"Please Don't Divorce Us!"

The really HOT topics of the day... be careful to not get burned! Please try to remain open minded...

Moderator: The Moderating Team

Blurae1
All Star
All Star
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: North Louisiana

Post by Blurae1 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:08 pm

Agreed.............Bill

User avatar
Mike
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 12:40 pm

Post by Mike » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:21 am

LAMystreaux wrote: First of all, God's word teaches following the law of the land. But that does not equate to being silent and blindly following the status quo of the day and time.
In the case of an elected official, he or she is elected to be the voice of anyone in their geographic area. The must take that into account and not just vote their own personal POV.

Secondly, where does one person's rights end and another's begins is a good question, and one we will all have different answers to. I think the polarization comes from both sides. This notion that the christians are the intolerant ones is bogus. . .completely bogus. Watch which side has more animosity and hate for the other. Sure it comes from both sides (crazies are everywhere) but I see more of it coming from the supposed open-minded ones.
I think a person's POV on where "most" of it comes from depends on where that person is sitting. You, being a close-mined intolerant Christian ( :D :D j/k!) think it comes from the "other side", while someone on the open-minded tolerant side ( that is, the correct side :) ) thinks that the intolerance comes from the close-minded side.


Mike

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:46 am

In the case of an elected official, he or she is elected to be the voice of anyone in their geographic area. The must take that into account and not just vote their own personal POV.
What if their pov is that of the majority of their constituents?

I think a person's POV on where "most" of it comes from depends on where that person is sitting. You, being a close-mined intolerant Christian ( :D :D j/k!) think it comes from the "other side", while someone on the open-minded tolerant side ( that is, the correct side :) ) thinks that the intolerance comes from the close-minded side.
Not at all. I don't deny there being some on the fringe calling themselves christians and acting anything but. But, simply voting against gay rights does not make someone hateful as much as being an atheist doesn't. There is hate coming from both sides. . .on the church side in the name of commandments (although they are not following the most important one . . .to love), and on the equal rights side in the name of equality tolerance, and it is anything but tolerant.
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

User avatar
cwbjr67
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Location: North Beach MD

Post by cwbjr67 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:26 pm

The reason why these groups are going ape is because they are acutely aware that as California goes, the nation usually follows. It looks like the law is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court, and once that happens, it should spread like wildfire in other states.

Look, there are laws which I think should be overturned, but I don't tear down fences or spray paint facades to get my point across. I use the civil rights that ARE guaranteed to me (For example, the freedom of speech, the right to protest as well as my VOTE) to engage in the national discourse.

However, America's tenets of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not promise a result of parity. It only pledges the opportunity. It does not guarantee success.

Blurae1
All Star
All Star
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: North Louisiana

Post by Blurae1 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:49 am

My absolute problem with people in Washington begins with "Congress shall pass no law". Most, if not all problems begin there. Most, if not all laws should be enacted on a state level, certainly all of the ones dealing with social policy. I guess this could open up an entirely new can of worms.................Bill

Post Reply