself in the Bible is idolatry.
The Knowledge of the Holy
Submitted by pylgrym on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:41pm.
Thank you for the link . . .
GOD has no intention of
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:28am.
GOD has no intention of frying fish. However, he/she might smite a few souls who go all perverted with his word.
God? Friday night fish fry?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:08am.
They go hand in hand like root beer and vanilla ice cream.
On marriage: Until God begins issuing marriage licenses he doesn't have much of a say in this matter.
Then why not civil unions?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:12am.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, of course God is involved. If God has no say have a civil ceremony and be done with it.
Marriage is what you make of it
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:18am.
Marriage can be a religious ceremony as much as it can be non-religious. But at the end of the day it comes down to laws of the state, not Biblical interpretation. You can get married in a church, but without the state-issued license the marriage is meaningless.
Civil Union
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:25am.
So if God isn't part of it why not just have a civil union?
Another idea
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:29am.
Why don't people who were married in a church go with "civil union" since the phrase is seemingly interchangeable with marriage? Even better, how about straight couples married in a religious ceremony get a star next to the word marriage to show their allegiance to God?
Should the star go before or after the word marriage?
✮marriage
marriage✮
My comment about civil unions
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:41am.
was in response to your comment claiming God was irrelevant in marriage. For me, God is relevant in my marriage, so a civil union would not satisfy me. You however, seem to find God not part of the equation, so why won't civil union do for you?
Because I'm already holding a state issued marriage license
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:31pm.
Therefore, God is not part of the equation.
So what was your point?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:37pm.
To annoy people?
Not a part of YOUR equasion, apperently.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:43pm.
Hay, just who decides things like who's eligible for marriage licenses? That's right, humans! Who also believes in a Divine Creator, a.k.a God? That's right, the majority of those same humans! Who uses that belief in God to help them make moral decisions, decisions that effects all of society? That's right, those God believing humans! So, guess what? God IS part of the equation!
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.
AppArently
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:53pm.
You seem to be stuck on this one issue.
Through all of this one fact remains constant: Neither God nor organized religion can make a marriage legal. The state does not recognize marriage without a state issued certificate. The state does not care which religion you believe in, and the state doesn't care what the Bible says about marriage.
I'm being stuck?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:24pm.
Hay, I'm not the one who stared this with the claim that God isn't part of the equation. No matter how you feel about it, God is an integral part of many people's lives. As a matter of fact, God is an integral part of the vast majority of people's lives. That has a HUGE effect on society, and the laws that the society produces, like the laws that say marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman. That makes God an integral part of the "equation." That means that, yes, God does have a say. Your problem is that you don't like that particular part of the equation, so you delete it altogether.
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.
You aren't paying attention
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:55pm.
You aren't paying attention to what he's saying. Government determines when people are married. Government grants licenses, not god. Therefore, in this role of government, god is not part of the equation.
YOU'RE not paying attention!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:32pm.
YOU'RE not paying attention! Government isn't some giant computer which determines things like what should or shouldn't be legal. It isn't a machine, divorced of all emotion. PEOPLE make those determinations! Guess how people make determinations like that? That's right, through their own sense of morality and justice. Now, just where does that sense of morality and justice originate? This may come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of people learn their morality and sense of justice through religion. It originates in religion. That's makes religion a integral part of the process.
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.
It is impossible to have a
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:40pm.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone such as yourself who doesn't understand a single thing being written and whose logic is deplorable.
Don't drop that mirror
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:41pm.
Don't drop that mirror, Satchmo.
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.
Incestomo translation
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:28pm.
I can't win this debate with Cobra, I'm going to cut and run and accuse him of not understanding me.
Again Incestmo?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:46pm.
I deny that...
It's your fault
Learn to read.
Again, its not my fault.
It's your fault
I didnt say that
Hey, I'm not the one that lies
Ok, I'm getting bored. How does the Vet do this?
cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:53pm.
Great job! But yes it is boring, Incestmo has no originality.
Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:43pm.
Do you think Zombie and Incestmo may be related?
cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:49pm.
Lovely family portrait! Their personality comes through.
Let's discuss marriage and the Bible
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:05pm.
In biblical times most marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. Why has this not continued?
How about interracial marriage?
Deuteronomy 7:1-4
1When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-- 2and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Divorce and Remarriage?
Mark 10:2-12 (Words of Jesus in red)
2Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." 5But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 10Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
Which should we discuss as it pertains to marriage laws?
People still ask for permission, you know.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:32pm.
People still ask the parents for permission, you know. I did. But that has NOTHING to do with how the government grants marriage licenses. That's an individual preference. Even amongst the most devout Christians, the decision is a personal one. God doesn't tell us that only the parents can arrange a marriage, you see. But God does tell us that it's a very good idea to seek permission from those parents as a marriage encompasses more than just the two people taking their vows. It encompass the FAMILIES of both persons.
If you marry in opposition to the wishes of those families, you alienate yourself from them, and that's usually a very bad idea. You do understand that, right?
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.
z brains, BBBizzzzzttttt, wrong.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:36pm.
In Deuteronomy 7:1-4, it's about Believers marriage to UN-Believers.
Not so nice of try there , race baiter.
You Didn't Build That.
UCW:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:23pm.
So you weren't dazzled by the sheer typographic density of his post? See, I just glanced at it and said to myself, wow, he surely knows of what he speaks.
/s
~
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:36pm.
In biblical times most marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. Why has this not continued?
Actually, that should read, "Throughout human history, a large percentage of marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom". There's nothing in the Bible that mandates it; it was a cultural thing. It still is, in many places.
How about interracial marriage?
The Hebrews were not a different race than any of those seven nations, as a matter of fact they were in many cases related to them through Abraham. God didn't tell them to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan utterly because they were a different race, but because they had truly vile cultures. They burned their own newborn babies alive and boiled newborn goats alive in their mother's milk, among other things.
Divorce and Remarriage?
Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked
The Pharisees knew what the law regarding marriage was, it was a trick question. You'll notice that Jesus didn't call for the government to enforce what He said about marriage, He simply told them what God's heart was toward marriage.
Most/Large Percentage, potato/po-TAH-to
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:23pm.
In the context of this discussion it has been argued that God made the rules of marriage for us to follow as written in the Bible. Pointing out biblical society in contrast to today's society we see clear differences. In this country parents can no longer arrange marriages without the bride and groom's consent.
Interracial marriage should have been interreligious marriage. My error, your correction is appreciated. Irrespective of my mistake is my understanding that God has instructed us not to marry (and to slaughter?) those who worship another God. Is that not the case?
Luke 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Now this is pretty straightforward and consistent with a number of passages...
Matthew 5:31-32
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
...yet ignored by the laws of our country. In fact these passages specifically go against marriage laws. Relying on the word of God to define marriage as it pertains to today is a futile exercise in the luxury of interpretation and picking-and-choosing.
~Rules for marriage
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:41pm.
Pretty much all He said about it was this:
That's it.
On divorce, what Jesus said was that it is against God's Law for any man to put away his wife unless she cheats on him. He can't make up some crap reason like, she's getting old. Or he's tired of her. Or the hottie next door has a 12 camel dowry.
You've got to look at this in context. Back in the day, no woman filed for divorce. If a divorce was put in the works, the man instigated it. The prohibition against divorce was to protect the woman and the children from the selfishness of a hardhearted a-hole, of which there were plenty in a patriarchal society.
Irrespective of my mistake is my understanding that God has instructed us not to marry (and to slaughter?) those who worship another God. Is that not the case?
Nope. You're overlooking the fact that these were specific instructions to a specific set of people about a specific set of people. Who no longer exist. Point me at a Jebusite and I'll whack 'im if you want. You want me to use a .45, a knife, or my thumbs?
If you're looking for generic killing instructions you'll have to read the Koran.
In that case
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:03pm.
We've quickly reached the point of disagreement of interpretation. Where to start...
Back in the day is what my entire point has been from the beginning. Back in the day a woman who remarried after her husband divorced her was committing adultery. But this is clearly no longer believed. Could it possibly be that other mentions have evolved over time?
~It isn't about evolving over time
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:27pm.
God told the Hebrews to wipe out the nations living in the land of Canaan. That was not an open-ended directive to slaughter. There is no "interpretation" here, because if you read that as a suggestion for Christians to kill "unbelievers" that's like thinking that Christians have a directive to call down the plagues of frog and lice on San Francisco. There's just no correlation.
The open-ended directives of Christianity are:
We could get into a big discussion about the whys and wherefores of divorce in a culture 3,000 years ago, (and the whys and wherefores of how to handle guys boinking virgins is pretty interesting stuff, too) but the point is that Jesus said that God doesn't want married couples to split up for any reason short of adultery. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Here's the thing:
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:57pm.
Here's the thing: it's not an exercise in futility to the hundreds of millions of Americans who actually believe in a God in one form or another. You do know that the vast majority of people in government are also believers, don't you? Even Obama professes a belief in God. Even he admits that this belief has affected his decisions, past and present. I don't understand why you are so willing to dismiss that belief and the effects it has on the decisions that people make every day and claim it's not relevant. It is VERY relevant.
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.
Belief in God is not the issue
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:12pm.
Questioning his methods of rule-making is the issue as well as God's impact on present day laws. Most importantly is whose authority presides over marriage law. Our forefathers protected our right to worship, but nowhere did they state that we must follow the laws of Christianity. It is not written that Christians may dictate US law based on their religious beliefs irrespective of the beliefs of others, including non-believers.
They wrote those laws in accordance with their beliefs
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:26pm.
