Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[josh987654321]

You think getting rid of state-sponsored murder for sodomy was a “swing to the left?”

Well when there are only two directions…left is the only way it can go. Punishment by death is pretty much as far right as you can get. (Assuming that anti is on the right side of the pendulum and pro is on the left side)

Dawnia, I may be just miss understanding what your saying here, but are you serious about murder for sodomy being a good thing?

Murder for sodomy is way too far and absolutly wrong, like Christ said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” than he said to the accused “But don’t sin anymore” in the same way we shouldn’t cast stones at homosexuals who give into their disordered and immoral desires out of weakness, but we should all know that the acts of homosexuality are disordered and immoral desires to act on, not something to be proud of.

So the main problem is that by trying to change the law to include same sex marriage, they are trying to change the truth of homosexuality, homosexual desires will always be disordered and immoral desires to act on, that’s why it’s wrong for them to claim that those desires arn’t immoral and disordered through homosexual marriage, because that’s a lie and it’s wrong to force people to participate in, or believe a lie, simply because the law says so.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Well when there are only two directions…left is the only way it can go. Punishment by death is pretty much as far right as you can get. (Assuming that anti is on the right side of the pendulum and pro is on the left side)

I apologise Dawina, I get what your saying now, yea, we should be aiming for the middle of the pendulum.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[epan]

You equate Reagan with fascism and totalitarianism? That’s funny.

The travel to the left started back in the mid 1800’s when sodomy was not longer a hanging offense. It took about 150 years before it was no longer a crime. Then 10 years after that for gay marriage to become the fashion craze of the day. To say it’s picked up speed would be a great understatement. It’s like mob mentality.

no. i did not equate reagan with fascism. where in the world did you get that? i said that reagan might be the point at which the pendulum swung right so far, that the current strong swing left was the reaction. having said that, look at the patriot act which bush enacted. you do realize that habaes corpus, and search warrants are not longer required, just by invoking the patriot act. if that is not a giant step toward fascism, then what is?

equally disturbing is that obama has actually strengthened the act. once government takes power, it does not relinquish it. it is a constant aggrandizement. Bacevich has written very eloquently on the topic, in “the limits of american power”

 

[epan]

I think we need to get rid of the pendulum altogether and replace it with a compass. A compass focused on, of course, Christ and His Body, the Catholic Church.

i am no history expert, but i can’t think of a time where this has been the case.

 

[PRmerger]

i am no history expert, but i can’t think of a time where this has been the case.

No, not even 2000 years ago when we had The Compass Incarnate.

 

[josh987654321]

I think we need to get rid of the pendulum altogether and replace it with a compass. A compass focused on, of course, Christ and His Body, the Catholic Church.

i am no history expert, but i can’t think of a time where this has been the case.

One Nation under God?

We are in big trouble when people separate God from State, Religion from State, when they enforce laws that are ignorant to religion, they are just asking for trouble.

The debate on ‘homosexual marriage’ is Ignorant to religion, because we cannot change the defintion of marriage even if we wanted to, marriage is not a word for us to define and will never constitute a homosexual union regardless of the law, we cannot view homosexuality and hetrosexuality as equal, homosexuality is disordered and immoral, regardless of what the law say’s, we will always discriminate between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, because they are two very different unions, to try and enforce equal treatment to two different unions is rediculous and will only cause civil disobediance.

By enforcing equal rights towards homosexuality and hetrosexuality with homosexual marriage etc through the law, they will be outlawing the church, and when they do that we will be in for trouble.

Rome fell because they introduced a Law that went against the Church therefore they basically outlawed christianity, so those who were christian had no choice but to over throw rome or turn their back on their faith.

Rome introduced a law that meant that christians would have to make a sacrafice to a false idol, which they could not do as christians.

Our society will suffer a similar fate, if they introduce a law (e.g. recognition of same sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuality and hetrosexuality) which would mean that christians would have to treat homosexuality equal to hetrosexuality, and recognise homosexual unions as marriage’s, which we cannot do as christians, so we will have no choice but to over throw the law or turn our back on our faith.

So much for one nation under God, I wonder how long “religious beliefs” will last as an acceptable excuse to discriminate againts homosexuality and hetrosexuality?

Probably not long considering the things that I have seen here.

e.g. Monkey said that in Canada a Bishop was fined $5000 for saying that the acts of homosexuality were immoral.

And Cor Cordis mentioned that a Christian adoption agency suffered massive financial penalties for discriminating against homosexual unions compared to hetrosexual unions when adopting out children.

So I guess their “freedom of religion” didn’t wash too well with the local courts.

These people who are debating for homosexual marriage and equal rights for homosexuals to be enforced by law are playing with fire.

Because I will never accept a homosexual union as marriage nor will I treat a homosexual union equal to a hetrosexual one, because they are two very different unions and a homosexual union is disordered and immoral because of the acts of homosexuality, they can’t make people believe a lie by outlawing the truth.

