DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on October 11, 2006, 01:36:33 AM
-
Tucker Carlson was brutally honest on the Chris Matthews' Show about the dysfunction and hypocrisy at the core of the current GOP:
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in ...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. they live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/the_republican__1.html
-
Tucker Carlson was brutally honest on the Chris Matthews' Show about the dysfunction and hypocrisy at the core of the current GOP:
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in ...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. they live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/the_republican__1.html
I would love to believe this, but I grew up with Evangelical and they are too stupid to figure out anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/us/politics/09conservatives.html?em&ex=1160539200&en=23d887207a0782ed&ei=5087%0A
-
I disagree, I know evangelicals and they're not stupid. Well, some are, but so are some Hindus, atheists, whatever.
But Evangelicals are no more stupid than anyone else, in my opinion.
-
I disagree, I know evangelicals and they're not stupid. Well, some are, but so are some Hindus, atheists, whatever.
But Evangelicals are no more stupid than anyone else, in my opinion.
Sorry , Lanya , but a much larger % of Evangelicals are stupid. 52% of the general public voted for Bush while 78% of them did.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_24_121/ai_n8702453
I was raised in a 4Square church, but got out at 12 because I was already smarter than those dumbasses. They are stupid beyond redemption. The only hope is to stun them enough for them to stay home on election day like the jackasses they are.
-
I was raised in a 4Square church, but got out at 12 because I was already smarter than those dumbasses.
Yeah, and all the women in Texas are ugly.
We already know that you're a bigoted slimeball, we don't need daily displays from you.
-
I was raised in a 4Square church, but got out at 12 because I was already smarter than those dumbasses.
Yeah, and all the women in Texas are ugly.
We already know that you're a bigoted slimeball, we don't need daily displays from you.
I thought it was about time for you to crawl out of your hole.
-
I thought it was about time for you to crawl out of your hole.
Yeah, thought you needed me to provide you some shade as you sit under your rock.
-
Why the sheer hatred, Mr. Mucho Dude? Look ot the Creator, not the Created. People who go to ANY church are like everyone else, flawed. Hypocritical, self-absorbed, etc. A differecne is that amny realize it and realize they need help form Above to sort it all out.
As far as evangleiclas being stupid, the only place I have ever been called STUPID is in here. Wonder what that says? I always believed that debategate was for debating, not name-calling. Do you agree?
-
Quote:"Sorry , Lanya , but a much larger % of Evangelicals are stupid. 52% of the general public voted for Bush while 78% of them did."
OK, this is what they did: They organized for the past 30 some years. Remember old Falwell and the Moral Majority? Remember fundamentalists running for school board? Remember? That took much time, money, lots of networking, dedication. And then, finally, they got a candidate that they have full confidence in. He's GHW Bush's son, AND he's born again. He's their kind of conservative. He wants faith-based stuff.
They think he's really the answer to a lot of prayers.
Now, they' re wrong, but they are not stupid.
They're stubborn, they're true believers maybe, and they're willfully believing in some things that (as far as I can see) are disproven factually. And I'm not talking about religious stuff, I'm talking about the facts of things that happened last week.
They believe some trusted person's take on those facts.
They believed a liar.
Now, they are learning a very bitter lesson.
-
I see some truth here, Lanya. They did spend many years and resources organizing, only to be disappointed.
But, many evangelicals are only in the Republican Party because they feel it is closer to what they believe than the Demcorats, not because they naively believe the Republican Party is all that Grand of a Party. At least, that is MY reason. Gimme a Democrat I can support. Please. There are a few like Sam Nunn, oops retired. Zell Miller, oops, retired, Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Ben Nelson. Anyway, gimme a pro-life, fiscally conservative, anti-gay, non-intervenionsit Democrat and I'm on board! Heck, I'll even stuff envelopes for him!
-
Why the sheer hatred, Mr. Mucho Dude? Look ot the Creator, not the Created. People who go to ANY church are like everyone else, flawed. Hypocritical, self-absorbed, etc. A differecne is that amny realize it and realize they need help form Above to sort it all out.
As far as evangleiclas being stupid, the only place I have ever been called STUPID is in here. Wonder what that says? I always believed that debategate was for debating, not name-calling. Do you agree?
The Creator to me is a big bang and hypocrits in church have nothing to do with it. I do not call people stupid lightly, bit only when they prove it as Bush, the Rwers in here and Evangelicals do. I use debategate as an arena to tell the truth as I see it, but that often lands me in trouble because folks here as in " A Few Good Men" can't take the truth. The only people I hate are the arrogant real haters who choose to hate those that can't chose what they are which is a position haters can never understand.
-
Sorry, but you can always choose who and what you are. You, over the span of your life, design yuorself by your reaction to yuor environment, genetic factors and so on. Ever heard of free will?
-
If you're gay, you can't choose that. If you want someone who will be against gays, you're not going to be happy with either party. The GOP says they're anti-gay but has lots of gay staffers and really has no problem with them...
The Democratic Party says your sexuality is not their concern. Also your choices re: abortion.
I would encourage you to take a realistic look at both parties. See under which party the country has prospered the most.
-
Ah, but you CAN choose to be or not to be gay. It is not genetic, regardless of the propaganda being spewed from the MSM and pro-gay community.
If I was pro-gay, then I would be a hypocrite, jsut like in the referenced article since the Word of God clearly indicates this is a real no-no.
-
I would encourage you to take a realistic look at both parties. See under which party the country has prospered the most.
I have; that's why I usually vote Republican.
-
Ah, but you CAN choose to be or not to be gay. It is not genetic, regardless of the propaganda being spewed from the MSM and pro-gay community.
If I was pro-gay, then I would be a hypocrite, jsut like in the referenced article since the Word of God clearly indicates this is a real no-no.
__________________________
I knew kids back in 2nd grade that we called "Tony-Marys" for lack of another term. The little boy who plays with the girls, who likes to swing and knows all the jump-rope rhymes? Who loves to braid hair? I think age 7 is pretty certainly a kid who didn't chose anything, except maybe whether he'd eat all his school lunch.
Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?
-
Sin is sin. Choice is choice. Choice can = sin.
Lanya: "Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?"
Does it matter? So, you ARE acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin?
-
No, I'm not acknowledging that homosexuality is a choice. I think it is not at all a choice, any more than brown eyes are a choice.
The bible says it's a sin. That I acknowledge, although I don't know why. (I don't agree either.) Because it doesn't lead to childbirth?
So is lying, not forgiving others, letting the sun set on your anger...etc. All sins.
I'm not going to be a part of legislating against sin, because then I would have to put an awful lot of people in jail for not helping their brother and his family out when the brother got sick.
-
I would encourage you to take a realistic look at both parties. See under which party the country has prospered the most.
I have; that's why I usually vote Republican.
=============================================
This is just stupid and if you actually knew the economic history of the US you could not come to this lame conclusion.
A two party system would not be an entirely bad idea if neither of the two parties were the Republicans. The GOP sucks, anmd has pretty much sucked since TR left it in 1912.
-
This is just stupid and if you actually knew the economic history of the US you could not come to this lame conclusion.
Unlike "Mr. Obvious" (who is frequently wrong), I have. In the latter half of the 20th century, the country has done better economically under a Republican president than under a Democrat president.
-
I think it is not at all a choice, any more than brown eyes are a choice.
Out of curiosity, to those who do not think it is a choice, why would someone make the choice to be a homosexual?
Why would a kid in high school choose to suffer through a living hell every day by making a conscious choice to be gay?
I ask because I thought the same thing at one time. Yet, my wife had a friend when she was in high school who was gay. She went to a high school that was 100% white and let's just say not very tolerant to anyone who wasn't a standard WASP. This kid lived in terror every day. The jocks beat the shit out of him on a regular basis, his church ostracized him, and most of the community (small southern town) simply showed revulsion and did little to hide it.
