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.
I will not go into details here, as this would derail this already unsound thread.
My intent was not, as you put it 'to imply imply that the Bible was wrong on slavery, so the Bible must be wrong on homosexuality', merely pointing out that it was indeed wrong, and could be wrong again.
I'm not here to do your thinking for you, that's something you have to do on your own, dear friend!
And do I really have to link Bible citations where slavery is not condemned but propagated? I'm sure you know your Book much better than I do, so take your own pick.
To finish this, please to point out where my basis of reasoning is non-existent, as you so concisely allege.
Thank you, dear friend!
And, once again, as expected, the very first instance of attempting to act like you know what you're talking about you refer to "Bible citations where slavery is not condemned but propogated." This totally expected first line of defense is for those that don't know the Bible, it's story, or its intricate verbiage. As I said before, don't try to pass yourself off as some sort of theologian if you don't have the capacity to back it up. Anti-religious, liberal, group-think is where you should stay my friend.
Kagan will be asked to explain her role at Harvard in defending the right of universities to restrict on- campus military recruitment to protest the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays and lesbians.
I think that's really a non issue. My law school had the same issue, but they didn't want to lose federal funds, so they let them on campus. Harvard is a rich school, it doesn't need the funds, so they can deny them entrance, and they just don't get federal funds...
All she has to say is "I don't think the students at Harvard would want a discriminatory institution on campus" and can leave herself out of it.
Kagan will be asked to explain her role at Harvard in defending the right of universities to restrict on- campus military recruitment to protest the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays and lesbians.
So effing what? I would be surprised if she weren't asked. What's your point?
And, once again, as expected, the very first instance of attempting to act like you know what you're talking about you refer to "Bible citations where slavery is not condemned but propogated." This totally expected first line of defense is for those that don't know the Bible, it's story, or its intricate verbiage. As I said before, don't try to pass yourself off as some sort of theologian if you don't have the capacity to back it up. Anti-religious, liberal, group-think is where you should stay my friend.
While I respect your dedication to the Biblical word, there are numerous versions of the Bible, and numerous interpretations. While your particular Christian sect may see homosexuality as an abomination, not all Christian sects agree with this Biblical interpretation.
And even if they did, the American government is a secular government. Your feelings about homosexuality stem from your religious beliefs, but religious beliefs are explicitly not to be used as litmus tests for government officials, including judges. So, even though I believe you to be most fervent in your beliefs, I cannot be persuaded by those beliefs. I don't live under a theocracy, and I don't want to.
And, once again, as expected, the very first instance of attempting to act like you know what you're talking about you refer to "Bible citations where slavery is not condemned but propogated." This totally expected first line of defense is for those that don't know the Bible, it's story, or its intricate verbiage. As I said before, don't try to pass yourself off as some sort of theologian if you don't have the capacity to back it up. Anti-religious, liberal, group-think is where you should stay my friend.
So anyway, your argument is "I'm a straight white man so I only want straight white men on the Supreme Court because otherwise I fear it will issue rulings that don't favor me."
And, once again, as expected, the very first instance of attempting to act like you know what you're talking about you refer to "Bible citations where slavery is not condemned but propogated." This totally expected first line of defense is for those that don't know the Bible, it's story, or its intricate verbiage. As I said before, don't try to pass yourself off as some sort of theologian if you don't have the capacity to back it up. Anti-religious, liberal, group-think is where you should stay my friend.
The bolded part is the usual last line of defense of bible-thumpers.
Translated, it means:
"yes, well, it is written like this, and normally it would say that, but you have to take into account its story and intricate verbiage! You see, selling someone into slavery isn't actually selling someone into slavery when it's written in the bible! It's a metaphor! Thus, it means something completey different!
You shouldn't take the bible literally, it's all in metaphors! Of course, the parts where homosexuality is condemned have to be taken literally! How I know? I just do, and so would you if you found Jesus!"
But I'm afraid that I have to stop caring about this "discussion" at this point. We're coming to a field where belief reigns and rational thinking goes to sleep, and as such a meaningful exchange of ideas is made impossible.
But be my guest and go ahead, call me liberal, anti-religious, groupthinker etc. again, I assume that it gives you a fuzzy feeling inside. Good on you!
She said she could come to a superior conclusion. Not the same, or equal conclusion, but SUPERIOR due to her race and gender.
That's not bigoted in your liberal eyes?
How does a WASP make a equal decision in minority cases when they don't have the experience of being in the minority? Don't give me that follow the law crap, its not that simple. Everything is not black and white (pun not intended).
Straight white males have filled the Supreme Court since the beginning. Sorry, but the country is made up of more than just straight white males so a court filled with them is NOT representative. It's time to give up a few seats to the women. Or are you trying to say that women can't possibility be as qualified as a straight white male?
I'm saying something far more radical. I'm saying hire people who are actually qualified for the job, instead of automatically passing over white males and looking only for the next minority/woman/gay to fill a seat just so you can fill a racial quota that makes the race-card carrying Democrats and liberals happy. How does this help our country in the long run?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠
When GHWB nominated Meirs he cited "diversity" as a driving force in his decision. Were you screaming then? Doubt it.
You people are transparent.
Who is "you people"? You sound like Ross Perot.
This may come as a shock to you but I didn't support many of GHWB or his son's policies, such as the Leave No Child Behind and hate crime laws b.s., and Clarence Thomas was/is an affront to intelligent black men everywhere.
Quote:
Fact: you'd have crowed about whoever he appointed. You fool no one.
The only fact here is that you're projecting your own biases unto me. You've fooled no one but yourself.
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.
