Some people don’t care what’s best for children. I do. If you do then respond to this issue in terms of what’s best for children. If you don’t then say that you don’t care what’s best for children – don’t tell me I’m faking my concern – especially if you don’t even have children! That is completely rude and ignorant.
This is a thread that continues a very heated discussion between Jason Fitzfong and myself and we may all be too aggravated with each other to continue, but since Jason finally respectfully addressed my points I wanted to respond here where one of them could respond without being reduced to a single column if they wanted
I want to make it clear that I don’t care if people disagree with me on this issue but if they disagree with me based on labeling me as some type of homophobe or someone who doesn’t care about Gay people then I take great umbrage. If I had to guess I would say that Fitzfong, and Jason are probably around 10 years younger than I am. They have grown up with many more gay people being “out”. When I was in high school, NO ONE, not one person, was openly gay. I grew up in a large suburb, not a small town. I stuck up for people accused of being gay way before it was popular to do so. So when I said to Jason and Fitzfong that I was probably more tolerant than them, it’s because I’m as tolerant as a person my age or younger can be about it. You can be equally tolerant but you can’t be more tolerant me. Someone who is my age or older and stood up for Gay people could possibly be more tolerant because I didn't face any institutional backlash for sticking up for Gay people where they may have. If you are younger than me, there is no way to know if you are as tolerant as I because you haven’t been tested. It’s Cool now to stick up for Gay people so if you stick up for them you could be just trying to fit in – there is no way of knowing.
When people can only argue from the stance that the other doesn’t respect Gay people, and ignore and won’t address their actual points, then I’d say it’s more likely that they are worried about being “cool” and fitting in and afraid of being called a homophobe.
Unlike most supposedly tolerant people, I respect both sides. I will stand up for either side on the issue depending how it’s framed. I’m tolerant of Christians, Muslims, Hindi’s and any other religious opinions on Gay sex and Gay marriage. I’m not tolerant of individual religious beliefs that Gay people should be shunned or murdered or that Gay activity should be outlawed., but the large majority of religious people don’t believe that. They have every right to believe that it’s not consistent with their spirituality and teach their followers to abstain from it just like they teach their followers to abstain from pre-marital sex and many other things.
My Opinions on Gay Marriage, Civil Unions and Gay Adoption have absolutely nothing to do with Gay people and everything to do with the Children. Children are innocent and deserve and need societal protections, adults don’t. I don't support Gay marriage, I do support Civil Unions and I support Gay adoption for children who don't have a Male/female couple possiblity. All three postions are consistent with putting the children first. This is just background info and I’ll post specific points as I have time. If anyone wants to post his or her own points feel free.
Comments Policy
My first comment is in
February 16, 2008 - 19:19 ET by JasonCMy first comment is in response to RJ's. RJ wrote on the other thread:
How many times can i say it? I don't care what your "project" is.
Obviously, you're eager to devolve my specific points into your larger
argument about homosexual marriage...but I have no interest in doing
so. I addressed something specific said by fitz and my interest begins and ends there.
No matter how often you deny it, fitz misrepresented what Mrbill said, and I showed just how he did so.
Are you REALLY naive enough to claim there has been no "aggressive and
unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists?"
Regarding my reference to the BSA and the courts, you AGAIN try to bring in your larger "project".
Yes, I derisively dismissed your shallow understanding of what has
been going on in the "war" against the BSA and why. The ACLU, the
activist gay community, and a wide range of leftists are actively and
aggressively committed to their destruction. No offense intended, but
your characterization of BSA supporters who fear "mincing" Scoutmasters
shows how appallingly ignorant you are on the subject.
END OF RJ'S POST
Here's my reply, to kick off this forum:
What specific points? You made a claim about some homosexual attack
machine and I asked for evidence of that along with some perfectly
legitimate follow-up questions.
I don't know about Fitz, but I've given you my interpretation of misterbill's comments.
That
is my assessment of the BSA incidents and I will not apologize for it.
