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.
Homosexuals are not demanding anyone's approval, attention, or affirmation, they just want the freedom to live their lives without your religious restrictions placed on them.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true.
While I'm not speaking to or about civil rights, it does appear to me that homosexuals ARE seeking approval, (maybe) attention and probably affirmation.
While I'm not speaking to or about civil rights, it does appear to me that homosexuals ARE seeking approval, (maybe) attention and probably affirmation.
Yes, when it comes to NOT speaking about one's right to live without oppression, a LOT people are seeking attention. As for affirmation, I think we both agree no one is seeking affirmation from total strangers, nor from religious people who allow their faith to justify restricting other people's freedom.
As far as civil rights, was Rosa Parks was seeking attention? Or maybe she just got tired of the way society treated her.
Lastly, don't ever lump all homosexuals into one POV. There are still thousands of homosexuals who are in heterosexual marriages and are now grandfathers and grandmothers. I know a lot of them. The younger generation has no idea what life was like for homosexuals back in the day.
First, my wife isn't a ridiculous fundamentalist. And she realizes god probably doesn't care whether I violate a rule that was allegedly handed down in the time of Moses. She doesn't mind me saying "christ" anymore than she cares if I touch the skin of a pig or failed to gouge my eyes out when I thought lustfully about her prior to marriage or decided to mow the lawn on the sabbath. So she doesn't get to worked up when I say christ, jesus, jesus christ, god, or for jesus christ god's sake.
In other words, she's a "Cafeteria Catholic" who doesn't give a rip about the Second Commandment or what her Church has to say about anything. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
Second, I am a student of religion. But NOT just extreme fundamentalism. How could I be agnostic without deeply studying religion. In fact, I was rather devout up until the age of 16. I don't have these opinions because they are convenient. I have them because that's what I come to understand after deep and thorough thought.
A student of religion? I think not. More like a quarter-educated twenty-something know-it-all who thinks he's a renaissance man because he's read some Voltaire and took a world religions course at a state college. Maybe even visited a synagogue. No worries, I was one of those too. It's usually just a phase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
In fact, I'd be willing to bet I know your religion better than you do.
Some other time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
I'm just no longer a devout "believer" per se.
Glad you cleared that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
Further, do you even know what agnostic means?? It doesn't mean athiest.
Now you tell me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
You don't think its odd that there are 100's of religions in the U.S. alone and all of them claim that their path is the only true path??
There are more than a few 100s. There are 30,000 protestant sects and counting. The fruits of the Reformation, when men decided they could figure things on their own out without the help of a divinely guided Church. The result? Religious anarchy. Which is awfully convenient for relativists like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
Third, I am only liberal on social issues!
Liberalism is not a list of positions on contemporary issues and has nothing to do with American political parties. It's a total worldview, a set of assumptions about the nature of man. If you're not a liberal, you're incoherent and probably psychotic.
Suggested reading: Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions", Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind", Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's "Liberty or Equality", and James Kalb's "The Tyranny of Liberalism" - for starters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
You think those who are "your version of christian," also have to be conservative on every other issue...including economics and military issues.
OK, you're psychotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
Further, I don't base my stance on gay marriage because of "feelings." I base them on a fair reading of the Constitution.
This is insane. The Constitution tells you what is moral and what isn't? Do you get your views on homicide from the Constitution? Stem cell research? School vouchers? Indoor plumbing? Global warming? War and peace? I think I have met my very first Constitutional idolator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
I am no relativist. I do believe in absolutes...
Really? From where do you get your moral absolutes? I know, I know, you get them from the Constitution ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
Finally, who gets to decide what is moral behavior and what isn't??
Well, someone has to do it. Every law, without exception, is based on someone's idea of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
Why can't you see that dilemma?
I see the dilemma just fine. It's the dilemma faced by any government. There is no getting around it. Civilization requires laws, and all laws are based upon a moral code of some sort. In the United States, the citizens supposedly have a voice in the process of governance. I'm a citizen and I'm doing my part.
The problem is that we no longer have a cultural consensus in this country. Slavery was abolished in the 19th century because we had a moral and religious consensus upon which to resolve the question, at least on some level. There was a foundation for having a conversation: the Bible, natural law, and the fundamentals of Christian morality. That is no longer the case. There is no common ground. You think what you think and I think what I think. You don't accept my moral assumptions and I don't accept yours. If you were a Catholic, or at least a bible-believing Christian, we could discuss the question of same-sex marriage from the same starting point. But that rug has been yanked out from underneath our society, rendering civilized dialogue impossible.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 05-22-2009 at 06:17 PM..
In other words, she's a "Cafeteria Catholic" who doesn't give a rip about the Second Commandment or what her Church has to say about anything. Got it.