They wrote those laws in accordance with their beliefs. They conceived them based upon the teaching of morality and charity that they learned through (mostly) Christianity. Toss in some "old testament" Judaism as well. For over 200 years, thousands and thousands of council member, legislators, and congressmen have done the same all across America. That's something you can not deny, try as you might.
But, hay, remove God from the equation, if that is what you wish. Just don't be surprised when your calculations produce flawed results.
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 without God
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:28pm.
Morality is impossible? Marriage is incomplete?
~Without God
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:34pm.
there is no such thing as morality. If it is not derived from a source of Authority, it is a meaningless construct of the human psyche.
That's right.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:54pm.
That's right. When a belief in a higher authority is removed, when men become their own highest authority, then that authority changes from person to person, based upon their own selfish needs. When that happens, when each individual believes themselves to be the highest authority, society itself disappears. You can't have a society of one, even if there are millions of those ones. All you'll have is chaos.
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.
Thank you Cobra*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:03pm.
Finally! Well said.
You're welcome.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:22pm.
Do you what is best about God as the final authority? God, being that He isn't some type of hereditary Emperor, or Elected President, doesn't make rules that change from generation to generation, or election to election. That gives us a sense of permanency to that authority. We know that the Ruler isn't going to change, so we can rest assured that rules won't change.
Also, God, being removed from the daily lives of those he has authority over, is incorruptible. You can't bribe God. You can't intimidate God. You can't deceive God. You can't seduce God. He's not going to change the rules no matter how hard we try or how much we complain. His rules stay the same, generation after generation after generation. The rules themselves are as incorruptible as God. They are permanent. It is just that permanence of rule that contributes to a lasting society. It's no coincidence that the longest lasting societies are those who follow the most permanent rules.
As was once famously said: If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him.
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.
~Deep down
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:14pm.
every human being knows he/she is a selfish jerk. If you're the highest authority you believe in, you're going to have a pretty sour outlook on the world, cuz your God is a selfish jerk..not to mention wholly inadequate as a god.
Well that wasn't nice
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 9:45am.
and I disagree.
~There really needs to be a 'Parent' indicator
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 9:50am.
on comments, because I can't tell to whom you are replying.
Now we agree
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:07am.
And I was replying to you.
~My "Without God" comment?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:13am.
This is getting too skinny here; how about going to the end of the thread and elaborating on why you disagree?
What is it that George Washington said?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:36pm.
What is it that George Washington said? Morality can not be taught without religion.
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.
By the way
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:35pm.
By the way, a religious basis in law isn't unique to America. The Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Mesoamericans, the Sumerians, the Aborigines, The Chinese, the Japanese, just about every society that you can name, past and present, has had a religious basis for their laws. It seems to be a universal phenomena, does it not? Have you ever wondered why that is?
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.
Why not embrace freedom and
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:38am.
Why not embrace freedom and liberty?
Why not start a new Church?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:18am.
Why not start a new Church, one that embraces homosexuality? No one is preventing gays from doing that. If they don't want to follow the precepts of a Church, so much so that they complain that the Church won't perform a gay marriage ceremony, then the gays are FREE to choose another Church, or even start one of their own. That's the epitome of religious liberty. WHY do others have to forgo their own religious liberty just to placate a few non-conformists? That's not liberty, that's tyranny.
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.
I wasn't referring to
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:48am.
I wasn't referring to churches, religion, or god, and no one is suggesting that you have to forgo your own religious liberty.
Then what were you refering to?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:55am.
Then what were you refering to?
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.
Cobra, in answer to your question,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:42pm.
it doesn't know what it's referring to. But, I'm sure it'll show back up to throw out another non-sequiter.
There is a church
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:30pm.
that caters to gays and lesbians and affirms their lifestyle. It's the Metropolitan Community Church.
God has meaning to me
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:33am.
......but it does not have meaning to everyone. Most marriages at city hall not have God in any of the contracts
Another comment from the aptly named Zombie.
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:20am.
God has EVERY say in marriage: He instituted it and defined it in the beginning.
You weren't there so if anyone doesn't have a say, it's you, Zombie Brain.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Is that your final answer?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:26am.
If your argument stands on the issue that I wasn't there, all I can say is...neither were you. God isn't even a legal witness to a marriage. He has no say.
Nope
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:34am.
No I wasn't. But He was.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Priests are legal witnesses.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:21am.
Priests are legal witnesses, are they not? Remind me again, just who do the Priests serve?
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.
In your example, government
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:53am.
In your example, government (usually officiants are not able to sign as witnesses, but it may vary by state). And officiants also have to be recognized and declared eligible by the state. It is the state who determines whether people are married or not.
It's the people who decide
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:01pm.
It's the people who decide who will perform that marriage ceremony, not the State. People are just as free to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony, for whatever reason, as they are for performing one, for whatever reason. If you wanted to, you could have Bill Clinton perform your marriage ceremony. He, of course, could refuse your request, just as a Church can.
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.
For marriages conducted
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:20pm.
For marriages conducted outside the clerk's office, the officiant must be authorized by government to conduct a marriage. Again, some criteria/procedures are going to vary from state to state, but in all cases, it is the government who decides when people are married.
Gosh Helen, Clinton already has done this
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:02pm.
For the famous, er, infamous ex-Representative Weiner.
Oh my.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You're confused
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:15pm.
You're confusing a marriage license with a marriage ceremony. Priests can be a legal witness for the signing of any marriage license, just as a mother, or father, or anyone above the age of 18 can be. That's what is meant by "legal witness." You witnessed the signing of that legal document. As far as the State is concerned, you're married the moment you sign the license.
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.
No, I'm not confusing
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:15pm.
No, I'm not confusing anything. For example, take a look at New York's website about marriage/marriage licenses. It specifically states that for marriage ceremonies outside the clerk's office, the license must be signed by an officiant and a witness/es. Key word: AND. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
"At the conclusion of the Marriage Ceremony, the Marriage Officiant, the couple, and the witness or witnesses are required to sign the Marriage License."
http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/ceremony.shtml
Keyword: AND
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:20pm.
Like you said, keyword: AND. As in, AND a Priest can be a legal witness AND they don't have to be the one who performs the ceremony AND that ceromony doesn't have to be perform in a Church.
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.
Then what was your point
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:23pm.
Then what was your point above? In your newly reformed example, after you were presented with facts, the priest is not acting in his office, but as a citizen. You are desperately trying to spin this in your favor and failing.
Who's trying to spin it? Me or you?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:34pm.
Who's trying to "spin" it? Me or you? I said that a Priest can be a "legal witness." So far , you haven't given me a single piece of evidence to the contrary.
Here's what you are failing to realize: A marriage license is a legal document issued by a government. For that document to be valid, a government official must certify that document as, you know, "official." Since it is a government document, the government decides who is eligible to certify that document. They do this through licensing. All the "official" needs is, you guessed it, a license of their own. Just about anyone can be licensed as an "official," up to and including Priests , doctors, accountants, teachers, whomever wishes that "official" duty. All they need to do is apply for a license, and, of course, receive one.
The "witness," on the other hand, is just a person who, you know, witnessed the couple signing that document. THEY don't have to be certified by the government. All that is required is to be present at the signing.
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.
If this helps...
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:41pm.
The person solemnizing the marriage can not serve as the witness. Depending on the state, 1 or 2 witnesses are required. Some states provide witnesses at an additional cost.
So what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:45pm.
So what? That doesn't mean that a Priest can't be a legal witness. My Minister was a legal witness at my wedding, one that my wife's Minster "officiated."
As far as "providing" a witness for a cost, well, if you can't find someone who's willing to serve as your witness, you deserved to be charged for one.
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.
As Satchmo said
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:51pm.
Priests being witnesses isn't being argued. But he can not solemnize the marriage while serving as a witness.
That is what's being argued.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:58pm.
That is what's being argued. And I'm the one who pointed out that just about anyone can be a witness. I never made the claim that the official can be a witness. That's an assumption on yours and satchmo's part.
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.
Oh, lookie, lookie,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:45pm.
Incestmo found another friend.
He must be related...
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:50pm.
.
Yet Mr. Brain wonders why he is tied to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:45pm.
Satchmo-pervmo-incestmo.
Tis a heavy question, indeed.
MD
Again, you said "are," not
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:05pm.
Again, you said "are," not "can be." Additionally, you came back with, "It's the people who decide who will perform that marriage ceremony, not the State." Clearly you are now contradicting yourself and being disinegenuous.
Cobra
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:53pm.
Arguing with these guys (Satchmo and Zombie) is like trying trying to find the end of the rainbow. They keep moving the argument so then when you prove your point, they deny that was the point, twist words, and claim victory.
Cobra's going from "are" to
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:02pm.
Cobra's going from "are" to "can be" is moving the argument.
Look at the argument you started.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:49pm.
Look at the argument you started. I said , correctly, that priests can be legal witnesses to a marriage. YOU started spouting off about "officiates" and the like, which has nothing to do with being a legal witness.
The whole argument started with the premiss that, since God isn't even a legal witness to marriages, he doesn't "have a say." Well, guess what? God DOES a say! He speaks through those Priests, Ministers, and the like who are both "officiates" and "witnesses." But, of course, you don't accept that, so you throw our red-herrings like what is a legal definition of an "officiate."
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.
No, you said "Priests are
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:19pm.
No, you said "Priests are legal witnesses, are they not? Remind me again, just who do the Priests serve?"
You're flip flopping all over the place and your logic is atrocious. And fyi, I did not provide a legal definition of an officiate. As usual, you make up things out of thin air.
Who's flip flopping?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:41pm.
