Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 138
Like Tree100Likes

Thread: Robertson Tells Men to Marry Underage Girls Who Cooks

  1. #101
    Carrie Guru pklongbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Long Beach, California
    Posts
    18,886
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by allamericangirl8 View Post
    First of all, I just wanted to say your southern California-ness is showing. x)



    At the risk of derailing this thread, I just wanted to ask: why do you (and other people) liken yourself to a mental disorder? It just seems like a bad idea to me. There have been so many attempts to "cure" gay people. I understand the way you're doing that in context, but wouldn't associating the two make things worse?

    That's why I think it's a bad idea to constantly argue that gays should have rights (I realize I'm talking about a different issue right now, what with you talking religion and me talking politics, but tangents) because they were "born that way." It's a lose-lose situation -- if scientists find indisputable proof that people are born gay, people will work on finding a cure; if scientists find indisputable proof that people choose to be gay (which would probably turn the world upside-down because it is so against basic logic), welp, you lose.
    Oh and Iignored your original statement about a "mental disorder", I don't think it is mental at all.
    I think it is genetic. I think the dna is predisposed to it. The amount of cases that occure within family history points to it being genetic. They just have not found the gene yet.

    But yes, when they do, it will likely move directly toward curing it. And in honestly I have no problem with that.
    Only because I know how difficult it is to live with. If I could be exactly who I am but be "normal", don't you think I would be??

    No one chooses this percecution.

  • #102
    Ultimate Carrie Fan Farawayhills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6,877
    Quote Originally Posted by allamericangirl8 View Post
    First of all, I just wanted to say your southern California-ness is showing. x)



    At the risk of derailing this thread, I just wanted to ask: why do you (and other people) liken yourself to a mental disorder? It just seems like a bad idea to me. There have been so many attempts to "cure" gay people. I understand the way you're doing that in context, but wouldn't associating the two make things worse?

    That's why I think it's a bad idea to constantly argue that gays should have rights (I realize I'm talking about a different issue right now, what with you talking religion and me talking politics, but tangents) because they were "born that way." It's a lose-lose situation -- if scientists find indisputable proof that people are born gay, people will work on finding a cure; if scientists find indisputable proof that people choose to be gay (which would probably turn the world upside-down because it is so against basic logic), welp, you lose.
    No, I don't think you're derailing the thread by bringing in the issue of rights.

    With regard to the point you raise about "born that way" or "choose to be that way", it's possible to argue, from a moral standpoint, that people don't choose the orientation, but do choose whether or not to act on it (and some of the faith-based arguments use that distinction - i.e, that the practice is regarded as sinful. that people are born with an inclination to sin, and that, with God's Grace, they can strive against it. With regard to sexual morality, that would apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals).

    However, regardless of that religious argument, rights are central to the political issue.
    The "Rights of Man" are most strongly associated with Tom Paine, who is close to the heart of Sussex people like myself, since his house is still here. He worked as a excise officer in Lewes, the County Seat, about ten miles from where I live, and wrote several of his pamphlets there. A Festival is held in his honour in Lewes every year
    (What's less widely known, though is that the phrase "Rights of Man" wasn't first used by him, but by Thomas Spence, another C18 radical, who put up a poem on the wall of a cave in the North Country.)

    Both men were developing ideas that go back to John Locke and radical ideas in the Civil War era.
    In his "Essay on Human Understanding", Locke wrote:
    "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".

    These ideas were very influential on the American colonists in their struggle for Independence. The Virginia Declaration included this clause:
    "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"
    Thomas Jefferson, in turn, included this statement in his Independence draft:
    "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"

    Why this is relevant to the issue, in my view, would proceed along these lines:
    Firstly, if the "Rights of Man" are to be acknowledged as equal, they must, by definition, apply to all rational adult citizens, who are not using force, fraud or abuse, and not just to persons of one orientation
    Secondly, if they include the pursuit of happiness (as these writers have contended), it's difficult to argue that they should exclude marriage, which is usually held as one of society's ideal hopes for happiness
    Thirdly, if they are considered inalienable, then the views of particular churches or moralists should not override these rights in the public or legal sphere (notwithstanding those churches' continuing right to teach and practise in accordance with their beliefs in their private membership sphere).

  • #103
    Ultimate Carrie Fan jptexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    9,473
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by pklongbeach View Post
    I appreciate your thoughts on it. and yes you are right, it is a bit of a no-win.

