U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2012, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Southern NC
1,920 posts, read 4,335,124 times
Reputation: 2517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest T Bass View Post
Not to you.

But still waiting for a better answer to my earlier post. I guess we'll ignore it.
Aww....big money is waiting on little 'ol me?
I don't see the correlation between talking about gay couples, and allowing siblings to marry, but I suppose you do....and I'm not surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2012, 10:33 PM
 
40 posts, read 50,956 times
Reputation: 53
Originally Posted by wannatour
HILARIOUS! Jon Stewart Opens Up A Can O’ Whoop Ass On Bigots In North Carolina | MoveOn.Org

Dr. Daniel Heimbach, (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary): "If marriage is radically redefined as being just a way of affirming private feelings of loving attraction, then equality will require allowing people who love dogs to marry dogs, and people who love ice cream to marry ice cream."

Jon Stewart: "Yes, that's exactly right. You know, I realized now that that's not a bald head, that's a solar panel for a Dumb*** Machine. By the way, I just want to ask very quickly--Does you wife know that you can't see the difference between a consensual love that leads to matrimony and the enjoyment you get from a Dairy Queen Blizzard?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest T Bass View Post
Just like so many who can't really give a good answer, Stewart skews the situation by making fun of the man and getting a bunch of big laughs. He looks like a hero to the pro-gay marriage side but if anything, just strengthens the sentiment of the opposition.

Real easy to crack on a man in a recorded video. That Stewart's a real quick-witted character.
I think most people would say that Stewart is dealing with absurdity by being absurd.
It's an old technique called "humor." He's good at it, which is why he is so popular.

I'm pretty amazed, (although I shouldn't be), that you think that when a person in a position of responsibility--a "doctor" of sort--a spokesperson for the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that same-sex marriage would lead to people marrying animals and ice cream--that when someone points out how utterly ridiculous--how deeply brain-damaged he appears to be with his incredibly dim-witted reach to try to form some kind of sense of why he's against it--that it is STEWART who is wrong!

No one can really give a good answer to something that is illogical without comparing it with something Else that is illogical.

That is, unless you are personally familiar with people who want to marry dogs and ice cream.

Last edited by wannatour; 06-08-2012 at 11:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2012, 11:25 PM
 
40 posts, read 50,956 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois View Post
There are some things, particularly dealing with the rights of minorities or those without a voice, that cannot be put to majority-rule vote because they would NEVER pass.

Do you think any Southern state would have abolished slavery it if had been put to a popular (white-only) vote?

Do you think women would have ever gained the right to vote if it had been put to (all-male) vote?

"Tyranny of the majority" is specifically warned against in early founding documents of this country.

It is not a "lawless nation" to use legislative and judicial means to protect minorities from tyranny of the maojrity--that is in fact the very reason our government is set up in a 3-pronged system. You might be happier in a place where everything is done strictly by majority rule--I just hope you don't ever find yourself on the minority side of anthing.
I would honestly and respectfully like some guidance and clarification on this, because these topics are interesting.

If white people didn't free the slaves, who did?
If men didn't vote to provide women with voting rights, who did?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2012, 05:25 AM
Status: "On The Lookout" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,390 posts, read 61,750,545 times
Reputation: 31937
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannatour View Post
If white people didn't free the slaves, who did?
If men didn't vote to provide women with voting rights, who did?
The elected representatives of the people did the voting.
That voting was pushed through by the leadership.

Leadership (or lack of it) by Senators and Congressmen is the issue.
Most of what we have now is callow and partisan obstruction and (as in the example of this issue)
refusing to take the tough stand for justice and what's right.

Quote:
I would honestly and respectfully like some guidance and clarification on this, because these topics are interesting.
Is the distinction clearer now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2012, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Garner, NC
351 posts, read 550,557 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannatour View Post
Originally Posted by wannatour
HILARIOUS! Jon Stewart Opens Up A Can O’ Whoop Ass On Bigots In North Carolina | MoveOn.Org

Dr. Daniel Heimbach, (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary): "If marriage is radically redefined as being just a way of affirming private feelings of loving attraction, then equality will require allowing people who love dogs to marry dogs, and people who love ice cream to marry ice cream."

Jon Stewart: "Yes, that's exactly right. You know, I realized now that that's not a bald head, that's a solar panel for a Dumb*** Machine. By the way, I just want to ask very quickly--Does you wife know that you can't see the difference between a consensual love that leads to matrimony and the enjoyment you get from a Dairy Queen Blizzard?"




I think most people would say that Stewart is dealing with absurdity by being absurd.
It's an old technique called "humor." He's good at it, which is why he is so popular.

I'm pretty amazed, (although I shouldn't be), that you think that when a person in a position of responsibility--a "doctor" of sort--a spokesperson for the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that same-sex marriage would lead to people marrying animals and ice cream--that when someone points out how utterly ridiculous--how deeply brain-damaged he appears to be with his incredibly dim-witted reach to try to form some kind of sense of why he's against it--that it is STEWART who is wrong!

No one can really give a good answer to something that is illogical without comparing it with something Else that is illogical.

That is, unless you are personally familiar with people who want to marry dogs and ice cream.
You're quite true in your post. But in all honesty, its a very similar situation to all these threads in the NC section over Amendment One and the Republican party.

Stewart's sharp wit was to do one thing and one thing only: Get tons of laughs and love from those like-minded as he. If anything, it just caused further resentment from the other side.

