How is the government any different than we are individually? If we owe money all we need to do is make the minimum payment each month and our credit stays intact. Some months we can pay more but all that is required is the minimum payment. Make the minimum payment until things work out and shut up. The doom and gloom can be put off for another fifty years just like it has been for the past fifty years, it's the American way. Now go buy some more crap from China that you don't need or really want and then get some Oliver's Candy from Batavia that you not only really want but really, really need, and some Ice Cream and beer and cigarettes.
We have fought two wars (one of which was unnecessary, but that's water under the bridge) and brought the economy back from the brink of death and put it all on our national credit card.
And all the while, the dumbass republicans in congress have given tax cuts to everyone. And we're better off how?
Guess what??? If you don't have enough coming in, you can't pay all the bills. I know that's a shocker, but those folks don't seem to realize that.
They don't have the balls to do what actually needs to be done. We (and by we I mean the 'Royal' we) need more income. We can get more income by raising taxes, but nobody wants to hear that.
There is already a historical precedent for an income tax surcharge. LBJ did it in 1968 to pay for Vietnam.
I'm not necessarily saying that an income tax surcharge is the solution to this problem, but for sure, spending cuts will not get us to the point where the federal deficit can approach zero.
Some tax increases are necessary. It's time people realize it.
I'm curious about the people who voted "very." I agree with George. As homeownerns, car owners, household goods owners, college students and credit card holders, we all use credit, often carrying many times more debt than what we bring in over a year's time. When the economy improves and there is a bigger tax base, the national debt will improve. Add to that, getting out of the Middle East wars. And make the upper 2% pay more taxes. And Dave; I agree with you, too.
Dave, well said. There comes a point where you have to increase your take home pay to cover the costs of living above your means. All this talk about cuts without any thought of a tax increase is just playing up to the crowd. Those wars and bailouts cost a fortune, now its time to pay up.
Janice, I'd like to agree with you, but our national debt isn't just about borrowing and spending. It's also tied to the value of our dollar. A college loan doesn't have an effect on the global currency market...
Dave, you said:
"We can get more income by raising taxes, but nobody wants to hear that.
Some tax increases are necessary. It's time people realize it."
I believe there are two ways to balance a budget: increase your income OR decrease your spending. I believe that it is time the government practices the latter. You and many others believe it is the former. Here is a bi-partisan solution: Let the right institute some spending controls and cuts, then...and here is the kicker, those who believe we can tax our way to a balanced budget simply send extra money to the government. Contrary to popular belief, every American is entitled to send money directly to the government to reduce the debt. There are some 63 million people who voted for Obama that are of the same belief and many more who didn't bother to vote but feel the same way. Numerous individuals and organizations (Hollywood elites, Michael Moore, SEIU, etc.) have A LOT of money. If all of these tax and spenders ponied up some extra $$$ voluntarily along with some future fiscal restraint, we would be well on our way to balancing the budget.
There you go, bi-partisan solution. If you feel that strongly about the power of taxation to reduce debt, get out your checkbook and help out Uncle Sam.
If I gave the impression that I don't believe that the federal government shouldn't cut spending, nothing could be further from the truth.
I am in favor of "smart" spending on social programs that benefit the largest sector of the population.
All the recent talk about the waste in the medicare program is a good example of cutting spending by cutting waste and fraud in that program. Unfortunately that elephant is so big it's questionable whether it can learn to dance, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Also, the pentagon is another example where waste is rampant. Again, I'm not advocating weakening national defense, but let's be sensible. I doubt there is anyone who would say that all pentagon spending is warranted.
That still doesn't address the issue of additional taxation to reduce debt. I have yet to run across anyone from that camp who will voluntarily step up and send extra money to the government. It is legal, direct, and can be done each year right on your tax return. I am still looking for one person who on believes strongly enough in the principle to actually commit their own money to it.
Correct the trade imbalance, and you create jobs. Jobs increase revenue.
Further, Tariff's should be used to correct China's currency manipulation, which adds to the deficit.
But we still need to cut spending, which neither party is serious about.
Look at this last special election. The candidates from each of the major parties spoke in platitudes about reducing spending. Outside of Hochul saying foreign aid to countries such as Pakistan should be shifted to fixing U.S. roads, neither offered specifics. When asked by The Batavian for specifics, the question was dodged. Asked about eliminating such wasteful and unnecessary departments at the U.S. Department of Education, no candidate was willing to make that commitment. Both major party candidates support our overseas deployments, which costs $600 billion a year.
When is the last time you heard a major party politician -- outside of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich (who unfortunately will soon be redistricted out of politics) -- put forward the kind of serious and specific proposals that will actually reduce spending? Even Paul Ryan's plan is more about playing politics with the deficit than actually getting serious about balancing the budget.
Folks, our so-called leaders are failing us and we're letting it happen.
If I were in debt up to my eyeballs, I would cut everything I could, then I would get a second job to earn some extra money to pay down the debt. That’s what most people would do, that’s what your government should do as well.
The idea that you can spend more and take in less was a Bush idea that got us in the mess we are in. The fact is Bush left our economy in shambles with his over the top military spending. Then he ran out of town leaving Obama to deal with the bailouts he started.
Its time for all of us to pay our fair share of the burden. If you can’t pay your share, get a job or even a second to pay your taxes. We can’t leave this mess to our grandchildren and these right wing tax-cutting pipe dreams don’t work, they just drive us deeper into debt. Everything needs to be cut and taxes need to be raised on everyone.
Tariff is a fancy way of saying taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
The problem with tariffs is that the cost will be passed on to the consumer much like raising taxes but it sounds a lot better if you think it will cost another country to sell us items we want and/or need. If it was that simple then I believe this would have been done along time ago. This will not magically bring jobs back to America it will just raise prices for consumers.
The manipulation of China's currency has been ignored by the WMO for too long and since China owns so much of our debt now it would be almost impossible to have any leverage to make them play fair. It's too late with China we owe too much.
How about getting All the American Companies to hire Americans and produce goods here ? That used to happen what went wrong ? Companies want more money, workers want more pay, quality went downhill, and nobody wanted that expensive crap. "Buy American" is a big fat joke. The new slogan should be "Buy like a big fat American". When China calls in their loans to America all we need to do is start a war with them. We can always afford a nice war.
Charlie,
When Frank Ferrando and company put the City of Batavia into deep, deep, debt, you and a new City Council majority raised taxes on property, water and sewer service, but also slashed spending. We consolidated police dispatch, cut jobs and ended the City ambulance service. The City is in the black again.
The Federal government can do the same, if it wanted to.
I agree with ending free trade. More drastic measures need to take place like banning certain products produced elsewhere. I guess my point is finding a better way to bring jobs back here without relying on tariffs alone.
"You would think somebody would ask what it is that attracts young people to what I have to say, but nobody in the Republican Party has ever asked me that." -- Ron Paul.
Rabid nationalism?? So many Americans don't pay enough attention to the state of the world to generate rabid anything, save a rabid appetite for garbage food, drink, and entertainment. Are we too entitled to endure austere changes like our European brothers? Can we not tolerate a return to basics like our neighbors? How are we to prevail if we strive to maintain our shallow and selfish reputation by borrowing to consume with abandon? Work, if you can. Produce, if you are able. Have some pride in yourself, and sleep better knowing that scheming for handouts, while part of our past, can be struck from our future.
An aside (although it's somewhat off topic) the next generation of Republicans are going to be more libertarian leaning than their predecessors. I know because I've seen it. At Canisius the majority of the College Republican Executive Board voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and so did the majority of it's membership (we were all friends). They are also more moderate, and like the upcoming generation of Democrats, are more interested in pragmatism and negotiation rather than rigid and almost religious like adherence to an ideology (I've seen this too). The endless and ridiculous debates on social issues that have zero real impact on the country (like gay marriage) will be finished and the conversation will be on fiscal issues and overall government philosophy, where it belongs.
I also believe that the issue of abortion will be brought to were it belongs, the states, and out of the hands of the federal government.
I've employed a half dozen or so young techies in my previous jobs -- all of them Ron Paul adherents. He has an especial appeal to young people raised online.
Back in 1995, when I saw how the internet culture was forming and what its ideals were, I predicted the eventual triumph of libertarianism.
It's taken longer than I thought. I expected people -- foolishly perhaps -- to adapt the net culture as they signed on. Sadly, after 9-11 especially, later adopters of the online world, stuck to their partisan corners.
The ethos of the internet circa 1995 is now drowned out by the partisan bickering and posturing of Daily Kos and FreeRepublic.
But the more net native crowd still retains a lot of that libertarian ethos -- live and let live -- that was so prevalent in the early days.
I still have hope of a libertarian triumph, maybe not in time to see Ron Paul become president, but there will be a libertarian in the White House before I die.
I still need to buy this book by my friends Nick and Matt:
The solution to the National Debt will almost always be buried under election year news cycles.
Without support (or pressure) from the general public, politicians will not move forward to make changes needed.
If an issue needs to be avoided, simply swing attention away from it, turn up the volume and apply heat.
BTW, congrats Kathy Hochul (...and by "congrats" I mean "nice job DNC" you must have read my blog).
A part of the solution will be "regular" folks becoming involved in the political process.
Lets look in the mirror at ourselves and stop turning away from our issues, turn up the volume locally first, and apply some heat to bend the future we have laid out for our children...
Howard - I do not see anything inherently wrong with having a majority progressive or conservative POV. I do see something wrong with saying that you have to stick to an ideology up and down the board without compromise. I do not believe in ideologies, I do have values that I stick too, but more than anything I believe in solutions. That's what I think the young and upcoming Democratic and Republican politicians, campaign advisers and political staffers are trending towards.
Any practical solutions will end in government devolving to the local level and smaller federal and state governments. The current system is not sustainable. That's not ideological, just common sense.
To add to Mr. Guiste's comment "A part of the solution will be "regular" folks becoming involved in the political process." This has been bugging the hell out of me for a week. In Genesee County we had a 25% voter turnout for a special election. That is absolutely unsatisfactory. And people are saying how great it was!! Voting is not a right or a privilege, it is a RESPONSIBILITY and 75% of registered GC voters shirked theirs. This is the reason a small minority of the population controls the majority. How bad does it have to get? Most people identify themselves as moderate, so if say 70 -80% of the people (I recognize 100% is not realistic) would actually take the time to go to their polling place, sign a book and color in a dot and feed a sheet of paper into a scanner, there wouldn't be as much partisanship in Albany or Washington. They would also elect more libertarians. The reality is that low turnouts have given us representatives that are political operatives, voted in by partisans, caring more about staying in office than doing what they're supposed to do. Congress has relentlessly allowed the executive branch to take more and more liberties and set precedent for more and more unconstitutional abuses of power. We need a revolution, it can easily be done by raising the voter turnout, and not voting for ANY incumbents.
For the record, I voted "Somewht concerned". debt in and of itself isn't all that bad, it's the management of it. In the federal government's case it's the total absence of management that concerns me. There has to be a re-payment plan. Raising taxes will only encourage more of the same. We (the USA) have a spending problem. Common sense is needed and sending the same representatives back to Albany and Washington won't cure it. They're like cheating spouses who promise to change if you take them back.
Daniel said "The endless and ridiculous debates on social issues that have zero real impact on the country (like gay marriage) will be finished and the conversation will be on fiscal issues and overall government philosophy, where it belongs.
I also believe that the issue of abortion will be brought to were it belongs, the states, and out of the hands of the federal government."
Yes, when we finally abandon the distraction of morality, America will at last be on it's intended path to greatness.