    The reason I associate it with a "disorder" is mostly because though it is a "natural occurance" that developes during puberty just like with anyones natural sexuality, it should also be considered "abnormal" only because it only afflicts 10% of the worlds people. Which means it is not the natural order of things.
    And of course since with all species of animal the only real purpose to exist is to procreate and advance the species, it is abnormal to have an animal that is attracted to the same sex.

    Its natural!! It occures in nature. But it is not the natural order of things.
    Therefore it is not "normal".
    Also, you have to realize that as soon as people realize that it is a natural occuring phenomenon just like anyother, than it is obviosly cruel to degrade someone for it, including religions that used to percecute people with all kinds of afflictions as if they were "abominations" just like they treat gays now.

    I understand that from a political arguement you would want to argue that homosexuality is just as normal and natural as anyone else. But the truth is, it is not. It is an abnormality. And therefore any effort to change someone is only met with harm confussion alienation and failure.

    And you are right, in the same way that one day people will be able to choose their childs eye color and hair color, they are going to be able to make sure the child is "normal" sexually. And I personally think that is fantastic. As a gay man you can not possibly understand what it feels like to grow up in a world that you are not considered a part of. Every single aspect of the way the world evolved with Man on it is built around procreation. And gay people can not be a part of that. So why not make them straight. Its a more natural state of being.
    None of this is to suggest that gay is "bad", it is not bad. But its incredibly difficult for a person to have to live with. So in the same way we might one day be without dislexia, maybe we will be without gay people.

    Life will be more boring for sure!!!!!!! But at least those people will not be percecuted anymore.
    in response to "we will be without gay people". Maybe God doesn't want the world that way. He created us all the way we are, He might have his own reasons to keep things as they are. Maybe he wants to see how we treat each other. I'm thinking he's a little disappointed right now.
    pklongbeach and txacar like this.

  • #104
    Carrie Guru pklongbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Long Beach, California
    Posts
    18,886
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by Farawayhills View Post
    No, I don't think you're derailing the thread by bringing in the issue of rights.

    With regard to the point you raise about "born that way" or "choose to be that way", it's possible to argue, from a moral standpoint, that people don't choose the orientation, but do choose whether or not to act on it (and some of the faith-based arguments use that distinction - i.e, that the practice is regarded as sinful. that people are born with an inclination to sin, and that, with God's Grace, they can strive against it. With regard to sexual morality, that would apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals).

    However, regardless of that religious argument, rights are central to the political issue.
    The "Rights of Man" are most strongly associated with Tom Paine, who is close to the heart of Sussex people like myself, since his house is still here. He worked as a excise officer in Lewes, the County Seat, about ten miles from where I live, and wrote several of his pamphlets there. A Festival is held in his honour in Lewes every year
    (What's less widely known, though is that the phrase "Rights of Man" wasn't first used by him, but by Thomas Spence, another C18 radical, who put up a poem on the wall of a cave in the North Country.)

    Both men were developing ideas that go back to John Locke and radical ideas in the Civil War era.
    In his "Essay on Human Understanding", Locke wrote:
    "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".

    These ideas were very influential on the American colonists in their struggle for Independence. The Virginia Declaration included this clause:
    "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"
    Thomas Jefferson, in turn, included this statement in his Independence draft:
    "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"

    Why this is relevant to the issue, in my view, would proceed along these lines:
    Firstly, if the "Rights of Man" are to be acknowledged as equal, they must, by definition, apply to all rational adult citizens, who are not using force, fraud or abuse, and not just to persons of one orientation
    Secondly, if they include the pursuit of happiness (as these writers have contended), it's difficult to argue that they should exclude marriage, which is usually held as one of society's ideal hopes for happiness
    Thirdly, if they are considered inalienable, then the views of particular churches or moralists should not override these rights in the public or legal sphere (notwithstanding those churches' continuing right to teach and practise in accordance with their beliefs in their private membership sphere).
    Yes to all. But the issue with regard to the church asking people of one orientation to abstain while encouraging the other is a form of persecution. It is one thing for a priest to take a vow of celebicy, it is anther to tell one person that their ultimate show of love and affection and intimacy to their partner is wrong but someone elses is right, is flawed and hypocritical.