Who's flip flopping? It sure isn't me! Priests can be legal witnesses. Do you deny this? Sometimes they ARE legal witnesses, just as one was in my marriage (ok, technically it was a Lutheran Minister, or, as they are sometime referred to, a Pastor, but what difference does the title really make?)! Do you deny this as well?
Satchmo, you've dug yourself in so deep in your futile attempts to refute my argument that, yes, Priest are witnesses that you resort to ridiculous claims of "flip flopping" in order to try to conflate my statements into some type of reversal, when anyone with any sense at all can see that, contrary to your absurd "flip flopping" claim, both statements actually reinforce each other. And you accuse ME of having a problem with reading comprehension! What a hypocrite you are!
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.
You conveniently omitted the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:44pm.
You conveniently omitted the part where you asked, "Who do they serve?"
If all you were saying is that a priest can be a legal witness, then what was the point? You may as well have announced, "The sky is blue." As a witness, a priest is not acting in his office. But then we see the second half of your post asking who a priest serves, emphasizing the office.
I have no idea why you're now trying to tell me what I have been telling you for a few posts now.
This is so adorable.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:47pm.
The incest-lover and the 27X retread picking nits out of each other's scalps.
SOL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:39pm.
All we need is mamabear and they can sing kumbaya.
LOL, Rad - that would be like The Perfect Storm.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:03pm.
I don't think it will come together, though... apparently she actually has a job, unlike the other two lamebrains.
What's up guys?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:29pm.
Every week, there is a thread available for trolls and useful idiots to come to NB for a round of Christian bashing. Getting fed up with this stuff when there are so many other areas of crisis in our society.
I think we should start a forum for the express purpose of listing all the positive things about Islam and Sharia Law. Most people have no problem with atheists nor agnostics so why do they keep bashing Christians?
Come on Incestmo, from your high ground, pontificate and extoll all the greatness of Islam and give Christian bashing a rest.
There hasn't been a single
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:41pm.
There hasn't been a single person in this thread who has "bashed" Christians or Christianity.
Is it just me?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:48pm.
I don't recall using the word Christian in any of my posts today. Unless my "find" feature is broken this post of yours is the first time you've used the word Christian. Were you bashing Christianity today? I wasn't.
For once, you are correct, Incestmo.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:48pm.
It wasn't a single person.
It was two - you and your new tagteam partner, the 27X Retread From Hell.
What exactly is a 27X Retread from hell?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:55pm.
And please point us to the Christian bashing comments on this page.
27X retread
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:03pm.
You might be the original "hater", but I don't think so..he was a lot wittier than you. But you could be one of his offspring.
"Wha? Who? Huh?" Been there, done that.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:04pm.
I guess you were making fun of the atheist's "God" in your amusing posts.
dude
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:21pm.
Who's making fun of GOD????? I have no problem that people choose to follow a religion up until the point they use their religion to make laws while ignoring the beliefs of others.
This, I presume, is why we have so many hostile responses today. Since no one made fun of God, and no one has bashed Christianity, can we get back to the topic at hand?
Well since I never used the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:07pm.
Well since I never used the words "Christian" or "Christianity" until I replied to cajun, maybe you could link to a post where you feel I was "bashing" Christians and/or Christianity. Shouldn't be hard to do, right?
Oh, look, the new couple is getting all indignant.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:32pm.
Now just look what you and your new playmate have done to this thread: 35 posts and counting between the two of you.
But it is just shameful the way you've been mistreated. All you were trying to do is get everyone to admit that religion and/or God has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.
Now here's a brandy-new evil Christian thread - why don't you and your playmate head on over, K?
That wasn't the argument at
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:03pm.
That wasn't the argument at all.
I didn't omit anything.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:47pm.
I didn't omit anything. It's just that you've tried so hard to avoid the question. WHO DO THEY SERVE? Do they serve the government or the people who are getting married?
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.
Yes, you did. Look, you said
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:48pm.
Yes, you did.
Look, you said Priests ARE legal witnesses, not that they can be.
And how could I be avoiding your question when I immediately answered it in my first reply to you?
Accept it, thay ARE!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:52pm.
"Look, you said Priests ARE legal witnesses, not that they can be. "
Well, they are, aren't they?
"And how could I be avoiding your question when I immediately answered it in my first reply to you?"
You didn't answer that question at all. You were spouting off something about "officiates." Which, by the way, doesn't have anything to do with a legal witness. So, answer the question: WHO DO THEY SERVE?
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.
I can't fix your reading
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:21pm.
I can't fix your reading issues, but if you'll scroll up and look again, you'll see I answered your question. I'll give you a hint: the sentence begins "In your example, government"
That's your example
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:34pm.
That's your example, one that has nothing to do with my statement. Just admit it, Satchmo, you're wrong about Priests not being witnesses. And it still doesn't answer the question of who do they serve.
But, hay, assume (you are good at that) that I am having a problem with reading comprehension. So, please answer the question again: Who do the Priest's serve? Give me a direct answer this time.
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.
Ahh, the rich aroma of freshly brewed irony!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:39pm.
"God isn't even a legal witness to a marriage. He has no say."
"If all you were saying is that a priest can be a legal witness, then what was the point? "
Ahh, the rich aroma of freshly brewed irony!
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.
Irony? You are a very
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:54pm.
Irony? You are a very confused person. Somehow you think two different statements by two different people about two different things is irony? Are you flip flopping about the priest again?
It is irony!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:36pm.
It is irony! You're demeaning me for talking about priests as legal witnesses in a response to a statement about God not being a "legal witness!" Hay,, the priests serve God, do they not? They follow, uphold the "policies" set by God, do they not? Well, I guess God really does have a say after all, does he not?
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.
incestmo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:23pm.
Once again asserts he is the ONLY authority who knows ANYTHING.
And is once again proven wrong.
Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:06pm.
I think we need a word for that...because it happens so very often.
Hmmmm. Incestmo pontificates with absolute authority, when challenged declares that the other party doesn't know what they're talking about (or is reading impaired)...and within another two posts, Incestmo is proven to be totally incorrect, yet again.
Hmmm. "perved"?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:29pm.
I would prefer "Access Denied", but I'll go with perved. :)
LOL, Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:35pm.
I like yours better.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
God
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:35pm.
And the secret service serves the president. Do they make policy decisions for him?
Yes, they do
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:40pm.
Yes, actually, they do. They make policy decisions on Presidential Protection services. Who do think decides things like travel routes and security requirements? The President sure doesn't do that! Not since Kennedy, anyways.
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.
Too funny. That isn't even
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:45pm.
Too funny. That isn't even the question he asked, and you know it.
Oh, really?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:49pm.
Oh, really? So, tell me, what does "do they make policy decisions for him?" actually mean? What question, in your mind, did he actually ask?
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.
Yes, really. He was talking
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:56pm.
Yes, really. He was talking about the president's policy decisions, not the secret service's policy decisioons. But you knew this. I hope.
Ok, Stachmo.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:57pm.
Ok, Satchmo, since you seem to be so intent on technicalities, just who's "policies" are those Priests serving, if not God's? They're certainly not serving the President's policies!
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.
God and marriage
Submitted by ApacheIP on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:35pm.
Zombie Brains wrote, "Until God begins issuing marriage licenses he doesn't have much of a say in this matter."
I am trying to understand how your comment relates to the Times magazine viewpoint column "The Bittersweet Victory: Why Gay Marriage Still Isn't Marriage" being discussed. Can you please clarify your comment?
Are you saying that Howard Chua-Eoan should not concern himself with being married in the Church of his choice? (which from my read is his primary beef/concern)
or
Are you saying that Churches should be completely removed from the marriage process?
ApacheIP
Wow, I support Gay Marriage
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:14am.
Wow, I support Gay Marriage 1,000% (on a legal level) and am somewhere in between agnostic and atheist on any given day, but even I find the choice of words at issue here to be monstrously patronizing. I might not have much use for organized religion, but I went to church and Sunday School (also taught it) and was confirmed, and I don't recall any conception of God as an overworked functionary who ignores certain things because they just aren't quite as important as others. I always thought that Christianity defined moral and immoral behaviors and that choosing one's path had to do with personal righteousness and piety and one's relationship to Christ, not whether or not God was good enough at multitasking to catch you in a comparably minor transgression.
Perhaps the confusion is due
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:28am.
Perhaps the confusion is due to the left's elevation of Obama to "God-like" status. And since Obama seems to have difficulty multitasking, they use faulty logic to assume God also has difficulty multitasking.
~This comment
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:05am.
is a perfect example of why I like JasonC. He's a liberal, but no party hack.
I don't recall any conception of God as an overworked functionary
"Overworked functionary". Delicious, as Noel would say.
Correction
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:56pm.
Actually, you don't support gay marriage (an absurdity) as much as you support the abolition of the silly concept (to you) of "individual rights" and their replacement with "group rights". Gays, to you and many other Leftists, simply are entitled to more rights and privileges than the rest of the population because they are gay.
Also for many Leftists, it's a great, convenient way to attack religion. Leftists hate religion because it places something other than the State at the center of life. If Leftists had their way, they would love to assault and harass clergymen and churchgoers simply for being clergymen and churchgoers. But they can't (yet) so they have to find other ways to attack religion.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh look, NB's resident
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 10:20pm.
Oh look, NB's resident anti-Nanny State stalwart (except for when the government's intrusions are aimed at personal decisions and actions that said stalwart finds distasteful) is going to set me straight on what I believe in and why.
Aaaand his commentary is at once incorrect, nonsensical, and high-and-mighty. Shocking.
Sorry. Try again.
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:07pm.