Since you apparently have a far superior understanding of it, why don't
you put your chips on the table and explain what it is. Sorry, but
saying "The ACLU, the activist gay community, and a wide range of of
leftists
are actively and aggressively committed to their destruction" is vague
fearmongering. I'm sure you have details to share. And I've seen you,
in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening
possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so
don't tell me that's not an element of it. My only point is that while
that's an understandable fear, it doesn't make scoutleaders any more to
have pedophilic tendencies or to act on them.
END OF MY POST
RJ has since informed me that he has no interest in continuing this debate and that I am lying in my above post. Are we all up to speed now?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
First of all dee -
February 16, 2008 - 21:07 ET by TruthMongerFirst of all dee - fantastic articulations at the start...
I'm a Christian fundie - any non-hetero lifestyle is unhealthy in my view...
I oppose gay marriage within the Christian church - impossible - marriage is completely God-created and managed and therefore not something followers are capable of changing
I "support" gay marriage outside of the Christian church - as long as it is all managed democratically - which vitally includes no censorship of opposition
I will be very concerned for the children involved, everyone closely involved actually - just like porn, abortion, gambling, etc...
During this extraordinary social experiment my "support" also requires that opposition advocates must have our concerns fully respected and not disparaged as bigotry or intolerance (again referring to dee's preamble above). We must be allowed full reasonable access to research and to thoroughly report to the public any detrimental effects - just like gambling, abortion, and any other practices under suspicion
Most importantly gay advocates must likewise also fully support peds and all other "alternative lifestyles" in order to have basic credibility on the issue - otherwise they're so-called "tolerant morality" is actually fundamentally no different then mine other than where they draw their particular lines - and consequently not really deserving of extraordinary efforts on my part to accomodate
if that's the agreement I will "support" gay marriage and do everything in my power to help make it work
Some excellent Points Truthmonger
February 17, 2008 - 10:20 ET by Dee BunkAnd I'm thrilled to see them being made by a Fundamentalist because I think you represent how most fundie's feel about it (based on people I know), but the view of the most intolerant fundie is what the media portrays and then attributes it to all fundamentalists.
You make an excellent point about supporting Gay Marriage if it comes about through a democratic process that does not silence the opposition and allows an open debate on the issue. I'm going to use this argument in the future. Outstanding!
I only have one picky problem with what you said and though I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it the way it could come across to others, I'd just like to clarify and you can tell me if I'm out of line in my assumption.
It's dangerous to use pedophilia as an example of an alternative life style in the discussions because liberals will jump the gun and claim you of equating Gay sex between consenting adults to Sex with a child against their will. I don't think you meant to do that and assume that you probably mean it in the sense of a Pedophile imposing their sexual will on a child like Gay marriage would impose an alternative family structure on Children. Even still, bringing Pedophilia into the discussion has the potential to distract from the issue.
I personally think that it's easier and better to consider valid alternative life styles in the argument. Some valid alternative life styles are Single parents, children raised by a Mother and a Grandmother, a sister and brother, two friends or any combination of people who have the child's best interest at heart. Even Polygamy is a valid alternative life style -it's recognized by other cultures as a superior way of raising a family. With the exception of Polygamy, most of the other alternative ways of raising children are not planned, they are people coming together to give the child the best life possible under their circumstances.
People who are for Gay Marriage need to not discriminate against all of these other valid alternative life styles. They can advocate for all of these people to get marriage licenses but what would be the point of marriage then? All cases can produce good parents. The point is that all of those things can be taken care of with Civil Unions and don't need to render marriage meaningless. The point of marriage is providing the ideal family structure for children and encouraging it. Even though all of the other situations talked about are valid and not abusive towards children, they are not the best. Children deserve to have a Male/and female parent to teach them about different aspects of life. Fathers are important, Mothers are important. It's not right to say that either is easily disposable and irrelevant to raising children.
Dee
February 17, 2008 - 10:34 ET by botgas a point of clarity TM is a relativist: a posistion which often puts him at odds with Christian Fundamentalists.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
what is a relativist? how
February 17, 2008 - 19:28 ET by TruthMongerwhat is a relativist? how do i fit that?
Try this.
February 17, 2008 - 19:46 ET by NL207Try this.
actually NL
February 17, 2008 - 19:59 ET by botgi see TM more as an Epistomological Relativist though sometimes confusing in the moral area (en re TMs backing of gay marriage if they back pedophiles)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
But the relatavism spills
February 17, 2008 - 21:41 ET by NL207But the relatavism spills over into morality. You see this in his position on the Religion of Peace and you see it here w.r.t. "Gay Marriage".
TM deals in subjective truths. This is what makes him a relativist. The liberal position in general is like this. I am fond of Star Wars comparisons. Obi-Wan Kenobi was the ultimate relativist. In "Return of the Jedi", he tells Luke that "You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view". Obi-Wan was most certainly a Relativist. So is TM.
NL
February 17, 2008 - 22:04 ET by botgWe all need t-shirts saying:
It's a postmodern thing
you CAN'T understand
LOL!!! BRILLIANT!!!
February 18, 2008 - 03:45 ET by tracheostomyLove it.
I'm ordering mine right now.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
for the record
February 19, 2008 - 19:23 ET by TruthMongerthese guys really are adults, btw:)
Yes, hard to believe
February 25, 2008 - 12:53 ET by BinxlyYes, hard to believe sometimes indeed. One could make the same argument against those who judge alternative lifestyles raising children. Again, if you are going to be 'fair' as you claim, if you're gonna research the effects of a homosexual couple raising children, then you must also evaluate all spectrums. Bi-racial couples, couples with generational age disparity (old marrying young) and also the effects of people with the views that homosexuals are somehow not as entitled to certain rights as heterosexuals. Again, if you're gonna talk of playing fair, *everyone* should play by the same rules.
Of course many here will not like this proposition or try and devalidate it, but it stands on its own. You can't hold one group to a golden standard and not the rest of the masses.
Again, if you are going to
February 26, 2008 - 17:42 ET by tracheostomyAgain, if you are going to be 'fair' as you claim, if you're gonna research the effects of a homosexual couple raising children, then you must also evaluate all spectrums.
Why? Because you propose:
- alternative lifestyles = race?
- alternative lifestyles = age disparity?
Both genders can be represented by race. Therefore, the first is ruled out.
Both genders can be represented regardless of age. Therefore, the second is ruled out.
However, a gender bias in a household is a gender bias that stands alone regardless of any other factor. Your other "spectrums" do not ignore half the biology of humanity itself.
Race and age variants can be represented by both genders, whereas a gay couple cannot.
Both a stark disparity and a politically correct discrepancy on your part.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Good points Trach and Binxy conviently ignores my valid
February 26, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Dee Bunkcomparisons of single people and polygamists, Mother/daughter and every other combo of people who raise children.
I finally did read your articles and I agree with much of what they say . I found the first one offensive the way he used the term "queer marriage" all the time. I thought he had some good things to say but that took away from them.
The second article about the gender equality was really good. I completely agree that Abortion and Gay marriage devalue men in society.
Dee.
February 26, 2008 - 19:14 ET by tracheostomyJust to clarify a point: In the first article (written by a pro-gay hard leftist), the word "queer" among members of the community and their allies is not a slur if used in a scholarly sense.
Next time you're in Barnes and Noble, pick up a copy of The Advocate, and you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for taking the time to read it Dee. I appreciate it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Indeed, Trach is correct.
February 29, 2008 - 12:43 ET by BinxlyIndeed, Trach is correct. "Queer" is a term used highly within literature within the LGBT community as way to describe the 'unconventional' or 'different.' It has indeed become a slur to some extent, depending on the context, however it is no where near as un PC as such words as n****r or wet***k.
Its a shame when people do use it as a slur, but I am sure Trach did not mean anything offensive by using the term, rather more of a 'when in Rome...' approach.
TM in my disscussions with
February 17, 2008 - 19:50 ET by botgTM in my disscussions with you, you have made numorous claims that we can not be certain about our understanding of God. That when Jesus says: 'I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me' we can not be sure it is an exclusive proposition.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Therefore, TM is completely
February 17, 2008 - 20:10 ET by tracheostomyTherefore, TM is completely ineffective as a "Christian" until he chucks his neo-emergent positions and gets his convictions organized. It's simply a problem of vague priorities.
It's astounding he even bothers to make assertions at all with such a core fatalistic relativism. To paraphrase, "Just you wait 20 years, and you will become such as I." I wouldn't wish that kind of blase-faith on anyone.
The question then goes to the prophet:
“Son of man, can these bones live?”
Can this [dead faith] live?
O' Lord GOD, thou knowest.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
oh trach you nut - you have
February 17, 2008 - 21:15 ET by TruthMongeroh trach you nut - you have probably been the most convicted by my insights I'm sure - but no need to make it so obvious:)!
dee just for clarification these guys have a habit of judging what kind of Christians we all are, even whether we are Christians or not, also exactly how to interpret the Bible, etc
I call them on it alot - they're prone to lash out - this month I'm a "neo-emergent relativist, etc"
Just a few months ago I was "a Muslim"
go figure:)
Regarding the ped thing - these gay marriage proponents want their cake and to eat it too - they admonish us for intolerance and being judgemental against gays - and they turn around and judge peds, etc the same way - if they want my support they must dump this blatant hypocracy
botg it is all faith - so no
February 17, 2008 - 21:20 ET by TruthMongerbotg it is all faith - so no we can't be certain - this does not make me a "relativist" sorry - get some blood to the brain bro
What is all Faith?
February 17, 2008 - 21:43 ET by botgWhat is it that is all Faith?
What is Faith?
As i've asked you before why does the apostle write "little children i write these things that you may know you have eternal life"
epistomology: (study of letters--that which is recieved) how do we know what we know.
that is why i propose you to be an Espistomological Relativist since you claim we can't know what we know. Not a slam just a description.
Botg's right. . .
February 18, 2008 - 00:46 ET by tracheostomyIt all links up to your definition of faith.
The MSM in particular has redefined this sacred term into a more general mysticism that is no more than a type of vain ritualized religion. As if it were possible to have faith in faith. Pure silliness.
Is faith the "belief" that is ---> nothing more than mere assent? That's not faith.
OR
Is faith the "belief" that becomes ---> conviction (or certainty)? That's faith.
You can't have faith in faith. Faith always requires an object.
What are you sitting on? Some kind of chair? Well, you have faith that chair will not fall out from under you, right? Or else you would have one foot out all the time to catch you. Therefore, you have totally rested your entire faith on that chair.
Do you have faith in your spouse? If you didn't you would behave differently.
Faith is faith is faith. The definition of the word does not change when the object of faith is changed.
Therefore, if I looked at a chair and told you all day that I believed that chair would hold me up, and that I had 100% faith in that chair, but at the same time stated something totally stupid like, "but I'm not completely sure. Matter of fact, no one can be completely sure, really. . ."
So then how could I possibly trust you if you then asked me to put my full weight on the chair?
There is no fruit on TM's tree. His gospel is impotent. His statements amount to nothing but shifting sand and double-mindedness. Truly, a cloud without water; carried by the winds. A betrayal of his very name.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
and it's still all faith...
February 19, 2008 - 19:25 ET by TruthMongerbut did anyone learn anything on this one?
me neither...
That was because you just
February 19, 2008 - 19:33 ET by tracheostomyThat was because you just looped your posts. You're back to square one.
You're problem is right there; within your circular logic. See Botg's post, February 17, 2008 - 20:43 ET. Your definition of faith is fundamentally screwed up.
You gonna listen now? Or are you just gonna write another bad Haiku?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
OK PJ... I think I've
February 19, 2008 - 19:43 ET by TruthMongerOK PJ...
I think I've stretched it enough for now...you can have your certainty - now go in peace
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:1 (NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (NEB) Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Mof) Now faith means that we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Wey) Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.
TM,
February 19, 2008 - 20:07 ET by tracheostomyA hippie friend of mine used to give me a hard time alot by telling me over and over "religion is where you hang your faith." Quite often I feel like you are that hippie friend come back to haunt me.
That's the same kind of faith the MSM is more than willing to spotlight. That's the same kind of faith the emergent church embraces.
And that form of verse-mangling above is a prime example of a mystified faith with one verse taken completely out of context.
But I can put it all back in context with one question asked and answered.
Based on that one verse, what do you hang your faith upon, TM?
Some sort of ambiguous and Obama-esque "hope"?
Something objectively "unseen," merely calling it substance and evidence?
Is that faith?
NO! Our faith is in a living Messiah who sits at the throne of the Most High!!!
See verse 13: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them,"
They were all certain, and they lived and died that certainty! You make a mockery of the faith of the patriarchs and OT saints with your empty-fatalistic hope!
38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.
WE RECEIVED THAT VERY REAL; TANGIBLE HOPE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR ON CALVARY, AND YOU STAND THERE AND UNDERMINE IT ALL-DAY-LONG WITH YOUR SANCTIMONIOUS; SYNCRETISTIC, AND LIMP-WRISTED EMULATION OF PILATE HIMSELF!
"What is truth?"
"What is faith?"
"What is certainty?"
Repent of it, TM. You're causing His little ones to stumble.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
can you prove Jesus
February 19, 2008 - 22:23 ET by TruthMongercan you prove Jesus exists, thereby putting an end to the heretofore requisite faith? if so then I will repent as you request
this is a big moment for humankind indeed...
(drum roll)
Take it to a new thread and
February 19, 2008 - 23:00 ET by tracheostomyTake it to a new thread and stop hijacking. You're more than welcome to pile on all the dares and challenges you care to. Just do the rest a favor and keep it on topic here.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
talk to botg then - it's
February 20, 2008 - 12:08 ET by TruthMongertalk to botg then - it's his topic...
http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/gay-marriage-civil-unions-gay-adoption-what-best-children-19267#comment-547658
Lame excuses aside. . .
February 25, 2008 - 21:34 ET by tracheostomyThat's all you're gonna do is. . .point fingers?
Geez TM, I don't care who's responsible for moving the ball out-of-bounds. It's an entirely different topic and requres its own thread.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
stop pointing
February 26, 2008 - 17:10 ET by TruthMongerstop pointing fingers? sure I'll take lessons from you on that - har har
but as long as we're being frank, when I answer questions - and i really don't give a rats ass what thread i'm on
and botg asked me a question
TM: stop pointing
February 26, 2008 - 17:21 ET by tracheostomyTM: stop pointing fingers?
No, I didn't say that. Thanks for asking.
TM: but as long as we're being frank, when I answer questions - and i really don't give a rats ass what thread i'm on
Well, at least you're honest.
Still waiting for that new thread.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
did too did not did too did not:)
February 26, 2008 - 18:52 ET by TruthMongerit just brings back 3rd grade all over again - thanks bud...
happy to help:
http://newsbusters.org/node/add/forum/240
And here ladies and
February 26, 2008 - 17:01 ET by dvdaughtryAnd here ladies and gentlemen, is your redisdent, (self proclaimed) fundementalist!
The requisite faith you mention is not toward the reality of Jesus, there is no question in that fact.
Instead, it is in his claim as the Christ.
That's the hang up for far to many.
fundamentalism dun right:)
February 26, 2008 - 17:07 ET by TruthMongernice try
but
Christianity is all based on faith
the unknown
thanks for playing, tho
You talk about my reading
February 26, 2008 - 17:30 ET by dvdaughtryYou talk about my reading comprehension...
The fundementalist is sure that faith is unsure.
Have no fear, you still make me smile.
=)
hey man, I think you might
February 26, 2008 - 18:55 ET by TruthMongerhey man, I think you might finally be getting it
I just "knew" that you could, I was...SURE of it:)...
had faith in you
Faith in faith? Now I
February 26, 2008 - 17:30 ET by tracheostomyFaith in faith?
Now I know why the atheist wears the T-shirt that says, "I don't believe in your imaginary friend."
You do their job nicely.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
ya know, satan fears faith, too - hmmm....
February 26, 2008 - 19:24 ET by TruthMongerhttp://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:StFpY3x8ugMJ:www.tbm.org/testof.htm+test+faith&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
this is neat, so how often do you guys literally walk on water?
can you post a pic or two sometime - we'd all love to see it...
now don't weenie out on us - your faith is not the least bit unsure after all:)...
and please trach, allow me:
TM: not a problem for you tho I'm sure
TM: so you can walk on water right?
TM: can you post a pic sometime - we'd all love to see it...
TM: now don't weenie out on us - your faith is not the least bit unsure after all:)...
Thanks for trying to help, but. . .
February 26, 2008 - 19:29 ET by tracheostomyI can't respond in the same field you posted, so I have to break them up in my reply-field alone, understand? But I appreciate the gesture. =)
TM: now don't weenie out on us - your faith is not the least bit unsure after all:)...
Faith in what? Faith in the unknown? Faith in faith? We cannot argue walking on water yet, because you don't know where your faith is attached.
As far as I can tell, according to you it's some "undefinable unknown". . .I guess.
By the way, I need to add that you're behaving quite the Herod now, and should reconsider the implications of your requests.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
not arguing - you know
February 26, 2008 - 19:34 ET by TruthMongernot arguing - you know where your faith is - in Christ - and you have no doubt whatsoever - you are completely 100% sure about Jesus, therefore you must be able to literally walk on water, yes...?
Let's start a thread...
Not the thread I was
February 26, 2008 - 19:55 ET by tracheostomyNot the thread I was talking about and you know it. This faux-thread of yours is the most gigantic argument to the person I've ever seen.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I was hoping for something
February 26, 2008 - 20:38 ET by tracheostomyI was hoping for something that wouldn't disregard say, all of the writings of Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. Something within fair reason that can provide a convincing argument of the case for faith.
But nooo. . .TM has to go all Herod on me.
"Walk across my swimming pool."
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Why would I be able to walk
February 26, 2008 - 23:05 ET by dvdaughtryWhy would I be able to walk on water if my faith was 100% in Jesus?
I only need faith as small as a mustard seed to move mountains.
You claim fundementalist, but argue like someone who doesn't believe.
I stopped getting mad at you a while ago. Then, I just started push your buttons. Now, I am feeling sorry for you.
aw thanks buddy:)
February 28, 2008 - 14:46 ET by TruthMongeractually i only argue with people who don't believe
Prosecution rests your
February 28, 2008 - 16:50 ET by dvdaughtryProsecution rests your honor....
TM,
February 28, 2008 - 17:15 ET by tracheostomySo you think you're the only true believer here, TM?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I think he means he's not
February 29, 2008 - 11:56 ET by BinxlyI think he means he's not going to argue about the semantics of faith or the different ways one finds their way to faith or chooses to follow it. He only argues with those who argue against faith in general or those who simply have no faith and wish to tell the faithful they are foolish for such.
Both the faith and even
February 29, 2008 - 18:55 ET by tracheostomyBoth the faith and even your very life is built on the total understanding and agreement of key semantics. See my profile.
Even when I use terms like "queer" it is meant to be understood within the greater context; that of definition seven and deferring to what the community names themselves.
-PJ
you got it binx I'm just
March 4, 2008 - 15:24 ET by TruthMongeryou got it binx
I'm just not into the semantic power struggles the way trach and company are
The words themselves have
March 5, 2008 - 00:33 ET by tracheostomyThe words themselves have their own power, and you have no right to undermine it. Have you forgotten? This is NB.
-PJ
Truthmonger
February 17, 2008 - 10:41 ET by botgyou say:
Most importantly gay advocates must likewise also fully support peds and all other "alternative lifestyles" in order to have basic credibility on the issue ..... if that's the agreement I will "support" gay marriage and do everything in my power to help make it work
So if they support pedophiles you will support them? Which by extension--- you support pedophiles!! I certaintly hope you have misrepresented yourself.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Bruce - I think he is incorrectly assuming that society
February 17, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Dee Bunkwould never support pedophiles. If he thought they actually would he wouldn't say that. Unfortunately it's not out of the realm of possibility with mister centrist Obama as our next President.
Libs Love Pedophiles
February 17, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Cool ArrowGiven the right amount of Liberal Cred, It has already been established.
Roman Polanski
Woody Allen
♣ a seal
exactly Cool Arrow
February 17, 2008 - 11:36 ET by Dee BunkIt's disgusting how they condone their actions just because they are good artists.
I don't know about
February 17, 2008 - 11:42 ET by JasonCI don't know about 'condone'. They're pretty universally mocked/reviled for those transgressions. I'd say they're regarded as good artists in spite of their respective pedophiliac incidents, and that is an impasse one must get past: deciding whether or not their sexual abberance at all affects the way one will regard their work.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason - I guess you missed the Oscars where one of them
February 17, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Dee BunkStood on the stage saying that Polanski should be allowed back in the country and everyone applauded enthusiastically. It was the year that he did The Pianist.
He's always been welcome back in the country to face his charges. They want him allowed back with no consequences. >
Oh...well that's the
February 17, 2008 - 14:35 ET by JasonCOh...well that's the Hollywood types for you. I meant just in terms of people who enjoy good films (as I know you do!).
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason - I was going to try and start a Freaky Friday thread
February 17, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Dee BunkInspired by your movie thread where we could all pretend like we didn't have differences and just discuss movies, music or anything not political.
Then - all hell broke loose - plus I didn't have time. I'm glad that we can still respect each other after such a heated discussion. : )
Indeed. And I hope you
February 17, 2008 - 14:45 ET by JasonCIndeed. And I hope you will not take offense to what I just posted below in response to Shawn's comment, as I am speaking generally, not about anyone here. Let me reiterate that I am pleased to see a great deal of respect for gay people on these threads; the jokes, epithets, and pedophile-equivocation has been almost non-existent.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I'll read it later - have to run, but you can rest assured that
February 17, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Dee BunkI won't let you get away with anything ; )
Freaky Friday?
February 17, 2008 - 15:14 ET by shawn228What a coincidence, I just watched that for the first time with my daughter last night. I was thinking during the movie that it would be interesting if Ann Coulter and Randi Rhodes changed roles.
Speaking of Hollywood I remember your
Amerika ruled by Hollywood thread. If you have time, check out new thread in the woodshed It deals with Conservatives blaming Hollywood and the msm for what is going on in their party.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn - you liberal guys are trying to drive me crazy I just
February 17, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Dee Bunkknow it! I'm just kidding - but you are driving me crazy just the same. First, I was in a hurry before and didn't fully respond to Jason's comment about Hollywood not being representative.
I disagree completely. When I've mentioned my boycott of Polanski's films, I can't tell you how many people ask why and when I tell them they had either never known or completely forgotten about the incident. Most people have short memories and if the Press or Hollywood don't remind them of peoples bad behavior they forget about it. Woody Allen Most people remember because he wronged another celebrity and everything involved an even deeper invasion of trust.
I forget for sure but I think it was Brodey who said That Polanski should be allowed back in the U.S. when he got his best actor award. The crowd erupts in applause and most people sitting at home think some crime has been committed against him. This episode hardly qualifies as the same type of Hollywood brainwash that occurs with the Michael Moore films and their constant Bush Bashing. Those have had a much deeper impact.
The media give these Hollywood kooks attention precisely because they know that many people hang on their every word. Everyone says they don't take political advice from celebrities but that's clearly not the case or companies would not be paying big bucks to them for endorsements.
Most people - especially young people are influenced by celebrity. It takes very independent minded people who don't care about what is hip or in to resist their brainwashing. Much of it is in the subconscious and happens from the repetition. Just like any advertising.
Sigh De Bunk
February 17, 2008 - 20:41 ET by shawn228I have admitted there is media bias, the thing is when are you going to stop insisting it is all Hollywoods fault and realize that the Republicans have screwed themselves.
I will not comment about this anymore on this thread because I don't want to go off topic.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
well the logic still needs
February 17, 2008 - 11:12 ET by botgwell the logic still needs work since if i can draw that conclusion out then TM should be able to state his true objection (hint: it is that which he assumes will never happen) and make his stand there.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Bruce - I agree - I shouldn't speak for him
February 17, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Dee BunkBruce - I agree - I shouldn't speak for him. Unfortunately I do think the direction of things could allow for more pedophilia acceptance just like the Woody Allen and Roman Polanski examples above. As celebrities become more comfortable with it so does the public who are influenced by them.
They'll frame it again in terms of forgiveness and how everyone is fallible. I would have no problem forgiving Polanski and Allen if they faced up to what they did and took proper punishment and sought counseling. Liberals want to forgive people before they even commit the crime by making laws that say their behavior is not so bad. They don't have to even want people to have to feel guilty about their improper actions. It's really convoluted.
you probably said it better
February 19, 2008 - 12:32 ET by TruthMongeryou probably said it better than I could have
indeed she did : ) Supreme
February 19, 2008 - 21:12 ET by botgindeed she did : )
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Don't be absurd....
February 29, 2008 - 12:40 ET by BinxlyI'm no fan of anyone who believes the liberal talking points are the solution to America's problems, but to assume that Obama will bring tolerance to pedophiles is absurd. As long as people keep coorelating pedophiles and pedophilia with homosexuals and homosexuality, people will continue to question such a person's credibility, common sense, and critical thinking. There is such a great divide between these two issues that its absurd. It makes as much sense as saying acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance to murder, beastiality, and all other 'illegal' acts. Sodomy was outlawed both due to ethical and health reasons. With today's advancements in sexual protection, the only real 'legitimate' argument to ban sodomy is the religious issue.
Might I throw my humble opinion out there. In the times before science, people functioned much on the belief that things occured due to 'God's plan' or 'God's infallible will.' While I believe God is VERY real, and my faith remains unshaken by even the most educated and well-spoken of deniers, I will admit that often times I believe, pre-modern science, people saw illness as God's doing. Again, the biggest thing brought up when people quote the bible for laws against homosexuality, it is often also mentioned that in the old testament as well that shellfish consumption is viewed as equally blasphemous.
My take on this is, much like today, sodomy was the A #1 most contageous way to spread sexual disease. In a time where cleanliness and healthy society was for the minority, its no wonder many were more diseased than today. Also, if these diseased individuals would engage in homosexual sex, or sodomy, they would transfer disease. Because society at large had no understanding of the 'why' or even of the disease itself, it is not unheard of for people of faith to assume the disease was directly an effect of a vengeful God, bestowing Earthly punishment on those who 'defied his will.' Without understanding of the fact that the disease was not caused directly by the act or created by the act, but rather one party was sick previous to the act and merely passed it onvia sodomy, its understandable that one would wrongly assume the cause of the disease was the act itself, sent by God himself. now with today's understanding of science, we know it is not some 'divine' punishment, but rather simple biology and transmission of a disease via sexual contact.
I imagine that shellfish was the same situation. Back in the day food preperation was not well known and many most likely, consumed undercooked shellfish, resulting in sickness and serious digestive problems, often resulting in death. Again, with no scientific understanding of *why* this occured, it is not out of the realm of belief that the ignorant yet faithful (ignorant in a science sense, not ignorant DUE to faith) would assume that again, the sickness was punishment from God, therefore leading the masses to believe God did not condone consumption of shellfish.
Again, I'm not saying science de-validates faith, however, to ignore scientific *fact* for the sake of faith is truely foolish. One can still confide in science and yet still have faith. I myself believe God is in everything. This also includes the concept of science that I believe he had created.
it's the definition of
February 17, 2008 - 19:29 ET by TruthMongerit's the definition of "support" that has you confused I think, botg
TM
February 17, 2008 - 20:03 ET by botgwhat then praytell is the definition of 'support'?