    Until heterosexuals can abstain from sex except purely for procreation and in an act of minimal enjoyment to show ones intent to only use it for procreation, they are not following the words in the bible any more an a gay person.
    the truth is, if you believe in God, than you probably beleive that God made sex enjoyable for multiple reasons. And many of those reasons are equal to any person, and are not limited only to straight people.
    Sex is used very often as a bond and commitment to your partner. It governs your intentions to stay commited to that person. Sex is a necessary physical experience. It is healthy. IT is using the body for what it was intended for.
    To suggest that some can, but others are considered sinners and are "not allowed to", is a serious hypocricy to any ones practices of sex.

    Anyway, yes. The church will often tell you. Gay people are ok, but they are not allowed to have sex.
    The biggest problem I have with that is the assumption that they know what someone is doing behind closed doors.
    I don't know what they do, and they don't know what I do. Therefore, to suggest they can mandate Gods desire for both parties is just wrong.

    I can just as easily assume that someone is "having sinful sex" behind their closed door, as they can of me.

    I think the newest pope got it right; He suggests the church is spending way too much time on arugments that are simply not neccessary to encouraging the growth of Gods will for us all.

    Gay people do amazing things for Christ and for Churches all over the world. God knows this, and the church knows this.
    txacar and Farawayhills like this.

  • #105
    Carrie Guru pklongbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Long Beach, California
    Posts
    18,886
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by jptexas View Post
    in response to "we will be without gay people". Maybe God doesn't want the world that way. He created us all the way we are, He might have his own reasons to keep things as they are. Maybe he wants to see how we treat each other. I'm thinking he's a little disappointed right now.
    I love the way you think.

    God don't make mistakes!!
    txacar and GumbyJRH like this.

  • #106
    Ultimate Carrie Fan Farawayhills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6,877
    Carrie covered a song (which happens to be by a Gay man, though that is by the way) which says that If Our Lord came back today, He'd find too few people following his teaching - so we'd better pray for more time.

    (It's also by the way, that some of the most interesting developments in Country Music today are being written by two people who happen to be Gay)

    Society is changing, on many fronts. Some people have always been reatively intolerant of diversity, and will resist change, but in a free society the general trend is historically towards greater acceptance of equality. That is not to say that the movement will be easy or even - but the movement towards change will continue. Whatever personal views on morality may be, the "genie won't go back in the bottle" in the field of public policy
    pklongbeach likes this.

  • #107
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Pi314CA View Post
    You're quoting out of context to make your point. Why is a non-believing person using a source they mock to make a point? Why don't you use worldly sources?
    You have completely missed the point.

  • #108
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by pklongbeach View Post
    Even still, with a reward at the end, there is no purpose for us doing good during our lives.

    In other words, we do good cause we get a reward. But philisophically "what is good about doing something for a reward"??

    Its no longer good, its selfish.
    But it must also do with rewards. It just so happens that rewards are not always material. If you do something good because you think it is good, you have gotten your reward of feeling good.

  • #109
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by supercarriefan View Post
    The poster in question seems to enjoy posting articles relating to Christianity just to mock the religion. It's getting old.

    Anyway, it is nice to see some here having a civilized discussion on the issues at hand. It's interesting to read everyone's point of view. If nothing else, Phil Robertson has certainly got people talking about social issues.
    Oh please. So a christian is allowed to post a random quote from The Bible telling gays to go to hell, but I cannot post a random quote from The Bible telling her that quoting one verse means nothing?

    I talked about the age of consent, and marriage law reforms. Did you? Did much of anyone else? Whether gay people are going to hell (which seems to be the direction this is heading) is not a social issue.

  • #110
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by allamericangirl8 View Post
    First of all, I just wanted to say your southern California-ness is showing. x)



    At the risk of derailing this thread, I just wanted to ask: why do you (and other people) liken yourself to a mental disorder? It just seems like a bad idea to me. There have been so many attempts to "cure" gay people. I understand the way you're doing that in context, but wouldn't associating the two make things worse?

    That's why I think it's a bad idea to constantly argue that gays should have rights (I realize I'm talking about a different issue right now, what with you talking religion and me talking politics, but tangents) because they were "born that way." It's a lose-lose situation -- if scientists find indisputable proof that people are born gay, people will work on finding a cure; if scientists find indisputable proof that people choose to be gay (which would probably turn the world upside-down because it is so against basic logic), welp, you lose.
    I'd associate it with left-handedness, especially with the similar rates and history.