The more they remove religion from state, the greater are the chances that God’s laws and Man’s laws will clash, they can’t afford to be ignorant of religion when making and enforcing laws.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Crescentinus]

I was not trying to be argumentative. My point has always been that this is just a matter of time. Could happen by summer. Could take another decade. But it is happening,Catholic teachings or not.

I was pointing out the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
In any case, the usage of the survey to force the Catholic Church to change the teachings on this issue would be in vain.

 

[josh987654321]

I was pointing out the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
In any case, the usage of the survey to force the Catholic Church to change the teachings on this issue would be in vain.

In the same way the use of the Law to force Catholic’s to go againt the Catholic Church’s teachings on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual marriage would also be in vain, but it looks like they might try to do just that.

I think that’s what Epan is pointing out with those statistics, so as Catholic’s we must stand firm to the teachings of the Church on the issue and brace ourselves for what might come.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Crescentinus]

In the same way the use of the Law to force Catholic’s to go againt the Catholic Church’s teachings on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual marriage would also be in vain, but it looks like they might try.

Thank you for reading
Josh

It is inevitable that they will try to make Catholics submit.

 

[Dawnia]

Dawnia, I may be just miss understanding what your saying here, but are you serious about murder for sodomy being a good thing?

No. Just discussing the shift in public opinion on the matter. I’m perfectly okay with it not being a criminal offense at all. While I think it’s hurtful to the individuals involved, I don’t think this is an area the government should be involved with. Having police in our bedrooms checking for violations is way too creepy for me. :bigyikes: Consentual activities between consenting adults should be left to God to judge.

 

[Dawnia]

no. i did not equate reagan with fascism. where in the world did you get that? i said that reagan might be the point at which the pendulum swung right so far, that the current strong swing left was the reaction. having said that, look at the patriot act which bush enacted. you do realize that habaes corpus, and search warrants are not longer required, just by invoking the patriot act. if that is not a giant step toward fascism, then what is?

equally disturbing is that obama has actually strengthened the act. once government takes power, it does not relinquish it. it is a constant aggrandizement. Bacevich has written very eloquently on the topic, in “the limits of american power”

I figured it was unintentional, but it was funny. You say in your first paragraph that Reagan was a swing to the right, which in your last paragraph you equate the right with fascism & totalitarianism.

Parts of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconstitutional. So even if legislative or executive branch grant themselves power, it can be taken away by either of the other two branches. Or the people if they are so inclined.

 

[epan]

I figured it was unintentional, but it was funny. You say in your first paragraph that Reagan was a swing to the right, which in your last paragraph you equate the right with fascism & totalitarianism.

Parts of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconstitutional. So even if legislative or executive branch grant themselves power, it can be taken away by either of the other two branches. Or the people if they are so inclined.

You are correct. I do associate the right with the potential to fascism when taken to the extreme, which is why it should not properly be called conservatism. And, I associate the left with the potential for anarchy, at the other extreme.

This is not the same as saying that Reagan was a fascist, any more than it is the same as saying that Obama is an anarchist.

 

[Crude]

You are correct. I do associate the right with the potential to fascism when taken to the extreme, which is why it should not properly be called conservatism. And, I associate the left with the potential for anarchy, at the other extreme.

Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Hence the ‘socialists’ in national socialists. Hence the state worship, which was an aspect both the communists and fascists had in common.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I don’t believe that I can predict the future, too far out. My sense is that there is a tremendous momentum at work here, socially, right now.

I also believe that we have many very complex social issues to come to terms with, and this is one of the simpler ones to understand. If this one is so difficult, than that challenges my usual optimism to ponder how we will come to terms with the other issues.

One hallmark of the gay marriage issue, is the rapidity in the change of social norms. This is the characteristic of our time, which is both exciting, and alarming. The rate of change is astonishing, and accelerating.

One good measure of mental health is the ability to adapt well to change. As individuals, we do our best, and then we let go of the result. If you hang on too tight to the result, then you can drive yourself crazy.

It is always a personal judgement call, as to which issues to oppose, and how much effort to invest, and also at what point to move on and accept reality. My personal choice in this is to let go of it. I believe that no vote I could make, no statement I could make, nothing that I could do, will stop or delay what appears to be inevitable, at this point. When I see that 70% of Christians believe that gay marriage opposes their religious views, while at the same time 50% of those favor gay marriage, then I think that the near future is obvious. When I see that 70% of people under the age of 33 are in favor of gay marriage, I see an obvious trend. This trend has 100 years of weight behind it, which has culminated in an astonishingly rapid rate of acceptance over the past 10-15 years.

People seem to believe society’s descent is inevitable, but its ascent is equally possible.

Ancient Rome was ripe with barbaric virtues. It was already where many predict we are going. And yet, it was the example of the early Christians and martyrs who simply lived their lives and gave their lives for God that led much of Rome out of its wasteland.

if something is fundamentally disordered or incorrect, it can always be undone through proper evangelization. The problem is we make it much harder on ourselves when we let it grow and then begin the fight. The Church was hijacked and asleep for 20-30 years, and much damage was done in that time. They have to undo that damage and reassert themselves as the preeminent force in people’s lives, as they did in Rome.