I am going to set you straight on this. This whole "gay marriage" thing is total BS.
I can't think of many cultures that have had "gay marriage" over the past 6000 years. I can't think of any society that has suffered painfully because gays couldn't marry.
Seriously. There can only be three reasons why people can support such a silly idea.
1) People are overwhelmed with guilt at (by accident of birth) having missed out on a REAL civil rights movement (such as what happened in the South in the 1960s when Jim Crow met his end)
2) Hostility towards religion. Leftists understand that they cannot use the bullies in blue to harass and intimidate clergy and churchgoers and otherwise run organized religion out of the country. So they choose to support silliness like this to attack institutions which have, for many, a religious basis.
3) The Leftist love of the concept of "group rights".
I have yet to see anything disproving this. Not even from you.
You whine about me "setting you straight on what you believe" and then proceed to try and do so with me. I am anti-Nanny State but you conflate this with anarchy. Absurd. Civilizations and societies, sadly for you, have rules and standards. It doesn't bother me in the least that marriage is restricted in membership. If you ask me, as things stand now, it is TOO easy to enter, thus the high divorce rate. We should, as a society, make it MUCH harder to get married.
Leftists constantly try to set me straight on what I believe. You are doing it too: you are spouting the same fallacious crap about "well, since Unsane doesn't want a Nanny State and believes in limited government, he wants anarchy." Not so. While I believe in limited government, I believe government has a role. If we as a society can pass laws against polygamy and marriage between relatives, I think we can prevent gays from marrying. Unless of course they marry a member of the opposite sex.
Finally, it is laughable that you call ME "high-and-mighty". Yeah, an elitist snob from MA calling ME "high-and-mighty". That elicited a chuckle, I assure you.
I will take that last sentence as a confession that my commentary is at once correct and firmly rooted in sense and logic. For just whining something is "incorrect" and "nonsensical" cuts no ice.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Need a Free Stinker score card tally here---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:59pm.
Unsane = +++++
JasonC = - - - - -
MD
Ah yes, FS's scoreboard: The
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:51pm.
Ah yes, FS's scoreboard: The last resort of someone who has nothing to say and thus hitches his wagon to someone who does.
Poor Pissy Binky Baby.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:35pm.
Sarcastic Binky Braveheart dismissal: The last resort of someone that has nothing to say in response to someone making a logical thoughtful argument that bests Binky evidence by Binky's utter refusal to actually respond and instead responds to the FS style (and largely on point) scoreboard.
Thwick Thwick Thwick. Suck that binky Binky.
Gosh, July 16 must have been
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:48pm.
Gosh, July 16 must have been Glaring Fallacy Day here at NB.
First of all, a very basic element of debate - generally, one does not toss out a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that have no basis in logic other than that they flatter the poster's ideological convictions, and then tell his or her opponent that he must "disprove" them, lest they be automatically correct. This is called Shifting the Burden of Proof, and it holds no water.
1. I'm not sure "guilt" is the right word for how I react to the time that I happened to be born, but nonetheless, this is the sort of specious reasoning that Mr. Shy generally tries out after I've kicked his ass up and down a 300-post forum on gay rights. The fact that an issue is demonstrably not the most important one in the world neither discredits one's stance on it nor makes it not important at all. By this sterling logic, we shouldn't consider the issues surrounding the war in Afghanistan for another second, because it doesn't have the same level of global consequence as the wars of our grandfathers. Surely you would be deeply offended (and rightly so) if anyone were to suggest that you are only involved in the military and the War on Terror because you have a complex over not having been around to storm the beaches in Op Overlord.
2. Religious institutions inject themselves into the political and cultural sphere on a regular basis, and have done so basically forever. Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they choose, but when they deploy those beliefs, ones with no basis in empirical observations or fact, in order to influence policy and arbitrarily condemn certain so-called "lifestyles," retaliating via criticism and attempts to ingratiate into those institutions is absolutely fair game. I'm still curious as to where all the evidence is for this fear that gay marriage is going to result in churches being FORCED to perform such weddings. At my parents' church, where my mother is a deacon, the congregation held several meetings to determine whether a marriage between two women (one of whom had attended the church since childhood and is now preparing for seminary) should take place there. The people involved in the administration of the church made the decision democratically. There was no threat of political or financial consequences should they vote not. Fortunately, the church, with which I was heavily (albeit involuntarily) involved as a child, voted 8-2 in favor. I'm not saying this is how it plays out everywhere. But is there solid evidence of this sort of thing popping up elsewhere and the church being threatened by a government body should they vote 'no'?
3. I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean, but it sounds as though you're trying to show how leftism is in direct conflict with good, rugged, old-fashioned American individualism. Whatever.
Yes, you have articulate your anti-Nanny Statism many a time. Yet you think the Drug War, including the imprisonment of non-violent people who make a personal choice of what to put in their bodies, is just fine and dandy. Oh, but taxing 12 oz. cans of sugary crap or making efforts to cut back on obesity and heart disease by introducing light regulations on the fast food industry would just be the end of the republic. Be consistent, at least. Conflating decriminalized drug use with anarchy might be the most absurd thing ever uttered by an otherwise intelligent person on NB.
Society has a vested interest in preventing incestuous couples from wedding and procreating. I could not care less about polygamy. I'm just glad you didn't trot out the animals, children, and inanimate objects canard.
Dude, you're suggesting that I'm high-and-mighty based on being from Massachusetts (the cradle of American liberty, btw - you're welcome)?? Remind me what state you're from? Oh right, the one that's famous for steak, high school football, and the most undeserved superiority complex in the union.
~Question
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:55pm.
Yet you think the Drug War, including the imprisonment of non-violent people who make a personal choice of what to put in their bodies, is just fine and dandy. Oh, but taxing 12 oz. cans of sugary crap or making efforts to cut back on obesity and heart disease by introducing light regulations on the fast food industry
Do those who drink soda and consume fast food qualify as "non-violent people who make a personal choice of what to put in their bodies"?
Yes? (Oh God, what
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:16pm.
Yes?
(Oh God, what rhetorical bear-trap have I wandered into...?)
~CLANG
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:17pm.
While Jason screams in agony and writhes futilely in the grasp of my inexorable logic, let us take a moment to examine this classic example of liberal double-think.
Use of mind and behavior altering highly addictive drugs which break down one's brain cells over time (and in the majority of cases lead to other personally destructive behaviors) is a "personal choice about what to put in one's body", but those same people are incapable of making acceptable (to liberals) personal choices concerning food. They have the right to choose to destroy their brains, but they need to be protected from soda and burgers..for their own good, of course.
Hey, at least heroin doesn't make you fat. That would be gross.
*Chews off own leg, returns
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:24pm.
*Chews off own leg, returns to laptop*
You realize, I hope, that I'm not advocating such regulations of food and soda. I mean, taxation, yes. Definitely. But I'm not trying to have anything banned or get people thrown in jail for cramming a 3,000-calorie monstrosity burger down their throat. I am, however, pointing out that it is hypocritical to take the idea of a Nanny State - which I take to mean governmental intrusion into what we can or can't do regarding activities that don't inherently or directly affect other members of society - as a point of politico-philosophical pride, but pick and choose which regulated activities do or do not fall under the NS umbrella. If we want to talk about how or where to draw the line in the sand concerning the severity of the activity, that's another conversation entirely. If we want to talk about exceptions viz. activities that have non-inherent or indirect consequences, like secondary crimes or a drain on healthcare resources (the expenditures for diabetes and heart disease GREATLY exceed those of drug abuse-related treatments, I assure you), that's also another conversation. These things would apply both to diet and drugs. So if the issue is damage inflicted upon one's health, these activities are indeed comparable.
I do disagree with your comment below about foresaking personal responsibility once the drug has been ingested/injected/insufflated. That, I think, is exactly when personal responsibility becomes all the more relevant. And while alcohol may have a well-deserved reputation for leading to violent (or more often, merely embarrassing) acts, let's be frank: Most drinkers or drug users, even regular or heavy ones, DON'T find themselves in legal trouble after tying one on. The acts that they commit under the influence are still separate crimes.
Binky to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:35pm.
--- Wha? Huh? Who? I said I, Binky Braveheart, decide what the Nanny State regulates. Food - No. Pezzi - No. Health insurance - Hellz yez. Balls out buddy!
To employ the parlance of our
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:44pm.
To employ the parlance of our times:
JasonC: 1,000
The Vet: Unhinged aka ZERO
Retreadtrollsezwut?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:03pm.
Increasing your vocabulary during your "hiatus"? You never used the term parlance before. Once again you forget what it is like being a newbie. Yeah, a new user is gonna get right in the middle of 2 guys that have nearly a decade here between them.
Smooth move Dead Zippers. Gawd you are stupid. Dedicated to hating me. Check. Still Gawd awful stupid.
Vet
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:07pm.
Vet, I've been a long time reader of this website. The comment section is my favorite part of Newsbusters. I don't "know" you or Jason, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the back and forth during boring days at work. I'm not sure why you call me Dead Zippers (I can only guess this is the part of your tired game where you accuse me of being some long gone poster...boooring), I suppose it's some inside joke. Fact is, today, Jason got your goat and you couldn't handle the heat. Which leads me to advise you, as the kids are wont to say, don't dish it out if you can't take it back.
Yeah, I am a long time reader at Fulldiapers.com
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:24pm.
Gonna post one of these days. Just waiting for the perfect time. Just waiting... Nah, not the right texture.... Hmmm. Nahhhh. Too runny....
Did being a long time lurker give you the idea we are all stupid? Or just gullible?