  • #111
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by pklongbeach View Post
    I appreciate your thoughts on it. and yes you are right, it is a bit of a no-win.

    The reason I associate it with a "disorder" is mostly because though it is a "natural occurance" that developes during puberty just like with anyones natural sexuality, it should also be considered "abnormal" only because it only afflicts 10% of the worlds people. Which means it is not the natural order of things.
    And of course since with all species of animal the only real purpose to exist is to procreate and advance the species, it is abnormal to have an animal that is attracted to the same sex.

    Its natural!! It occures in nature. But it is not the natural order of things.
    Therefore it is not "normal".
    Also, you have to realize that as soon as people realize that it is a natural occuring phenomenon just like anyother, than it is obviosly cruel to degrade someone for it, including religions that used to percecute people with all kinds of afflictions as if they were "abominations" just like they treat gays now.

    I understand that from a political arguement you would want to argue that homosexuality is just as normal and natural as anyone else. But the truth is, it is not. It is an abnormality. And therefore any effort to change someone is only met with harm confussion alienation and failure.

    And you are right, in the same way that one day people will be able to choose their childs eye color and hair color, they are going to be able to make sure the child is "normal" sexually. And I personally think that is fantastic. As a gay man you can not possibly understand what it feels like to grow up in a world that you are not considered a part of. Every single aspect of the way the world evolved with Man on it is built around procreation. And gay people can not be a part of that. So why not make them straight. Its a more natural state of being.
    None of this is to suggest that gay is "bad", it is not bad. But its incredibly difficult for a person to have to live with. So in the same way we might one day be without dislexia, maybe we will be without gay people.

    Life will be more boring for sure!!!!!!! But at least those people will not be percecuted anymore.
    What gay rights advocates have gotten it wrong is that 'naturalness' is utterly irrelevant.

    Ice-cream is unnatural, whilst cannibalism is natural. Same as oil spill being unnatural, but empathy being natural.

    It means nothing. Whether homosexuality is natural doesn't justify or disadvantage it.

  • #112
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Farawayhills View Post
    No, I don't think you're derailing the thread by bringing in the issue of rights.

    With regard to the point you raise about "born that way" or "choose to be that way", it's possible to argue, from a moral standpoint, that people don't choose the orientation, but do choose whether or not to act on it (and some of the faith-based arguments use that distinction - i.e, that the practice is regarded as sinful. that people are born with an inclination to sin, and that, with God's Grace, they can strive against it. With regard to sexual morality, that would apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals).

    However, regardless of that religious argument, rights are central to the political issue.
    The "Rights of Man" are most strongly associated with Tom Paine, who is close to the heart of Sussex people like myself, since his house is still here. He worked as a excise officer in Lewes, the County Seat, about ten miles from where I live, and wrote several of his pamphlets there. A Festival is held in his honour in Lewes every year
    (What's less widely known, though is that the phrase "Rights of Man" wasn't first used by him, but by Thomas Spence, another C18 radical, who put up a poem on the wall of a cave in the North Country.)

    Both men were developing ideas that go back to John Locke and radical ideas in the Civil War era.
    In his "Essay on Human Understanding", Locke wrote:
    "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".

    These ideas were very influential on the American colonists in their struggle for Independence. The Virginia Declaration included this clause:
    "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"
    Thomas Jefferson, in turn, included this statement in his Independence draft:
    "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"

    Why this is relevant to the issue, in my view, would proceed along these lines:
    Firstly, if the "Rights of Man" are to be acknowledged as equal, they must, by definition, apply to all rational adult citizens, who are not using force, fraud or abuse, and not just to persons of one orientation
    Secondly, if they include the pursuit of happiness (as these writers have contended), it's difficult to argue that they should exclude marriage, which is usually held as one of society's ideal hopes for happiness
    Thirdly, if they are considered inalienable, then the views of particular churches or moralists should not override these rights in the public or legal sphere (notwithstanding those churches' continuing right to teach and practise in accordance with their beliefs in their private membership sphere).
    There are still people nowadays who got killed or at least beaten up simply because people think they are gay. It's really not just about whether to 'act' on it.

    Same-sex marital relationships, like heterosexual ones, can go without sex as well.

  • #113
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by jptexas View Post
    in response to "we will be without gay people". Maybe God doesn't want the world that way. He created us all the way we are, He might have his own reasons to keep things as they are. Maybe he wants to see how we treat each other. I'm thinking he's a little disappointed right now.
    There's a joke around about how gay people existed throughout history in all cultures in similar rates which is god's way of telling people that he wants them around.
    pklongbeach likes this.