So why would anyone choose that?
-
we called "Tony-Marys" for lack of another term. The little boy who plays with the girls, who likes to swing and knows all the jump-rope rhymes? Who loves to braid hair? I think age 7 is pretty certainly a kid who didn't chose anything, except maybe whether he'd eat all his school lunch.
Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?
I recall back in elemetary school, most of my friends were girls, it was always easier to talk to the girls, one of my best friends was a girl, and I was the only boy invited to her birthday party. I'll concede I wasn't into braiding hair, but with my history, what went wrong with me, Lanya? Am I a mutation?
-
Out of curiosity, to those who do not think it is a choice, why would someone make the choice to be a homosexual? Why would a kid in high school choose to suffer through a living hell every day by making a conscious choice to be gay?
Why does someone choose to commit adultery? Why does someone choose to have sex even before they're in their teens? Why does someone choose to take up S&M? All of those acts have a plethora of negative connotations, if such information was learned by those around you, not to mention the general populace, so why would anyone chose to put themselves thru those versions of ostrasization?
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,1,7912875.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Book: Bush Aides Called Evangelicals 'Nuts'
White House advisors sought the support of conservative Christians but mocked them in private, writes a onetime administration official.
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer
October 13, 2006
WASHINGTON — A new book by a former White House official says that President Bush's top political advisors privately ridiculed evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" while embracing them in public and using their votes to help win elections.
The former official also writes that the White House office of faith-based initiatives, which Bush promoted as a nonpolitical effort to support religious social-service organizations, was told to host pre-election events designed to mobilize religious voters who would most likely favor Republican candidates.
The assertions by David Kuo, a top official in the faith-based initiatives program, have rattled Republican strategists already struggling to persuade evangelical voters to turn out this fall for the GOP.
Some conservatives lamented Thursday that the book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," also comes in the midst of the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley, another threat to conservative turnout in competitive House and Senate races.
The book is scheduled to be in stores Monday, but the White House responded to its assertions Thursday.
In the book, Kuo, who quit the White House in 2003, accuses Karl Rove's political staff of cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. It assails Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services.
White House strategists "knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness," Kuo writes, according to the cable channel MSNBC, which obtained an advance copy.
"Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were…. National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.' ''
It is unclear whether Kuo identifies any specific official as having used the dismissive language.
The book says that before the 2002 elections, then-White House political director Ken Mehlman issued "marching orders" to use the faith-based initiative in 20 House and Senate races, according to MSNBC. To avoid appearing overtly political, Mehlman said his staff would arrange for congressional offices to request visits from the faith-based program officials.
Throughout the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, faith-based officials would meet with lawmakers in some places in an effort to generate publicity for them, while also hosting conferences in battleground states attracting hundreds of pastors and community activists eager to learn how to apply for federal grants.
A spokeswoman for Mehlman, who is now chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he did not recall the directives mentioned by Kuo. As political director, she said, "it was Mehlman's job to both engage outside groups and inform decision makers in the White House about support for the president's agenda."
Kuo is scheduled to appear Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" as part of a rollout arranged by his publisher, Simon & Schuster, which shares a corporate parent with CBS.
Despite a publisher-enforced embargo, a copy of the book was purchased early at a Manhattan bookstore by a producer for MSNBC's "Countdown," a spokesman for the cable channel said. Program host Keith Olbermann began reading excerpts on his Wednesday show.
Kuo's descriptions could do political damage to a Republican Party that has staked its formula for success on motivating the conservative base.
"Here we go again," said Paul M. Weyrich, a leading religious conservative with close ties to the White House, referring to the avalanche of negative factors that he predicted would keep "embarrassed Republicans" from voting, just as the Watergate scandal did in the 1970s. "If Republicans win, it will prove God is a Republican, since it will take a miracle."
Weyrich said Kuo, while still a White House official, told him of frustrations that the faith-based program had become entangled in politics. The initiative had been a signature proposal by Bush in the 2000 campaign but lost momentum amid partisan battles on Capitol Hill and the intense focus on security after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Weyrich said that Bush and many of his aides were genuinely interested in the program. But, he added, "I don't have any illusions about Rove. I think that he advocates conservatism because he believes it's the way to win."
The White House denied Kuo's account with help Thursday from two former officials popular among evangelicals — former speechwriter Michael Gerson and former faith-based initiative director Jim Towey.
Gerson called Kuo's account "laughable," while Towey cited a December 2002 e-mail from Kuo expressing positive feelings about the program's progress in promoting "compassionate conservatism."
"He doesn't seem to have been working at the same White House where I worked," Towey said. "I had marching orders from the president to keep the faith-based initiative nonpolitical, and I did."
Still, neither Gerson nor Towey denied Kuo's assertion that politics did factor into the initiative.
"Ken Mehlman was doing his job, which was to worry about races," said Towey, who is currently president of St. Vincent College, a Catholic school in Pennsylvania.
Towey's travel took him to a number of battleground states in 2002, but he said that he also visited places such as Boston that were not important to the GOP's electoral goals.
And in addition to meetings with Republicans, he said he appeared in public with Democrats such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakots, who was running for reelection, and Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee, who is running this year for the Senate.
Kuo is not the first insider to accuse the White House of politicizing the faith-based program. John J. DiIulio Jr., the first director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, resigned after seven months and was quoted as saying that the White House was run by "Mayberry Machiavellians" who sometimes put politics ahead of other causes.
While many Democrats opposed the initiative as a violation of church-state separation, the White House used the program to build alliances with prominent African American ministers, some of whom switched political allegiances to back Bush. It was part of a larger minority outreach program designed by Rove and other conservative activists to slice off pieces of the traditional Democratic coalitions in order to build a lasting GOP majority.
peter.wallsten@latimes.com
-
Why does someone choose to commit adultery? Why does someone choose to have sex even before they're in their teens? Why does someone choose to take up S&M?
Adultery is not a parallel. After all, a committed homosexual couple could have one partner who cheats. The reasoning behind adulterous relationships is many and varied. We tend, probably due to our Christian heritage and our legal system, persecute the one committing adultery. I'm not so sure that's always appropriate. There are probably cases where adultery is an opportunity or an escape from an awful relationship for another person. Yet, that has little to do with the question at hand.
Before they are in their teens? I have no idea. Why do teenagers have sex? Biology. Rampaging hormones instructing them to procreate. Shit, when I was a teenager I probably didn't go 5 seconds without thinking about the ladies. Still has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Why does someone choose to take up S&M? I'm not sure. I'd say there are many psychological factors having to do with power, pain, and other issues. Again, this has nothing to do with my question.
Why would someone subject themselves to a torturous existence if they had a choice?
Your examples have nothing to do with that. Adultery is generally hidden and it is a choice. There is no debate about that. Fornication is not reprimanded by society. If anything is teenage society it is generally applauded. S & M is likely psychological in nature (though I suppose it could have a biological aspect) and is also generally hidden.
-
Adultery is not a parallel.
Of course it is. It's a choice, being made by an individual, with the cooperation of another individual. Same as 2 homosexual folks.
committed homosexual couple could have one partner who cheats
Of course......more choices. I never implied cheating was restricted to heterosexual couples. The point being, that deliniating choices can be applied to pretty much any & everything not genetically inheirent. Until someone can find us a homosexual gene (and I realize how hard Science is trying to do that), it's still a choice, just as all those other ostrasizable acts
-
So people choose to be shunned by society, even to the point of being physically attacked?
This makes logical sense to you?
-
I`m not sure it`s a choice
I choose to go the the fulsom leather festival.
and learned pretty much I`m as straight as they come
I can`t make myself be attracted to men.
how can it be a choice if I don`t find men attractive?
p.s. leather does not look good on the majority of people.
brrr.
-
So people choose to be shunned by society, even to the point of being physically attacked? This makes logical sense to you?