Or wait. Maybe you are stupid. You have signed on as yet another retread account. You saw a trolljegeren you really really hate and thought you could get in a potshot?
Occam's razor - pick one.
Ramblings of a schizophrenic?
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:38pm.
Ramblings of a schizophrenic? Paging Dr. Sam. I wasn't a lurker, I was simply a reader. Noel Sheppard is one of my favorite conservative writers. He has a nice mix of content. He can juggle serious articles with humorous pop culture references. I actually found Newsbusters through him.
I read the comments sections on every site I visit. I'm always curious to see how people respond regardless of the angle. It's a nice opportunity to take a pulse. I don't know what "retread" means and I haven't a clue what constitutes a "trolljegeren" (is that English?), but I find your consistent anger to be a bit disconcerting. The fact that you routinely harass people that you don't even know is indicative of a psychological problem if the truth be told. Somehow you are able to use profane language and make personal attacks without any repercussions. I can't quite figure it out, but you must know someone on the advisory board. Otherwise, your antics would have gotten you banned a long time ago.
By the way, doesn't cyber-bullying all day get old? The repetitiveness alone would drive me insane. All that copy and pasting can't be fun. Furthermore, your poor keyboard must be tired of it's constant coating of mouth foam.
~If you read the comments that frequently
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:44pm.
you'd know what "retread" means.
WB, I've seen the term
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:46pm.
WB, I've seen the term before, but I never understood the meaning. I can't believe that people who are banned continue to get new names. How pathetic could a person truly be? I have two emails. One for work, one for family. The idea of having a third gives me a headache.
Palebutt to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:03pm.
--- Yeah, I blew my one email on that troglodyt account. All I got is this other one. Dangit why can't I stay away from these trolljegeren. Please don't ban me this dang quick. I got trolliz youngunz to feed. A whole brood. 16 of 'em.
Vet, you are a strange man.
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:25pm.
Vet, you are a strange man. After the amount of time you've devoted to this website, it's wild that Jason was able to take you down so quickly, and frankly, innocently. I suppose the years of bizarre behavior have finally caught up to you.
PhonyHorse
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:51pm.
"Vet, you are a strange man."
PhonyHorse, you are a BS-slinging idiot.
"We are all concerned for your well-being after this discombobulated post."
No one -- other than irritating, lying, attention-whore liberals, and (or "including") you, ya' phony horse's caboose -- is even remotely concerned for the well-being of the brilliant and tireless troll / piss ant - stomping Vet
Teh Vet is tops, and so far above and beyond you it hurts us all.
- Shy @ 33 1/3
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:40pm.
Pale Horse is a simple minded, ass-munching troll, as well as a blockhead and a supercilious twit.
Those appear to be his better qualities.
MD
Whoopz. Iz gozza get wordy nah.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:57pm.
Enjoyz back and forth between iz funniz posterz -- iz gonna get in teh middulz and make it all aboot mee.
Iz not lurker honext. Iz gonna say nah is juz reedinz. Reedinz nah. Unnerstandingz?
Iz long time lurker. no no wait. iz reedurz. Who Dead Zipperz? Huh?
Iz luz Mizzer Sheppard. Iz gonna take sidingz of trollz that hate mizzer Sheppard. Iz beliv that? Iz not lie honext.
Iz make lozza trollie posts before whereis hate on valuez of diz site. Iz luv mizzer sheppard. Honext.
U angriz nah. Iz trolliz nezzer say that. U angriz. U shuddap.
Howiz you involv so many trollie banz. Must be advisory burdz.
Iz rilly not know much aboot site, udder posters, or U so will just pull crap from trollie butt and just throw it hopeis u got blind from all iz poo flyinz not notice iz rillee just make crap upz.
Iz forget is got history here on track page and history iz hostilez to NewzBuzzers.
Vet, writing in code is a
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:24pm.
Vet, writing in code is a definitive sign of mental illness. Is everything ok over there? We are all concerned for your well-being after this discombobulated post. I can't even begin to imagine the effort that you put forth to write that nonsense.
palehorse*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:55pm.
Your post shows you are a qualified licensed psychiatrist issuing a diagnosis . Well we all doubt that. If you are truly concerned with THE VET's well being you would be running in another direction. And because you cannot comprehend some of the comments here at NB says more about you than THE VET. Nonsense is clear in each of your posts since none of them have any relevant substance.
All you have shown so far is that you are apparently able to have more than one account opened at the same time. So we cant really call it "piling on" now can we.
cajun, why the animosity?
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:05am.
cajun, why the animosity? Vet's rambling screed didn't look crazy to you? I enjoyed your post about racism on the other thread and indicated as much. I don't think I've done anything on this thread to elicit this response from you. The Vet routinely harasses people with long-winded, bizarre posts. He's a bully, his behavior consistently violates to Terms of Use, and he rarely comments on any of the topics at hand. Seemingly, his only purpose here is to pester anyone who has any opinion differing from the herd. Not a very useful role on a site geared toward discussion. I've been on the site for two weeks, I've never said anything liberal, yet he feels the need to attack me. What gives?
As for having more than one account open at a time, that's just a lie. This is my first and only account. I'm pretty sure you could even check my IP address if you didn't believe me.
You are not very bright.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:15am.
You accuse me of crazy. An accusation that everyone that posts regularly know is untrue.
Then you turn around a spout a provable LIE.
...he feels the need to attack me. --- Says the guy that started off here with the scorecard where he called me UNHINGED.
YOU STARTED IT and now you claim I am attacking you. A LIE.
Enjoy the rest of your time at this site. Well, enjoy it as much as a laughingstock can.
Vet, I accused you of being
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:24am.
Vet, I accused you of being crazy because you acted crazy. It's all right here if people want to take a look. Your behavior is erratic and bizarre. Not much I can do about that. I merely pointed out that you had become unhinged. This is a fact. You resorted to name calling and profanity. That's the definition of being unhinged. That's not a lie at all. Just reality.
Yep. Turns out you are not very bright at all.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:54am.
The lie was that I attacked you. Is that sentence difficult to understand? I did say the very same thing above. YOU STARTED IT. Then claim I attacked you. Now you can't even read.
Let's see. A troll spouts opinion and treats it as fact, that I am all the crazy. Then lies by claiming I attacked him. Then further claims his attack was the truffies so no rilly no attack mizzer. Name calling is now not an attack when a troll does it.
When you find yourself in a hole, first thing, stop digging.
Now ANOTHER LIE. That I resorted to profanity. One of your initial complaints here was I became unhinged yesterday with the profanity.
Somehow you are able to use profane language...
I used no profane language with you trollie. Oops, I responded to your whines about me. Attackies!
I called you unhinged based
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:34pm.
I called you unhinged based on your discussions with Jason on this thread and the Limbaugh thread. Why did I call you unhinged? Because you went on several rambling rants saturated with personal attacks and overt venom, one in which you used profanity (low class). Take a look for yourself. Two curse words in one paragraph:
"But knock it off with the back stabbing sissy shit where you talk smack about someone when they ain't around. Especially around another whining antithetical shit that physically gets aroused by ankle biting little girl gossip style posts. Because he doesn't even have the gift of a command of his primary language like you. He has to get in a hit vicariously."
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/16/rush-limbaugh-...
This type of writing is a public display of being unhinged. I didn't lie at all. You were extremely UNHINGED. Sad actually that you had to revert to profanity. They say that's what people do when they're losing an argument.
Let's also review my crazy claim. You wrote me a post that wasn't even English and was impossible to read. That's crazy so I simply pointed this out. Got it? This is painfully evident to anyone reading the thread.
Reading is so hard boys and girls. So many words and letters.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:45pm.
Continue to claim the lie was not exactly what I said. That I attacked you here on this page.
It is so comfortable wearing your ass for a hat, ain't it trollie?
Ah Vet, spin away my good
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:49pm.
Ah Vet, spin away my good man. Copy and Paste can be so inconvenient. I feel sorry for you that all of your bullying, ranting, and cursing is so easily documented.
Whatever trollie.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:17pm.
Its me. I admit it. I iz so dang mean. Poor trollie. You started poking a crazy man with a stick. Now he is on you like white on rice. Sucks, don't it.
Pale Horse, you are a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:35am.
dork; but with only three weeks on board, how big a dork remains to be demonstrated.
MD
A dork? That's funny.
Submitted by PaleHorse on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:43am.
A dork? That's funny. Reminds me of a middle school playground. How old are you? 11?
Another "How old are you" snappy retort---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:21pm.
straight out of the troll playbook.
Good things come to those who wait, Pale Horse; continue on with shedding your own skin.
MD
I disagree with you about two
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:45pm.
I disagree with you about two things: his behavior is certainly not erratic, it is the model of consistency and predictability; and I don't think there was a time when he wasn't unhinged.
There is no doubt, however, that he's mentally disturbed.
~Says the guy who thinks men should be able
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:05pm.
to have sex with their daughters.
Yeah, why do I get the feeling you don't know me?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:50pm.
Somehow I just don't get that long time lurker feeling. I get the Stage 1 troll feeling.
Stage 1 troll - Veet is crazy! Veet is mental! Veet is psycho!
Yeah. You really did not think that through at all.
1. The Vet IS crazy.
Let's see. The Vet is crazy and you just walked in front of the headlights and froze. You have done torqued the crazy man by talking smack at him. Yeah, real friggin' intelligent. Right troll?
2. The Vet is quite sane.
Let's see. Yeah, The Vet is sane. People know it. And you just outed yourself as an idiot that will throw out any little insult he thinks will stick. And if that insult don't stick, well then, try this... And, oh fudge, ok, how about this.... Dang this flop sweat... How about....