  • #114
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by pklongbeach View Post
    Yes to all. But the issue with regard to the church asking people of one orientation to abstain while encouraging the other is a form of persecution. It is one thing for a priest to take a vow of celebicy, it is anther to tell one person that their ultimate show of love and affection and intimacy to their partner is wrong but someone elses is right, is flawed and hypocritical.

    Until heterosexuals can abstain from sex except purely for procreation and in an act of minimal enjoyment to show ones intent to only use it for procreation, they are not following the words in the bible any more an a gay person.
    the truth is, if you believe in God, than you probably beleive that God made sex enjoyable for multiple reasons. And many of those reasons are equal to any person, and are not limited only to straight people.
    Sex is used very often as a bond and commitment to your partner. It governs your intentions to stay commited to that person. Sex is a necessary physical experience. It is healthy. IT is using the body for what it was intended for.
    To suggest that some can, but others are considered sinners and are "not allowed to", is a serious hypocricy to any ones practices of sex.

    Anyway, yes. The church will often tell you. Gay people are ok, but they are not allowed to have sex.
    The biggest problem I have with that is the assumption that they know what someone is doing behind closed doors.
    I don't know what they do, and they don't know what I do. Therefore, to suggest they can mandate Gods desire for both parties is just wrong.

    I can just as easily assume that someone is "having sinful sex" behind their closed door, as they can of me.

    I think the newest pope got it right; He suggests the church is spending way too much time on arugments that are simply not neccessary to encouraging the growth of Gods will for us all.

    Gay people do amazing things for Christ and for Churches all over the world. God knows this, and the church knows this.
    To be fair, the church encourages everybody to abstain from sex, with the exception of mormonism on married couples.

    Which is a reason why people, especially good catholic boys and girls, would try to come up with different 'levels' of sex, and doesn't count one as sex so that they didn't have pre-marital sex.

  • #115
    Obsessed Carrie Fan
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    CA/Texan By Birth
    Posts
    1,652
    Concert Stars
    I think the point really is simple...love the sinner, hate the sin.

    "We all fall short of the Glory of God." We are all sinners, our sins are different from each other...but no less a sin.

  • #116
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Quote Originally Posted by oldyfan View Post
    I think the point really is simple...love the sinner, hate the sin.

    "We all fall short of the Glory of God." We are all sinners, our sins are different from each other...but no less a sin.
    I think the point really is simple...You don't get to judge who's sinned and who hasn't. But then, sin is a human fabricated concept...

  • #117
    Obsessed Carrie Fan
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    CA/Texan By Birth
    Posts
    1,652
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by clh_hilary View Post
    I think the point really is simple...You don't get to judge who's sinned and who hasn't. But then, sin is a human fabricated concept...
    I actually have no idea who has sinned, however unlike you I don't believe it is a "human fabricated concept." I do believe that tolerance should be given to each individual. Regardless if I believe differently than someone else their views are no less important than mine...

  • #118
    Carrie Guru allamericangirl8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SoCal.
    Posts
    14,430
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by pklongbeach View Post
    Life will be more boring for sure!!!!!!! But at least those people will not be percecuted anymore.
    See, I suppose in a utopia of sorts, we could keep the gays, eliminate the persecution, AND keep life interesting all at once! Boring people should not be allowed to ruin the party. Hilary kinda echoed my thoughts -- being gay should be looked at the way being left-handed is. Ideally. Of course, ideally, there wouldn't be sexism or racism either.

    I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I don't find the prospect of genetic engineering quite as exciting as you do (well, except I do in the sense that I'd wet myself learning about the science and technology behind it). Perhaps taking the homosexuality out of the equation, you'd be turning into a bite-sized Hitler dictating over your children. "You will be brown-haired, golden-eyed, and olive-skinned. Heil hither, b!tches." Hitler was always really just Frankenstein-lite. On the upside, it would be extremely useful in preventing disorders and birth defects (finally a way to wipe out Huntington's). And it would be easier to explain to your children where they came from ("Oh, you know, that old factory in Lot B a couple blocks away. You remember. You came with us to pick out your little sister."). Much more believable than the stork.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farawayhills View Post
    No, I don't think you're derailing the thread by bringing in the issue of rights.

