Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[Night Strike]

Your stance doesn't mix with your massive support of drug testing for welfare recipients. That is the government telling people how to live. You are a hypocrite.

You sure are fixated on that topic, aren't you? If people who actually work for their money have to take drug tests, why can't people who get government handouts take drug tests? Or, why can't the government require you do something in order to qualify for their aid? Or, even better, why don't we just remove the government from welfare altogether? At least then everyone would be treated equally in your view.

[Woodruff]

Your stance doesn't mix with your massive support of drug testing for welfare recipients. That is the government telling people how to live. You are a hypocrite.

You sure are fixated on that topic, aren't you?

Yes, I am fixated on the idea of helping others and ensuring their freedoms. You should be too. I'm sorry to hear that you're not.

And yes, I do fixate a bit on Phatscotty's hypocricy...it burns me up that people like him who go on and on about FREEDOM! but really don't care about freedom outside of themselves and their own greed.

If people who actually work for their money have to take drug tests, why can't people who get government handouts take drug tests?

Why aren't we testing EVERYONE who gets government handouts then, Night Strike? Why aren't you and Phatscotty championing that cause? Because you see, my problem is not with the drug testing itself (I dealt with random drug testing for 23 years in the military, and it's not a big deal). Here are my problems with the situation:

1. It is essentially aimed at the evil poor people. I don't know why, but Phatscotty in particular seems to really hate poor people. But there are many other people taking government money without providing services who are not being tested. That is a problem.

2. This drug testing of welfare recipients has been pushed through time and again as a cost-savings measure...and time and again it has not proven to save money.

3. It has been ruled unConstitutional several times. I thought you were real big on the idea of Constitutionality, Night Strike? Or is that only for things you support? You can't have it both ways, big guy.

Or, why can't the government require you do something in order to qualify for their aid?

I don't have a particular problem with that idea in general. I'm a big fan of work crews made up of people who would be on welfare rolls...I think it's a grand idea, for those who are able to do so.

[BigBallinStalin]

Instead we should have government control society and dictate what is best for it, right? What a libertarian you are.

why are you trolling me. how does your statement square at all with what you know to be true...that the people decide - liberty. I want the people tell the government what to do. You want the government to tell people how to live. Your shit is so twisted right now

If you can't handle this, then don't talk to me about it.

HAHAHA! Good call, GP.


Yes, PS. People decide, through majority rule. That's liberty!--whenever you'd appreciate the outcomes.

[BigBallinStalin]

Update, Polygamy, practiced around the world for thousands of years, is more radically transformative than gay marriage, which has been around in a handful of places for a few years.....

gotchya. god bless schools

God Bless schools? First of all, that seems highly non-sequitor. Secondly, I don't believe you learned history as well as you could have in whatever schools you attended.

Instead we should have government control society and dictate what is best for it, right? What a libertarian you are.

why are you trolling me. how does your statement square at all with what you know to be true...that the people decide - liberty. I want the people tell the government what to do. You want the government to tell people how to live. Your shit is so twisted right now

If you can't handle this, then don't talk to me about it.

Your stance doesn't mix with your massive support of drug testing for welfare recipients. That is the government telling people how to live. You are a hypocrite.

Update, Polygamy, practiced around the world for thousands of years, is more radically transformative than gay marriage, which has been around in a handful of places for a few years.....

gotchya. god bless schools

When you say radically transformative do you mean to imply "more harmful to society/america/etc"?

He means that he doesn't like it. Things are only a problem if he doesn't like them...otherwise it's "ALL ABOUT THE FREEDOM!!!!".

Exactly. Phatscotty can be embarrassing for the Libertarian movement at times.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with the Christians' views on gay marriage is that they are imposing their religious views outside their religion through the government (and respective laws).

So because marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman across most countries and religions and is the traditional definition across the world, it's Christians who are imposing religious views on the government since that definition is also the definition used by Christians?

So you are unaware that other definitions very much have existed throughout time?

And even if that was the case, the Constitution does not prohibit the use of religion when deciding what laws to pass. It simply states that Congress can not establish a religion or prohibit someone from exercising their religion. The first amendment does not block legislation that's based on religious morals.

I see, so its OK for you to impose YOUR religion on other people, becuase that's Christianity... but if anyone else tries..... then you want "freedom".

That's not freedom, its bullying.

[PLAYER57832]

Update, Polygamy, practiced around the world for thousands of years, is more radically transformative than gay marriage, which has been around in a handful of places for a few years.....

gotchya. god bless schools

Well, if you had attended a decent one.. or perhaps just paid attention... you would realize that statement is plain false. Homosexual unions have existed for about as long as male-female. In fact, in many cases "marriage" was for political or economic reasons and sexual gratification was found elsewhere.

So, you are saying that homosexuality is wrong because they should just marry and then go do what they want outside of a hetersexual marriage? That IS what happened in history...