"Our preoccupation with partisan bickering over spurious arguments provides the perfect cover for politicians." Ms. JoAnne Rock, The Batavian; May 25, 2011
I don't intend to impose my morality on anybody. There is no Jeff Allen code of morality. I choose to follow the morality that God clearly defines in His word. Marriage is not an institution created by government, it is an institution created by God that government adopted. Until God changes the definition of marriage, government does not have the authority to.
Jeff, imposing your religious beliefs or using them to stand on high and look down on those who disagree is even worse. Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples.
"Until God changes the definition of marriage, government does not have the authority to."
Which is the perfect argument for why marriage is none of the government's business.
The civicl contract between two people that impacts how assets are divided, inheritance handled, insurance paid, etc. needs to be recorded in a proper legal manner. But marriage, none of the government's business.
The only reason "my interpretation" of God's word is under dispute is because too few people actually read it in it's entirety. They pick verses out of context and create foundational doctrines on them. I am not imposing any religious beliefs on anybody. Marriage is an institution created by God, defined clearly by God in His word. That is an indisputable fact unless you have revelation beyond His word. I also believe that EVERY human being is created in God's image, that does not mean that every human being acts in accordance with His will.
Bingo Howard, I'm glad you said that. If government insists on redefining marriage to something that does not resemble the foundations of the institution, then don't call it marriage. If two people want to enter into a civil contract that determines the outcome of their estate, their finances, beneficiaries, etc. then there is no legal basis to deny it, but don't call it marriage.
Jeff, so being gay is a choice and not how someone is born? How do you know? Do you have any understanding of how many gay people you come in contact with on a daily basis? Everyone has gay relatives, friends and co-workers. I bet they even attend your church. You don’t truly believe that all gay people a perverted? Is committing to another person for life the act of a pervert?
Chris, I don't think Jeff needs to accept it as marriage. If Larry and Bruce think they're married, and the people around them think of them as a married couple, does it really matter whether Jeff or members of his congregation accept Bruce and Larry as married or not?
Part of living in a pluralistic , tolerant society is allowing for dissenting views.
I see no reason to coerce deeply religious people to accept views they find distasteful, so long as those who dissent don't try to use force to get the rest of us to abide by their viewpoints.
For some reason, this conversation made me think of this.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eD52OlkKfNs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eD52OlkKfNs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
Howard, as long as marriage is recognized legally, it needs to be offered to all citizens on an equal basis. The only argument against gay marriage is a religious one and I take exception to the fact that the subjective views of a religion are able to hold any sway over non-adherents' legal standing.
There are two solutions to the problem as I see it:
The government stops issuing marriage licenses altogether and accepts any marriage performed by a recognized religious or civil authority as a legally binding 'marriage' contract.
The government tacitly recognizes marriage between homosexual and heterosexual people as equal under the eyes of the law and continues to issue marriage licenses.
Either way, equality is achieved and Jeff can sit at his house and grumble about it while the world continues to turn.
Bea, I remember that well and an excellent point. People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination.
Jeff - Civil marriage was not made law in New York until well into the 1800s, before then it was all common law marriage. Civil marriage was invented to protect property owners and was not religious in its foundation. No one is talking about making churches do anything, either, to me the real marriage is a spiritual union between two people before almighty God. The official documentation is simply a contract between two people regarding their assets and financial interests, why shouldn't two consenting adults be allowed to enter into a contract regarding their assets and interests?
Furthermore, Christianity as a whole is to be spread by individuals, not nations. While we should acknowledge the Judeo-Christian roots that run deep in our national history, we should also make sure that we are a government for all Americans, straight or gay.
Chris: if a church under the name of Christ performs a gay marriage that church is apostate.
Charlie: Homosexuality is a choice, countless numbers have chosen to participate in it, and countless numbers have chosen to walk away from it. I have gay friends(ones I would even consider close friends), co-workers, and have attended church with homosexuals. They know what I believe and we love each other just the same.
Bea: President Bartlett was correct in pointing out that the Old Testament is full of laws that we are no longer under, but what he doesn't address is that under New Testament Grace, homosexuality is still not condoned. While some laws have passed away, others have not. I must admit his calling out the "Dr." by the ignorant tight-ass club and her not standing for the President was classic.
Chris again: I won't sit at my house and grumble. I don't and never will hide from my beliefs or convictions
Charlie again: I have not picked and chosen scriptures to fit my morality, God has nowhere in scripture condoned homosexuality, find it for me and I will repent of my error.
Where the mainstream church has gone wrong is by elevating homosexuality to some sort of mega-sin or unpardonable sin. It is neither. Misguided televangelists such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others (I risk losing some of my church friends here) have made remarks about God' judgement on the US through terror or disaster because of homosexuality. They were flat out wrong and it only serves to increase the divide between people. Jesus died for all, he loves every human being past, present, and future so much so that he offered himself a living sacrifice that all may be saved. I'm sure Jesus spent time with homosexuals while he walked the earth and loved and cared for them as deeply as his own disciples. What he would not have done is put his seal of approval on their lifestyle.
Jeff, there is no viable reason to discriminate against your fellow man. Your argument that God tells you to do it, is no more valid than Islamic murders recieving 72 virgins upon martyrdom.
Charlie, I am not making this stuff up, it is clear, it is descript, it is without grey area. I have not once claimed that God has told me anything. I simply have read the Bible cover to cover numerous times, it hasn't changed and no matter what version I read, the message remains the same. Now if you are willing to put the teachings of Mohammed and God on equal footing, then that is up to you. Show me anywhere in my posts that I have discriminated against anyone. I have posted both my opinion and facts backed by scripture, clear facts, open to interpretation.
Chris wrote, "... as long as marriage is recognized legally ... "
But exactly what I'm saying is stop recognizing it legally.
The government's only concern, as part of the social compact, is who is entitled to what property and material claims. The spiritual aspect of it -- to including aspects such as "love, honor and cherish" and "to death do part" etc. -- are matters of private belief and private fulfillment and are none of the government's business.
Stop marriage as a legally recognized institution. Marriage is either a religious institution or an act between two private people and the community they choose to share it with. It should be beyond the government's scope of concern.
Jeff, are you a fan of Chuck Colson at all? Ever read his book, "The Body"? I did a decade or more ago and it had a profound impact on how I understand some issues related to this discussion.
About the same time I read Stephen Carter's "The Culture of Disbelief," which also had a profound impact on how I view these issues.
Jeff, I don’t want to get hung up on the word. If you believe “Marriage” is a religious word or institution and would rather the term civil union or something else, I’m not going to argue that point. If I give that ground, then you also have to agree that our government then can no longer issue “Marriage” certificates to anyone. We live in a nation that cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. Therefore, government could not be involved in anything other than civil unions regardless of the orientation of the couple.
I think I should be allowed to marry all the members of the Swedish bikini team. There, how's that for an argument? What does everybody think about that?
Howard, I have not read that book. On a side note, I was hoping to see you at the Batavia Business and Professional Women's Club Awards Banquet. They said they sent you a press release. My daughter received a scholarship from them tonight, very proud of her.
Polygamy is recognized under civil law in the following countries:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burkina , Faso, Cameroon, Chad, CAR ,Comoros, Congo, Djibouti Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, , Western, Sahara, Yemen and Zambia
Are you saying that these Countries….these cultures…these people are stupid?
Richard, people should be allowed marry their dog and their cat for all I care. As long as their of the opposite sex of course. Multiple partner homosexual inter-species relationships should be not be allowed. That's Immoral...
Marriage and civil union should be two, distinctly different agreements. Civil unions should be legal agreements for the purpose of legitimizing any contract or legal protocol such as insurance, inheritance, parental rights, etc. Marriage should be executed within the authority of a religious organization. Anyone desiring a religiously sanctioned union AND a legal union must fulfill the requirements of BOTH.
"Chris: if a church under the name of Christ performs a gay marriage that church is apostate"
Jeff, that's your church imposing its morality. See how that works. I don't know what religion you belong to, and I don't care, because your religion has absolutely no business dictating anything to a secular government. Or are you implying that Jewish or Muslim marriages aren't valid because they're not performed in the name of Christ?
What if the Unified Church of Secular Humanism (get it) performs a marriage? Would that be alright with you or do we need to consult the bible that they don't believe in?
I don't care if there's a religious sect out there that worships puppies and hates kittens, they should have no sway over the issuance of dog licenses and the outlawing of cat ownership.
If your argument is a semantic one e.g. gay people shouldn't be allowed to be 'married' I'd say tough bananas, religion doesn't own the word.
Rick - Polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. A marriage is a 50/50 unification of assets (as far as the government is concerned) and therefore, gender can be arbitrary so long as they are both consenting adults.
The slippery slopers once told us that union organizing would directly lead to communism. We still have a free market. Slippery slope arguments are specious at best.
Jeff - Jesus did not intend for his message to be incorporated into national law. The teachings of Jesus are geared towards individuals and not the government. As a Christian, I believe that had Jesus wanted the teachings of God's words woven into government policy he would have said so.
“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36
There are many religions in the US, but Christianity is the major one, and as a result, the rules and laws in the past have been written to support its views.
Times have changed and other religious views are now taken into consideration more than in the past. There is also a substantial atheist population.
I agree with CM on this, there should be a distinction between "marriage" and civil unions.
But Richard also has a valid point; if you support gay marriage, you would have to support homo/hetero sexual polygamy also.
Richard, so, I guess you are looking for a serious answer?
I truly could careless what consenting adults want to do. I refuse to impose my idea of mortality on anyone. If people's religious beliefs demand polygamy, more power to them and their 20 kids.
The cool thing -- here we are discussing a very sensitive topic ... sex, religion and politics all in one thread, with no rancor, but with mutual respect.
Rick - No, because you cannot fairly split assets 3 ways. I do not think plural marriage will become an issue primarly because of divorce, without prenuptual agreement, what happens when one wife/husband leaves the marriage? We made gender and race arbitrary in voting, has anyone gotten more than one vote as a result? I say no.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as usual. :)
FWIW, I agree with Howard, CM and John. Get government hands off of a social institution. That being said, until that happens, I support allowing two consenting adults of the same sex to obtain a marriage license.
Of course we can agree to disagree; if you don’t want to discuss it further.
However, assets can easily be split equally and fairly three different ways.
Settling an estate can be just a contentious as a divorce; especially when there are three or more interested parties and the Will states everything must be divided equally.
I have great confidence that our finest minds; our Politicians in Washington; all much smarter than you and I will find a way to write laws to include three way or more perpetual agreements, particularly if there is a way to tax it and/or collect a surcharge.
I think I have made my stand pretty clear on these issues and yet we continue on the path of my "imposing my views" on people. The stand I take comes directly from scripture, if you want to get angry at someone, get angry at God, He wrote the words. They are clear, they are indisputable. People change, their attitudes change, their goals change, their feelings change, their directions change, but God and His word never change.
I have never expressed hatred toward a homosexual or those who vociferously feel they have to defend the lifestyle. The only people who have expressed anger at me on these issues are Heterosexual people who seem to be bigoted against fundamental Christianity and feel the need to mock it. I have gay friends who I know beyond a shadow of a doubt would step in front of a bus for me and I them. I don't get mockery from them, I get unconditional friendship and I cherish it.
Not all fundamental Christians are homosexual hating gay bashers, and not all gay people are fundamental Christian hating religion bashers.
If anyone feels that strongly about what I've stated concerning homosexuality, marriage, and God, don't get upset with me pick up a copy of His word, read it cover to cover then have a conversation with Him about anything you may dispute in it. He is a great listener, always available, always consistent, and never condemns anyone for asking a tough question.
Jeff, God can't be blamed for your interpretation of his words. God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created. Only man with all his faults could do that.
How could you call someone a friend, then not truly accept them?
You also can't discriminate against another person, then play the victim.