Of course not. Neither is it logical for folks to commit adultery, risking not just hurt feeling, but bodily harm by the person's significant other, if found out. Kinda helping to reinforce my point, Js
-
So people choose to be shunned by society, even to the point of being physically attacked? This makes logical sense to you?
Of course not. Neither is it logical for folks to commit adultery, risking not just hurt feeling, but bodily harm by the person's significant other, if found out. Kinda helping to reinforce my point, Js
___________________________
Sirs, your mind works in intricate and fascinating ways.
-sigh-
OK, do you think you could choose to be attracted to a man? Because I don't think I could be attracted to a woman if I tried. And there are naked photos of women in magazines I've seen. Almost naked women at beaches, or used in advertisements, etc.
It's just not happening, it's not gonna happen, and choice is not a factor. DESIRE can't be chosen. You either feel it, or you don't. I don't even understand how you can think it's a choice.
If it's a choice, does that mean heterosexuals make the same choice? "By God, I think I'm gonna like boys!" I didn't say that to myself when hormornes started raging.
-
adultry looks to me like incredibly bad risk
the risk potential is soo high.
ex james cameron.
he makes blockbuster movies and still finds time to cheat.
and is dumb enough to think he won`t be found out.
by a financial standpoint it`s to the womans advantage to have the husband cheat.
divorce court seem to be a better deterent to infidelity than marraige ever will be.
-
Of course not. Neither is it logical for folks to commit adultery, risking not just hurt feeling, but bodily harm by the person's significant other, if found out. Kinda helping to reinforce my point, Js
Sure it could. Adultery could be a completely logical alternative to divorce or separation, at least in the mind of the adulterer.
Regardless, Lanya raises a good point. You're basically saying that the only thing keeping you from being a homosexual is your conscious choice. Otherwise, men are as appealing to you as women.
That seems a rather strange line of thinking.
Like Lanya, I didn't have to sit and think about it. Sometime when those hormones started raging, I realized that the girl next door suddenly appealed to me in a lot of new and very cool ways. I don't seem to recall very much decision-making involved in the process.
-
I knew kids back in 2nd grade that we called "Tony-Marys" for lack of another term. The little boy who plays with the girls, who likes to swing and knows all the jump-rope rhymes? Who loves to braid hair? I think age 7 is pretty certainly a kid who didn't chose anything, except maybe whether he'd eat all his school lunch.
Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?
My reply:
In America, our indoctrination begin from the moment we are born. Little boys are dressed in blue and little girls are dressed in pink. Some boys are circumcise. These are religious rituals and the rituals are designed to establish an individuals identity. At 7 years of age we certainty do make choices and if we make a choices. If we make a choice that violate the consensus of social indoctrination, we are subjugated in many ways, in the effort to make us conform. I for example, refuse to believe in god at age seven. My perants forced me to continue going to church. At age twelve, I had a showdown with my parents and refused to go to church. Every member of my family was called in to deal with that crisis, grandma, grandpa, uncles, aunts. One of my aunts suggested I be taken to a psychiatrist, shy was a devout, bible-thumping Roman Catholic. That is when my father realized, I was being persecuted for what I had come to believe. My father order the family to stop harassing me. With a little help from my father, I survived the battle and was permitted to maintain my personal belief.
Sexuality is something we do not learn. All human beings are sexual. Sexual behavior is part of our cultural indoctrination. We are not born bigots, racist or religious. The little boy in the story, was not born a homosexual. He was born with a mind of his own and it appears he was persecuted for that. Heterosexual is a word that identifies the way a person thinks and behaves.
It takes courage to tell heterosexuals that they are victims of indoctrination and that their persecution of those who do not share their beliefs and values is wrong. Homosexuals are not sissies, they are one of the strongest willed segments of our society. Homosexuals exist because they refuse to be denied. I to this day do not believe in the existence of a god. I refuse to submit to the cultural indoctrination. Perhaps, the real abominable and detestable crime against nature, is the effort to dictate human sexuality. What shall I suffer for even considering such a proposal?
-
Sure it could. Adultery could be a completely logical alternative to divorce or separation, at least in the mind of the adulterer.
So could Homosexuality in the mind of the homosexual. Sheesh ::)
-
OK, do you think you could choose to be attracted to a man?
Answer my question first. What went wrong with me in my young years, spending all that time with girls, and not coming to the realization of coming to grips with my feminine side, and accepting my Homosexual persona??
-
Answer my question first. What went wrong with me in my young years, spending all that time with girls, and not coming to the realization of coming to grips with my feminine side, and accepting my Homosexual persona
doesn`t that prove it`s not a choice??
-
"...I for example, refuse to believe in god at age seven. My perants forced me to continue going to church. At age twelve, I had a showdown with my parents and refused to go to church. Every member of my family was called in to deal with that crisis, grandma, grandpa, uncles, aunts. One of my aunts suggested I be taken to a psychiatrist, shy was a devout, bible-thumping Roman Catholic. That is when my father realized, I was being persecuted for what I had come to believe. My father order the family to stop harassing me. With a little help from my father, I survived the battle and was permitted to maintain my personal belief..."
In my home, it was and is required that children go to church regularly until they are 18 years old. A reason for this is that they may, somewhere during this process, come to recognize that Jesus Christ is their Saviour. Hey, it may happen at age 11 or age 17. Since it is not known when that may occur, all the time is given them until they are 18. It is still their choice, but why not give them as much time as possible? That is the policy here, yours obviously differed. I obviously beleive mine is correct and you believe the one you expereinced was as well. Perfectly fine...
"It takes courage to tell heterosexuals that they are victims of indoctrination and that their persecution of those who do not share their beliefs and values is wrong. Homosexuals are not sissies, they are one of the strongest willed segments of our society. Homosexuals exist because they refuse to be denied. I to this day do not believe in the existence of a god. I refuse to submit to the cultural indoctrination. Perhaps, the real abominable and detestable crime against nature, is the effort to dictate human sexuality. What shall I suffer for even considering such a proposal?"
What shall you suffer? Well, if society continues along its course, probably nothing. Just confirms evangelicals' views that society is going down the tubes, doesn't it? Pretty soon, behaviour of any stripe will okay. Simply fascinating...
-
Answer my question first. What went wrong with me in my young years, spending all that time with girls, and not coming to the realization of coming to grips with my feminine side, and accepting my Homosexual persona
doesn`t that prove it`s not a choice??
No, it points out that I didn't fall into the example put forward by Lanya, of signs of someone who didn't take to the Heterosexual lifestyle. I had a similar situation, and chose other wise
-
i`m not sure getting in touch with ones feminine side means one is gay.
ex. a very large percent of transgender people are straight.
sexual orientation is not exactly what the stereotype paints it to be.
ex. bi-sexuals are not just shunned by the straight community,but the gay community also.
just publicly are they alligned.
and strangely straight men are more tolerant of transgender men than gay men.
ex. eddie murphy.
-
adultry looks to me like incredibly bad risk
the risk potential is soo high.
ex james cameron.
he makes blockbuster movies and still finds time to cheat.
and is dumb enough to think he won`t be found out.
by a financial standpoint it`s to the womans advantage to have the husband cheat.
divorce court seem to be a better deterent to infidelity than marraige ever will be.
To you perhaps, and to which I agree with. To others of a more illogical mindset, it's risks are outweighed by the rewards. Same could be easily argued by that of engaging in Homosxuality. The former wants someone that's seen as belonging to someone else, the latter wants someone that's seen as inappropriately belonging to anyone.
But I see the problem here. For 1 side, those who don't believe in the choice phenomnon, as such can't see choice as being anything but wholly illogical, if not inconceivable. So any arguent demonstrating how illogical some choices are will reinforce their viewpoint that it couldn't be choice. As you've pointed out, it's very irrational & dangerous for those to commit adultery. Yet they chose to do it anyway. Why? Did then not have a choice? Is there an "adultery gene" science needs to be looking for?