[PLAYER57832]

Your stance doesn't mix with your massive support of drug testing for welfare recipients. That is the government telling people how to live. You are a hypocrite.

You sure are fixated on that topic, aren't you? If people who actually work for their money have to take drug tests, why can't people who get government handouts take drug tests? Or, why can't the government require you do something in order to qualify for their aid? Or, even better, why don't we just remove the government from welfare altogether? At least then everyone would be treated equally in your view.

Fine... no more tax benefits for corporations, banks, the wealthy.

Forget having inspectors -- they just "interfere" with commerce, after all. Forget about safety rules.. or at least forget hiring anyone to enforce the rules or even just educate people about them (and the reasons for the rules).

Forget about roads, forget about clean water, forget about decent air to breath.

Yep... we all want to live in 1898 NY City. It surely was a dream.

[Phatscotty]

I was specifically referencing the whole "shellfish and pork" zombie line

[PLAYER57832]

How about simply showing where and how the Bible specifically says homosexuality is wrong? Folks seem to assume it is there. Is it really?

Well I put "homosexuality in bible" into google and it gave me a wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

Leviticus 18 and 20

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by many Jews and Christians (including fundamentalists but not exclusive to) as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. [5][6]

Romans 1
“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ”

However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.

A lot of people get confused in this area as well, especially if you just go by what you hear, rather than seek and study for yourself. One of the reasons these things are in the bible was because of STD's. There weren't any cures, there weren't exactly many schools if any in certain areas. They were not aware of the exact cause, but they had a pretty good idea where the STD's came from.

Yes, and lepers as well.

So are you saying that a return to considering lepers or those contracting other diseases, such as being born with deformities, should still be considered "evil"?.

There were a lot of challenges in the old world, and the Bible tried to deal with a lot of them. Obviously, we invented the microwave and we know how well you need to cook pork and when not to eat shell fish. To try to take those words from thousands of years ago and apply them to 2012 as proof everything else in the bible is outdated is flat out ridiculous. It only means that we solved shellfish and pork. We have not solved STD's along with other things

Except, if what you said were true, then there would be references to disease transmission and impurity, such as there were in other cases. There are not, not in the New Testament. There is just this bit in Romans, which was apparently written after Paul attended a town where a prominent Roman religious festival was held, seeing general debauchery.

I rather wonder what Paul might say after seeing Mardis Gras in New Orleans. (please do note that Mardis Gras is fundamentally a Christian celebration).

[PLAYER57832]

I'd like to point out that I'm glad the Bible is changing as scholars and Christians study it.

That would be a very gross distortion of what I said... and I have to say intentional to the point of insult.

I, most Christians never dispute that many wrong things have been done and said in the name of Christ. Why do you insist that only those wrong individuals get to represent our faith.. and that the entire faith is therefore subject to ridicule or disdain.
The bits I speak of are not actually new, though many things have bee suppressed by certain segments of the church. The Roman Catholic church has been good at that, but so has the Greek Orthodox (on different issues), the Lutheran church... every church led by humans, in fact. It is why most of us look to the book and our personal feelings/faith, not individual leaders.

[PLAYER57832]

Instead we should have government control society and dictate what is best for it, right? What a libertarian you are.

why are you trolling me. how does your statement square at all with what you know to be true...that the people decide - liberty. I want the people tell the government what to do. You want the government to tell people how to live. Your shit is so twisted right now

If you can't handle this, then don't talk to me about it.

So according to you, freedom is something to be ruled by the majority? So, say, its OK for the majority to oppress a minority that feels saying the pledge of allegiance is against their religious beliefs? Or, well.. how about the group that thinks you should only wear red clothing? In some towns, they are more than a majority.

Or, well, how about that universal idea that blacks and whites "should not mix".. that blacks are, in fact inferior to whites in many ways. It WAS very much the majority opinion.

Real freedom can never be about what the majority want. It is most especially about allowing MINORITIES to be protected. And, there is no other entity that CAN do that than a government. A government of laws which holds real freedom as the ultimate goal for all of us, not just those who are Christians, not just those who agree with Phattscotty or NIghtstrike, but ALL.

[GreecePwns]

Instead we should have government control society and dictate what is best for it, right? What a libertarian you are.

...the people decide - liberty...

Person A decides he want's to marry someone of the same sex, who we'll call Person B.

Person C decides marries someone of the opposite sex, who we'll call Person D. C and D do not know A nor B. Never met them in their life. They disagree with their lifestyle, but it doesn't affect C and D at all. Life goes on.

Everyone involved has complete freedom to choose who to marry. Is there something wrong with this picture? Whose rights has been restricted and how? We agree that freedom is the ability to make any life choice one wishes, so long as they do not infringe on another's rights? If so, why do you oppose this sort of freedom?

Let's say you're Person C. How does A and B getting married infringe on your rights? If it doesn't why do you oppose the freedom that is widely associated with libertarianism?