Dave, outside of his religious stand regarding homosexuality, Jeff isn't really far off from what we're saying. There's more agreement than some of the conversation might indicate.
Well, Jeff, I guess that's the problem. What your God says about things doesn't really matter to me. That's not meant as disrespect to your religion, I'm only saying that your religion, or anyone else's for that matter, doesn't get to tell everyone what's right and wrong, what's normal and what's not etc...
That's why I think that people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage can remain religiously opposed to gay marriage after it's legalized. No one is trying to change your church, but your church doesn't rule the land.
I don't think anyone should be imposing their views on other people. Whether it be under the guise of religion or under the guise of a tolerance view point.
Chris, you're absolutely correct that Jeff is entitled to oppose "gay marriage" based on his religious beliefs. At the same time you are entitled to your beliefs that "gay marriage" should be recognized by law. As for me I'm a rule of law kind of guy. I think same sex civil unions should be allowed and recognized by the government. They will afford the same sex couple the same exact legal benefits that opposite sex couples enjoy. Same sex couple should be allowed to take from the estate of their deceased partner for intestate succession purposes, as well as visiting their partners in the hospital, or for tax benefits and any other benefits that opposite sex couples might enjoy. I think that is the big change that most people are going for. However, there are some people that are stuck on having the word "marriage" associated with the fight for equal rights for same sex couples. The word "marriage" is a religious sacrament. As such I think by pushing to have the word associated with same sex couples is actually an effort of some to impose their views on many. This is where I have a problem.
Further, all the government does (with regard to its role in the 'marriage business') is certify a marriage as a contract - or, civil union - with a marriage license. Whether you were "married" in a church or in your backyard by a Justice of the Peace doesn't stop anyone from calling it a marriage. Same-sex couples simply want the government to expand eligibility for marriage licenses (civil unions) to them. Why should we not then similarly refer to a same-sex civil union as a marriage?
"Further, all the government does (with regard to its role in the 'marriage business') is certify a marriage as a contract - or, civil union - with a marriage license. Whether you were "married" in a church or in your backyard by a Justice of the Peace doesn't stop anyone from calling it a marriage. Same-sex couples simply want the government to expand eligibility for marriage licenses (civil unions) to them. Why should we not then similarly refer to a same-sex civil union as a marriage?"
I've always found the semantic argument to be the most disingenuous of all the anti-gay marriage sentiments. I wasn't married in a church, but I was definitely married. Ask my ex-wife, she had to put up with me for five years. :)
There is nothing disingenuous about my position on Gay marriage Chris.(that is your self righteous tolerance view point coming out.) I'm for it. But I'm against ALL people forcing their views on others. Regardless if they are gay, straight, religious, atheist, or what have you.
Marriage is marriage. I didn't marry my wife in a church, but I was married. When gay marriage finally happens it may as well be called marriage. That's my argument. The semantic argument has always seemed to me to be the last gasp of intolerance, but if the end result of decades of argument is full and equal rights for all citizens minus the ability to use a certain word to describe those rights well, I could learn to live with it, trust me.
I'm not sure if folks in the LGBT community would be completely satisfied though.
Charlie, you have made several definitive statements concerning God:
"God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created"
"People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination."
"Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples."
This would indicate that you are confident in knowing what God intends when it comes to the issue of Homosexuality and you also seem to be able to see when people are not using exegesis when quoting scripture.
Since God has communicated to man through only one book, and He has never talked directly to me, perhaps he has talked to you, defend your position on homosexuality and/or gay marriage using scripture alone. That is the only way to determine what God would or would not approve of.
Jeff, that's my point. Everyone in this world has their own religious beliefs.
(I don't think it's clear to you, that I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.)
You can believe anything you want. Your church has the right to create any internal rules it wishes. Not for one minute would I debate your church's right to marry who they chose.
The problem comes in when you try to dictate law for the rest of us base on your church's rules. Just because your church won't allow gay people to marry, you have no right to restrict that right for non members of your church. Your interpretation of religion is far different than mine and I don't want to live under your rules because I conceder at least one to be a grave sin.
Charlie, if you don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, then on what do you base these 4 statements:
"God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created"
"People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination."
"Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples."
This is not about "my church", I have never identified my faith nor my church, I have only referenced the Bible. What one of my "rules" do you consider a grave sin and on what do you base that belief? Grave sin is a serious charge and must have it's foundation somewhere.
At some point you have to back up your statements
Charlie, if you don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, then on what do you base these 4 statements:
"God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created"
"People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination."
"Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples."
This is not about "my church", I have never identified my faith nor my church, I have only referenced the Bible. What one of my "rules" do you consider a grave sin and on what do you base that belief? Grave sin is a serious charge and must have it's foundation somewhere.
At some point you have to back up your statements, and that doesn't apply to just you Charlie, others have claimed to know God's position on Homosexuality and/or gay marriage, but no one has of yet produced any evidence. And I am the one being accused of arguing only "my opinion".
Jeff, you still don't get my point. It's right in front of you. Your religious beliefs are yours alone. They need no justification, neither do mine. You have no right to empose them on others.
Charlie, you don't get the point you made definitive statements about the nature of God, on what do you base them? I'm not imposing anything on anyone, I am stating what the Bible says. You challenged my knowledge of God's nature with direct statements of your own. I can back up my assertions, I am only asking you to do the same.
Charlie, I disagree that Jeff has no right to restrict marriage. As a voter Jeff has every bit as much right to determine this governemt's rules regarding marriage as he has the right to restrict which drugs are legal or what restrictions to be placed on firearms. The trick is, he needs to be in the voting majority.
Is the will of the majority just? That is another question altogether.
Jeff, we are not debating religious beliefs. You explained your beliefs, I did the same. I don't hold your interpretation of passages in a 2000 year old religious book as validation for discrimination, stoning or any number of things that are not part of our society anymore.
Regardless of your beliefs, you have no right to impose then.
If you can't back up the statements, then I am only wrong in your opinion. And no you did not explain your beliefs, you just made statements about what God does or never does, and don't back them up with anything.
-I accept everybody.
-I don't hide behind anything.
-I wasn't asking you to back up faith, I was asking you to back up your statements.
-welcome, if there is anything I can do to help in your "conversion", let me know
I liked this one better, it had subtitles. She can't seriously be thinking of running for POTUS, can she?
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v8insI0Ab9I?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v8insI0Ab9I?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
Religious beliefs have nothing to do with this debate, church and state are supposed to be separate.
If 2 people feel they want to spend the rest of their lives together, that should be their business, not the churches, or the states.
Yeah, those local Boston reporters are meaner than Katie Couric. How dare they ask a question of Palin that every second grader in America could answer!
Palin is far and away the most slow-witted person to ever run for the Executive branch. Please, Republicans nominate her. I'm looking forward to the debates.
Jeff, you may find others who are ignorant, under-informed or mistaken, but comparisons do not alter the fact that Sarah Palin is a moron, whose 15 minutes in the limelight (and political momentum) has been artificially extended by corporate media (who recognize a bargain when they see it). She ranks with ventriloquists, dog acts and kiddie-party clowns. ...More in common with the clown; others may drop an occasional gaff or inaccuracy, but Sarah is a fountain of half-baked, improvised dimwittery.
Sarah Palin is likely trapped in a "Groundhog Day" scenario that initiated in 1984 when she was runner-up for "Miss Alaska."
C.M. I would expect better of you then to post an old, debunked, photo-shopped picture of Palin to perpetuate the lengths the left will go to vilify this woman. I have said in the past that I am not one who is on the Palin for President band wagon, but I really find it fascinating how she can single-handedly leads the media around like they are her lapdogs. She has the media tripping over themselves trying to follow her simply because she got a bus painted a flag on it and is driving around the country refusing to give the press her itinerary.
And please don't put Obama's gaffes in the "occassional" category. Just because the media doesn't play them over, and over, and over, and over, like they did with Bush, doesn't mean they're not piling up like cordwood. This guy is starting to make G.W. look like a scholar.
Jeff, George W. Bush is not a scholar, has never been and never will be. His butchery of English and his lack of logic and sophistication will ensure that. Irrespective of his shoulder-shimmying, inappropriate laughter and other annoying characterisitics, he is a buffoon. At least Clinton was smart.
On Nov. 27, 2008 "The American Conservative" magazine had him on the cover in caricature wearing, of course, cowboy clothes, a cowboy hat, spurs and a sheriff's badge. He's slumped on the floor looking forlorn underneath his presidential portrait. Possibly he's wondering what his legacy will be. And there's a handy checklist "Missions Accomplished" which ticks off his (de)feats:
Start a war (or two)
Shred Constitution
Crash economy
Expand entitlements
Ruin America's reputation
Create Democratic majority
Bribe churches
Recruit for al-Qaeda
Discredit conservatism
Nationalize banks
Misunderestimate hurricane
Export jobs, import workers
Federalize education
Spy on citizens
By comparision, Obama is looking not all that bad.
Obama has started a new war, in Libya, with no end in sight.
Expanded the war in Afghanistan for with no results
Has not reduced unemployment.
Did not close Gitmo
Expanded entitlements (Obama care)
Our reputation is not any better
Created a Republican House majority
Still spies on citizens
Expanded the federal debt at a rate Bush could only dream of.
Bush had 8 years to do what he did.
Obama has done this in only two.
I admit I was starry eyed about Obama when he was campaigning. I wanted to believe his beautiful words and he was very charming.
But like a lot of people, at this juncture in his presidency, the gilding has decidedly worn off for me. I am disappointed in him, even though I knew he had impossible tasks ahead of him.
His actions in Libya are exactly what he criticized Bush for doing.
For the most part, I agree with the criticism heaped upon him.
American politics are so sorry these days and the partisanship reeks. We need a hero.
With the exception of relieving the nation of whatever debacle a McCain/Palin ticket might have led to and the satisfaction resulting from election of the nation's first African American president, I am no fan of Barack Obama's executive policy. (John Roach's shopping list, though incomplete, is not off-mark.)
Despite the Palin photo's lack of authenticity, conceptually, it is accurate.
Reguardless of what you say about Obama, he's the new middle of American politics. The Republicans have purged every candidate a moderate would even concider.
On top of that, you live in a congressional district that sent shockwaves through Washington for doing the unthinkable. Giving one of the safest seats away to a Nancy Polosi loving Democrat! ( At least that's what the ads said)
The fact is Obama is a good president, who's going to get 4 more long years to torture Republicans because they were shortsighted enough to eliminate all their mainstream candidates.
Frank, while the UN has probably outlived its usefulness and is one of the more corrupt organizations around, it would not have authorized any military action without the US saying it was alright. Without our support this whole war on Libya would never have started.
Frank, I know the vote. This is the easy part to understand, if the US had said it would not participate, the whole thing would not have taken place. NATO was not able to do this without us.
They can take all the votes they want, without our bombs and missiles, carriers and support, end of story. If we end all our support today, this thing comes to an end.
C.M., the lack of authenticity of the photo makes it slander, if a derogatory photo-shopped picture of Obama were out there, they would be crying racism form the tops of the hills. Speaking of that, Obama is not our first African American President, he is our first mixed race President. To only refer to him as African American completely and unfairly disregards the white mother and grandmother who are responsible for the bulk of his upbringing by his own accounts.