A student of religion? I think not. More like a quarter-educated twenty-something know-it-all who thinks he's a renaissance man because he's read some Voltaire and took a world religions course at a state college. Maybe even visited a synagogue. No worries, I was one of those too. It's usually just a phase.
Some other time.
Glad you cleared that up.
Now you tell me!
There are more than a few 100s. There are 30,000 protestant sects and counting. The fruits of the Reformation, when men decided they could figure things on their own out without the help of a divinely guided Church. The result? Religious anarchy. Which is awfully convenient for relativists like you.
Liberalism is not a list of positions on contemporary issues and has nothing to do with American political parties. It's a total worldview, a set of assumptions about the nature of man. If you're not a liberal, you're incoherent and probably psychotic.
Suggested reading: Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions", Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind", Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's "Liberty or Equality", and James Kalb's "The Tyranny of Liberalism" - for starters.
OK, you're psychotic.
This is insane. The Constitution tells you what is moral and what isn't? Do you get your views on homicide from the Constitution? Stem cell research? School vouchers? Indoor plumbing? Global warming? War and peace? I think I have met my very first Constitutional idolator.
Really? From where do you get your moral absolutes? I know, I know, you get them from the Constitution ...
Well, someone has to do it. Every law, without exception, is based on someone's idea of morality.
I see the dilemma just fine. It's the dilemma faced by any government. There is no getting around it. Civilization requires laws, and all laws are based upon a moral code of some sort. In the United States, the citizens supposedly have a voice in the process of governance. I'm a citizen and I'm doing my part.
The problem is that we no longer have a cultural consensus in this country. Slavery was abolished in the 19th century because we had a moral and religious consensus upon which to resolve the question, at least on some level. There was a foundation for having a conversation: the Bible, natural law, and the fundamentals of Christian morality. That is no longer the case. There is no common ground. You think what you think and I think what I think. You don't accept my moral assumptions and I don't accept yours. If you were a Catholic, or at least a bible-believing Christian, we could discuss the question of same-sex marriage from the same starting point. But that rug has been yanked out from underneath our society, rendering civilized dialogue impossible.
So you do believe that america should only have a very narrow-scope of living, talibanish in a christian fundamental way..
There are more than a few 100s. There are 30,000 protestant sects and counting. The fruits of the Reformation, when men decided they could figure things on their own out without the help of a divinely guided Church. The result? Religious anarchy. Which is awfully convenient for relativists like you.
So your saying the Catholic Faith is the one true Church? Rather pretentious of you.
Yet somehow a church that won't even protect "the least of these" is God's representation of Him on Earth? Child abuse cases are horrific and happen across all segments of society to include non-Catholic denominations but the methodical cover up by the Church seems to go beyond the argument of just a few "isolated cases."
I'm done with this childish bs. My wife is much more of a christian than you every will be.
You simply dismiss everything that is said AFTER the initial clause and make some condescending comment related to it. So, do you think its okay to touch the skin of a dead pig?? Do you think its okay for the "infallible church" to only forgive Galileo in the 1990s for having the audacity to suggest the Earth wasn't the center of the universe?? Do you have a problem with the Church's evolving view of science and religion??
Its funny. I was having a conversation with Bishop of the Catholic church he he repeatedly said that fundamentalists were destroying the catholic church. And he several times mention that those higher up the church heirarchy became less and less fundamentalist. But they were forced to adhere to much of the fundamentalist doctrine because of the ignorant masses who simply couldn't wrap their head around the idea that things like evolution and the big bang were not be definition at odds with anything the church said.
He also went on and on about how another big problem was that so many of the fundamentalists for some reason adhered to old testament teachings when christs teachings clearly were at odds with those teachings.
Bottom line: Christ would not be here demonizing and judging gays in the manner that you think is so cute. He would be writing your name in the sand and noting that you are in no position to judge anyone on issues of morality as you have just as many moral shortcomings as anyone else.
I just get a kick how you truly think you are more moral than my wife because she doesn't get bent out of shape about using the "Christ" or "god." My lord...you're just pathetic.
And who in the hell do you think you are to question my wife's faith and to make some conclusion as to what kind of catholic she is?? I reiterate...you are pathetic.
Further, how am I psychotic because I recognize the idea that one can be both liberal and conservative?? It is only a select ignorant few, such as yourself, that look at the world through such a small key hole that they think all issues align.
Finally, I'm not a "20 something" who just read "Voltaire." I'm a well established, well published, "30 something" who has so much more education and practical experience with the actual minds of the world than you its laughable. You need to turn of Rush and Michael Savage and quit with the hate.
I'm done with this conversation as you simply take every response as an opportunity to attack me or my family personally.
So, in conclusion, I would like to say "for CHRIST'S SAKE" get a grip. And I can only hope that one of your loved ones comes out of the closest and announces that he is gay. It is only then will you ever have a chance of displaying some amount of empathy.
Dr. Poulsen
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.
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.
Now you tell me! 