Disagreeing with you isn't trolling, especially when it is you who has gained the reputation of dodging and one-liners.

[PLAYER57832]

How about this. Someone, cannot remember who, asked why homosexuals would WANT to marry.

One answer is the practical. They can sign for, visit their loved one in emergencies, can legally co-parent children, and simplify inheritances greatly.
But, there is another answer. Some want to marry because their beliefs, their morality, their religion, tells them it is important and/or required.

So, put it back on that front. If their religion tells them to marry, what right do you have to use your religion to oppose them? And... how is that different than atheists or Hindus marrying? Or even people living in "sin".. having kids, sexual relations without any kind of marriage.

Should those people be denied full parenting rights, as was done in the past (re-creating bastardy laws, for example) Or, perhaps men and women who dare to step outside the bounds of Christian marriage should be wearing scarlet letters.

See, when you try to put this on a plain moral front, on a Christian front, or a historical front, a biological/safety front.. you fail miserably. Not just on one, but on all.

[Night Strike]

Your stance doesn't mix with your massive support of drug testing for welfare recipients. That is the government telling people how to live. You are a hypocrite.

You sure are fixated on that topic, aren't you? If people who actually work for their money have to take drug tests, why can't people who get government handouts take drug tests? Or, why can't the government require you do something in order to qualify for their aid? Or, even better, why don't we just remove the government from welfare altogether? At least then everyone would be treated equally in your view.

Fine... no more tax benefits for corporations, banks, the wealthy.

Forget having inspectors -- they just "interfere" with commerce, after all. Forget about safety rules.. or at least forget hiring anyone to enforce the rules or even just educate people about them (and the reasons for the rules).

Forget about roads, forget about clean water, forget about decent air to breath.

Yep... we all want to live in 1898 NY City. It surely was a dream.

Yeah, because my post says I want all those things. Do you spout every single talking point Obama puts out?

I rather wonder what Paul might say after seeing Mardis Gras in New Orleans. (please do note that Mardis Gras is fundamentally a Christian celebration).

ROFLMAO!!! There is nothing Christian about partying-up a certain lifestyle right before you supposedly give it up for 40 days.

[Woodruff]

Your stance doesn't mix with your massive support of drug testing for welfare recipients. That is the government telling people how to live. You are a hypocrite.

You sure are fixated on that topic, aren't you? If people who actually work for their money have to take drug tests, why can't people who get government handouts take drug tests? Or, why can't the government require you do something in order to qualify for their aid? Or, even better, why don't we just remove the government from welfare altogether? At least then everyone would be treated equally in your view.

Fine... no more tax benefits for corporations, banks, the wealthy.

Forget having inspectors -- they just "interfere" with commerce, after all. Forget about safety rules.. or at least forget hiring anyone to enforce the rules or even just educate people about them (and the reasons for the rules).

Forget about roads, forget about clean water, forget about decent air to breath.

Yep... we all want to live in 1898 NY City. It surely was a dream.

Yeah, because my post says I want all those things. Do you spout every single talking point Obama puts out?

It's like looking into a liberal mirror, isn't it, Night Strike?

I rather wonder what Paul might say after seeing Mardis Gras in New Orleans. (please do note that Mardis Gras is fundamentally a Christian celebration).

ROFLMAO!!! There is nothing Christian about partying-up a certain lifestyle right before you supposedly give it up for 40 days.

You need to learn about the Christian religion, obviously.

[Phatscotty]

It's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Guess where the position "I want my benefits" stands on that one....

[GreecePwns]

What does that even mean?

[Phatscotty]

What does that even mean?

something JFK said a long time ago. It seems the people have forgotten.

First, what do you think it means?

[GreecePwns]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

[Phatscotty]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

[Neoteny]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

God, you're an ignorant tool.

[Phatscotty]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

God, you're an ignorant tool.

great answer.

There is no need for you to budge into the middle of my conversations with other people, and you don't have to reply to me at all either, because you are foed for being an ignorant tool.

[GreecePwns]

Is this really what you believe motivates the pro-gay marriage legalization movement? Tax incentives? Nothing about freedom whatsoever? What should gay Americans do for their country instead of asking for freedom?

This is totally different from your other arguments, and if you really believed it, you would have brought it up at the beginning. You're attempting to change the conversation now, because your previous points have been shot down. It's not gonna work here. Just concede, Scotty.

[Woodruff]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

God, you're an ignorant tool.

great answer.

There is no need for you to budge into the middle of my conversations with other people, and you don't have to reply to me at all either, because you are foed for being an ignorant tool.

It's cute that you think he's the ignorant one in the conversation between the two of you, never mind that he's the tool. Cute!

[GreecePwns]

A lesson here for anyone: a debate should never be about winning points, but about searching for the best answer to a question which can be answered in more than one way. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you are brave enough to admit it when you are.