Jeff, I just want to thank you for your comments. I know how very difficult it is to stand up against all these naysayers who gang up on the Biblical believers. Most of us have not read the Bible cover to cover more than once and feel inadaquate to join in, but i assure you many more agree with you than this verbal majority against you. This is a place to supposedly air your beliefs and opinions, yet the minute a Christian joins in with the Words of the Bible everyone jumps on it. Look how easy this thread went on this path against you. This day and age it is all about being politically correct. The verbal majority jump on those who are not politically correct. The Bible says what it says, I was always taught it is not meant to be interpreted. If other people or churches wish to, that is their right, but not what i was ever taught. Obviously many Churches have bowed to the changes of time and acceptance. I believe in the Bible as this is the only Word of God that I am aware of, everything else is interpretation. Just as you said, while God loves us all, he would not condone same sex marriage. He would not love the gay person any less for his mistakes. Public acceptance doesn't change God's word. What disturbs me the most about those who disagree with you is most have never even read the Bible or had any apparent teaching of it, ie: the New Covenent which is the New Testiment. This supercedes the Old Testiment. Jesus died on the cross so that we can all be cleansed of our sin. All you have to do is accept Him. Now will God forgive those who join in a civil union with someone of the same sex? I guess that is for God to deal with in His way, not up to me. Does not change what the Bible says though. Does that make me intolerant? No. While this may be my belief, I do not tell others how to live their life or ask them to change their beliefs. That is up to those on this website who disagree with my beliefs
"Biblical believers" in this case means those who chose to discriminate against their fellow man. In this "day and age" you have to respect the rights of your fellow man or your going to get called out. Too many atrocities have been committed throughout history to stand by and watch anylonger. Defense of anothers rights is righteous. Christianity isn't the victim here, it's being twisted.
You better hope my God isn't the one standing in judgement of your actions.
John, I don't believe Mr. Obama was in the political arena when the UN,and NATO, were established.
I agree, it is largely US assets carrying out most of the operations. President Obama is not responsible for whatever agreements the US has with NATO, or the UN. We need to get out of the "world police" business.
Frank, since the UN and NATO were both created decades ago, yea, Obama had nothing to do with them. But he had everything to do with allowing this new war. Many NATO countries (like Germany) are having nothing to do with this new war. This one rest squarely on Obama.
C'mon Charlie you keep indicating you know what God approves and what he doesn't approve of, or what Christianity really is yet you refuse to back it up with anything but inflammatory statements. Back it up or leave the Bible alone.
Jeff, you claim God commands us to discriminate against millions of people. That seems far fetched and offensive to me. As proof you point to passages in the bible that if read literally is riddled with other things that we all would agree would be criminal today. For instance slavery and murder for acts like working on Sunday. Why do you chose to pick discrimination of gays as legitimate but, you do not hold other passages so dear?
Or do you really believe my wife should be put to death for working today?
Jeff, slander is excessive; try caricature. Frankly, I would NOT be surprised if Palin's personal photo album didn't include similar poses. There is likely a genuine framed version of the TAC-bikini photo on the mantel in her "game" room, lodged between the shredded carcasses of two wolves shot from a helicopter with an HK MG43.
Charlie, the only people the Bible tells us to discriminate against is the unrepentant brother after he has been confronted one on one by his accuser, then by two or three and finally by the church. The only examples of this being done in the New Testament had nothing to do with homosexuality. We have already dealt with the out of context use of Levitical law you refer to, which we are no longer under. In other words, we can't derive our beliefs in God from old episodes of West Wing so therefore I am not picking and choosing verses to use against homosexuality. Dealing strictly with the New Testament here is what the Bible says about homosexuality:
In order to have the clearest understanding of scripture, it is important to read it in the context of the original language. For words that may be in question I have capitalized and included the original Greek and it’s meaning.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFIMINATE (original Greek - malakos)
1) of a catamite(see below)
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Galations 5: 14 -21 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, FORNICATION (original Greek - porneia)
1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. FOR THIS CAUSE GOD GAVE THEM UP UNTO VILE AFFECTIONS: FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENCE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH WAS MEET. AND EVEN AS THEY DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND, TO DO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT CONVENIENT Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Ephesians 5:3-7 But FORNICATION, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Colossians 3:5-7 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; FORNICATION, uncleanness, INORDINATE AFFECTION, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and GOING AFTER STRANGE FLESH, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (in this verse Jude directly references the account of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrha because of blatant homosexuality not only amongst themselves but threatened against the very angels of God)
So now if you are offended by what you've just read, don't be mad at me, be mad at God and His word, these passages are clear and without need for interpretation.
Jeff - There is nothing in those verses that indicate that a nation, not the universal church, but a nation of this world should not validate a contract between two people regarding their assets. What was being discussed here is not a marriage in a church, the discussion was about about a sealed and notorized marriage <b>license<b/> by the <b>government<b/>. You seem to be confused.
Jeff, Dan is also absolutely right. We are not discussing marriage in your church. Your church has every right to choose what ever qualifications that they would like. We are talking about our secular government.
With all the quoting of passages, this comes down to one simple fact.
Jesus NEVER said he had a problem with Gay people. No one ever heard it an it was never written.
Charlie and Dan, you have both come out and accused me of misconstruing what God says about homosexuality, I just provided New Testament evidence to back up what I say, all you to have provided is your opinion. If you are not prepared to debate the issue, don't come to the table with platitudes about what you think God says and does and nothing to back it up. This had nothing to do with "my church", this is what God says, take it or leave it. Jesus has no more problem with gay people then he does with any other person living outside His will, he has a problem with me when I am living outside His will. Charlie you insist on knowing what God and Jesus have to say but flat out refuse to provide any shred of logic behind it.
Walkers defense of homosexuality is rife with cherry picked parts of original language definitions. Any textual scholar worth his weight would pick that apart in a heartbeat. It is clear that he failed basic science in high school much as the global warmiing and evolutionists have done and that is start with a conclusion and then find only the facts that support your conclusion and end up with a hypothesis. It's backwards.
I just did provide my reasoning, you must have failed to read the article. It refuts your misguided descrimination of gay people but, it is obvious that you have chosen to close your mind to this issue. Also, there is no "proof" from your side. You chose to interpret the bible in a way that is out of line with the love that Christ taught us.
Nevertheless, believe as you will. I think we have both said our peace.
It's good that you at least read the article. This discussion was about cherry picking. I would rather pick the good from the bible, then look desperately to find fault in others.
There you go again claiming to know what Christ taught us, is Walker your source of all things God? You still haven't shared where you get your conclusions on what God and Christ teach, you have a lot of them, but so far William Walker is your only source. I read the article, it refutes nothing in scripture, it warps scripture and fails to take scripture as a sum of it's parts. You cannot just take the good without the bad. there are difficult passages in scripture, that doesn't mean we ignore them just because we don't like them. If you read the entire book, scripture interprets scripture, we don't have to. And to claim that I only look for fault in others proves that you know nothing about me.
How is the government any
How is the government any different than we are individually? If we owe money all we need to do is make the minimum payment each month and our credit stays intact. Some months we can pay more but all that is required is the minimum payment. Make the minimum payment until things work out and shut up. The doom and gloom can be put off for another fifty years just like it has been for the past fifty years, it's the American way. Now go buy some more crap from China that you don't need or really want and then get some Oliver's Candy from Batavia that you not only really want but really, really need, and some Ice Cream and beer and cigarettes.
We have fought two wars (one
We have fought two wars (one of which was unnecessary, but that's water under the bridge) and brought the economy back from the brink of death and put it all on our national credit card.
And all the while, the dumbass republicans in congress have given tax cuts to everyone. And we're better off how?
Guess what??? If you don't have enough coming in, you can't pay all the bills. I know that's a shocker, but those folks don't seem to realize that.
They don't have the balls to do what actually needs to be done. We (and by we I mean the 'Royal' we) need more income. We can get more income by raising taxes, but nobody wants to hear that.
There is already a historical precedent for an income tax surcharge. LBJ did it in 1968 to pay for Vietnam.
I'm not necessarily saying that an income tax surcharge is the solution to this problem, but for sure, spending cuts will not get us to the point where the federal deficit can approach zero.
Some tax increases are necessary. It's time people realize it.
Dave, if we actually had to
Dave, if we actually had to pay for our wars, it would be nearly impossible to generate the rabid nationalism necessary to start them. Silly goose.
Yeah...what was I thinking?
Yeah...what was I thinking?
No worries. China is happy to
No worries. China is happy to fund them.
I'm curious about the people
I'm curious about the people who voted "very." I agree with George. As homeownerns, car owners, household goods owners, college students and credit card holders, we all use credit, often carrying many times more debt than what we bring in over a year's time. When the economy improves and there is a bigger tax base, the national debt will improve. Add to that, getting out of the Middle East wars. And make the upper 2% pay more taxes. And Dave; I agree with you, too.
One more thing.....how many
One more thing.....how many of you who voted "very" buy only American made products?
Dave, well said. There comes
Dave, well said. There comes a point where you have to increase your take home pay to cover the costs of living above your means. All this talk about cuts without any thought of a tax increase is just playing up to the crowd. Those wars and bailouts cost a fortune, now its time to pay up.
Janice, I'd like to agree
Janice, I'd like to agree with you, but our national debt isn't just about borrowing and spending. It's also tied to the value of our dollar. A college loan doesn't have an effect on the global currency market...
Dave, you said: "We can get
Dave, you said:
"We can get more income by raising taxes, but nobody wants to hear that.
Some tax increases are necessary. It's time people realize it."
I believe there are two ways to balance a budget: increase your income OR decrease your spending. I believe that it is time the government practices the latter. You and many others believe it is the former. Here is a bi-partisan solution: Let the right institute some spending controls and cuts, then...and here is the kicker, those who believe we can tax our way to a balanced budget simply send extra money to the government. Contrary to popular belief, every American is entitled to send money directly to the government to reduce the debt. There are some 63 million people who voted for Obama that are of the same belief and many more who didn't bother to vote but feel the same way. Numerous individuals and organizations (Hollywood elites, Michael Moore, SEIU, etc.) have A LOT of money. If all of these tax and spenders ponied up some extra $$$ voluntarily along with some future fiscal restraint, we would be well on our way to balancing the budget.
There you go, bi-partisan solution. If you feel that strongly about the power of taxation to reduce debt, get out your checkbook and help out Uncle Sam.
If I gave the impression that
If I gave the impression that I don't believe that the federal government shouldn't cut spending, nothing could be further from the truth.
I am in favor of "smart" spending on social programs that benefit the largest sector of the population.
All the recent talk about the waste in the medicare program is a good example of cutting spending by cutting waste and fraud in that program. Unfortunately that elephant is so big it's questionable whether it can learn to dance, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Also, the pentagon is another example where waste is rampant. Again, I'm not advocating weakening national defense, but let's be sensible. I doubt there is anyone who would say that all pentagon spending is warranted.
That still doesn't address
That still doesn't address the issue of additional taxation to reduce debt. I have yet to run across anyone from that camp who will voluntarily step up and send extra money to the government. It is legal, direct, and can be done each year right on your tax return. I am still looking for one person who on believes strongly enough in the principle to actually commit their own money to it.
One word: Tariffs. Correct
One word: Tariffs.
Correct the trade imbalance, and you create jobs. Jobs increase revenue.
Further, Tariff's should be used to correct China's currency manipulation, which adds to the deficit.
But we still need to cut spending, which neither party is serious about.
Look at this last special election. The candidates from each of the major parties spoke in platitudes about reducing spending. Outside of Hochul saying foreign aid to countries such as Pakistan should be shifted to fixing U.S. roads, neither offered specifics. When asked by The Batavian for specifics, the question was dodged. Asked about eliminating such wasteful and unnecessary departments at the U.S. Department of Education, no candidate was willing to make that commitment. Both major party candidates support our overseas deployments, which costs $600 billion a year.
When is the last time you heard a major party politician -- outside of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich (who unfortunately will soon be redistricted out of politics) -- put forward the kind of serious and specific proposals that will actually reduce spending? Even Paul Ryan's plan is more about playing politics with the deficit than actually getting serious about balancing the budget.