You seriously think insulting another anonymous moniker with just any crap will hurt? Day three on the internet is it?
Day one - got the computer.
Day two - figured out how to turn it on.
Day three - Use your two day old moniker to make up insults about someone you don't like.
Maybe it is time you learned where my moniker came from....
Welcome to a my world trollie.*
Sincerely,
A Veteran of a 1000 Psychic Wars.
* You won't even be breakfast in the barren wasteland that is the Psychic Wars. Loser..
Yeah, a new user is gonna get
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:20pm.
Yeah, a new user is gonna get right in the middle of 2 guys that have nearly a decade here between them.
Do you know the actual date? We could totally have champagne.
Please
Submitted by Hunter S. on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:22pm.
Ted here. Can you guys stop using my name when I'm not part of the thread?
Why should we, Ted---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:47pm.
as you are the epitome of the retread troll?
You should be flattered that you are continually battered; it is obviously what you desire, otherwise you wouldn't keep turning up over and over and over again - stinking up the place.
MD
Funny
Submitted by Hunter S. on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:49pm.
Considering I've never lost an argument here.
Still, I'm bummed I have to share California with you.
Yeah, you're funny, all right, Ted,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:34pm.
and the statement 'Considering I've never lost an argument here' shows you are as big a liar as ever, too
California is a great state as far as containing wonderful geographical diversity (the only time 'diversity' is good).
The bad part of the Golden State is the overwhelming confluence, influence, and effluence caused by liberals, Democrats, liberal Democratic politicians, and illegal aliens.
Don't like sharing the state with me, eh?
Then move the hell out, ass-munch.
I was here first.
MD
Matthew
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:42pm.
Well that is to funny, Teddy is "Access Denied" already. He really needs to see someone about his NB obsession/mania/compulsion.
Rad---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:48pm.
Thanks.
The dude gets banned so fast I can't keep up.
MD
~Meanwhile
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:57pm.
Pervmo is still with us. Who the f*** did that @sswipe bribe?
Figures we get that from Binky Braveheart.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:10pm.
Do you know the actual date? We could totally have champagne.
A sissy little snit that joins a pile on. Meet Binky Braveheart.
Another thing that sets us apart. I let Binky go when someone else actually involves Binky in a back and forth.. Binky the Sissy thinks 2 trolls are better then one when it comes to trolljegeren.
Reason 1466 why Binky Braveheart will always be a low class waste of bandwidth no matter where it goes.
~Forsaking personal responsibility?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:45pm.
That isn't exactly what I meant. I meant that personal responsibility is impossible when one's brain function is impaired.
Perhaps we're not using the personal responsibility in the same way, I mean it in the sense that one is physiologically capable of making rational decisions. There's a reason guys get girls drunk, you know? They make decisions they wouldn't make if they weren't "under the influence". While they are ultimately "responsible" for themselves just as is a man who drives drunk and wraps himself around a tree, the time to make a "responsible" decision is before one partakes of a substance which severely impairs cognitive function.
This is why I've:
A: never done drugs
B: gotten drunk only once and then did so in a safe environment
Would you like to make a forum to hash out the regulation of fast food/Drug War/Nanny State debate? This thread is already unwieldy.
Unwieldy is right. I think
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:56pm.
Unwieldy is right. I think I've pretty much said everything I have to say, though. And the thing is, I didn't even really mean to debate the Nanny State issue here, but to address Unsane incredibly reductive take on the motivations of gay rights activism. I might chime in if it's a forum you're interested in starting, but I don't think I'd have much to say that I haven't already.
But as a last response to your post, I just think it's false to suggest that drug users are in such an altered state that they have no conception of what they're doing or the consequences of their actions. Without getting into a lot of detail, I was somewhat experimental in my early 20s, but I can't think of a single substance that really makes you not yourself, or unaware of what you're doing. Maybe alcohol or certain hallucinogens in really excessive quantities. But self-restraint absolutely still applies to one's actions after imbibing, in my opinion and experience.
~Several things
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:19pm.
It isn't so much a matter of not being aware, as just not caring nearly as much as you normally do about consequences. To wit:
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when you are not.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like a w@nker.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again until your friends want to smash your face in.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that ex-lovers are really dying for you to telephone them at 4 in the morning.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell happened to your clothes.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may make you think you can logically converse with other members of the opposite sex without spitting.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to roll over in the morning and see something really scary.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burns on the forehead.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may lead to traffic signs and cones appearing in your home.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe you are invisible.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may make you think you possess mystical Kung-Fu powers, resulting in you getting your @ss kicked.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that people are laughing with you.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may cause an influx in the time-space continuum, whereby small (and sometimes large) gaps of time may seem to literally disappear.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may actually cause pregnancy.
Sleeping with ugly people?
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:55pm.
Some of us ugly people really count on that one, you know.
~Dude
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:59pm.
All you had to do was roll your sleeves up.
Warning: Consumption of
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:58pm.
Warning: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again until your friends want to smash your face in.
*Drinks 8 shots of Wild Turkey*
Dude, I totally met Tony Danza's second cousin at Applebee's 12 years ago....
~I can top that
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:17pm.
I'm friends with a woman whose best friend is friends with.........
wait for it........
wait for it.............
Sarah Palin! Boo yah!
Lives a mile away in Wasilla, known each other for years. Yup. That's right. I'm friends with the friend of a friend of the most famous woman in the Western world. Gives me goose bumps.
I also know a woman whose husband had lunch with Mel Gibson back when he was still cool. And I know a guy who rode motorcycles through the streets of Taipei....with Steve McQueen. (while he was there filming The Sand Pebbles) The same man also danced with Kim Novak, was once stepped over by Kruschev, and had dinner with Chiang Kai-shek and a bunch of other schmucks. (He was the Navy pilot who flew all the dignitaries in)
Had enough yet?
Sigh. I did none of that.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:29pm.
I just ate the last mango in Paris. Well that, and I took the last plane out of Saigon. Ok. Ok. I also took the first fast boat to China. Yes. There is more. I had a third world girl in Buzios with a pistol in each hand. She always kept me covered as we moved from land to land. Alright, there is a little more. I had a damn good run on Wall Street with my high fashion model wife. Then there was that time I woke up dry beneath the African sky, just me and my Swiss Army knife.
There is still so much to be done.
~Console yourself
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:11pm.
We'll always have Paris.
JasonC
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:56pm.
The casual user probably doesn't experience, to a great or lasting degree, that out-of-body type of high you're describing. In looking for some statistics earlier, I ran across this powerpoint from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The site is here.
You're consistently leaving out the long-term and accumulative effects of drug use, as well as the underlying reasons why people -especially teens- partake of drugs in the first place. Ever hear of dual-diagnosis? If not, you might want to look that one up.
Self-restraint is an overriding factor, initially. But the addict has much more to overcome. You know how when you see someone really attractive and it perks something up inside your mind; something that makes you look twice, or think of things you probably wouldn't say in the presence of your significant other? The thought, sight, or smell of drugs can have the same effect in the addict's mind, though to an exponential degree. Self-restraint is often thrown aside when these synapses begin to fire; the physical and/or mental need becomes much greater than the morality behind the decision. It is often something far beyond the addict's control. Alcohol can have a similar effect. In fact, detoxing from drugs or alcohol is an actual chemical imbalance correction that is often physically very painful with very real and overt symptoms. This is not the case for missing that Big Mac last night. On top of that, you can probably eat three very big and very bad meals for under $50 per day; drug users often spend 10 times that for something that offers no life-sustaining substance.
Point being, some things need to be outlawed for the good of society. Illicit drug use does not offer one single benefit to a civilized society. You can survive for a lifetime on fast food, so long as it is eaten in moderation; there are no moderate heroin users.
You're not addressing the dependency aspect
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:54pm.
of both alcohol and drugs. Both cause chemical changes in the brain particularly relative to dopamine, though the effects vary per user. And as I mentioned above, most drug-related crime is in the realm of trying to fund the habit; i.e., robbery, theft, property damage, and other violence against a person crimes. These are direct results of drug use and addiction; these crimes would not be committed by these people otherwise.
As for the economic cost of drug use relative to diabetes and heart disease- that's an unfair comparison. Diabetes and heart disease are both at least partially genetic in nature. Someone can become diabetic without ever having gone to Burger King or eaten a 3000 calorie meal. You can run 25 miles a day and die of heart disease. By the way, the economic cost related to drug abuse was estimated to be $180B in 2002; I'm sure it's increased drastically since then. Other fact related to our previous discussion relevant in this pdf as well.
All good and valid points.
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:01pm.
All good and valid points. It doesn't change my opinion about the ethics of consistency in endorsing or renouncing a Nanny State, but it does highlight some oversimplifications in my argument.
Not your fault JasonC*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:48pm.
Your "oversimplifications" may be based on your ideology not on actual experiences. I'm pretty sure you dont know a woman who leaves her screaming infant in the crib all night while she is passed out drunk on the sofa. I'm pretty sure you dont know a young man who is addicted to drugs that often slaps his grandmother around and steals her money the day her SS check arrives. I'm pretty sure you dont know a couple who are meth heads that need money so they prostitute their 3 yr old daughter. Or a man who comes home after work drunk every night and beats the hell out of his kids because he cant deal with his anger at the real world in an adult manner.
The issue isn't just about the "nanny state" and people's right to make choices. Sometimes, as explained very well by Bk and Brunette, abuse of alcohol and drugs removes any "reasonable" judgment. There are essential agencies necessary to deal with the "behavior" that is the result of that lack of judgment due to the affects of drug and alcohol abuse. Trust me, it is very difficult to watch people destroy their lives and families. It is not unreasonable to assume that there is a difference between nanny state and agencies constitutionally responsible to protect our citizens from people who make "choices".
