The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:08 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:53 pm 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
chadwick wrote:
I appreciate your response, but I still do not see how same-sex marriage would ruin society. How is this 'anything goes'? This doesn't allow someone to marry their sibling, their dog, themself... Why/how would a committed relationship between two partners ruin society? Two people, committed to a relationship, there for each other emotionally and financially and romantically...establishing a family...how does that ruin society?

Has Massachusetts been ruined? Canada? Holland? How has your life been affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts?

I also want to know why you feel that you have the right to decide whether or not I can get married? Should I have the right on who you can marry? Should I have the right to decide what religion you can practice? Doesn't this sound obsurd?

I know that at some point equality will win, I just hope it is in my lifetime. Following the election last week, I wanted to feel elated after the candidate I supported won, but I didn't. I felt so incredibly bummed out for the people of California, Arizona and Florida. And even for Arkansas where the voted it to be illegal for a same-sex couple to adopt children. How can anyone feel so satisfied about denying two people, regardless of gender, the right to marry one another?


Every one acts like our ancestors were total idiots. For thousands of years they experienced many pressures on society and they defined marriage the way they did for a reason! Because they found that it works best how they defined it!

Holland? My family is from Holland and of all the Dutch people we know that moved here to the U.S., none want to go back to Holland for anything other than a visit. The Dutch people here are VERY religious and conservative, in Holland they boarded up the churches. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is a State's Right issue and has the possibility of invalidating laws in other states, so yes it does effect me here in California.

Where did we deny you the freedom to enter into a committed realtionship? The voters just said no to marriage, because we believe it is meant to be between a man and a woman. Why is it that you will ONLY be satisfied if you succeed in deminishing the value of marriage for the rest od us?

As I have said in many other threads here, why can't we develope a new vehicle to cover the types of relationships you wish to have. It is obvious that the definition of marriage does NOT adequently cover the type of relationships that you want to enter into. Why is it that you insist on taking marriage away from the rest of us. I say "take away" because changing the meaning of marriage in essense makes it no longer available to those that still want it.

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Just the tip of the iceberg...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:31 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
It is well known that the Torah, the New Testament, and the Talmud have heavily influenced secular law. As far as Jefferson goes, he admitted that his deist beliefs made him "a sect" himself. He had a radically different view of Jesus which is incompatible with historical evidence. And, in another thread, I revealed that Martin Luther King Jr argued in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" about the importance of divine and natural law. Today, those same views are called radical right wing Christian fundamentalism. In the 60s, it was the foundation that started the civil rights revolution.

Principle: Reliance on the Providence of God

Judeo-Christian Roots

"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee. O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 54:10 - 17)

American Founding Ideal:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; .. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." (Declaration of Independence. See also John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987, pp. 355-377)

Principle: Law of God forms basis of good human laws

Judeo-Christian Roots

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:7 - 8)

American Founding Ideal:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams, February 22, 1756 (Federer, William J., America's God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations , FAME Publishing, Coppell, Texas, 1994, p.5)

"These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil .... This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures ... [and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. William Blackstone (Federer, p.52)

Principle: Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

"Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 34:17)

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

American Founding Ideal:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (Federer, p. 10)

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington (Federer, p.660)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address

Principle: The Equality of Man

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect [discriminate against] persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it." (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect [discriminate against] the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." (Leviticus 19:15)

"God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

American Founding Ideal:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Declaration of Independence

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States" U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, Paragraph 8)

Principle: God-Given Human Rights

Judeo-Christian Roots

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27 - 28)

"Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet.. (Exodus 20:13-17)

American Founding Ideal:

".that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Declaration of Independence)

Principle: Government authority by Consent of the Governed

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment." (Deuteronomy 16:18)

"Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes." (Deuteronomy 1:13 - 15)

American Founding Ideal:

".governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Declaration of Independence)

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government" (U.S Constitution, Art. IV, Section 4)

Principle: Sanctity of Contract

Judeo-Christian Roots

"If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." (Numbers 30:2)

American Founding Ideal:

"No state shall.pass any. law impairing the obligation of contracts." (U.S Constitution, Art. I, Section 10, Paragraph 1)

Principle: Two Witnesses

Judeo-Christian Roots

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." (Deuteronomy 17:6)

American Founding Ideal:

"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." (U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 1)

Principle: No Corruption of Blood

Judeo-Christian Roots

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. 24: 6)

American Founding Ideal:

".but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." (U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 2)

Principle: Sabbath Day Excepted

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." (Exodus 20:8-10)

American Founding Ideal:

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it." (U.S Constitution, Art. I, Section 7, Paragraph 2)

Principle: Separation of Church and State

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25)

American Founding Ideal:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

Principle: Teaching the Law of Liberty to Next Generation

Judeo-Christian Roots

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deuteronomy 6:7)

American Founding Ideal:

"Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation." (Abraham Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions", January 27, 1838)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:03 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
Bandmaster wrote:
Where did we deny you the freedom to enter into a committed realtionship? The voters just said no to marriage, because we believe it is meant to be between a man and a woman. Why is it that you will ONLY be satisfied if you succeed in deminishing the value of marriage for the rest od us?