Was he trying to change anyone else's mind about gay marriage? I'm guessing not. He just wanted to make those already on his side love him even more.



What I'm getting at is this: If you want to just keep your opinions in your group of like-minded folks, please say so. I'll stay out. Continue to do what you're doing and if that makes you feel good, great. But if you want to attempt to change minds over issues important to you, name calling will only drive the opposing side that much stronger against you. In a sense, you'll be going backwards. Discussion on both sides will only help each of us understand the others' views better. But if someone wants to be a John Stewart here, its over before it gets started.

Just trying to help.

Last edited by SunnyKayak; 06-09-2012 at 06:32 AM.. Reason: tos violation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2012, 02:38 PM
 
40 posts, read 50,956 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
The elected representatives of the people did the voting.
That voting was pushed through by the leadership.

Leadership (or lack of it) by Senators and Congressmen is the issue.
Most of what we have now is callow and partisan obstruction and (as in the example of this issue)
refusing to take the tough stand for justice and what's right.

Is the distinction clearer now?
It sure is, Thanks!

Apparently, white guys can occasionally do good things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2012, 02:40 PM
 
40 posts, read 50,956 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest T Bass View Post
You're quite true in your post. But in all honesty, its a very similar situation to all these threads in the NC section over Amendment One and the Republican party.

Stewart's sharp wit was to do one thing and one thing only: Get tons of laughs and love from those like-minded as he. If anything, it just caused further resentment from the other side.

Was he trying to change anyone else's mind about gay marriage? I'm guessing not. He just wanted to make those already on his side love him even more.



What I'm getting at is this: If you want to just keep your opinions in your group of like-minded folks, please say so. I'll stay out. Continue to do what you're doing and if that makes you feel good, great. But if you want to attempt to change minds over issues important to you, name calling will only drive the opposing side that much stronger against you. In a sense, you'll be going backwards. Discussion on both sides will only help each of us understand the others' views better. But if someone wants to be a John Stewart here, its over before it gets started.

Just trying to help.
I deeply appreciate your assistance!

But I'm confused.

I didn't all anyone a name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2012, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,213 posts, read 5,017,752 times
Reputation: 627
I agree that these men are extremist but lets look at this from a different perspective;

Homosexuality is based on a faith in feelings, attraction, desires, wants, according to the Bible it is based on the works of the flesh. This makes it a choice and I don't care how much twisting and turning you do with scientific data it is still a choice.

Christianity is a choice as well and is based on works of the Spirit. It consists of feelings, attraction, desires, wants but all tempered by spiritual understanding. This has even more scientific data than homosexuality for support.

These perspectives are based on choices. Do you fight temptation or give into it?

Can you love someone you are not attracted to? Can you have a relationship with someone you are not attracted to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2012, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
10,389 posts, read 19,350,719 times
Reputation: 11266
(RobinD69 resurrected an old thread)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
Homosexuality is based on a faith in feelings, attraction, desires, wants, according to the Bible it is based on the works of the flesh. This makes it a choice and I don't care how much twisting and turning you do with scientific data it is still a choice.
False. What the Bible says is only applicable to those who follow that particular religious book, while science "governs" all living creatures (and non-living matter, actually). The Bible can claim something is a choice all it wants, but that does not make it so, any more than the Bible can say the earth is 6000 years old but that does not make it so.

A person, no mater what the Bible says, does not CHOOSE to be attracted to one gender or the other. It just happens.

Quote:
Christianity is a choice as well and is based on works of the Spirit. It consists of feelings, attraction, desires, wants but all tempered by spiritual understanding. This has even more scientific data than homosexuality for support.
Yes, clearly Christianity, or any religion (including non-religion) are choices. Feelings that go on inside a person's brain relating to sexual and affectational attraction are not. How can anyone possibly say what s going on inside another person's brain, anyway?

Quote:
Can you love someone you are not attracted to? Can you have a relationship with someone you are not attracted to?
Not sure what that has to do with the matter of a legal contract between two people, independent of religious or psychological matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2012, 03:12 PM
 
6,270 posts, read 9,993,341 times
Reputation: 4723
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
I agree that these men are extremist but lets look at this from a different perspective;

Homosexuality is based on a faith in feelings, attraction, desires, wants, according to the Bible it is based on the works of the flesh. This makes it a choice and I don't care how much twisting and turning you do with scientific data it is still a choice.

Christianity is a choice as well and is based on works of the Spirit. It consists of feelings, attraction, desires, wants but all tempered by spiritual understanding. This has even more scientific data than homosexuality for support.

These perspectives are based on choices. Do you fight temptation or give into it?

Can you love someone you are not attracted to? Can you have a relationship with someone you are not attracted to?
None of the above made any sense to me.

IMO, this is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. Christians have the right to believe whatever they wish, but Christians don't have the right to tell others who they can have sex with and how they should be doing it. Sex is a personal issue as well as a civil right granted to adults.

As for marriage, the same rule applies. There are certain government-backed benefits reserved only for married couples. This is where the constitution comes into play. The government can not give certain rights to "some" while not giving those same rights to "others". If "marriage" was just a religious term that carried absolutely no government benefits, things would be totally different. However, there are financial and insurance benefits for married couples. As a result, homosexual couples (per the constitution) should be able to have those same benefits. It's as simple as that. You have every right to protest such a reality on Sunday morning with like-minded individuals though. I question why a "saved soul" would feel a need to protest the love/lust of two other souls, but that's just me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top