~Well put
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:56pm.
A casual drug user who dabbles and walks away does not take into account the millions of shattered souls and broken hearts who self-destruct through their attempts to self-medicate. What makes it much more tragic is that incalculable evil is wrought in the lives of innocents as a result. Every drug addict has someone who loves him/her, and is helpless in the face of the "choices" being made.
Cajun, it's true, I'm
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:54pm.
Cajun, it's true, I'm extremely pleased to say that I don't know anyone who does any of those things (that I know of, anyway). But I do have to wonder: Are these behaviors kept to a minimum because of our drug laws, or exacerbated by same? The horrific list of things that you've provided, after all, happen in spite of strict and sometimes Draconian drug laws.
You did better than me.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:38pm.
I looked at that long boring post of the binky sucking Binky and said "No". Not reading an inane long winded mamabear screed today.
Seriously, do these idiots think we get paid for this?
~Vet
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:05pm.
My normal reading speed is 800 words a minute. When I scan text for the gist of the matter it's almost twice that. I always scan failbear and LL's posts, but Jason isn't usually this long-winded. I just picked out the part that pegged my Double-Think Meter. :-D
You do realize it is now August 18, 2011, right?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:55pm.
.
~Time is a meaningless construct of narrow-minded conservies
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:06pm.
.
And a Merry Christmas to you.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:14pm.
;)
No no, WB, time is legit.
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:54pm.
No no, WB, time is legit. You're thinking of moral absolutism.
Yeah, so? Was the issue of
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:17pm.
Yeah, so? Was the issue of gay rights settled once and for all in my one-month absence?
Yeah so? Did they get rid of the Subject bar in one month?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:40pm.
Sadly no. And the idea of respecting other posters by not subjecting them to repeating the first part of your stupid did not end as well. You don't respect us. Why respect you?
Yes, it was. Nobody told you?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:51pm.
It was decided gays are in fact not oppressed or second-class citizens.
The irony, of course, is that
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:56pm.
The irony, of course, is that were that to be true, it would be BECAUSE of - not in spite of - the efforts of gay rights activists.
I'm sorry, you're comparing
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:06pm.
I'm sorry, you're comparing eating a cheeseburger to using crack, heroine, or meth?
That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. I'm pretty sure that nobody has ever eaten a cheeseburger and then gone and killed someone or killed someone to get money because they are addicted to cheeseburgers. But, I'll have to check the books on that one.
Freaking unbelievable.
I suppose no one has ever
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:14pm.
I suppose no one has ever assaulted or murdered somebody while drunk? Punish the action, of course. Making something illegal and punishing all who are caught using it because some people MIGHT commit a more severe crime while under its influence opens a serious can of individual responsibility worms.
And don't get me started on the illegal and violent acts perpetrated by those who run the black markets for these substances. That's another issue altogether, and one that would virtually disappear with legalization.
You didn't say anything about
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:22pm.
You didn't say anything about alcohol. You said, and I quote:
"Oh, but taxing 12 oz. cans of sugary crap or making efforts to cut back on obesity and heart disease by introducing light regulations on the fast food industry would just be the end of the republic."
So again, you are comparing illegal drugs to fast food and soda?
I realize you'd like to change the subject, but unfortunately you can't escape your own words.
Oh and in case you didn't know, and judging by your posts you don't, Mexico has legalized personal amounts of all drugs and it hasn't seemed to help their drug violence much, has it?
I wasn't changing the
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:44pm.
I wasn't changing the subject. You actually sort of did, by introducing the idea of secondary crimes by submitting that hard drugs MAKE people commit violent crimes. I'll bet you a dollar that people under the influence of alcohol are responsible for more violent crimes than those 3 you mentioned combined.
As for soda and fast food, the point is that in excess they wreak havoc on the consumer's body and overall health. Just as hard drugs do (albeit in a different way). So my point of comparison is that the excuse for regulating, taxing, and/or criminalizing each of these things is generally chalked up to the problems they cause for the individual. Thus Unsane's opposition to regulations of things like fast food; and thus the hypocrisy of nonetheless supporting the Drug War.
Ok. All I know is alcohol
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:52pm.
Ok. All I know is alcohol wasn't mentinoed in the post that I first commented on, but whatever.
People certainly do commit crimes to obtain funds to buy more drugs, there is not much doubt there. I don't know of many incidents were drunks attack people to buy more booze.
However, I do see your point about alcohol being legal. I might, MIGHT, be able to be convinced that marijuana should be legal, however having seen first hand what crack, meth, and heroin can do to people, there is no way I would ever advocate making that legal. Let's not forget that these drugs can be instantly addictive, unlike alcohol, adding to it's destructiveness. To me, there is just no comparing the two.
OK, fair enough. I don't
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:07pm.
OK, fair enough. I don't particularly want to see meth legalized either. Though I do sort of perversely enjoy the Darwinianism at work as far as its effect on anyone who would actually say "Gee, I'd love to snort or inject this pile of ammonia, battery acid, and cold medicine that looks like broken glass!"
I'm not really a drug legalization absolutist, but then, I'm not out there freaking out over regulatory efforts toward garbagey "food" marketed to children. I think child obesity and heart disease and diabetes are more serious problems than hard-drug abuse; it just doesn't get as much attention because it's a lot easier to sneer at strung out street druggies than the "everyday people" who gamble with their health.
I see what you're saying. I
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:12pm.
I see what you're saying. I especially like the Darwinianism part. If people saw the people who made that crap and the way they make it, we could probably eliminate meth as a problem altogether!!!
As far as the fast food and soda stuff, I think our concerns arise from the "slipper slope" beliefs. If the government starts regulating that, then where will it end? They can start regulating all sorts of things in the name of health.
Also, I'm curious as to your opinion on the Mexican situation. Can you see how their situation may be relevant to ours?
Awhile back, Phoenix really
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:24pm.
Awhile back, Phoenix really took the bull by the horns and made billboards showing people's faces before and after a meth habit. That alone should do it, and I like the approach.
I totally get the slippery slope argument. But unfortunately, I think there are also those out there who are offended at the very notion of regulating things like Coca-Cola or McDonald's - or even just their advertising practices - to the extent that to even mention it is to raise their ire. Maybe illegal drugs are not as good a comparison point as cigarettes. There's not nearly as much brouhaha about taxing those nasty things and printing warnings all over them (though there is some). Why is nasty, no-nutritional-value-having, high-caloric food any different? The brand's squeaky clean image? I don't know.
I honestly don't know enough about Mexico's drug policy to respond. I wasn't really familiar with the facts you mention about personal use and unabated violence. Assuming those are accurate statements, it certainly throws a monkey wrench into the ubiquitous anti-Drug War argument about disempowering drug lords through legalization and taxation.
Anyway, I take your points as well. Good conversation, sir.
Don't fall for the false show of respect.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:57pm.
This is a cowardly little sissy that will act as though it respects the monkey people then be right back to back stabbing whining binky sucking posts within days hammering on the low brow conservative suckheads that eat at McDonalds, swill big brand beer, shop at Walmart's, drive SUV's and post at NewsBusters. I would provide quotes but trolls like this rely on the fact that NewsBusters trashed on the old posts last October.
Fair warning.
Haha, wow. NC Cop: "I see
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:39pm.
Haha, wow.
NC Cop: "I see what you're saying."
JC: "I take your point as well."
Vet: [Denounces pleasantry as insincere. Acts like it's a big dark secret that I dislike totems of mass culture, especially high-caloric ones. Shits self.]
Wrong Binky Braveheart.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:15pm.
You WHINE loudly about totems of mass culture. Frell, do you whine. Oh my lord in heaven, all you do is friggin' whine. Get it straight for the love of the big trolljegeren above.
That was a good reply from binky
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:11pm.
I dont think there was A lie in it
PervertC
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:59pm.
"Though I do sort of perversely enjoy..."
You preversly enjoy things, do you? Whudda thunk.
You have a thing for perversions in general (being a soldier for the cause of all things gay), and enjoy your little moments on a perverse level.
You had some clout around here. Now you've just devolved into Pervmo 2 = PervertC
- Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Hey, stoner
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:01pm.
I'll take that bet. And raise you $10. You in?
You have no comprehension of what drug use does to the individual or those around him. You fantasy platitudes are an indication of your ideological belief that drug use is a right. Well, you're wrong -on multiple levels.
Maybe. What's our source for
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:09pm.
Maybe. What's our source for confirmation going to be?
And I don't use drugs by the way.
Hey non-stoner
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:19pm.
Sorry for the implication, many legalization advocates are in fact, stoners.
I've been looking for statistics but I can't find anything that compares violent crime associated with drugs and alcohol directly. And I guess some context would have to be included in the comparison- if there are three times as many users of alcohol than drugs, then it's likely the total number of violent crimes would be higher with alcohol. Though I have seen several reports on the UCR page of the FBI's site that indicate more than 50% of those arrested for a violent crime were under the influence of an illegal drug at the time. So from a percentage standpoint, drug users probably far outweigh those under the influence of alcohol.
The crime that really skews the data appears to be driving under the influence. In the event of a driving-related death or injury, alcohol is most often the culprit. I would argue that this type of crime, while violent, is certainly not premeditated. While that may not be part of the argument, from a responsibility standpoint, premeditation certainly should be weighed as it is for sentencing.
Most drug-related crime is in an effort to either fund the habit or transport and distribute the product. These are most definitely crimes where forethought is a factor. Most alcohol-related crimes appear to be reactionary; i.e. abuse of a family member or driving-related.