-
actually I hear the excuse it`s perfectly natural for the man to have as many children as possible.
it`s monogamous marraige thats illogicals
ex. steve garvey
he was qouted of saying he`s trying to help the gene pool.
I think it`s something to do with breaking the rules.
even swingers have affair`s
the rule is you can have sex with other people just makesure you have your partners present.
but even then some of them brealk that rule and do it on the secret.
nothing is enough for some people.
-
What shall you suffer? Well, if society continues along its course, probably nothing. Just confirms evangelicals' views that society is going down the tubes, doesn't it? Pretty soon, behavior of any stripe will okay. Simply fascinating...
My reply:
Evangelicals cannot even confirm their claim that a god does in fact exist. However, evangelicals feel they have the right to enforce the rules of behavior for society. First, they have to prove what they are promoting is correct. Society is not going down the tubes. Society is evolving and religion as a means of government failed long ago and religion as a philosophy has been shown to be not credible by science long ago.
I don't know if you read the article I posted about "Minority Rule" That is the issue both church and state are struggling with today. The people of the World are beginning to comprehend that being ruled by elite powers is scheme of minority rule. I do agree, things are going to get worse before things get better. What most people don't understand about the last book of the Bible is that it was written as a warring to religious leaders. What it says, is when the people discover what we have done, the wrath of man will come against the holy. The Bible is a work of art and its metaphors are profound in deed. Non-believers also have an interpretation of what the Bible says. I agree, The church is going to need a real miracle, if it is to survive the growing disbelief of the Human Race.
-
Too bad people have to think that "old fashioned values" are not relevant today. Regardless of their link to organized religion, there are logical reasons present. As only one example, premarital sex for teenagers is not only against Biblical precepts, but, from a worldy point of view, perhaps teens are not ready for the possible consequences so "Just say no". Gee, maybe God had a good idea there.
Anyway, many of these old fashioned values, if followed, would solve many of society's ills. For example, homsexuality used to be considered anathema for some very good reasons, not only Biblical.
People will continue to justfiy their actions as they have for the 60,000 years of Earth's existence.
-
actually I hear the excuse it`s perfectly natural for the man to have as many children as possible.
it`s monogamous marraige thats illogicals
ex. steve garvey
he was qouted of saying he`s trying to help the gene pool.
I think it`s something to do with breaking the rules.
even swingers have affair`s
And engaging in the act of homosexuality isn't seen as "breaking the rules" as well??
-
People will continue to justfiy their actions as they have for the 60,000 years of Earth's existence.
Modern humans have been around for over 150,000 years and the earth has been around for ~5 billion years.
-
What's interesting to me is how the rules have changed from biblical times.
Then, homosexuality was an abomination. The sin of Onan was as bad, or so I understand. That's spilling your seed upon the ground.
This makes sense from a biological viewpoint. Don't do stuff that won't make children. Men, marry and you're allowed more than one wife. Especially if the first one's infertile. Getting married, being fruitful and multiplying, those were imperatives. FOr God's Chosen People, really, it was biologically imperative.
Now we have Jesus, who was unmarried. I wonder what people thought? "Mary, Jesus should be settling down about now, he's what, 20?" And he never married, at least it's not disclosed to us that he did.
I wonder if people whispered and spread rumors about Jesus? And reviled him?
Doing so to any person today, whether gay or straight, illegal immmigrant, naturalized citizen or born here, a member of a different racial or ethnic group....that would be doing the same thing to Jesus.
Who could do that?
-
The sin of Onan was as bad, or so I understand. That's spilling your seed upon the ground.
Go back and reread it. Onan's sin was not spilling his seed upon the ground, it was disobeying God. This was because he refused to impregnate his dead brothers wife, according to tradition, and 'spilt his seed upon the ground' rather than get her pregnant. The story is in Genesis 38.
-
Thought I would throw that in for a response.
No, if you add together the generations, literally, it all adds up to around 60,000 years. Also, carbon dating is inaccuirate for many reasons, one of which is that it predisposes detereoriation at the same rate and yet there is on way to guarantee th environment was the same years ago as today. This affects the process.
Regardless, I still advoate that a return to old fashioned values would be best. Obviously, society will continue its move away from traditional values until "Everything goes" is the mantra. Even the Bible indicates it will.
Doesn't mean I have to sit back and let it happen quietly.
-
The sin of Onan was as bad, or so I understand. That's spilling your seed upon the ground.
Go back and reread it. Onan's sin was not spilling his seed upon the ground, it was disobeying God. This was because he refused to impregnate his dead brothers wife, according to tradition, and 'spilt his seed upon the ground' rather than get her pregnant. The story is in Genesis 38.
______________________
I had no idea, Bear, thank you.
-
Also, carbon dating is inaccuirate for many reasons, one of which is that it predisposes detereoriation at the same rate and yet there is on way to guarantee th environment was the same years ago as today. This affects the process.
The environment does not affect nuclear decay. Nuclear decay is governed by the nuclear weak force, one of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
-
For anyone to indicate that homorsexuality is not a sin per Biblical standards, as I have heard some say, is simply incredible. Now, you can say that it is not "bad" by current standards, and that is different.
As far as debating evolution versus Creationism, we cna certainly create a separate thread, if you want.
-
Also, carbon dating is inaccuirate for many reasons, one of which is that it predisposes detereoriation at the same rate and yet there is on way to guarantee th environment was the same years ago as today. This affects the process.
The environment does not affect nuclear decay. Nuclear decay is governed by the nuclear weak force, one of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
Two items and a disclaimer.
The environment determines a lot about how rapidly Carbon 14 and other isotopic elements are formed .For all of history the sun has producerd carbon 14 in our atmosphere at a very steady rate, which then decays at a steady rate. In prehistory this might not have been so .
The Nuclear Weak force is steady since we have discovered it , how long is that?
Disclaimer , I am not going to p-retend that I really know the Bible so well that I know exactly the diffrence between what parts are poetic , allegorical , metaphoreistic or actual with 100% certainty. I think that Solomans beloved did not have a neck precicely and literally like a tower , but that Johna really did get swallowed by a great fish.
If these two things I think turn out to be both wrong I would be only a little surprised.
-
The environment determines a lot about how rapidly Carbon 14 and other isotopic elements are formed .For all of history the sun has producerd carbon 14 in our atmosphere at a very steady rate, which then decays at a steady rate. In prehistory this might not have been so .
Yes, and we have other dating methods to use to validate the figures over the ~50,000 years that radio carbon dating is valid. For dating outside that range, other techniques are used. Besides, the dating takes into account variations in the formation of C14 - that's why the date is always a range, not an exact date.
The Nuclear Weak force is steady since we have discovered it , how long is that?
The nuclear weak force is a fundamental force - if it changes, the entire universe would have to change at the same time. Besides, it's perfectly balanced for our observable universe - if it gets any stronger, all the atoms in the universe would break down, turning the entire universe into a cloud of subatomic particles. If it gets any weaker, everything in the universe would collapse in on itself.
-
The environment determines a lot about how rapidly Carbon 14 and other isotopic elements are formed .For all of history the sun has producerd carbon 14 in our atmosphere at a very steady rate, which then decays at a steady rate. In prehistory this might not have been so .
Yes, and we have other dating methods to use to validate the figures over the ~50,000 years that radio carbon dating is valid. For dating outside that range, other techniques are used. Besides, the dating takes into account variations in the formation of C14 - that's why the date is always a range, not an exact date.
If there were a dust cloud or a strengthening of the magnetic feild around the earth the formation of carbon 14 would be diminished for a while , if there were a lot of volcanic activity there could be a period in which carbon from stocks that were already depleated would saturate and dilute the atmosphere. If erosion were to open a Uranium mine the area downstream would be highly radioactive for an eon.