    With regard to the point you raise about "born that way" or "choose to be that way", it's possible to argue, from a moral standpoint, that people don't choose the orientation, but do choose whether or not to act on it (and some of the faith-based arguments use that distinction - i.e, that the practice is regarded as sinful. that people are born with an inclination to sin, and that, with God's Grace, they can strive against it. With regard to sexual morality, that would apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals).

    However, regardless of that religious argument, rights are central to the political issue.
    The "Rights of Man" are most strongly associated with Tom Paine, who is close to the heart of Sussex people like myself, since his house is still here. He worked as a excise officer in Lewes, the County Seat, about ten miles from where I live, and wrote several of his pamphlets there. A Festival is held in his honour in Lewes every year
    (What's less widely known, though is that the phrase "Rights of Man" wasn't first used by him, but by Thomas Spence, another C18 radical, who put up a poem on the wall of a cave in the North Country.)

    Both men were developing ideas that go back to John Locke and radical ideas in the Civil War era.
    In his "Essay on Human Understanding", Locke wrote:
    "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".

    These ideas were very influential on the American colonists in their struggle for Independence. The Virginia Declaration included this clause:
    "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"
    Thomas Jefferson, in turn, included this statement in his Independence draft:
    "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"

    Why this is relevant to the issue, in my view, would proceed along these lines:
    Firstly, if the "Rights of Man" are to be acknowledged as equal, they must, by definition, apply to all rational adult citizens, who are not using force, fraud or abuse, and not just to persons of one orientation
    Secondly, if they include the pursuit of happiness (as these writers have contended), it's difficult to argue that they should exclude marriage, which is usually held as one of society's ideal hopes for happiness
    Thirdly, if they are considered inalienable, then the views of particular churches or moralists should not override these rights in the public or legal sphere (notwithstanding those churches' continuing right to teach and practise in accordance with their beliefs in their private membership sphere).
    We can always count on you to clock us with a thorough post. It's true, though: strictly sticking to the words of our founding fathers, this should not even be an issue. It's strange to me, though, that oftentimes the people who cling to these words so much are the ones that aren't in favor of gay rights. Of course, everyone cherry-picks, I guess.

    Edit: If you read my post in a British accent, it's because I'd just read Faraway's post in a British accent and now my inner reading voice has a British accent.
    clh_hilary, Cps235 and pklongbeach like this.

  • #119
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,741
    Everybody claims to stick to the words of the founding fathers, but hardly anyone actually quotes any word from them. The only thing I read about 'following the founding fathers' is that they were all christians (that's not true), and that America is a christian country (not true either).
    allamericangirl8 and Cps235 like this.

  • #120
    Carrie Guru pklongbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Long Beach, California
    Posts
    18,886
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by clh_hilary View Post
    I think the point really is simple...You don't get to judge who's sinned and who hasn't. But then, sin is a human fabricated concept...
    The hebrew translation of the word "sin" is to "Fall short of the mark".

    The word sin can be related to any area of a persons life where they strive for perfection and fail.

    It has become a word of damnation to be used as a stone to throw.
    But really, in its literal translation, it turns out we all do sin. Everyday.

    But of course this assumes you subscribe to the concepts of the bible and of sin.
    IF you do, than you are a sinner period and literally, and have no right to suggest someone else is a sinner and is going to hell. No one knows whos going to this so-called hell cause in the new testement Jesus gives every person a right to redemption even in the last seconds of life, While hanging on the Cross.

    But if you do not subscribe to a concept of sin, which many people do not, than you are blameless and are just trying hard to do the right thing in life. Good Karma.

    Either way, in either circumstance, no one as a right to ssugest or assume anyone is going anywhere.

    "From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

    Instead of telling people they are going to hell, christians could be spending their time telling people about the wonderful joys of their faith.

    Most, because they are sinners themselves, would rather just condemn you.
    Thats why "we all fall short"!!!


  •  
    Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 2
      Last Post: 09-19-2013, 11:10 PM
    2. Replies: 0
      Last Post: 05-11-2013, 04:55 AM
    3. The Eagle to marry a couple before Carrie Underwood's Wednesday show
      By CarrieUK in forum Carrie Underwood Times
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: 10-09-2012, 01:56 PM
    4. Replies: 3
      Last Post: 04-17-2012, 04:45 PM
    5. Replies: 9
      Last Post: 02-08-2012, 12:56 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •