Beck must have more than a few fans.

[CSpindizzy]

I guess class warfare channels through love? I mean honestly people. Have you heard the hate and vitriol spat nightly on MSNBC? You could run the entire US powergrid on the hate coming from the talking heads on that channel.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I guess class warfare channels through love? I mean honestly people. Have you heard the hate and vitriol spat nightly on MSNBC? You could run the entire US powergrid on the hate coming from the talking heads on that channel.

The clowns at Fox drive me nuts, but they can't touch MSNBC for the spewing silliness title. Maddow and Olbermann are embarrassments to broadcasting.

 

[droski]

Because anyone who succumbs to those beliefs is simply "out there." It's understandable to follow the ideas of most of the Abrahamic religions... but Mormonism is just plain weird.

how very christian of you

 

[gsvol]

And liberals wonder why the bottoms have dropped out of the ratings of MSNBC and CNN.

People are just tired of hearing their tired old crap and can see right through their silly spinning.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

how very christian of you

YouTube - Banned Mormon Cartoon

you know me, I love me some Jeezis.

 

[lawgator1]

 

[sjt18]

A large part of God-politics comes into play when conservatives determine social liberties, though.

So much better when liberals do it, right? Their whole premise is that their favored groups should be able to engage in things they consider sophisticated or "enlightened" or "free" but that those who make "conservative" choices should foot the bill when there's a cost.

For the most part, I think people should be free to make their own choices as long as they do not directly harm another or infringe on their legitimate "rights"... and SO LONG AS THEY BEAR THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR CHOICES.

Want to be homosexual? OK. But don't think you have a "right" to be employed by someone whose religious convictions say they should not support you in any way in that "lifestyle". Fair enough, right? One person does what they want.... another person has the right to disapprove and disassociate.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

So much better when liberals do it, right? Their whole premise is that their favored groups should be able to engage in things they consider sophisticated or "enlightened" or "free" but that those who make "conservative" choices should foot the bill when there's a cost.

This is such a load of crap. It just so happens the "conservative" choices are selective and prejudiced when it comes down to the matters we're discussing. Your double standard makes for an inept argument.

There are no "favored" groups here. It's a demand for EVERYONE, regardless of orientation, to be treated as equals.

For the most part, I think people should be free to make their own choices as long as they do not directly harm another or infringe on their legitimate "rights"... and SO LONG AS THEY BEAR THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR CHOICES.

Congratulations, Captain Compromise. This is the general consensus of anyone with an IQ over 60.

What about situations that aren't caused by choices? Like the one we seem to be discussing.

Want to be homosexual? OK. But don't think you have a "right" to be employed by someone whose religious convictions say they should not support you in any way in that "lifestyle". Fair enough, right? One person does what they want.... another person has the right to disapprove and disassociate.

There's no 'want' factor here (again, homosexuality is not a choice). So long as you possess the necessary skill-sets, work ethic, and respect for authority, you should not be denied employment.

Disapprove... check. Disassociate... check. Discriminate...

Oh, you forgot that one.

 

[sjt18]

This is such a load of crap. It just so happens the "conservative" choices are selective and prejudiced when it comes down to the matters we're discussing. Your double standard makes for an inept argument.

Really? Name those selective choices and validate your argument.

There are no "favored" groups here. It's a demand for EVERYONE, regardless of orientation, to be treated as equals.

You mean like the Christian parent who does not want their child influenced by someone who claims as a lifestyle something the parents have taught the child is immoral? This is an inherent problem with the public indoctrination centers that the left say MUST remain dominant in education. Someone's rights are going to be violated. Someone's ox is going to be gored.

And how is in not treating everyone as "equals" to say that they can do as they want so long as no one else's compulsory tax dollars rescue them from the consequences? How is it not treating everyone as "equals" to say you can do as you like but you do not have the right to impose yourself on someone who disagrees with you?

FTR, where is it written that all must be afforded an equal outcome or equal access to qualified privileges/licenses? You don't have a "right" to a license of any sort. They ALL have qualifications and are PRIVILEGES not rights.

Congratulations, Captain Compromise. This is the general consensus of anyone with an IQ over 60.