It is clear, however, that drug use and drug-related violent crime is on the rise and very little of it has to do with marijuana. And legalizing pot would do very little to curb these statistics. While I don't advocate for legalization -I've seen what it does to people; the gateway effect is very real and undeniable- users restricted to pot are less likely to be involved in violent crime than alcoholics. But, an alcoholic is, among alcohol users, more along the lines of a drug addict chemically and mentally addicted to illicit drugs; so it's unfair to compare equally alcoholics to ordinary potheads. The trend lines seem to be going in opposite directions- down for alcohol, up for drugs. It's also important to keep in mind that until very recently, statistics were not being kept for things such as Oxy and X use, and a whole host of other opiates and amphetamines that have become prevalent in the past decade. Same for the designer drugs.
All that being said, I may have to send you a check for the $11 on shear numbers alone so kindly post your full name and address and I'll send it along. (haha)
Haha, I don't think I've been
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:28pm.
Haha, I don't think I've been proven right just yet. Between your good humor on the matter and your taking the time to compose a thoughtful reply, I'll just call it even.
And I agree, assessing premeditation in DUI cases is really thorny. I suppose repeat offenders make it a little easier. And of course there's the issue of whether they actually injure someone or just got pulled over for weaving and blew >.08.
Well
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:56pm.
Since you noted violent crime- I would only include injurious results in the alcohol-related stats. But they alone, definitely skew the numbers.
~I'd like to point out
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:33pm.
that the whole reason drugs and (excessive) alcohol are dangerous is because they severely impair the brain's ability to function in reality, thereby making personal responsibility a moot point. By the time one's judgment is impaired, the moment for exercising personal responsibility has come and gone.
ATTN: the normally hinged JasonC
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:37pm.
"...this is the sort of specious reasoning that Mr. Shy generally tries out after I've kicked his ass up and down a 300-post forum on gay rights."
I do get a kick out of living in dopey liberal's brain's rent-free, like the one belonging to fringy perversion-obsessed JasonC. But you keep fighting that good fight for those alternative lifestyles, hawking them like they're civil rights.... you "progressive", you.
- Shy on Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Looks like the sissy JasonC is gone full troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:52pm.
Nothing like taking pot shots at others in their absence to get some attention.
Or dropping the F Bomb. Again. And again.
If there's one thing Sporty
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:53pm.
If there's one thing Sporty cares about at NB, it's etiquette.
Nevermind that he's dropped my name - or one of his nicknames for me, anyway - in threads in which I'm not participating. Actually, I must have gotten that wrong, since JWF is nothing if not conscientious and scrupulous, and would never criticize another for doing something that he does.
I suppose mentioning an NB regular with whom one has had many past arguments when he or she is "absent" is against the Terms of Use?
And I went to a site I despise to do what again?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:21pm.
I can think of one. In a list of trolls. That included your banned buddy you supported bsny shortly after he was banned. In response to a Bozell column on culture - your forte.
Mr. Bozell had a column decrying some aspect of popular culture. Time for the JasonC's, balboa's and Shawn's of the world to come in and tell us all -
A. Mr. Bozell needs to relax.
B. The actually love love love the book.
At least we got rid of the bsny Brent Bozell hater troll. We are saved the nasty rants of that one.
And that was insulting to you how troll?
threads Sissy? Back it up.
And it was a pot shot, a back stabbing sissy smack from a binky sucking troll that leaves for months then shows up to take a shot at another user that is not paying attention to his binky sucking sissy posts.
Zzzzzzzzzz.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:40pm.
Oh, I must have drifted off again. Looks like Binky Braveheart is off for another month and a half. Nothing like dropping a bunch of accusations and lies then running off for 6 weeks.
Still waiting for one single name of a person that died due to lack of health insurance Binky Braveheart. You made a post you admitted was bull saying people had to fxxx off and die. Then brought a bogus study that says 100 some odd people die a day due to lack of health insurance. AND YET YOU CANNOT NAME ONE SINGLE PERSON.
Now I guess we will just have to wait forever for you to show us postSSSSS where I constantly drop your name in an insulting manner. Or hell, more than one post at all.
Sissy. Run away again.
Still waiting for you to show us how a foot soldier is no longer known as an infantryman. You said the definition of INFANTRY changed from something other than a foot soldier just because they carry upgraded weapons nowadays.
Still waiting for that sissy.
Yeah, you run away again. We will wait as usual in perpetuity for you to actually back something up.
Because...
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:15pm.
Because, some people dont want to desecrate the alter of God with the abomination of a false
covenant, that's why.
That's your problem, Howard - you have religion and not a relationship. You should really read Romans Chapter 6. If you are Christian as you say, you are supposed to be a new creation. So why are you still desiring to live in your sin?
Ok, I'm done preaching.
Not even his "logic" makes any sense.
Submitted by Great Debater on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:57pm.
Not even his "logic" makes any sense.
He says "If God exists ..." and then gives us a sermon on God's views on acceptance of homosexual marriage. Shouldn't he FIRST decide if God exists BEFORE he tells us what God says?
He calls himself a "deeply religious Christian," but gives us no basis for him saying that: Constant prayer, worship, and supplication? ... Consistent reading of the bible? ... Mind open to correction from elders? ...
He thinks that it's not enough for gays to be allowed to be gay (openly) ... he thinks that it's not enough for gays to be allowed to get married ... he thinks that it's not enough for gays to have their marriage recognized by the state as a civil union ... he doesn't even think it's enough for gays to have their marriage recognized as a marriage by the state ... no, no, no, he thinks churches should have to officiate gay weddings if they officiate any. He doesn't say so explicitly, but I doubt that's enough, either ... he likely thinks that pastors should have to regularly remind their flock that homosexuality is OK.
He talks about how "some rich and influential religious institutions" don't seem to be fazed "no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times." But, what in the world does that have to do with whether they're right or wrong?
Finally, he says that "God loves them just as much ..." No, he doesn't. "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin" is NOT biblical ... wasn't even said by a Christian OR Jew ... it was said by Ghandi. God does NOT love those who unashamedly revel in their sin. Sometimes, he actively reaches out and causes them pain, while other times, he simply allows the inevitable pain from their sin to come upon them all by itself.
Remember the 1st Amendment?
Submitted by nkviking75 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:00am.
As twisted as liberals' interpretation of the First Amendment has become, it ought to be clear that the government is not allowed to force a church to do anything.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Morality without God
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:21am.
Let's start with one example. Rape is immoral. I believe that. But I don't believe in God. Now how did you and I reach the same conclusion having taken different paths into today?
~Everyone believes that rape is immoral
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:28am.
Even the guys who do it. Can you think of another example?
The fact that the majority of cultures largely agree on basic moral tenets indicates that we have an inner sense of right and wrong that transcends culture. If our sense of right and wrong is inherent in us, where does it come from?
Wrathful,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:45am.
unfortunately that is not true. There are entire regions in the world where rape is defined as many things other than immoral. Even in the US, with groups like NAMBLA, there are those that attempt to blur the lines between rape and love.
Whoopie: It wasn't rape, rape!
~Nope
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:50am.
If Whoopi didn't think rape was wrong she wouldn't have tried to deny that it was really rape.
Oh, and on the NAMBLA thing, they're trying to present rape as something other than rape as well.
whoopi
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:53am.
I guess the fact that I joking made reference to a Whoopi comment negates the fact that large parts of Africa view rape as a suitable reward for soldiers and political appointee, that regions of the world see rape as a acceptable punishment for women (even in their own families) or that rape is seen as a form of entertainment some more depraved areas. I see your point.
~Entertainment for whom?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 11:03am.
The men doing it are aware of how the women feel about it, and they know it's wrong while they're doing it. Rape is not and has never been considered a virtuous act. In particularly depraved cultures it's looked upon as a privilege of power, but the very fact that they makes excuses for it (she's a sinner, she's an infidel, she dishonored the family) demonstrates that they feel the need to justify it. No one feels the need to justify an action they don't know (deep down) to be wrong.
Wraithful,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:19pm.
If you chose to view it that way i guess that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation. Seeing the pictures of joy on the perpetrators faces and reading of their parties and even filming their acts - perhaps I don't share your optimism for all of human kind.
Agnostic
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:51pm.
People can enjoy what they know is wrong. Adulterer's know what they are doing is wrong, but they still enjoy it. Those same soldiers also had to know killing unarmed men, women, and children was wrong, but they still did it. This is the scary thing about mankind.
Radical1979
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:05pm.
I just don't believe these people think it is wrong. They devalue others to the point where any action is okay and only justify it when their actions face either consequences or societal pressure.
According to some reading many pedophiles are truly of the belief that their rape of a child is a healthy display of love and it is society that is wrong. They know to hide their crimes because society will punish them but they don't believe they are wrong.
Other cultures reduce the value of human life to the point where torture and killing is accepted and even rewarded. Rape to them is only wrong if it will negate UN funds. I will grant you that possibly they are able to justify their actions in their own minds to make something wrong seem right at the time. However, I find little difference between the two and I'm not willing to give them that distinction.
But in your point you are also correct - people do enjoy doing things they know are wrong and sometimes because it is wrong.
~Yes, they do think it's wrong
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:12pm.
If they didn't know it was wrong they wouldn't have to devalue others to justify it. They wouldn't even try to justify it. No one feels compelled to justify giving to the poor, savvy?
Pedophiles justify it (thereby admitting they know it's wrong) by telling themselves that the children want it, or that they're doing them a favor by showing love. No one makes excuses for doing the right thing.