How exactly does cross checking with another tecnique confirm that one tecnique was accurate without first proveing that the other tecnique was?
The Nuclear Weak force is steady since we have discovered it , how long is that?
The nuclear weak force is a fundamental force - if it changes, the entire universe would have to change at the same time. Besides, it's perfectly balanced for our observable universe - if it gets any stronger, all the atoms in the universe would break down, turning the entire universe into a cloud of subatomic particles. If it gets any weaker, everything in the universe would collapse in on itself.
If all forces changed together would the change be noticeable to us?
At quantum levels of energy uncertainty is a hard rule , but from the great number of particles involved comes a statistical certainty and an appearance of steady rates of change.
The fabric of space seems to burble with pairs of spontainious creating and disapearing charges, the nuclear weak force does not include a clock so what makes a photon spring from a charged electron orbit at this moment rather than the next moment? What makes radioactive decay seem steady for the century or so we have been studying it?
It can't be that our sample of cosmic behavior is too small to be a good survey?
-
What's interesting to me is how the rules have changed from biblical times.
Then, homosexuality was an abomination. The sin of Onan was as bad, or so I understand. That's spilling your seed upon the ground.
This makes sense from a biological viewpoint. Don't do stuff that won't make children. Men, marry and you're allowed more than one wife. Especially if the first one's infertile. Getting married, being fruitful and multiplying, those were imperatives. FOr God's Chosen People, really, it was biologically imperative.
Now we have Jesus, who was unmarried. I wonder what people thought? "Mary, Jesus should be settling down about now, he's what, 20?" And he never married, at least it's not disclosed to us that he did.
I wonder if people whispered and spread rumors about Jesus? And reviled him?
Doing so to any person today, whether gay or straight, illegal immmigrant, naturalized citizen or born here, a member of a different racial or ethnic group....that would be doing the same thing to Jesus.
Who could do that?
Regardless, it's still a version of "breaking the rules", as Kimba made reference to when discussing Adultery, and a sin, in the eyes of God. Can't get around that moral obstacle I'm afraid, no matter how supportive you are of the "non-choice" brigade
-
Regardless, it's still a version of "breaking the rules", as Kimba made reference to when discussing Adultery, and a sin, in the eyes of God. Can't get around that moral obstacle I'm afraid, no matter how supportive you are of the "non-choice" brigade
_________________________________________________
I'm sure each of us has broken some rules that our respective faiths taught us were very important.
In the end, it isn't our judgement that counts anyway.
-
I'm sure each of us has broken some rules that our respective faiths taught us were very important.
In the end, it isn't our judgement that counts anyway.
Has anyone implied otherwise?
-
I'm sure each of us has broken some rules that our respective faiths taught us were very important.
In the end, it isn't our judgement that counts anyway.
Has anyone implied otherwise?
_______________
Lots of time is spent railing against homosexuality and abortion. My point was simply, there are other sins. We are all sinners.
Those are not the Big Two of Sins.
It seems odd that some churches view them to be the most important.
-
My point was simply, there are other sins. We are all sinners.
Again, who's implying otherwise?? I think your confusion (or more likely the tactic here) is to blend how we're not to judge who's been accepted to heaven or not (God's domain) with we're not to judge anyone's wrong doing, which we are absolutely commanded to do. Some obviously more overt & even obnoxious than others, but we are indeed to judge others by their actions
-
If there were a dust cloud or a strengthening of the magnetic feild around the earth the formation of carbon 14 would be diminished for a while , if there were a lot of volcanic activity there could be a period in which carbon from stocks that were already depleated would saturate and dilute the atmosphere. If erosion were to open a Uranium mine the area downstream would be highly radioactive for an eon.
And we would know this from other sources, such as forensic examination of tree rings.
How exactly does cross checking with another tecnique confirm that one tecnique was accurate without first proveing that the other tecnique was?
All dating techniques have been proven to be accurate within their margin of error by documented objects. We do have objects created from natural products that are dated, you know.
If all forces changed together would the change be noticeable to us?
The four fundamental forces are a by-product of the creation of the universe. If they were different, the whole universe would be different. Under some theories, they are even considered seperate dimensions, much like time in the Einsteinian view of the universe.
-
Lanya: "Lots of time is spent railing against homosexuality and abortion. My point was simply, there are other sins. We are all sinners.
Those are not the Big Two of Sins.
It seems odd that some churches view them to be the most important. "
Probably because YOURS doesn't. It's cool. Some churches see these indicative of moral decay, e.g. a drifting away from Biblical values. I have a good friend who goes to a Presbyterian Church. They are not as concerned with these issues as they see them as not as crucial since, after all, the Bible needs to reflect today's vales so that it is more relevant to all.
I happen to see that as moral and Scriptural apostasy, but they don't. The wonder of denominations, I suppose. We will all find out "at our appointed time".
-
How exactly does cross checking with another tecnique confirm that one tecnique was accurate without first proveing that the other tecnique was?
All dating techniques have been proven to be accurate within their margin of error by documented objects. We do have objects created from natural products that are dated, you know.
If all forces changed together would the change be noticeable to us?
The four fundamental forces are a by-product of the creation of the universe. If they were different, the whole universe would be different. Under some theories, they are even considered seperate dimensions, much like time in the Einsteinian view of the universe.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c4
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm
I had to read up on this , the experts do seem to agree with you about the weak force and its meaning in nuclear decay.
I still can quibble , remains of a creature that lives in an environment richer in carbon 14 will seem younger than it truely is and a a creature that lives in an environment depleated of carbon 14 will seem older , are there not a lot of local effects that can cause this diffrence ? Would a global diffrence in carbon 14 levels be impossible?
Tree ring analisis is gradually reaching further back in time as more very old samples are found , but there is not going to be an unbroken chain of overlapping samples reaching back to the precambrian , what is the greatest potential of tree rings to reach the past?
-
Tree ring analisis is gradually reaching further back in time as more very old samples are found , but there is not going to be an unbroken chain of overlapping samples reaching back to the precambrian , what is the greatest potential of tree rings to reach the past?
There are lots of fossilized trees; however, since C-14 dating is not valid into the Precambrian anyway, it's not required to reach back that far.
-
Probably because YOURS doesn't. It's cool. Some churches see these indicative of moral decay, e.g. a drifting away from Biblical values. I have a good friend who goes to a Presbyterian Church. They are not as concerned with these issues as they see them as not as crucial since, after all, the Bible needs to reflect today's vales so that it is more relevant to all.
I happen to see that as moral and Scriptural apostasy, but they don't. The wonder of denominations, I suppose. We will all find out "at our appointed time".
Divorce might also be viewed as indicative of moral decay. In some churches, women would be scandalized if one of their members were to wear pants, braid their hair, wear jewelry, or use makeup. Only long skirts and long hair for women.
It seems too easy to make the moral decay indicator something that only affects a small percent of the population. Why not dwell on who's divorced, and who isn't? Who gets porn, and who doesn't? Who drinks to excess, etc.? Who lies? Who cheats on their spouses? Goodness, we just have a whole lot of checking up on other people, let's get busy.
Or we could just be a Christian our own selves, show love to everyone.....
-
I TOTALLY agree that we should shower LOVE on everyone, regardless of their actions, orientation, etc. After all, WWJD?
We all fall short of the Glory of God. We need to, ourselves, clean up our own acts. I see this as a continual process throughout life. Do you agree?
-
I do agree. And fall short, way short.
-
I do agree. And fall short, way short.