No it isn't or else people whose lifestyle resulted in AIDS would not be getting disability under Soc Sec... My sister-in-law who used herself up with drugs, alcohol, sleeping around, and generally abusing herself through a "lifestyle" wouldn't be on full disability for being "bi-polar and OCD". She's a burn out that has had at least 3 fully paid (gov't) opportunities to go to college and many jobs that she just walked away from. I have seen too many people who make bad choices- moral, financial, work ethic, etc then sign up for gov't bennies.

When you subsidize a behavior you inevitably get more of it. When you let the person making the choice bear the costs... a free society becomes self-correcting and self-policing.

What about situations that aren't caused by choices? Like the one we seem to be discussing.

I don't see that in the context of the last several posts... What situation are you referring to.

There's no 'want' factor here (again, homosexuality is not a choice).

Yes it is and you have absolutely no proof whatsoever to the contrary. Americans including the gov't has wasted billions trying to find a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality... every effort has failed utterly.

But let's play like that isn't true and the desires are somehow not a product of choices and environment... There is STILL a choice involved. A person doesn't get up in the morning and decide to be black. When faced with temptation, someone doesn't have to decide whether to be Asian. The thing that distinguishes homosexuals from others in the population is a sex act... a CHOSEN act.

So long as you possess the necessary skill-sets, work ethic, and respect for authority, you should not be denied employment.

Except if you actually respect the property and other rights of an employer... you don't get to say what those qualifiers are. It isn't YOUR business.

Disapprove... check. Disassociate... check. Discriminate...

Oh, you forgot that one.

If you disapprove and disassociate... you have discriminated. EVERYONE discriminates. YOU discriminate against Christians when you don't go to church and drop some money in the plate. You discriminate between restaurants based on what you prefer. You discriminate in friendships and avoid some types of people.

Discrimination on "benign" characteristics like race as Powell put it are things worthy of discussion when it comes to laws and public policy. No sane person says it is immoral to be born whatever color/gender you are or whatever place. But when choice... ANY choice... is brought in then gov't taking sides should be minimized or non-existent.

PS- my position on gay marriage is if it really is an impasse then gov't should get out of the marriage license business.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Really? Name those selective choices and validate your argument.

Abortion and gay marriage, for starters. No government should tell anyone what they can do to their own body. As for the latter, we both know nobody gives a damn about the constitutional definition of marriage. Most people who are against gay marriage are homophobes or believe it's a choice.

You mean like the Christian parent who does not want their child influenced by someone who claims as a lifestyle something the parents have taught the child is immoral? This is an inherent problem with the public indoctrination centers that the left say MUST remain dominant in education. Someone's rights are going to be violated. Someone's ox is going to be gored.

I don't believe, in my entire k-12 tenure in adolescent education, that any of my professors ever brought up their sexual orientation. Your statement is a stinking pile of s**t and you know it.

Also, atheists, agnostics, non-Christians, homosexuals, environmentalists, and hippies =/= left. That's a silly association especially considering the very person you're having this discussion with isn't even a liberal.

"are going," "is going..." Stop playing around. These are silly ways of making a point.

If you apply that entire paragraph to everything about the teacher/student relationship, then I suppose we need to fire all teachers who so much as believe in abortion, gay rights, marijuana legalization, or anyone who voted for anyone other than McCain/Palin in '08.

The children are going to grade school to learn the fundamentals of American History, Social Studies, English Composition, and basic areas of Mathematics. They aren't going to school to learn about where they need to stick their respective nether regions after high school.

And how is in not treating everyone as "equals" to say that they can do as they want so long as no one else's compulsory tax dollars rescue them from the consequences? How is it not treating everyone as "equals" to say you can do as you like but you do not have the right to impose yourself on someone who disagrees with you?

I can honestly say that I'm unsure as to whether you're being rhetorical or not. These questions are so silly

No it isn't or else people whose lifestyle resulted in AIDS would not be getting disability under Soc Sec... My sister-in-law who used herself up with drugs, alcohol, sleeping around, and generally abusing herself through a "lifestyle" wouldn't be on full disability for being "bi-polar and OCD". She's a burn out that has had at least 3 fully paid (gov't) opportunities to go to college and many jobs that she just walked away from. I have seen too many people who make bad choices- moral, financial, work ethic, etc then sign up for gov't bennies.

This is all irrelevant because sticking needles in your arm and shoving all sorts of otherworldly substances up your nose are ACTUAL choices, and so is walking away from redemptive opportunities.

To digress a little bit, that "lifestyle" you're saying AIDS came from is also referred to as being "too dumb to wrap it up." It spiked among homosexuals in the days of Freddie Mercury because there was a muscle relaxer (particularly effective in the rectal area) that also destroyed your immunity system, making you temporarily susceptible to disease... such as... AIDS! So now that we're in the 21st century, you're gonna have to associate that crowd with a different disease. Both orientations are equally susceptible to STD's these days.

If it makes you sleep easy, I actually use my government bennies. Hell, schizos and bipo's get most of their college paid for these days. It's pretty boss being off your gourd.

When you subsidize a behavior you inevitably get more of it. When you let the person making the choice bear the costs... a free society becomes self-correcting and self-policing.

Lol, so you're saying homosexuals are going to die off or correct themselves? Statistics would prove you dead wrong. I suppose pro-choicers are just going to abort themselves out of the equation too. *rimshot*

I don't see that in the context of the last several posts... What situation are you referring to.

Them gays.

Yes it is and you have absolutely no proof whatsoever to the contrary. Americans including the gov't has wasted billions trying to find a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality... every effort has failed utterly.

You don't have a lot of homosexual friends, do you? I have a couple I've known since we were kids, and trust me... it's not choice. One of them was raised in a very conservative household, and never showed signs of abrasive behavior. His 2 brothers and sister both grew up to be heterosexual, yet he did not. He was the "good" kid, too. Also, if you met MY sister-in-law, you might rethink your stance as well.

It seems I've been around the block a little more than you. I used to think like that, and then I got out and experienced a bit of the world around me. You learn a lot when you stop reading and start immersing. I might be wrong about you, but it seems you read more than you experience. Best route is to balance the two out.

But let's play like that isn't true and the desires are somehow not a product of choices and environment... There is STILL a choice involved. A person doesn't get up in the morning and decide to be black. When faced with temptation, someone doesn't have to decide whether to be Asian. The thing that distinguishes homosexuals from others in the population is a sex act... a CHOSEN act. Except if you actually respect the property and other rights of an employer... you don't get to say what those qualifiers are. It isn't YOUR business.

Yeah, try going your whole life without satisfying ONE sexual desire and tell me how that works out for your psychological stability. This point is growing in mootness as this argument goes on. There's little point in responding to the rest of this paragraph because you're stuck on the "choice" bandwagon and I'm not.

If you disapprove and disassociate... you have discriminated. EVERYONE discriminates. YOU discriminate against Christians when you don't go to church and drop some money in the plate. You discriminate between restaurants based on what you prefer. You discriminate in friendships and avoid some types of people.

Discrimination on "benign" characteristics like race as Powell put it are things worthy of discussion when it comes to laws and public policy. No sane person says it is immoral to be born whatever color/gender you are or whatever place. But when choice... ANY choice... is brought in then gov't taking sides should be minimized or non-existent.

Sorry, I should have said "discriminated against a certain demographic numbering in the millions for paltry, quaint, ignorant reasons."

Es mejor?

PS- my position on gay marriage is if it really is an impasse then gov't should get out of the marriage license business.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the probability of this country going pro-gay marriage by the end of the next decade is very, very high... does it?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Thread hijacked.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Thread hijacked.

You did indeed.......

At least we know who the bigots are.....

:dance2:

 

[sjt18]

Abortion and gay marriage, for starters. No government should tell anyone what they can do to their own body. As for the latter, we both know nobody gives a damn about the constitutional definition of marriage. Most people who are against gay marriage are homophobes or believe it's a choice.

There is no objective or medical argument against the FACT that abortion terminates a life. The most fundamental right that must be protected is LIFE. The burden should be on the pro-abortion folks to prove a life is not being taken.

The issue isn't what someone can do with "their own body". The issue is what they can do with someone else's body. In this case, an unborn child. In over 99% of all abortion cases, the woman has already made a free will choice of what to do with her body... and is simply seeking to escape the unwanted consequences (responsibility) of that choice by killing an innocent human being.

I am no homophobe and neither are the majority of those opposing gay marriage. I don't fear them. I don't want them locked in asylums. I don't want their homes raided. I don't want their businesses shut down or confiscated. I simply disagree with the choices they make.

And again, it IS a choice. Even IF we stipulate that it is somehow an innate desire, it does not have to be acted upon. There are many, many natural desires that we can and SHOULD choose against or if we don't have consequences. Craving alot of something that tastes good is a natural desire that has unwanted social and physical consequences. Adultery is based on a natural urge but has unwanted consequences.

Homosexuals are free to do as they like. But they have NO RIGHT to demand that others accept them, support them, or give a stamp of approval via their gov't.

I don't believe, in my entire k-12 tenure in adolescent education, that any of my professors ever brought up their sexual orientation. Your statement is a stinking pile of s**t and you know it.

No. You just do not have a counter point so you have to resort to turning it into an argument. It does not matter AT ALL if they bring it up. It is THEIR RIGHT to do it and live that lifestyle publicly, right? Once it is in the public then a parent has a right NOT to have their child mentored or educated by a person whose moral choices are objectionable. That goes for any of a number of things... someone who drinks alot and publicly, someone who is promiscuous heterosexually in a public way, etc.

I'm not saying they can't do it or you can't ignore/approve of it. I AM saying that you don't have the right to force others to accept it in violation of their conscience... any more than THEY have the right to impose their conscience on YOU.

 

[sjt18]

If you apply that entire paragraph to everything about the teacher/student relationship, then I suppose we need to fire all teachers who so much as believe in abortion, gay rights, marijuana legalization, or anyone who voted for anyone other than McCain/Palin in '08.

No. We need to privatize the system and put the power to make those decisions back where it belongs- in the hands of the parents. What part of freedom do you have such a big problem with? Why are you so averse to allowing those who disagree with you to make their own decisions about what to think?

I am absolutel NOT afraid... because if freedom and responsibility are rule the market place of ideals and actions... my pov has historically proven to fair just fine.

The children are going to grade school to learn the fundamentals of American History, Social Studies, English Composition, and basic areas of Mathematics. They aren't going to school to learn about where they need to stick their respective nether regions after high school.

This is false in so many ways it isn't funny. Outside of the socialization either explicit or implicit in the curriculum, the absence of cultural or moral training WILL be filled by something from some source. The answer of course is an active engagement on culture and morality... but then once again someone's ox must be gored if it is a public school.

I can honestly say that I'm unsure as to whether you're being rhetorical or not. These questions are so silly

No they aren't... and if you really think so explain how and maybe humor me with an answer anyway.

This is all irrelevant because sticking needles in your arm and shoving all sorts of otherworldly substances up your nose are ACTUAL choices, and so is walking away from redemptive opportunities.

What you do with your "nether regions" is also an ACTUAL choice.

To digress a little bit, that "lifestyle" you're saying AIDS came from is also referred to as being "too dumb to wrap it up." It spiked among homosexuals in the days of Freddie Mercury because there was a muscle relaxer (particularly effective in the rectal area) that also destroyed your immunity system, making you temporarily susceptible to disease... such as... AIDS! So now that we're in the 21st century, you're gonna have to associate that crowd with a different disease. Both orientations are equally susceptible to STD's these days.

"Wrapping it up" is NOT 100% effective in preventing AIDS or any other STD. FWIW, homosexual studies of homosexual behavior confirms that they are far more promiscuous and reckless than the general population. There are very few "committed relationships" that are actually monogomous.

AIDS isn't the only problem. Various other diseases have ravaged homosexual populations especially men (it is an easy google search).

If it makes you sleep easy, I actually use my government bennies. Hell, schizos and bipo's get most of their college paid for these days. It's pretty boss being off your gourd.

It is also a sure fire way of destroying an economy and society... but you probably aren't that thoughtful considering some of the other stuff you've posted.

Lol, so you're saying homosexuals are going to die off or correct themselves? Statistics would prove you dead wrong. I suppose pro-choicers are just going to abort themselves out of the equation too. *rimshot*

No. If those opposed to homosexuality can act and associate freely then they will conform, separate, or live with the consequences of their choices.

No. Pro-choicers are arguing themselves out of existence. The more a person knows about fetal development and what an abortion actually is... the less "pro choice" they are. BTW, "pro-choice" is probably the worst misnomer in all of politics... and also most people who are miltantly "pro-choice" about abortion are NOT pro-choice about anything else (guns, property, religion, speech, education, health care, etc)

You don't have a lot of homosexual friends, do you? I have a couple I've known since we were kids, and trust me... it's not choice.

As a matter of fact, I have had several homosexual friends. They will tell you a couple of things. One, I'm as good to them as anyone. Two, they know I disagree with their moral choices.

Yes. It is a choice until you can PROVE it is not... and I just asked you for the impossible. Because even if the desire is innate, the behavior is chosen.

One of them was raised in a very conservative household, and never showed signs of abrasive behavior. His 2 brothers and sister both grew up to be heterosexual, yet he did not. He was the "good" kid, too. Also, if you met MY sister-in-law, you might rethink your stance as well.

I grew up with a cousin who was homosexual. He died of a stroke or like it a couple of years ago. His dad was a conservative Baptist preacher. I cannot tell you exactly why he became homosexual. The most compelling studies say it is primarily environmental... and conditioning. IOW's, it is part situation and part the decisions made within the situation by the individual and those around them... repeatedly.

The one thing I can tell you is that his behavior destroyed his health. He and 5 "friends" in the Navy acquired HIV at about the same time. They all died within a couple of years. He lived another 15 or so... with full Naval benefits and a full disability pension.

I am NOT saying that we as family or a church or even as private "neighbors" should not care for someone like that... but how is it "right" for someone to be forced to pay taxes to care for someone like that? You had nothing to do with his choices... yet you paid for them MORE than he did financially.

It seems I've been around the block a little more than you. I used to think like that, and then I got out and experienced a bit of the world around me. You learn a lot when you stop reading and start immersing. I might be wrong about you, but it seems you read more than you experience. Best route is to balance the two out.

I can all but guarantee you have not been around the block more than me as far as exposure to different people and pov's.

And you cannot intuitively determine that someone has a natural "compulsion" to homosexual behavior. All you see is the effects... you cannot discern the causes by immersing yourself.

Yeah, try going your whole life without satisfying ONE sexual desire and tell me how that works out for your psychological stability.

Are you an expert psychologist? Didn't think so. Matter of factly, it IS a mind game. A person can abstain from sex for a very long period of time with no negative effects.

This point is growing in mootness as this argument goes on. There's little point in responding to the rest of this paragraph because you're stuck on the "choice" bandwagon and I'm not.

That's because you won't or can't argue objective facts rather than your feelings on one matter or another. It is "moot" only because you don't have good reason but still want to get your way and dictate your pov onto others.

Sorry, I should have said "discriminated against a certain demographic numbering in the millions for paltry, quaint, ignorant reasons."

Es mejor?

You are into confession now? Your position if it dominated would certainly "discriminate against a certain demographic numbering in the millions for paltry, quaint, ignorant reasons"... namely moral/religious conservatives and others who simply want a free society again.

Interesting that YOU would use the word "ignorant" in this exchange.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the probability of this country going pro-gay marriage by the end of the next decade is very, very high... does it?

No. Nada. I am no more interested in having the actual RIGHTS of homosexuals violated as I am yours, mine, gsvol's, or anyone elses. If this is truly a case of unwarranted discrimination then the ONLY way left to honor the religious/conscience objections of one side and whatever right is supposedly being violated on the other side (again, a license is not a right) is to remove gov't from that equation and hand it back to "the people" in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

There is no objective or medical argument against the FACT that abortion terminates a life. The most fundamental right that must be protected is LIFE. The burden should be on the pro-abortion folks to prove a life is not being taken.

Like the "choose to be homosexual" debate, this comes down to how you define "life." We should just add 9 months to everyone's age, since that's how old they REALLY are!

The issue isn't what someone can do with "their own body". The issue is what they can do with someone else's body. In this case, an unborn child. In over 99% of all abortion cases, the woman has already made a free will choice of what to do with her body... and is simply seeking to escape the unwanted consequences (responsibility) of that choice by killing an innocent human being.

That sure is a way to paint a nasty picture of it. That statistic is just over a decade old, by the way. I myself would never want an abortion, even in the event of an accidental pregnancy. I'd be devastated if hypothetical baby's momma took a coat hanger to it... but I still think (along with about half the country) that it should be a preserved right whether a woman has to bear a child. Mistakes happen.

I am no homophobe and neither are the majority of those opposing gay marriage. I don't fear them. I don't want them locked in asylums. I don't want their homes raided. I don't want their businesses shut down or confiscated. I simply disagree with the choices they make.

Fine, then let them make those choices as those choices don't affect you in the slightest manner. I don't believe any teacher or deity ever told us to tamper with the lives of others if they are doing no harm to anyone else. Let them get away with their victimless shenanigans now and let the big guys upstairs deal with them... but that's crazy talk.

And again, it IS a choice. Even IF we stipulate that it is somehow an innate desire, it does not have to be acted upon. There are many, many natural desires that we can and SHOULD choose against or if we don't have consequences. Craving alot of something that tastes good is a natural desire that has unwanted social and physical consequences. Adultery is based on a natural urge but has unwanted consequences.

So if someone just can't help the way they're attracted to the same sex, they need to just clip it and zip it (metaphorically speaking, of course)? I thought your belief simply ended at disagreement. It sounds like you think they should just abstain from sex... or love, for that matter.

Every man and woman, regardless of orientation, should be entitled to love if not anything else.

Homosexuals are free to do as they like. But they have NO RIGHT to demand that others accept them, support them, or give a stamp of approval via their gov't.

We'll assume your PoV for a second.

Since homosexuality is a "choice," then so is practicing religion. No tax breaks for churches, religious discrimination by employers is FINE, no sympathy from anyone is expected should a church be blown to smithereens.

I mean, even I would call BS. It's just un-American. If homosexuality isn't socially acceptable in most other countries, then who are we as the world's shining light of liberty and hope to turn THEM down? Try it from that perspective.

No. You just do not have a counter point so you have to resort to turning it into an argument. It does not matter AT ALL if they bring it up. It is THEIR RIGHT to do it and live that lifestyle publicly, right? Once it is in the public then a parent has a right NOT to have their child mentored or educated by a person whose moral choices are objectionable. That goes for any of a number of things... someone who drinks alot and publicly, someone who is promiscuous heterosexually in a public way, etc.

I gave you my counterpoint in that post. It didn't really warrant anything else.

Funny enough, I agree with everything you're saying right here, and that is the way it is right now. Parents can pull their kids out of the PUBLIC school system and put them at a PRIVATE institution if they really despise the lifestyle of the PUBLIC servant.

I'm not saying they can't do it or you can't ignore/approve of it. I AM saying that you don't have the right to force others to accept it in violation of their conscience... any more than THEY have the right to impose their conscience on YOU.

Am I supposed to argue against this? I agree completely. Ever had a teacher your parents didn't disagree with ONE BIT? I don't think they have a one-size-fits-all conscience for public educators.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I'll get to your second post this weekend. I just found out that my grandfather passed away and I need to make arrangements.

See if you can get the mods to move this to a different thread. I'm sure there are some debates in the deep confines of this forum relevant to this ever cliche topic.

 

[T-TownVol]

I'll get to your second post this weekend. I just found out that my grandfather passed away and I need to make arrangements.

See if you can get the mods to move this to a different thread. I'm sure there are some debates in the deep confines of this forum relevant to this ever cliche topic.

Sorry to hear that. Prayers for the family.

 

[sjt18]

Very sorry for your lose. God bless.