As I have said in many other threads here, why can't we develope a new vehicle to cover the types of relationships you wish to have. It is obvious that the definition of marriage does NOT adequently cover the type of relationships that you want to enter into. Why is it that you insist on taking marriage away from the rest of us. I say "take away" because changing the meaning of marriage in essense makes it no longer available to those that still want it.

Bogus argument. Regardless, it still makes you a prejudiced bigot.

By your rationale, African-Americans had NO right to complain about being forced to ride in the back of the bus. After all, they were riding on the SAME bus as white people, going to the SAME stops. Technically, they had all the same rights as white people.

You're advocating separate classifications ("civil unions") for members of society based solely on the ways they differ from you (they are homosexual, you are not). That's the very definition of prejudice. Doesn't matter if civil unions and marriage both have every single, last, little, exact same right. Doesn't matter if you've got 2,000 years of tradition. It's still prejudice. There's no way around that argument.

CWBJR67: some of those points are very astute, some (I feel) a bit of a stretch (it would also be very easy to mine the bible for 50+ outdated, archaic quotes that have absolutely no application to American society). But my concerns are more with where we are headed as opposed to where we have been.

Okay, Christianity and religion have heavily influenced secular law. So what? Why should America not be able to divest itself of that influence if that is the course it so desires? I can only assume it is fear of this progression that drives people like Dave. Just because "it works," "it has always worked," and "it's always been that way" doesn't mean squat. After all, covered wagons still work just fine today as a means of transportation.

It just strikes me as odd that many of the people who fight for the Constitution (which clearly states that no one religion is to be held in higher legal esteem than any other in America) are the same people who insist that American laws and American society be interpreted and influenced by only Christian morals and viewpoints.

Everyone mocks Europe, but just admit already that the U.S. is practically a damn theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia: one religion rules the country, only members of that religion stand a chance of being elected to high office, laws are created and passed based on that religion's morality, etc.

Look, I'm not saying everyone in America wants to do away with Christian morality and tradition. But I simply can't agree with the argument that American citizens have no right to consider it.

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:34 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
50% of traditional marriage ends in diviorce. I personally don't care who marries whom. It's none of my business & effects me in no way whatsoever................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:54 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
chadwick wrote:
I appreciate your response, but I still do not see how same-sex marriage would ruin society. How is this 'anything goes'? I know that at some point equality will win, I just hope it is in my lifetime. Following the election last week, I wanted to feel elated after the candidate I supported won, but I didn't. I felt so incredibly bummed out for the people of California, Arizona and Florida. And even for Arkansas where the voted it to be illegal for a same-sex couple to adopt children. How can anyone feel so satisfied about denying two people, regardless of gender, the right to marry one another?


Before I get started, please know that everyone here appreciates you, and I am particularly sensitive to your passion concerning the same sex marriage debate. I enjoy your posts thoroughly.

When Dave references "anything goes," he's alluding to the weaknesses of postmodern thought that transcendentalize relativism and the new definition of tolerance. There is objective relativism which says my beliefs are true for me but not necessarily for anyone else. Moral relativism says there is no universal fixed point of reference for discerning right or wrong which ultimately leads to pluralism. Historical relativism says we can't know for sure what's happened in the past, so all we're left with is differing opinions or interpretations of these events.

Tolerance, traditionally, meant treating a person with respect and dignity even though their position may be disagreeable or false. Today's new tolerance requires the acceptance of a person's views or behaviors as being true or legitimate. Essentially, if one claims that someone is wrong, then that person is accused of bigotry, arrogance, and judgmentalism.

Dr Paul Copan states that dialogue "shouldn't begin by assuming the equality of all truth claims. Instead, dialogue should begin with assuming the equality of all persons."

If society deems that a given sexual behavior though contrary to the natural design of the human body is now considered moral, then any lifestyle or deviancy cannot be denied equal status under the law. In matter of fact, it could be argued that any behavior could be legalized since individual truth would supplant the common good.

The voters made the right decision and it was not bigotry. It was an acknowledgment of truth that corresponded with reality. I applaud them for their courage.


Last edited by cwbjr67 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:10 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
Hostrauser wrote:
CWBJR67: some of those points are very astute, some (I feel) a bit of a stretch (it would also be very easy to mine the bible for 50+ outdated, archaic quotes that have absolutely no application to American society). But my concerns are more with where we are headed as opposed to where we have been.


Kevin, please call me Carl:)

What a debate we would have! Marvelous! Law and grace! Something the Church needs constant reminder of... :wink:


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:21 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I'm sorry & I realize this will not make me popular however, Jefferson to me was a zero. He was human garbage. He was a slave owner, and he defiled the sanctity of marriage by having sex with a slave he owned. To me this is the worst type of crime. I can't understand why he is revered so much & his opinions quoted & followed.....................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:31 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Hostrauser wrote:
Bandmaster wrote:
Where did we deny you the freedom to enter into a committed realtionship? The voters just said no to marriage, because we believe it is meant to be between a man and a woman. Why is it that you will ONLY be satisfied if you succeed in deminishing the value of marriage for the rest od us?

As I have said in many other threads here, why can't we develope a new vehicle to cover the types of relationships you wish to have. It is obvious that the definition of marriage does NOT adequently cover the type of relationships that you want to enter into. Why is it that you insist on taking marriage away from the rest of us. I say "take away" because changing the meaning of marriage in essense makes it no longer available to those that still want it.

Bogus argument. Regardless, it still makes you a prejudiced bigot.

By your rationale, African-Americans had NO right to complain about being forced to ride in the back of the bus. After all, they were riding on the SAME bus as white people, going to the SAME stops. Technically, they had all the same rights as white people.

You're advocating separate classifications ("civil unions") for members of society based solely on the ways they differ from you (they are homosexual, you are not). That's the very definition of prejudice. Doesn't matter if civil unions and marriage both have every single, last, little, exact same right. Doesn't matter if you've got 2,000 years of tradition. It's still prejudice. There's no way around that argument.

CWBJR67: some of those points are very astute, some (I feel) a bit of a stretch (it would also be very easy to mine the bible for 50+ outdated, archaic quotes that have absolutely no application to American society). But my concerns are more with where we are headed as opposed to where we have been.

Okay, Christianity and religion have heavily influenced secular law. So what? Why should America not be able to divest itself of that influence if that is the course it so desires? I can only assume it is fear of this progression that drives people like Dave. Just because "it works," "it has always worked," and "it's always been that way" doesn't mean squat. After all, covered wagons still work just fine today as a means of transportation.

It just strikes me as odd that many of the people who fight for the Constitution (which clearly states that no one religion is to be held in higher legal esteem than any other in America) are the same people who insist that American laws and American society be interpreted and influenced by only Christian morals and viewpoints.

Everyone mocks Europe, but just admit already that the U.S. is practically a damn theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia: one religion rules the country, only members of that religion stand a chance of being elected to high office, laws are created and passed based on that religion's morality, etc.

Look, I'm not saying everyone in America wants to do away with Christian morality and tradition. But I simply can't agree with the argument that American citizens have no right to consider it.


Hey Host, don't forget Lincoln wasn't much a fan of religion or the bible. I have three books on Lincoln, and there are quotes from him on religion which would probably shock many people. And he's considered one of our greatest Presidents. I may not agree with most of his views on religion, but he did mention how a religious war could tear this country apart. He even talked about moving out of the country due to the insults he received for his beliefs. Some say he changed his views slightly in his later years. But there are many quotes from his later years which say otherwise. And many historians note that when he did speak well of the bible and God, he was sarcastic in most of his remarks. And a lot of this had to do with him fighting the southern Christians which used religion and the bible to justify slavery.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:46 am 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
Abraham Lincoln wrote:
"That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular. … I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, of the community in which he may live … "


...words Lincoln prepared for his second inauguration as president in March 1865.
Abraham Lincoln wrote:
"Neither [side] anticipated that the cause of the conflict [i.e., slavery] might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!' If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope‚ÄĒfervently do we pray‚ÄĒthat this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:55 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
Hostrauser wrote:
Regardless, it still makes you a prejudiced bigot.


And your treatment of christians and anything non-world view makes you a what?

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:06 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
Bandmaster wrote:
Every one acts like our ancestors were total idiots. For thousands of years they experienced many pressures on society and they defined marriage the way they did for a reason! Because they found that it works best how they defined it!