And yet, with that concession, that we all fall short, still doesn't abolish God's command that we do judge others by their actions, and deem them as right vs wrong, good vs evil. It's at the heart of what we teach our Children, and their Children's children
-
Anyway, many of these old fashioned values, if followed, would solve many of society's ills. For example, homsexuality used to be considered anathema for some very good reasons, not only Biblical.
the reason old fashion value are disappearing is people took them for granted and when that happen it will go away.
ex. when a man open a door for a lady and she treats it as a given(no thank you).
of course it`ll go away
also the fact those values are flawed
is it right to treat anyone as a anathema?
remember wanting the old values back is how the taliban came to be.
-
I do agree. And fall short, way short.
And yet, with that concession, that we all fall short, still doesn't abolish God's command that we do judge others by their actions, and deem them as right vs wrong, good vs evil. It's at the heart of what we teach our Children, and their Children's children
_______________________
Well, the Bible is contradictory. Jesus said, Judge not, lest you be judged. Right?
And there is a quote somewhere from Jesus that says to preach to people, and if you find they are not responsive to your words, you shake the dust from your sandals and leave.
You don't rail at them and judge them. You go on and preach somewhere else so maybe someone else's life can be changed by hearing the Good News.
)This is all in the realm of preaching, mind you: Not in the judicial realm at all, where as a society we have to have laws and trials and judgements, etc.)
-
Well, the Bible is contradictory. Jesus said, Judge not, lest you be judged. Right?
Yea, as it relates to who's going to be accepted to Heaven or not. Yea, i got that
And there is a quote somewhere from Jesus that says to preach to people, and if you find they are not responsive to your words, you shake the dust from your sandals and leave
Yea, ...................and? Still doesn't remove our obligation to judge if the person is good or bad, right or wrong. Only not to judge who's going to heaven or not. Have you not judged Bush to be bad, even possibly evil? Was not Hitler evil? Is that NOT a judgement?
You don't rail at them and judge them.
Fine, don't. No one is forcing you to. I've already conceded there are some who get overt & obnoxious in their judging others. Me, on the other hand, am going to follow God's commandments to the best of my non-perfect Human ability, while judging how well others are doing the same. If they sin, I'm going to call them on that, just as I would expect others to do to me, when I fall short
-
The issue here concerning sexuality is not one of "choice." That is mostly an irrelevant point. I think we can all agree that attractions are biological or biochemical responses. From what I've read here, the choice is what one does with those responses. As Sirs indicates, one can be attracted to an individual, but that does not mean that one has to have a relationship with that individual.
So, the real question is: what would those of you who do criticize homosexuality suggest that people with an attraction towards members of the same gender do with their life?
Are you suggesting that heterosexual individuals have an inherent right to be married and have a physical relationship with their partner whereas homosexual individuals have no such right?
What do they have? Should they be treated for an illness? Should they live their lives in chastity and beg forgiveness for their attractions? What should they do?
Where should the state step in? What should it do?
Where should your church step in? What should it do?
-
marraige does not require the couple to be attracted to each other
in fact It never did.
-
The issue here concerning sexuality is not one of "choice." That is mostly an irrelevant point. I think we can all agree that attractions are biological or biochemical responses. From what I've read here, the choice is what one does with those responses. So, the real question is: what would those of you who do criticize homosexuality suggest that people with an attraction towards members of the same gender do with their life?
A) The notion of "choice" is absolutely relevent to this discussion
B) What would those of you who do criticize Adultery suggest to those people with an attaction to someone already married, do with their life?
-
marraige does not require the couple to be attracted to each other in fact It never did.
True kimba, and marriage does not require happiness either. But it certainly helps if both exist within the marriage.
A) The notion of "choice" is absolutely relevent to this discussion
B) What would those of you who do criticize Adultery suggest to those people with an attaction to someone already married, do with their life?
You could try answering the questions without the question in response. I don't see that choice plays any role. Clearly a choice exists. Yet, I think you'll agree that not many of us have the ability to live a chaste life. So what options are you leaving for individuals attracted to their own gender?
-
actually that make it different
homosexuality is general attraction
adultry is specific
I am attracted to someone
but i just don`t do anything about it
but I can`t stop being attracted females
My mayor is known to be a goodlooking guy
he dated sofia milos from csi-miami
but I`m not attracted to him and i can`t make myself be.
the choice aint there.
but it would be cool though
he`s rich and he goes to the best parties
but ain`t gonna happen
-
So what options are you leaving for individuals attracted to their own gender?
actually there is a now gay/lesbian couple now who just got a kid.
a radio guy may get fired for it
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/17/EDG6PKDVMM1.DTL
-
That's a very good point kimba. But the issue of "choice" is really an issue of timing. That's why it is irrelevant.
Some people here are saying that an individual may not have a choice in being attracted to someone of the same gender, but they have a choice in whether or not to have a relationship with someone from their gender.
So, where you are free to pursue a relationship with a woman (encouraged to do so, in fact, so long as neither of you are married), the homosexual individual is discouraged from pursuing his or her relationship and I'm not sure what his or her alternatives are. That's what I'm asking, but answers aren't exactly forthcoming.
-
A) The notion of "choice" is absolutely relevent to this discussion
B) What would those of you who do criticize Adultery suggest to those people with an attaction to someone already married, do with their life?
You could try answering the questions without the question in response. I don't see that choice plays any role. Clearly a choice exists. Yet, I think you'll agree that not many of us have the ability to live a chaste life. So what options are you leaving for individuals attracted to their own gender?
I did. But if you need more detail, answering my question, answers your question. Choice plays an absolute role in this, as that is the whole foundation to this side's POV. Take "choice" away and whala, I have no leg to stand on, right? God gave us free will and the ability to choose. We can choose to embrace those emotions and attractions that overwhelm us, or we can chose not to. The choice is to either continue in sinful direction or not. If one chooses to continue to be attracted to those who they ought not, then so be it. However It will continue to be seen as sinful & wrong, just as Adultery is.
-
We can choose to embrace those emotions and attractions that overwhelm us, or we can chose not to. The choice is to either continue in sinful direction or not. If one chooses to continue to be attracted to those who they ought not, then so be it.
So it is a case of one being attracted to someone they "ought not?" What would your advice to be to someone who is attracted to his or her own sex and has always been? Is that something you can change?
Also, are there heterosexual attractions that "ought not" be? My Father-in-law for example, doesn't like it when black men and white women are couples. What about mixed religious couples? What abour a Catholic / Protestant couple? Should a Muslim and Christian be married? A Christian and a Jew? I'm asking sincerely. Perhaps there are many such rules beyond just homosexuality and heterosexuality.
-
So it is a case of one being attracted to someone they "ought not?" What would your advice to be to someone who is attracted to his or her own sex and has always been? Is that something you can change?
My "advice" would be identical to those someone's are are attracted to married spouses, and "yes", being it remains a "choice"
are there heterosexual attractions that "ought not" be? My Father-in-law for example, doesn't like it when black men and white women are couples. What about mixed religious couples?
I haven't seen anything in the Bible that makes it a sin to be attracted and marry others of a difference race. I'd say that position borders on racial intolerance, if not bigotry. Nor have I seen anything that declares it a sin to marry one from a different religion. So no problems there either
-
My "advice" would be identical to those someone's are are attracted to married spouses, and "yes", being it remains a "choice"
That's not what I asked. What would your advice be if one of your close relatives told you they were a lesbian or homosexual? How would you advise them to change, so that they would be attracted to the opposite sex? Do you have experience with this problem?
-
My "advice" would be identical to those someone's are are attracted to married spouses, and "yes", being it remains a "choice"
That's not what I asked. What would your advice be if one of your close relatives told you they were a lesbian or homosexual? How would you advise them to change, so that they would be attracted to the opposite sex? Do you have experience with this problem?