Folks, our so-called leaders are failing us and we're letting it happen.
"Folks, our so-called leaders
"Folks, our so-called leaders are failing us and we're letting it happen." Can't be better said than that!
If I were in debt up to my
If I were in debt up to my eyeballs, I would cut everything I could, then I would get a second job to earn some extra money to pay down the debt. That’s what most people would do, that’s what your government should do as well.
The idea that you can spend more and take in less was a Bush idea that got us in the mess we are in. The fact is Bush left our economy in shambles with his over the top military spending. Then he ran out of town leaving Obama to deal with the bailouts he started.
Its time for all of us to pay our fair share of the burden. If you can’t pay your share, get a job or even a second to pay your taxes. We can’t leave this mess to our grandchildren and these right wing tax-cutting pipe dreams don’t work, they just drive us deeper into debt. Everything needs to be cut and taxes need to be raised on everyone.
Tariff is a fancy way of
Tariff is a fancy way of saying taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
The problem with tariffs is that the cost will be passed on to the consumer much like raising taxes but it sounds a lot better if you think it will cost another country to sell us items we want and/or need. If it was that simple then I believe this would have been done along time ago. This will not magically bring jobs back to America it will just raise prices for consumers.
The manipulation of China's currency has been ignored by the WMO for too long and since China owns so much of our debt now it would be almost impossible to have any leverage to make them play fair. It's too late with China we owe too much.
How about getting All the American Companies to hire Americans and produce goods here ? That used to happen what went wrong ? Companies want more money, workers want more pay, quality went downhill, and nobody wanted that expensive crap. "Buy American" is a big fat joke. The new slogan should be "Buy like a big fat American". When China calls in their loans to America all we need to do is start a war with them. We can always afford a nice war.
Charlie, When Frank Ferrando
Charlie,
When Frank Ferrando and company put the City of Batavia into deep, deep, debt, you and a new City Council majority raised taxes on property, water and sewer service, but also slashed spending. We consolidated police dispatch, cut jobs and ended the City ambulance service. The City is in the black again.
The Federal government can do the same, if it wanted to.
"How about getting All the
"How about getting All the American Companies to hire Americans and produce goods here ?"
Won't happen without tariffs.
And tariff's will create jobs, by making it cheaper to build here rather than overseas.
There's really no option -- end free trade, or see the U.S. become a third-world nation.
I agree with ending free
I agree with ending free trade. More drastic measures need to take place like banning certain products produced elsewhere. I guess my point is finding a better way to bring jobs back here without relying on tariffs alone.
(No subject)
<object width="480" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hWGs26QQBEw&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embe… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hWGs26QQBEw&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embe…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="480" height="300"></embed></object>
"You would think somebody
"You would think somebody would ask what it is that attracts young people to what I have to say, but nobody in the Republican Party has ever asked me that." -- Ron Paul.
Rabid nationalism?? So many
Rabid nationalism?? So many Americans don't pay enough attention to the state of the world to generate rabid anything, save a rabid appetite for garbage food, drink, and entertainment. Are we too entitled to endure austere changes like our European brothers? Can we not tolerate a return to basics like our neighbors? How are we to prevail if we strive to maintain our shallow and selfish reputation by borrowing to consume with abandon? Work, if you can. Produce, if you are able. Have some pride in yourself, and sleep better knowing that scheming for handouts, while part of our past, can be struck from our future.
An aside (although it's
An aside (although it's somewhat off topic) the next generation of Republicans are going to be more libertarian leaning than their predecessors. I know because I've seen it. At Canisius the majority of the College Republican Executive Board voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and so did the majority of it's membership (we were all friends). They are also more moderate, and like the upcoming generation of Democrats, are more interested in pragmatism and negotiation rather than rigid and almost religious like adherence to an ideology (I've seen this too). The endless and ridiculous debates on social issues that have zero real impact on the country (like gay marriage) will be finished and the conversation will be on fiscal issues and overall government philosophy, where it belongs.
I also believe that the issue of abortion will be brought to were it belongs, the states, and out of the hands of the federal government.
I've employed a half dozen or
I've employed a half dozen or so young techies in my previous jobs -- all of them Ron Paul adherents. He has an especial appeal to young people raised online.
Back in 1995, when I saw how the internet culture was forming and what its ideals were, I predicted the eventual triumph of libertarianism.
It's taken longer than I thought. I expected people -- foolishly perhaps -- to adapt the net culture as they signed on. Sadly, after 9-11 especially, later adopters of the online world, stuck to their partisan corners.
The ethos of the internet circa 1995 is now drowned out by the partisan bickering and posturing of Daily Kos and FreeRepublic.
But the more net native crowd still retains a lot of that libertarian ethos -- live and let live -- that was so prevalent in the early days.
I still have hope of a libertarian triumph, maybe not in time to see Ron Paul become president, but there will be a libertarian in the White House before I die.
I still need to buy this book by my friends Nick and Matt:
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?bo…
The solution to the National
The solution to the National Debt will almost always be buried under election year news cycles.
Without support (or pressure) from the general public, politicians will not move forward to make changes needed.
If an issue needs to be avoided, simply swing attention away from it, turn up the volume and apply heat.
BTW, congrats Kathy Hochul (...and by "congrats" I mean "nice job DNC" you must have read my blog).
A part of the solution will be "regular" folks becoming involved in the political process.
Lets look in the mirror at ourselves and stop turning away from our issues, turn up the volume locally first, and apply some heat to bend the future we have laid out for our children...
Howard - I do not see
Howard - I do not see anything inherently wrong with having a majority progressive or conservative POV. I do see something wrong with saying that you have to stick to an ideology up and down the board without compromise. I do not believe in ideologies, I do have values that I stick too, but more than anything I believe in solutions. That's what I think the young and upcoming Democratic and Republican politicians, campaign advisers and political staffers are trending towards.
Any practical solutions will
Any practical solutions will end in government devolving to the local level and smaller federal and state governments. The current system is not sustainable. That's not ideological, just common sense.
To add to Mr. Guiste's
To add to Mr. Guiste's comment "A part of the solution will be "regular" folks becoming involved in the political process." This has been bugging the hell out of me for a week. In Genesee County we had a 25% voter turnout for a special election. That is absolutely unsatisfactory. And people are saying how great it was!! Voting is not a right or a privilege, it is a RESPONSIBILITY and 75% of registered GC voters shirked theirs. This is the reason a small minority of the population controls the majority. How bad does it have to get? Most people identify themselves as moderate, so if say 70 -80% of the people (I recognize 100% is not realistic) would actually take the time to go to their polling place, sign a book and color in a dot and feed a sheet of paper into a scanner, there wouldn't be as much partisanship in Albany or Washington. They would also elect more libertarians. The reality is that low turnouts have given us representatives that are political operatives, voted in by partisans, caring more about staying in office than doing what they're supposed to do. Congress has relentlessly allowed the executive branch to take more and more liberties and set precedent for more and more unconstitutional abuses of power. We need a revolution, it can easily be done by raising the voter turnout, and not voting for ANY incumbents.
For the record, I voted "Somewht concerned". debt in and of itself isn't all that bad, it's the management of it. In the federal government's case it's the total absence of management that concerns me. There has to be a re-payment plan. Raising taxes will only encourage more of the same. We (the USA) have a spending problem. Common sense is needed and sending the same representatives back to Albany and Washington won't cure it. They're like cheating spouses who promise to change if you take them back.
(No subject)
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RoMJMkBfEWU?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><p… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RoMJMkBfEWU?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Ron Paul, the only person who
Ron Paul, the only person who speaks truth on the floor of the House.
duplicate post
duplicate post
Daniel said "The endless and
Daniel said "The endless and ridiculous debates on social issues that have zero real impact on the country (like gay marriage) will be finished and the conversation will be on fiscal issues and overall government philosophy, where it belongs.
I also believe that the issue of abortion will be brought to were it belongs, the states, and out of the hands of the federal government."
Yes, when we finally abandon the distraction of morality, America will at last be on it's intended path to greatness.
Jeff, you can't impose your
Jeff, you can't impose your morality on other people, particularly in the instance of gay marriage.
"Our preoccupation with
"Our preoccupation with partisan bickering over spurious arguments provides the perfect cover for politicians." Ms. JoAnne Rock, The Batavian; May 25, 2011
I don't intend to impose my
I don't intend to impose my morality on anybody. There is no Jeff Allen code of morality. I choose to follow the morality that God clearly defines in His word. Marriage is not an institution created by government, it is an institution created by God that government adopted. Until God changes the definition of marriage, government does not have the authority to.
Jeff, imposing your religious
Jeff, imposing your religious beliefs or using them to stand on high and look down on those who disagree is even worse. Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples.
"Until God changes the
"Until God changes the definition of marriage, government does not have the authority to."
Which is the perfect argument for why marriage is none of the government's business.
The civicl contract between two people that impacts how assets are divided, inheritance handled, insurance paid, etc. needs to be recorded in a proper legal manner. But marriage, none of the government's business.
The only reason "my
The only reason "my interpretation" of God's word is under dispute is because too few people actually read it in it's entirety. They pick verses out of context and create foundational doctrines on them. I am not imposing any religious beliefs on anybody. Marriage is an institution created by God, defined clearly by God in His word. That is an indisputable fact unless you have revelation beyond His word. I also believe that EVERY human being is created in God's image, that does not mean that every human being acts in accordance with His will.
Bingo Howard, I'm glad you
Bingo Howard, I'm glad you said that. If government insists on redefining marriage to something that does not resemble the foundations of the institution, then don't call it marriage. If two people want to enter into a civil contract that determines the outcome of their estate, their finances, beneficiaries, etc. then there is no legal basis to deny it, but don't call it marriage.
Jeff, just to be clear -- it
Jeff, just to be clear -- it should be a civil contract for you and your wife, and a civil contract for Larry and Bruce.
If your church wants to only marry hetro couples, that's the right of the church and the government gets no say in it.
If the Unitarian Church next door wants to marry Larry and Bruce, and call it marriage, neither your church nor the government gets any say in it.
It's just up to the government to make sure the proper contract is filed with the county clerk.
Well said Jeff; put up or
Well said Jeff; put up or shut up, neither which will happen.
Jeff, if a church is willing
Jeff, if a church is willing to perform a marriage ceremony for two gay men or women, would you deign to call it marriage then?
I agree John; however there
I agree John; however there are those who believe we can tax ourselves into prosperity.
Jeff, so being gay is a
Jeff, so being gay is a choice and not how someone is born? How do you know? Do you have any understanding of how many gay people you come in contact with on a daily basis? Everyone has gay relatives, friends and co-workers. I bet they even attend your church. You don’t truly believe that all gay people a perverted? Is committing to another person for life the act of a pervert?
Chris, I don't think Jeff
Chris, I don't think Jeff needs to accept it as marriage. If Larry and Bruce think they're married, and the people around them think of them as a married couple, does it really matter whether Jeff or members of his congregation accept Bruce and Larry as married or not?
Part of living in a pluralistic , tolerant society is allowing for dissenting views.
I see no reason to coerce deeply religious people to accept views they find distasteful, so long as those who dissent don't try to use force to get the rest of us to abide by their viewpoints.
For some reason, this
For some reason, this conversation made me think of this.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eD52OlkKfNs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eD52OlkKfNs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
Howard, as long as marriage
Howard, as long as marriage is recognized legally, it needs to be offered to all citizens on an equal basis. The only argument against gay marriage is a religious one and I take exception to the fact that the subjective views of a religion are able to hold any sway over non-adherents' legal standing.
There are two solutions to the problem as I see it:
The government stops issuing marriage licenses altogether and accepts any marriage performed by a recognized religious or civil authority as a legally binding 'marriage' contract.
The government tacitly recognizes marriage between homosexual and heterosexual people as equal under the eyes of the law and continues to issue marriage licenses.
Either way, equality is achieved and Jeff can sit at his house and grumble about it while the world continues to turn.
Bea, I remember that well and
Bea, I remember that well and an excellent point. People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination.
Jeff - Civil marriage was not
Jeff - Civil marriage was not made law in New York until well into the 1800s, before then it was all common law marriage. Civil marriage was invented to protect property owners and was not religious in its foundation. No one is talking about making churches do anything, either, to me the real marriage is a spiritual union between two people before almighty God. The official documentation is simply a contract between two people regarding their assets and financial interests, why shouldn't two consenting adults be allowed to enter into a contract regarding their assets and interests?
Furthermore, Christianity as
Furthermore, Christianity as a whole is to be spread by individuals, not nations. While we should acknowledge the Judeo-Christian roots that run deep in our national history, we should also make sure that we are a government for all Americans, straight or gay.
Chris: if a church under the
Chris: if a church under the name of Christ performs a gay marriage that church is apostate.
Charlie: Homosexuality is a choice, countless numbers have chosen to participate in it, and countless numbers have chosen to walk away from it. I have gay friends(ones I would even consider close friends), co-workers, and have attended church with homosexuals. They know what I believe and we love each other just the same.
Bea: President Bartlett was correct in pointing out that the Old Testament is full of laws that we are no longer under, but what he doesn't address is that under New Testament Grace, homosexuality is still not condoned. While some laws have passed away, others have not. I must admit his calling out the "Dr." by the ignorant tight-ass club and her not standing for the President was classic.
Chris again: I won't sit at my house and grumble. I don't and never will hide from my beliefs or convictions
Charlie again: I have not picked and chosen scriptures to fit my morality, God has nowhere in scripture condoned homosexuality, find it for me and I will repent of my error.
Where the mainstream church has gone wrong is by elevating homosexuality to some sort of mega-sin or unpardonable sin. It is neither. Misguided televangelists such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others (I risk losing some of my church friends here) have made remarks about God' judgement on the US through terror or disaster because of homosexuality. They were flat out wrong and it only serves to increase the divide between people. Jesus died for all, he loves every human being past, present, and future so much so that he offered himself a living sacrifice that all may be saved. I'm sure Jesus spent time with homosexuals while he walked the earth and loved and cared for them as deeply as his own disciples. What he would not have done is put his seal of approval on their lifestyle.
Jeff, if a couple of atheists
Jeff, if a couple of atheists want to be married, is it a marriage as long as they are man and woman?
And by the way, Jeff where do
And by the way, Jeff where do you get the ability to determine if a church is "apostate" it's merely your opinion, my brother.
Dave, it's quite simple, look
Dave, it's quite simple, look up the word apostate and then read the Bible cover to cover, then you will have your answer to both questions.
Jeff, there is no viable
Jeff, there is no viable reason to discriminate against your fellow man. Your argument that God tells you to do it, is no more valid than Islamic murders recieving 72 virgins upon martyrdom.
Charlie, I am not making this
Charlie, I am not making this stuff up, it is clear, it is descript, it is without grey area. I have not once claimed that God has told me anything. I simply have read the Bible cover to cover numerous times, it hasn't changed and no matter what version I read, the message remains the same. Now if you are willing to put the teachings of Mohammed and God on equal footing, then that is up to you. Show me anywhere in my posts that I have discriminated against anyone. I have posted both my opinion and facts backed by scripture, clear facts, open to interpretation.
Chris wrote, "... as long as
Chris wrote, "... as long as marriage is recognized legally ... "
But exactly what I'm saying is stop recognizing it legally.
The government's only concern, as part of the social compact, is who is entitled to what property and material claims. The spiritual aspect of it -- to including aspects such as "love, honor and cherish" and "to death do part" etc. -- are matters of private belief and private fulfillment and are none of the government's business.
Stop marriage as a legally recognized institution. Marriage is either a religious institution or an act between two private people and the community they choose to share it with. It should be beyond the government's scope of concern.
Jeff, are you a fan of Chuck Colson at all? Ever read his book, "The Body"? I did a decade or more ago and it had a profound impact on how I understand some issues related to this discussion.
About the same time I read Stephen Carter's "The Culture of Disbelief," which also had a profound impact on how I view these issues.
Jeff, I don’t want to get
Jeff, I don’t want to get hung up on the word. If you believe “Marriage” is a religious word or institution and would rather the term civil union or something else, I’m not going to argue that point. If I give that ground, then you also have to agree that our government then can no longer issue “Marriage” certificates to anyone. We live in a nation that cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. Therefore, government could not be involved in anything other than civil unions regardless of the orientation of the couple.
Charlie and Howard have the
Charlie and Howard have the only solution that can work fairly, in my opinion.
This has been an interesting
This has been an interesting detour from the poll on the National debt.
In the “spirit of fairness”, how do the advocates and supporters of gay marriage feel about polygamy?
I think I should be allowed
I think I should be allowed to marry all the members of the Swedish bikini team. There, how's that for an argument? What does everybody think about that?
Richard, MORE than one
Richard, MORE than one wife... There is no need to regulate stupid people.
Howard, I have not read that
Howard, I have not read that book. On a side note, I was hoping to see you at the Batavia Business and Professional Women's Club Awards Banquet. They said they sent you a press release. My daughter received a scholarship from them tonight, very proud of her.
Charlie, Polygamy is
Charlie,
Polygamy is recognized under civil law in the following countries:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burkina , Faso, Cameroon, Chad, CAR ,Comoros, Congo, Djibouti Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, , Western, Sahara, Yemen and Zambia
Are you saying that these Countries….these cultures…these people are stupid?
Richard, people should be
Richard, people should be allowed marry their dog and their cat for all I care. As long as their of the opposite sex of course. Multiple partner homosexual inter-species relationships should be not be allowed. That's Immoral...
Marriage and civil union
Marriage and civil union should be two, distinctly different agreements. Civil unions should be legal agreements for the purpose of legitimizing any contract or legal protocol such as insurance, inheritance, parental rights, etc. Marriage should be executed within the authority of a religious organization. Anyone desiring a religiously sanctioned union AND a legal union must fulfill the requirements of BOTH.
Charlie, Let me get this
Charlie,
Let me get this clear.
People should be allowed to marry their dog or their cat as long as it the opposite sex…interesting
Are you equating homosexual polygamy as the same as bestiality?
What about plain old polygamy in the Biblical sense?
Is that immoral and gay marriage OK?
"Chris: if a church under the
"Chris: if a church under the name of Christ performs a gay marriage that church is apostate"
Jeff, that's your church imposing its morality. See how that works. I don't know what religion you belong to, and I don't care, because your religion has absolutely no business dictating anything to a secular government. Or are you implying that Jewish or Muslim marriages aren't valid because they're not performed in the name of Christ?
What if the Unified Church of Secular Humanism (get it) performs a marriage? Would that be alright with you or do we need to consult the bible that they don't believe in?
I don't care if there's a religious sect out there that worships puppies and hates kittens, they should have no sway over the issuance of dog licenses and the outlawing of cat ownership.
If your argument is a semantic one e.g. gay people shouldn't be allowed to be 'married' I'd say tough bananas, religion doesn't own the word.
Rick - Polygamy has nothing
Rick - Polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. A marriage is a 50/50 unification of assets (as far as the government is concerned) and therefore, gender can be arbitrary so long as they are both consenting adults.
The slippery slopers once told us that union organizing would directly lead to communism. We still have a free market. Slippery slope arguments are specious at best.
Jeff - Jesus did not intend
Jeff - Jesus did not intend for his message to be incorporated into national law. The teachings of Jesus are geared towards individuals and not the government. As a Christian, I believe that had Jesus wanted the teachings of God's words woven into government policy he would have said so.
“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36
There are many religions in
There are many religions in the US, but Christianity is the major one, and as a result, the rules and laws in the past have been written to support its views.
Times have changed and other religious views are now taken into consideration more than in the past. There is also a substantial atheist population.
I agree with CM on this, there should be a distinction between "marriage" and civil unions.
But Richard also has a valid point; if you support gay marriage, you would have to support homo/hetero sexual polygamy also.
Richard, so, I guess you are
Richard, so, I guess you are looking for a serious answer?
I truly could careless what consenting adults want to do. I refuse to impose my idea of mortality on anyone. If people's religious beliefs demand polygamy, more power to them and their 20 kids.
The cool thing -- here we are
The cool thing -- here we are discussing a very sensitive topic ... sex, religion and politics all in one thread, with no rancor, but with mutual respect.
That doesn't happen on too many web sites.
Danny, I was trying to get a
Danny,
I was trying to get a clarification from Charlie. I have no idea why he brought cats and dogs into it.
Perhaps Charlie was being flippant?
People oppose polygamy on moral or religious grounds.
People oppose gay marriage on moral or religious grounds.
There lie the similarities.
Can a person be for one, but against another?
At one time the slippery slopers told us homosexuality was a mental illness.
The countries I listed recognize polygamy as a civil marriage including the “unification of assets” as you rightly mentioned.
However, gender is nothing but arbitrary in those mentioned countries.
The key words as you stated is consenting adult, the plural, and not necessarily just two.
Can polygamists be consenting adults, Danny?
Are polygamist rights to have their marriages recognized any less valid than gay people, and if not why?
Charlie, Thank you.
Charlie,
Thank you.
Rick - No, because you cannot
Rick - No, because you cannot fairly split assets 3 ways. I do not think plural marriage will become an issue primarly because of divorce, without prenuptual agreement, what happens when one wife/husband leaves the marriage? We made gender and race arbitrary in voting, has anyone gotten more than one vote as a result? I say no.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as usual. :)
FWIW, I agree with Howard, CM
FWIW, I agree with Howard, CM and John. Get government hands off of a social institution. That being said, until that happens, I support allowing two consenting adults of the same sex to obtain a marriage license.
Danny, Of course we can
Danny,
Of course we can agree to disagree; if you don’t want to discuss it further.
However, assets can easily be split equally and fairly three different ways.
Settling an estate can be just a contentious as a divorce; especially when there are three or more interested parties and the Will states everything must be divided equally.
I have great confidence that our finest minds; our Politicians in Washington; all much smarter than you and I will find a way to write laws to include three way or more perpetual agreements, particularly if there is a way to tax it and/or collect a surcharge.
(No subject)
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9v8oDqN76Mc?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><p… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9v8oDqN76Mc?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
I think I have made my stand
I think I have made my stand pretty clear on these issues and yet we continue on the path of my "imposing my views" on people. The stand I take comes directly from scripture, if you want to get angry at someone, get angry at God, He wrote the words. They are clear, they are indisputable. People change, their attitudes change, their goals change, their feelings change, their directions change, but God and His word never change.
I have never expressed hatred toward a homosexual or those who vociferously feel they have to defend the lifestyle. The only people who have expressed anger at me on these issues are Heterosexual people who seem to be bigoted against fundamental Christianity and feel the need to mock it. I have gay friends who I know beyond a shadow of a doubt would step in front of a bus for me and I them. I don't get mockery from them, I get unconditional friendship and I cherish it.
Not all fundamental Christians are homosexual hating gay bashers, and not all gay people are fundamental Christian hating religion bashers.
If anyone feels that strongly about what I've stated concerning homosexuality, marriage, and God, don't get upset with me pick up a copy of His word, read it cover to cover then have a conversation with Him about anything you may dispute in it. He is a great listener, always available, always consistent, and never condemns anyone for asking a tough question.
Jeff, God can't be blamed for
Jeff, God can't be blamed for your interpretation of his words. God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created. Only man with all his faults could do that.
How could you call someone a friend, then not truly accept them?
You also can't discriminate against another person, then play the victim.
What Charlie Said. Well put.
What Charlie Said. Well put. Also, Howard, note that John, CM and you are all in agreement. Got to be a first.
Dave, outside of his
Dave, outside of his religious stand regarding homosexuality, Jeff isn't really far off from what we're saying. There's more agreement than some of the conversation might indicate.
http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/todays-poll-how-concerned-are-you-a…
Well, Jeff, I guess that's
Well, Jeff, I guess that's the problem. What your God says about things doesn't really matter to me. That's not meant as disrespect to your religion, I'm only saying that your religion, or anyone else's for that matter, doesn't get to tell everyone what's right and wrong, what's normal and what's not etc...
That's why I think that people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage can remain religiously opposed to gay marriage after it's legalized. No one is trying to change your church, but your church doesn't rule the land.
I don't think anyone should
I don't think anyone should be imposing their views on other people. Whether it be under the guise of religion or under the guise of a tolerance view point.
Chris, you're absolutely correct that Jeff is entitled to oppose "gay marriage" based on his religious beliefs. At the same time you are entitled to your beliefs that "gay marriage" should be recognized by law. As for me I'm a rule of law kind of guy. I think same sex civil unions should be allowed and recognized by the government. They will afford the same sex couple the same exact legal benefits that opposite sex couples enjoy. Same sex couple should be allowed to take from the estate of their deceased partner for intestate succession purposes, as well as visiting their partners in the hospital, or for tax benefits and any other benefits that opposite sex couples might enjoy. I think that is the big change that most people are going for. However, there are some people that are stuck on having the word "marriage" associated with the fight for equal rights for same sex couples. The word "marriage" is a religious sacrament. As such I think by pushing to have the word associated with same sex couples is actually an effort of some to impose their views on many. This is where I have a problem.
If "marriage" is a religious
If "marriage" is a religious sacrament, how can someone get "married" by a ship's captain or a justice of the peace?
Further, all the government
Further, all the government does (with regard to its role in the 'marriage business') is certify a marriage as a contract - or, civil union - with a marriage license. Whether you were "married" in a church or in your backyard by a Justice of the Peace doesn't stop anyone from calling it a marriage. Same-sex couples simply want the government to expand eligibility for marriage licenses (civil unions) to them. Why should we not then similarly refer to a same-sex civil union as a marriage?
"Further, all the government
"Further, all the government does (with regard to its role in the 'marriage business') is certify a marriage as a contract - or, civil union - with a marriage license. Whether you were "married" in a church or in your backyard by a Justice of the Peace doesn't stop anyone from calling it a marriage. Same-sex couples simply want the government to expand eligibility for marriage licenses (civil unions) to them. Why should we not then similarly refer to a same-sex civil union as a marriage?"
Couldn't have put it better myself, man.
I've always found the
I've always found the semantic argument to be the most disingenuous of all the anti-gay marriage sentiments. I wasn't married in a church, but I was definitely married. Ask my ex-wife, she had to put up with me for five years. :)
There is nothing disingenuous
There is nothing disingenuous about my position on Gay marriage Chris.(that is your self righteous tolerance view point coming out.) I'm for it. But I'm against ALL people forcing their views on others. Regardless if they are gay, straight, religious, atheist, or what have you.
Marriage is marriage. I
Marriage is marriage. I didn't marry my wife in a church, but I was married. When gay marriage finally happens it may as well be called marriage. That's my argument. The semantic argument has always seemed to me to be the last gasp of intolerance, but if the end result of decades of argument is full and equal rights for all citizens minus the ability to use a certain word to describe those rights well, I could learn to live with it, trust me.
I'm not sure if folks in the LGBT community would be completely satisfied though.
Charlie, you have made
Charlie, you have made several definitive statements concerning God:
"God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created"
"People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination."
"Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples."
This would indicate that you are confident in knowing what God intends when it comes to the issue of Homosexuality and you also seem to be able to see when people are not using exegesis when quoting scripture.
Since God has communicated to man through only one book, and He has never talked directly to me, perhaps he has talked to you, defend your position on homosexuality and/or gay marriage using scripture alone. That is the only way to determine what God would or would not approve of.
Jeff, that's my point.
Jeff, that's my point. Everyone in this world has their own religious beliefs.
(I don't think it's clear to you, that I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.)
You can believe anything you want. Your church has the right to create any internal rules it wishes. Not for one minute would I debate your church's right to marry who they chose.
The problem comes in when you try to dictate law for the rest of us base on your church's rules. Just because your church won't allow gay people to marry, you have no right to restrict that right for non members of your church. Your interpretation of religion is far different than mine and I don't want to live under your rules because I conceder at least one to be a grave sin.
Charlie, if you don't believe
Charlie, if you don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, then on what do you base these 4 statements:
"God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created"
"People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination."
"Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples."
This is not about "my church", I have never identified my faith nor my church, I have only referenced the Bible. What one of my "rules" do you consider a grave sin and on what do you base that belief? Grave sin is a serious charge and must have it's foundation somewhere.
At some point you have to back up your statements
Charlie, if you don't believe
Charlie, if you don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, then on what do you base these 4 statements:
"God is just and would never discriminate against the very people he created"
"People love to pick and chose the parts of scripture that fit their morality. God would never approve of discrimination."
"Last time I checked your interpretation of what God said or wants is under dispute. A lot of us believe God created everyone in his image, even gay married couples."
This is not about "my church", I have never identified my faith nor my church, I have only referenced the Bible. What one of my "rules" do you consider a grave sin and on what do you base that belief? Grave sin is a serious charge and must have it's foundation somewhere.
At some point you have to back up your statements, and that doesn't apply to just you Charlie, others have claimed to know God's position on Homosexuality and/or gay marriage, but no one has of yet produced any evidence. And I am the one being accused of arguing only "my opinion".
Jeff, you still don't get my
Jeff, you still don't get my point. It's right in front of you. Your religious beliefs are yours alone. They need no justification, neither do mine. You have no right to empose them on others.
Charlie, you don't get the
Charlie, you don't get the point you made definitive statements about the nature of God, on what do you base them? I'm not imposing anything on anyone, I am stating what the Bible says. You challenged my knowledge of God's nature with direct statements of your own. I can back up my assertions, I am only asking you to do the same.
Charlie, I disagree that Jeff
Charlie, I disagree that Jeff has no right to restrict marriage. As a voter Jeff has every bit as much right to determine this governemt's rules regarding marriage as he has the right to restrict which drugs are legal or what restrictions to be placed on firearms. The trick is, he needs to be in the voting majority.
Is the will of the majority just? That is another question altogether.
Jeff, we are not debating
Jeff, we are not debating religious beliefs. You explained your beliefs, I did the same. I don't hold your interpretation of passages in a 2000 year old religious book as validation for discrimination, stoning or any number of things that are not part of our society anymore.
Regardless of your beliefs, you have no right to impose then.
People have been justifying
People have been justifying intolerance using religion since the beginning of time. That don't fly anymore.
If you can't back up the
If you can't back up the statements, then I am only wrong in your opinion. And no you did not explain your beliefs, you just made statements about what God does or never does, and don't back them up with anything.
If the gays are too different
If the gays are too different for you to accept, then step up and say it. Don't hide behind religion.
Jeff, back up faith??? Not
Jeff, back up faith??? Not possible.
Your right Jeff. My religious
Your right Jeff. My religious beliefs don't come with a certificate of authenticity. I give up, I'll convert.
-I accept everybody. -I don't
-I accept everybody.
-I don't hide behind anything.
-I wasn't asking you to back up faith, I was asking you to back up your statements.
-welcome, if there is anything I can do to help in your "conversion", let me know
As long as this thread is off
As long as this thread is off topic anyway -- really?
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w]
I liked this one better, it
I liked this one better, it had subtitles. She can't seriously be thinking of running for POTUS, can she?
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v8insI0Ab9I?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v8insI0Ab9I?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
I would love to see her
I would love to see her on,"Are you smarter than a fifth grader".
Religious beliefs have
Religious beliefs have nothing to do with this debate, church and state are supposed to be separate.
If 2 people feel they want to spend the rest of their lives together, that should be their business, not the churches, or the states.
Yeah, those local Boston
Yeah, those local Boston reporters are meaner than Katie Couric. How dare they ask a question of Palin that every second grader in America could answer!
Palin is far and away the most slow-witted person to ever run for the Executive branch. Please, Republicans nominate her. I'm looking forward to the debates.
Far better to have an
Far better to have an ex-governor who who can manipulate the media like puppets slip up then to have to watch our actual President do it.
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t4-AKcH3eC8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0">… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t4-AKcH3eC8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0&q…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Jeff, you may find others who
Jeff, you may find others who are ignorant, under-informed or mistaken, but comparisons do not alter the fact that Sarah Palin is a moron, whose 15 minutes in the limelight (and political momentum) has been artificially extended by corporate media (who recognize a bargain when they see it). She ranks with ventriloquists, dog acts and kiddie-party clowns. ...More in common with the clown; others may drop an occasional gaff or inaccuracy, but Sarah is a fountain of half-baked, improvised dimwittery.
Sarah Palin is likely trapped in a "Groundhog Day" scenario that initiated in 1984 when she was runner-up for "Miss Alaska."
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MsyZKtKyZy8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0">… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MsyZKtKyZy8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0&q…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
C.M. I would expect better of
C.M. I would expect better of you then to post an old, debunked, photo-shopped picture of Palin to perpetuate the lengths the left will go to vilify this woman. I have said in the past that I am not one who is on the Palin for President band wagon, but I really find it fascinating how she can single-handedly leads the media around like they are her lapdogs. She has the media tripping over themselves trying to follow her simply because she got a bus painted a flag on it and is driving around the country refusing to give the press her itinerary.
And please don't put Obama's gaffes in the "occassional" category. Just because the media doesn't play them over, and over, and over, and over, like they did with Bush, doesn't mean they're not piling up like cordwood. This guy is starting to make G.W. look like a scholar.
Howard, I'd like to see the
Howard, I'd like to see the gay marriage issue somehow continued in a new thread.
Jeff, George W. Bush is not a
Jeff, George W. Bush is not a scholar, has never been and never will be. His butchery of English and his lack of logic and sophistication will ensure that. Irrespective of his shoulder-shimmying, inappropriate laughter and other annoying characterisitics, he is a buffoon. At least Clinton was smart.
On Nov. 27, 2008 "The American Conservative" magazine had him on the cover in caricature wearing, of course, cowboy clothes, a cowboy hat, spurs and a sheriff's badge. He's slumped on the floor looking forlorn underneath his presidential portrait. Possibly he's wondering what his legacy will be. And there's a handy checklist "Missions Accomplished" which ticks off his (de)feats:
Start a war (or two)
Shred Constitution
Crash economy
Expand entitlements
Ruin America's reputation
Create Democratic majority
Bribe churches
Recruit for al-Qaeda
Discredit conservatism
Nationalize banks
Misunderestimate hurricane
Export jobs, import workers
Federalize education
Spy on citizens
By comparision, Obama is looking not all that bad.
Obama has started a new war,
Obama has started a new war, in Libya, with no end in sight.
Expanded the war in Afghanistan for with no results
Has not reduced unemployment.
Did not close Gitmo
Expanded entitlements (Obama care)
Our reputation is not any better
Created a Republican House majority
Still spies on citizens
Expanded the federal debt at a rate Bush could only dream of.
Bush had 8 years to do what he did.
Obama has done this in only two.
John, you
John, you forgot:
nationalized two car companies
golfed more time in 2 years than Bush did in 8 including on this past Memorial Day (where is Michael Moore?)
consumed loads of fuel on Air Force One for questionable trips while lecturing the rest of us to make painful cuts
increased unemployment
insulted a police force before learning the facts
jumped to the same conclusions the media did on the Hasan Ft. Hood shooting again before getting all the facts.
the list goes on and on and on but I got stuff to do...
I admit I was starry eyed
I admit I was starry eyed about Obama when he was campaigning. I wanted to believe his beautiful words and he was very charming.
But like a lot of people, at this juncture in his presidency, the gilding has decidedly worn off for me. I am disappointed in him, even though I knew he had impossible tasks ahead of him.
His actions in Libya are exactly what he criticized Bush for doing.
For the most part, I agree with the criticism heaped upon him.
American politics are so sorry these days and the partisanship reeks. We need a hero.
Billie, thank you for a
Billie, thank you for a refreshing, and rare moment of honesty these days. Your last sentence sums it up nicely.
Last US President worth a
Last US President worth a hoot: Cal Coolidge
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5puwTrLRhmw?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><p… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5puwTrLRhmw?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
With the exception of
With the exception of relieving the nation of whatever debacle a McCain/Palin ticket might have led to and the satisfaction resulting from election of the nation's first African American president, I am no fan of Barack Obama's executive policy. (John Roach's shopping list, though incomplete, is not off-mark.)
Despite the Palin photo's lack of authenticity, conceptually, it is accurate.
Reguardless of what you say
Reguardless of what you say about Obama, he's the new middle of American politics. The Republicans have purged every candidate a moderate would even concider.
On top of that, you live in a congressional district that sent shockwaves through Washington for doing the unthinkable. Giving one of the safest seats away to a Nancy Polosi loving Democrat! ( At least that's what the ads said)
The fact is Obama is a good president, who's going to get 4 more long years to torture Republicans because they were shortsighted enough to eliminate all their mainstream candidates.
You might see a Bachman/Palin
You might see a Bachman/Palin ticket. hmmmm, actually, I'm hoping that you do.
Bea, which one do you think
Bea, which one do you think would win a staring contest?
His actions in Libya? The
His actions in Libya? The blame falls squarely on the UN.
Obama alone did not decide to call in NATO. Get rid of the the UN.
Charlie, Palin would win, she
Charlie, Palin would win, she has a natural blank look on her face.
Frank, while the UN has
Frank, while the UN has probably outlived its usefulness and is one of the more corrupt organizations around, it would not have authorized any military action without the US saying it was alright. Without our support this whole war on Libya would never have started.
John,the "security council"
John,the "security council" voted to take action, not the US alone. This is a NATO mission, not a US led invasion.
Frank, I know the vote. This
Frank, I know the vote. This is the easy part to understand, if the US had said it would not participate, the whole thing would not have taken place. NATO was not able to do this without us.
They can take all the votes they want, without our bombs and missiles, carriers and support, end of story. If we end all our support today, this thing comes to an end.
Frank, You can't count
Frank, You can't count Bachman out, she has crazy eyes. That stare creeps me out.
You would get rid of UNICEF
You would get rid of UNICEF and the WHO? How about the UNHCR?
Wild eyed Bachman and
Wild eyed Bachman and revisionist Palin. Sounds like an entertaining ticket to me.
C.M., the lack of
C.M., the lack of authenticity of the photo makes it slander, if a derogatory photo-shopped picture of Obama were out there, they would be crying racism form the tops of the hills. Speaking of that, Obama is not our first African American President, he is our first mixed race President. To only refer to him as African American completely and unfairly disregards the white mother and grandmother who are responsible for the bulk of his upbringing by his own accounts.
Jeff, I just want to thank
Jeff, I just want to thank you for your comments. I know how very difficult it is to stand up against all these naysayers who gang up on the Biblical believers. Most of us have not read the Bible cover to cover more than once and feel inadaquate to join in, but i assure you many more agree with you than this verbal majority against you. This is a place to supposedly air your beliefs and opinions, yet the minute a Christian joins in with the Words of the Bible everyone jumps on it. Look how easy this thread went on this path against you. This day and age it is all about being politically correct. The verbal majority jump on those who are not politically correct. The Bible says what it says, I was always taught it is not meant to be interpreted. If other people or churches wish to, that is their right, but not what i was ever taught. Obviously many Churches have bowed to the changes of time and acceptance. I believe in the Bible as this is the only Word of God that I am aware of, everything else is interpretation. Just as you said, while God loves us all, he would not condone same sex marriage. He would not love the gay person any less for his mistakes. Public acceptance doesn't change God's word. What disturbs me the most about those who disagree with you is most have never even read the Bible or had any apparent teaching of it, ie: the New Covenent which is the New Testiment. This supercedes the Old Testiment. Jesus died on the cross so that we can all be cleansed of our sin. All you have to do is accept Him. Now will God forgive those who join in a civil union with someone of the same sex? I guess that is for God to deal with in His way, not up to me. Does not change what the Bible says though. Does that make me intolerant? No. While this may be my belief, I do not tell others how to live their life or ask them to change their beliefs. That is up to those on this website who disagree with my beliefs
"Biblical believers" in this
"Biblical believers" in this case means those who chose to discriminate against their fellow man. In this "day and age" you have to respect the rights of your fellow man or your going to get called out. Too many atrocities have been committed throughout history to stand by and watch anylonger. Defense of anothers rights is righteous. Christianity isn't the victim here, it's being twisted.
You better hope my God isn't the one standing in judgement of your actions.
John, I don't believe Mr.
John, I don't believe Mr. Obama was in the political arena when the UN,and NATO, were established.
I agree, it is largely US assets carrying out most of the operations. President Obama is not responsible for whatever agreements the US has with NATO, or the UN. We need to get out of the "world police" business.
Frank, since the UN and NATO
Frank, since the UN and NATO were both created decades ago, yea, Obama had nothing to do with them. But he had everything to do with allowing this new war. Many NATO countries (like Germany) are having nothing to do with this new war. This one rest squarely on Obama.
C'mon Charlie you keep
C'mon Charlie you keep indicating you know what God approves and what he doesn't approve of, or what Christianity really is yet you refuse to back it up with anything but inflammatory statements. Back it up or leave the Bible alone.
Michele, I can't tell you how
Michele, I can't tell you how much that encouragement means to me, thank you.
Jeff, you claim God commands
Jeff, you claim God commands us to discriminate against millions of people. That seems far fetched and offensive to me. As proof you point to passages in the bible that if read literally is riddled with other things that we all would agree would be criminal today. For instance slavery and murder for acts like working on Sunday. Why do you chose to pick discrimination of gays as legitimate but, you do not hold other passages so dear?
Or do you really believe my wife should be put to death for working today?
Christ's sacrifice for us on
Christ's sacrifice for us on the Cross makes ALL of the rules found in the Old Testament obsolete.
Jeff - An aside, it looks
Jeff - An aside, it looks like you got about 15 write-in votes for Congress! Congrats!
http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/dpt/elections/2011SpecialElection.htm
Amid the usual turnout guided
Amid the usual turnout guided by dodo pheromones to row B, 10 Bergenites voted for Ian Murphy. ...Curious as to the other nine.
Jeff, slander is excessive;
Jeff, slander is excessive; try caricature. Frankly, I would NOT be surprised if Palin's personal photo album didn't include similar poses. There is likely a genuine framed version of the TAC-bikini photo on the mantel in her "game" room, lodged between the shredded carcasses of two wolves shot from a helicopter with an HK MG43.
Charlie, the only people the
Charlie, the only people the Bible tells us to discriminate against is the unrepentant brother after he has been confronted one on one by his accuser, then by two or three and finally by the church. The only examples of this being done in the New Testament had nothing to do with homosexuality. We have already dealt with the out of context use of Levitical law you refer to, which we are no longer under. In other words, we can't derive our beliefs in God from old episodes of West Wing so therefore I am not picking and choosing verses to use against homosexuality. Dealing strictly with the New Testament here is what the Bible says about homosexuality:
In order to have the clearest understanding of scripture, it is important to read it in the context of the original language. For words that may be in question I have capitalized and included the original Greek and it’s meaning.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFIMINATE (original Greek - malakos)
1) of a catamite(see below)
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Galations 5: 14 -21 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, FORNICATION (original Greek - porneia)
1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. FOR THIS CAUSE GOD GAVE THEM UP UNTO VILE AFFECTIONS: FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENCE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH WAS MEET. AND EVEN AS THEY DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND, TO DO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT CONVENIENT Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Ephesians 5:3-7 But FORNICATION, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Colossians 3:5-7 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; FORNICATION, uncleanness, INORDINATE AFFECTION, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and GOING AFTER STRANGE FLESH, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (in this verse Jude directly references the account of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrha because of blatant homosexuality not only amongst themselves but threatened against the very angels of God)
So now if you are offended by what you've just read, don't be mad at me, be mad at God and His word, these passages are clear and without need for interpretation.
Jeff - There is nothing in
Jeff - There is nothing in those verses that indicate that a nation, not the universal church, but a nation of this world should not validate a contract between two people regarding their assets. What was being discussed here is not a marriage in a church, the discussion was about about a sealed and notorized marriage <b>license<b/> by the <b>government<b/>. You seem to be confused.
Jeff, that's real nice but,
Jeff, that's real nice but, I've seen and heard all that before. This article by William Walker JR rebuts what you wrote. In real plain english.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.ht…
Jeff, Dan is also absolutely
Jeff, Dan is also absolutely right. We are not discussing marriage in your church. Your church has every right to choose what ever qualifications that they would like. We are talking about our secular government.
With all the quoting of passages, this comes down to one simple fact.
Jesus NEVER said he had a problem with Gay people. No one ever heard it an it was never written.
Charlie and Dan, you have
Charlie and Dan, you have both come out and accused me of misconstruing what God says about homosexuality, I just provided New Testament evidence to back up what I say, all you to have provided is your opinion. If you are not prepared to debate the issue, don't come to the table with platitudes about what you think God says and does and nothing to back it up. This had nothing to do with "my church", this is what God says, take it or leave it. Jesus has no more problem with gay people then he does with any other person living outside His will, he has a problem with me when I am living outside His will. Charlie you insist on knowing what God and Jesus have to say but flat out refuse to provide any shred of logic behind it.
Walkers defense of
Walkers defense of homosexuality is rife with cherry picked parts of original language definitions. Any textual scholar worth his weight would pick that apart in a heartbeat. It is clear that he failed basic science in high school much as the global warmiing and evolutionists have done and that is start with a conclusion and then find only the facts that support your conclusion and end up with a hypothesis. It's backwards.
I just did provide my
I just did provide my reasoning, you must have failed to read the article. It refuts your misguided descrimination of gay people but, it is obvious that you have chosen to close your mind to this issue. Also, there is no "proof" from your side. You chose to interpret the bible in a way that is out of line with the love that Christ taught us.
Nevertheless, believe as you will. I think we have both said our peace.
It's good that you at least
It's good that you at least read the article. This discussion was about cherry picking. I would rather pick the good from the bible, then look desperately to find fault in others.
There you go again claiming
There you go again claiming to know what Christ taught us, is Walker your source of all things God? You still haven't shared where you get your conclusions on what God and Christ teach, you have a lot of them, but so far William Walker is your only source. I read the article, it refutes nothing in scripture, it warps scripture and fails to take scripture as a sum of it's parts. You cannot just take the good without the bad. there are difficult passages in scripture, that doesn't mean we ignore them just because we don't like them. If you read the entire book, scripture interprets scripture, we don't have to. And to claim that I only look for fault in others proves that you know nothing about me.
Warping scripture to find the
Warping scripture to find the good is someing I'll just take with me to judgement day.