Holland? My family is from Holland and of all the Dutch people we know that moved here to the U.S., none want to go back to Holland for anything other than a visit. The Dutch people here are VERY religious and conservative, in Holland they boarded up the churches. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is a State's Right issue and has the possibility of invalidating laws in other states, so yes it does effect me here in California.

Where did we deny you the freedom to enter into a committed realtionship? The voters just said no to marriage, because we believe it is meant to be between a man and a woman. Why is it that you will ONLY be satisfied if you succeed in deminishing the value of marriage for the rest od us?

As I have said in many other threads here, why can't we develope a new vehicle to cover the types of relationships you wish to have. It is obvious that the definition of marriage does NOT adequently cover the type of relationships that you want to enter into. Why is it that you insist on taking marriage away from the rest of us. I say "take away" because changing the meaning of marriage in essense makes it no longer available to those that still want it.



I wish I knew how to break out your post to respond to each separately, but I have never learned how to do that on here...anyway...


I do not think, nor have I have stated, that our ancestors were idiots. But you have to admit that everything our ancestors believed and even enacted into law in their day may not be applicable to how things are today, correct? There are countless laws that have been overturned that at some point were believed to be justified that were later found to not be so (slavery, women's rights to vote, Jim Crow laws, etc...).

Regarding Holland - you didn't answer my question. How has the legalization of same-sex marriage in that country affected you positively, negatively or not at all? How has it affacted the people of Holland positively, negatively or not at all? Legalizing same-sex marriage in that country did not result in the boarding up of churches in that country as you state. I've visited Amsterdam in the past few years, and while I was not looking for churches, I did notice churches there, some very beautiful ones at that, and none were boarded up.

Regarding Massachusetts - again, I do not feel you have answered my question. How has it affected YOU? Your personal life? Your marriage? The life of YOUR family? Has anything been taken away from YOU?

My freedom to enter into the committed relationship that I choose, thankfully, has not been hindered. That is not what I am fighting for. Please tell me how allowing two people of the same gender to marry one another...to have the same legal protections as a heterosexual couple...'deminishes the value of marriage for the rest of us'?

How exactly are we taking marriage away from you? Why do you feel you can take it away from me? Are you saying there is a maximum number of marriages allowed in any given year, and that if gays can marry, that means there are fewer marriages available to heterosexual couples...how is marriage no longer available to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:06 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
Blurae1 wrote:
It's none of my business & effects me in no way whatsoever................Bill



Thank you....this is my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:26 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
cwbjr67 wrote:
Tolerance, traditionally, meant treating a person with respect and dignity even though their position may be disagreeable or false. Today's new tolerance requires the acceptance of a person's views or behaviors as being true or legitimate. Essentially, if one claims that someone is wrong, then that person is accused of bigotry, arrogance, and judgmentalism.

Dr Paul Copan states that dialogue "shouldn't begin by assuming the equality of all truth claims. Instead, dialogue should begin with assuming the equality of all persons."

If society deems that a given sexual behavior though contrary to the natural design of the human body is now considered moral, then any lifestyle or deviancy cannot be denied equal status under the law. In matter of fact, it could be argued that any behavior could be legalized since individual truth would supplant the common good.

The voters made the right decision and it was not bigotry. It was an acknowledgment of truth that corresponded with reality. I applaud them for their courage.


I still thank you traditional definition of tolerance holds true today - treat people with dignity and respect even if their position may be disagreeable or false. I think your modern definition of tolerance is a stretch. I am not asking for you, Dave, or anyone else to agree with homosexuality. I am asking for you to treat me as an equal citizen of this country with equal rights. Your quote of Dr. Copan is right on....All People are Equal.

'sexual behavior, though contrary to the natural design of the human body' - You know I am not going to agree with this statement. I have not changed the design of my body in any way, shape, or form. Nothing changed my body to be gay. Nothing changed my mind to be gay. I just am. If anything, I am actually living to the natural design of my body and nothing to the contrary. Believe me, I tried the 'contrary' and it didn't work. It wasn't me and it never will be me. By doing so, I would be unfaithful to myself and a female partner.

There was nothing courageous about those who voted for Prop 8. There is nothing courageous about denying equal civil rights to other people. It is discrimination, it is prejudice. It is taking rights away from others for the sole reason that you do not agree with their lifestyle. There is absolutely no evidence that the legalization of gay marriage would effect the marriage of heterosexual partners. No rights are taken away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:16 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY


Thank you Mr. Olbermann.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:05 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
chadwick wrote:



While I know it is good to find celebs willing to speak on behalf of issues important to us, Olbermann is a disingenuous blowhard. This would be like me posting links from Sean Hannity on issues important to me.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group