Asked and answered. The same way of they came to me and told me they were an adulterer. I'd pray for them if they wished it. I'd support their efforts to find organizations to help them deal with these urges. And what do you mean by having "experience with this problem"? I think you're trying to make a mountain of a very logical molehill. I see Homosexuality the same way I see Adultery. Both are sins in the eyes of God, both are not to be "respected" in any way. One can be tolerant without having to show respect for one's choices
-
but what about respecting in other aspect
ex. in the military they have despite all the oppostion very good service records.
in business have tendency excel
they are one of thee most financially thriving groups in my city.
they`re no slouch in politics also.
you do not respect them in lifestyles,but would you give credit in other aspects?
-
but what about respecting in other aspect
.....you do not respect them in lifestyles,but would you give credit in other aspects?
Well, if you're trying to say that, for instance an Adulterer is great at his job of let's say, law enforcement, then yea, I suppose you could respect the job he took, but would not respect his lifestyle choice. But IMHO, that's seperating the personal from the professional, so IMHO, that's apples and oranges. Former mayor Guliani is a perfect example. He had an affair while he was married, but no one's going to doubt the leadership he provided NY (& the country) following 911.
-
alot of folks can`t seperate the two.
ex. denying gays work seems not a problem due to the fact they are not a minority.
despite nobody mentioning denying a job because they`re gay has no baring to the job at all.
this happen on n the federal level.
-
Are there no sexual taboos that would be good to keep?
Incest still seems popular to forbid , I can think of a handfull or other sexual taboos that are still popular taboos.
Why are we keeping any of them?
-
alot of folks can`t seperate the two.
Now, that'd be a problem with those folks now, wouldn't it
-
So, in your view Sirs, at its most basic: a homosexual who has a natural attraction for a member of his or her own gender should remain celibate for life?
-
So, in your view Sirs, at its most basic: a homosexual who has a natural attraction for a member of his or her own gender should remain celibate for life?
Let me swap interchangible terms in my book, and then answer it; So, in your view Sirs, at its most basic: an adulterer who has a natural attraction for someone's spouse should avoid such for life?
My answer would be yes
-
Stop swapping terms and answer the question as it is put.
So, in your view Sirs, at its most basic: a homosexual who has a natural attraction for a member of his or her own gender should remain celibate for life?
-
Stop swapping terms and answer the question as it is put.
No, since I view them as the same, as does God, they are absolutely interchangible. You'll note I'm not TELLING a Homosexual they're not allowed to have sex with a person of the same gender, only noting that it's wrong & is a sin, JUST as Adultery is.
-
No, since I view them as the same, as does God, they are absolutely interchangible.
How do you know that God views them as the same?
Why will you answer the question when you've changed the wording for your own purposes, but not answer it directly?
-
so than it`s ok for people to attracted to the same sex as long as they don`t have sex.
-
No, since I view them as the same, as does God, they are absolutely interchangible.
How do you know that God views them as the same?
Bible says so
-
so than it`s ok for people to attracted to the same sex as long as they don`t have sex.
Hey, I'm attracted to Phoebe Cates, and I know she's married. So, yea, I guess it's ok
-
same here
do you know if paradise is on dvd?
I only got fast times
pretty sure private school is available
-
Bible says so
Where does the Bible say that homosexuality and adultery are equal in God's view?
Hey, I'm attracted to Phoebe Cates, and I know she's married. So, yea, I guess it's ok
Mathew 5:27-28 (Jesus speaking)
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
By your logic Sirs, you've committed adultery. And I can substitute homosexuality for adultery because you consider them interchangable.
-
same here
do you know if paradise is on dvd?
I only got fast times
pretty sure private school is available
Alas, I don't think so, since I've kept my eyes opened for it. Fast Times is obviously the best bet for now ;)
-
Where does the Bible say that homosexuality and adultery are equal in God's view?
Mathew 5:27-28 (Jesus speaking)
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
By your logic Sirs, you've committed adultery. And I can substitute homosexuality for adultery because you consider them interchangable.
When I get home, I'll endeavor to find the passages that place the 2 as similar sins. And being attracted is not akin to coveting or "wanting" to have sex, I'm afraid. Nice try though
-
Then what is attraction?
-
I`m pretty sure you know that answer to this movie quiz
from interviews of videostore clerks acrossed the country
what part of the videotape in fast times is streched out the most due to constant replay.
-
Then what is attraction?
Well, I can really like a work of art, but that doesn't mean I want to have sex with it.
Here are a bunch of definitions of attraction (http://www.answers.com/attraction&r=67), most of which don't include any reliance on sex.
-
So you think an attraction to Phoebe Cates has nothing to do with sex, but is more like an appreciation for a work of art?
-
Then what is attraction?
Are you blind? She's drop dead cute. Do you think that means I want to have sex with her though? Is that where your mind tends to wander......the gutter?
-
So you think an attraction to Phoebe Cates has nothing to do with sex, but is more like an appreciation for a work of art?
Can be. I'm not homosexual, but I can appreciate a good looking guy.
I'm sure there are plenty of guys that are attracted to Phoebe Cates in a sexual manner, but that is not the only way to appreciate her looks.
Fer instance, I think she's attractive, but she's not my type so I have never fantasized about her.
-
Are you blind? She's drop dead cute. Do you think that means I want to have sex with her though? Is that where your mind tends to wander......the gutter?
So you think she's "cute," but that has nothing to do with a desire for her?
So, she's basically like a labrador puppy? You appreciate her, but nothing having to do with her sexual attractiveness?
-
Can be. I'm not homosexual, but I can appreciate a good looking guy.
I'm sure there are plenty of guys that are attracted to Phoebe Cates in a sexual manner, but that is not the only way to appreciate her looks.
Fer instance, I think she's attractive, but she's not my type so I have never fantasized about her.
So attraction to Phoebe has no sexual component for you? She could be a man or a dog and you'd feel the same way?
-
So attraction to Phoebe has no sexual component for you? She could be a man or a dog and you'd feel the same way?
Yeah. She's too skinny for my sexual attraction to kick in. But she is cute.
-
I like phoebe cates and mimi rogers
does that make me bi???
-
Are you blind? She's drop dead cute. Do you think that means I want to have sex with her though? Is that where your mind tends to wander......the gutter?
So you think she's "cute," but that has nothing to do with a desire for her?
BINGO
-
Yeah. She's too skinny for my sexual attraction to kick in. But she is cute.
But ostensibly such an attraction exists?
BINGO
So what is the attraction to Phoebe Cates, Sirs? What makes her "cute?"
-
I like phoebe cates and mimi rogers
does that make me bi???
lol
-
So what is the attraction to Phoebe Cates, Sirs? What makes her "cute?"
Apparently JS is blind 8)
-
I think kristen kreuk is the present day phoebe
she`s cute
my nephew has a crush on her
-
I have a deep longing for all the money in the vault of our local bank.
So far, this has not made me a bank robber.
-
not sure that`s alot of money though
the haul would be large,but I doubt it would be in the millions
how much can a guy steal in a bank?
-
not sure that`s alot of money though
the haul would be large,but I doubt it would be in the millions
how much can a guy steal in a bank?
You have a suggestion for a better temptation?
-
hmmm
you need a gun for banks
how about id theft
you`ll be label scum of the earth though.
it`s fairly un complicated for the person who knows how.
it`s the banks fault for mailing all those credit card checks to people with very little security involved.
I totally detest the act,but it`s the only crime I can think up for now.
those check are worth $1,500.00 to $5,000.00 i think?
-
Kimba....
You trying to encourage someone's avaricious lust for money?
:o
(Reminds self to tear up those credit card offers real good...)
-
But ostensibly such an attraction exists?
It could potentionally exist, if she put on some weight.
-
This is a very interesting train of thought.
What I'm wondering is this: If someone simply decides they are straight, and marries, and has sex with the wife, BUT fantasizes about men during the act....Is he straight? Or is he living a lie? God knows....
-
If someone simply decides they are straight, and marries, and has sex with the wife, BUT fantasizes about men during the act....Is he straight? Or is he living a lie? God knows....
Bingo 8)
-
So is that an acceptable resolution to the problem of a, let's say, a woman who wants to please her family, and society, by marrying and fitting in? Even if she knows she is attracted to women, she marries a man, promises to love him and cherish him.
And she does this by some mental gymnastics that I don't understand, but I know some men who found out their wives were gay. I know women who found out their husbands were gay.
If marriage is a sacrament, doesn't this just really wreck it?
I know the Catholic church has provisions for annulment in such cases.
Why someone would put their spouse through such helll: Because it's socially acceptable. That is not a good reason.
-
So is that an acceptable resolution to the problem of a, let's say, a woman who wants to please her family, and society, by marrying and fitting in? Even if she knows she is attracted to women, she marries a man, promises to love him and cherish him.
And she does this by some mental gymnastics that I don't understand, but I know some men who found out their wives were gay. I know women who found out their husbands were gay.
If marriage is a sacrament, doesn't this just really wreck it?.
Not sure where you're trying to go with this "train of thought. As you've already referenced Lanya, only God knows what's in their hearts.
-
Apparently JS is blind
Apparently JS recognizes bullshit when he sees it.
I happen to think Rosario Dawson and Connie Nielsen are both very attractive. Do I know them personally? No. Do you know Phoebe Cates? I doubt it. In fact, your attraction is based entirely on her physical appearance, which is why you keep responding with the "blind" comments. I notice you aren't jumping up and down about your attraction to Liz Torres.
So, do you view Phoebe like a puppy dog or a work of art? No. This isn't "appreciation," it is physical attraction with all the biological impulses implied therein.
-
So is that an acceptable resolution to the problem of a, let's say, a woman who wants to please her family, and society, by marrying and fitting in? Even if she knows she is attracted to women, she marries a man, promises to love him and cherish him.
And she does this by some mental gymnastics that I don't understand, but I know some men who found out their wives were gay. I know women who found out their husbands were gay.
If marriage is a sacrament, doesn't this just really wreck it?
I know the Catholic church has provisions for annulment in such cases.
Why someone would put their spouse through such helll: Because it's socially acceptable. That is not a good reason.
Marriage is a sacrament Lanya and should not be entered into in this case (in my opinion). Being socially acceptable or feeling that one has a social duty is not enough to make a marriage.
-
Apparently JS is blind
I happen to think Rosario Dawson and Connie Nielsen are both very attractive. Do I know them personally? No. Do you know Phoebe Cates? I doubt it. In fact, your attraction is based entirely on her physical appearance, which is why you keep responding with the "blind" comments. I notice you aren't jumping up and down about your attraction to Liz Torres.
So, do you view Phoebe like a puppy dog or a work of art? No. This isn't "appreciation," it is physical attraction with all the biological impulses implied therein.
Of course she's physically attractive. Still doesn't equate with me wanting to have sex with her, now does it. Get the diff, yet? Or are you trying to tell me anyone you find even mildy physically attactive you "want to do her"? ...or him for that matter?
-
Of course she's physically attractive. Still doesn't equate with me wanting to have sex with her, now does it. Get the diff, yet? Or are you trying to tell me anyone you find even mildy physically attactive you "want to do her"? ...or him for that matter?
I'm saying that a component of physical attraction has to do with biological reproduction, especially for men. Look at Scarlett Johansson. Why might one find her attractive? Now, if she were sickly would you find her as attractive?
If Phoebe Cates had HIV, would you find her as attractive?
It isn't a matter of wanting to "do her" (nice language by the way). It is simple biology. I noticed Phobe Cates is not an elderly woman. Are you attracted to any women over age 80?
-
(Reminds self to tear up those credit card offers real good...)
Actually a very good idea for everybody.
it real dangerous for anyone to just toss those in the trash
I shred mine and dispose them in two seperate bins.
if they can recover them from that then they earned it.
but it`s areal good gamble it`s not gonna happen.
-
Marriage is a sacrament Lanya and should not be entered into in this case (in my opinion). Being socially acceptable or feeling that one has a social duty is not enough to make a marriage.
but social duty is the very foundation of marraige.
it`s a good bet very few people have not heard the phrase your not getting any younger.
very little requirement with emotional connection.
the common thing I hear from engaged women is he wants kids.
not once I hear he`s very nice or anything really positive about the guy
-
Of course she's physically attractive. Still doesn't equate with me wanting to have sex with her, now does it. Get the diff, yet? Or are you trying to tell me anyone you find even mildy physically attactive you "want to do her"? ...or him for that matter?
I'm saying that a component of physical attraction has to do with biological reproduction, especially for men. Look at Scarlett Johansson. Why might one find her attractive? It isn't a matter of wanting to "do her" (nice language by the way). It is simple biology.
Ahh, so for you personally, you do want to do those you find physically attractive. (biologically speaking of course). Well, then you'd be the one failing Jesus' requirements to not covet another man's wife. I'll pray for you
-
I`m guilty of that.
covet is a desire not a action.
so it really shouldn`t be a problem til it`s made an action.
I covet all over the place and i still don`t see a problem
i covet at least a dozen times a day.
I covet soo much It really is impossible to list
it`s just a matter of degree
I`m not gonna or want to do anything about who I covet.
maybe it`s because they`re so many i can`t do anything
that could be the answer covet soo many I won`t obsess over one.
moderation is the key to
I just covet right now.
-
Ahh, so for you personally, you do want to do those you find physically attractive. (biologically speaking of course). Well, then you'd be the one failing Jesus' requirements to not covet another man's wife. I'll pray for you
That's awfully callous ("you do want to do").
Do I think about some women in a sexual way? Absolutely. I'm a man. I'm not going to lie about that.
-
That's awfully callous ("you do want to do").
Do I think about some women in a sexual way? Absolutely. I'm a man. I'm not going to lie about that.
Callous = accurate? You're the one implying this "biological need" to reproduce. I'm simply indicating how one can find others attractive and not be obligated to "covet them" and want to have sex with them, despite some underlying "biological need" as you claim
-
No the use of callous is in reference to your language.
You don't "indicate" anything. You just keep repeating the same line as if it were true. You don't even bother to answer questions that are asked.
-
Marriage is a sacrament Lanya and should not be entered into in this case (in my opinion). Being socially acceptable or feeling that one has a social duty is not enough to make a marriage.
________________________
In my opinion, also.
But the problem exists: If you reach "a certain age" which is different for men and women, for ethnic groups too I guess, you get asked a lot why you aren't married. Men get passed over for jobs, I hear, because they aren't married. Haven't shown they have the stability of a family. Single women are called dykes. Single men are either "confirmed bachelors" or the question arises if they are gay or not.
So many people do get married even though they shouldn't, they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Then the families are happy, the people aren't socially ostracized, they can move up in their jobs, etc.
I fail to see how homosexuality could be thought of as a choice one makes. It is just too hard a life to choose freely. I maintain one is born that way and struggles to deal with it the rest of one's life.
-
You'll not get an argument from me Lanya. As we discussed earlier, at that point when one becomes aware of their sexual interests, it isn't as though you stop and think about it.
-
I fail to see how homosexuality could be thought of as a choice one makes. It is just too hard a life to choose freely. I maintain one is born that way and struggles to deal with it the rest of one's life.
Well, that's 1 opinion
-
No the use of callous is in reference to your language. You don't "indicate" anything. You just keep repeating the same line as if it were true. You don't even bother to answer questions that are asked.
LOL.....YOU'RE the one who maintains that apparent attraction towards another is tantamount to fulfilling our biological need to reproduce Js. YOU'RE the one trying to imply because I think Phobe Cates is attractive I must want to have sex with her, thus disobeying Jesus' commands, thus committing "Adultery". Am I not correct??
-
You win Sirs.
Well done.
-
You win Sirs. Well done.
I didn't realize this was a contest, but ok
-
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tr/2006/tr061023.gif)