History offers many examples of not giving into the despair of inevitability. And as catholics, we must always remember that we are on God’s side with faith and morals. He does not want victories for Satan. We simply have to undo the damamge in our Church, and begin to live authentically Christian lives in all areas - at home, in the workplace, as parents, and children, and as friends. If we do our part, we can win. We already have the will of God behind us.

 

[epan]

Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Hence the ‘socialists’ in national socialists. Hence the state worship, which was an aspect both the communists and fascists had in common.

It is a mish mosh, really. I mean, in the historic sense, one might expect conservatism which has been associated with the “right” to espouse libertarianism, which is the opposite of fascism. But in the reality of American history, the right has been the strongest supporter of the repression of civil rights and diversity, which is what I see fascism to be. It is the left who tends to support expansion of civil rights, and economic improvement for the poor, either through better working conditions, or government assistance.

So, this is really context sensitive. It is correct that Marxism lead to totalitarianism in Russia and China. But it is also true that the closest we have come to that in the US has usually been driven from the right. There are exceptions, though. While Nixon was the only president to build concentration camps with the intent of suppressing free speech, Roosevelt did indeed imprison citizens on the basis of race and birth origin. But my sense of US history is that, in general, the “right” has proscribed our civil liberties, while the left has worked to expand them.

So, in that sense, I would say that the impetus of the right in the US is in the direction of fascism, while the impetus of the left is in the direction of anarchy.

This is an odd paradox, peculiar to US history, perhaps. Because, conservatives like Ronald Reagan, for example, were more of a libertarian bent. Other than allowing unfettered capitalism, Reagan’s style of libertarianism has been rejected by the right, in favor of corporate welfare, combined with a sort of economic Darwinism for the average, less privileged, citizens.

 

[Crude]

It is a mish mosh, really. I mean, in the historic sense, one might expect conservatism which has been associated with the “right” to espouse libertarianism, which is the opposite of fascism. But in the reality of American history, the right has been the strongest supporter of the repression of civil rights and diversity, which is what I see fascism to be. It is the left who tends to support expansion of civil rights, and economic improvement for the poor, either through better working conditions, or government assistance.

This is complete nonsense. FDR put the Japanese in internment camps. Obama has been supportive of the Patriot act and even drone assassinations until Rand Paul pushed him back. Self-proclaimed liberals despise ‘diversity’ when it comes to people who have views other than their own. And pushing for gun control is, like it or not, an attack on civil liberties - as are attacks on ‘hate speech’.

What you seem to want to say here is that the GOP has done things you dislike and which lead to repression of civil liberties, etc. But the GOP != ‘Conservative’ and the DNC != ‘liberal’. When Republicans push for socialism, they are behaving ‘liberal’, not conservative - even if that socialism is largely with respect to business.

So, this is really context sensitive. It is correct that Marxism lead to totalitarianism in Russia and China. But it is also true that the closest we have come to that in the US has usually been driven from the right.

No, that’s not true at all. Go ahead, try to support the claim. It will not work.

There are exceptions, though. While Nixon was the only president to build concentration camps with the intent of suppressing free speech, Roosevelt did indeed imprison citizens on the basis of race and birth origin. But my sense of US history is that, in general, the “right” has proscribed our civil liberties, while the left has worked to expand them.

Your sense of US history is incorrect.

This is an odd paradox, peculiar to US history, perhaps. Because, conservatives like Ronald Reagan, for example, were more of a libertarian bent. Other than allowing unfettered capitalism, Reagan’s style of libertarianism has been rejected by the right, in favor of corporate welfare, combined with a sort of economic Darwinism for the average, less privileged, citizens.

Also untrue. Reagan did not allow ‘unfettered capitalism’ - to deregulate is not to advance some Randian society. Corporate welfare is a left-wing, not a right-wing, view - even when the GOP is endorsing it. Likewise, even the GOP does not endorse ‘economic Darwinism’ - first of all, it would extend to everyone, not just ‘average citizens’. Second, the GOP largely is entirely in favor and praising of charity intiatives for the underprivileged. The fact that they prefer private citizens to do this rather than the government does not change this view.

You shift between talking about how complicated and muddy things are when liberals are being criticized. But when conservatives are being criticized, suddenly everything is clear to you. I suggest your understanding is muddier than you admit.

 

[josh987654321]

And pushing for gun control is, like it or not, an attack on civil liberties - as are attacks on ‘hate speech’.

Sorry this is getting off topic, but pushing for gun control in America is a good thing in my opinion, we have speed limits for cars and they arn’t even designed to kill, guns are designed to kill, so why would you not put any limitations on guns?

Harsher gun laws were the best thing that happened in Australia I think, they don’t have to go overboard with it, but I would definatly be supporting the removal of Assualt Rifles and concealed weapons like handguns from the streets if I was in America.

And btw, if you really want to keep your guns, don’t register them, because that’s how they collected the guns in Australia Just givin ya the heads up.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Crude]

Sorry this is getting off topic, but pushing for gun control in America is a good thing in my opinion, we have speed limits for cars and they arn’t even designed to kill, guns are designed to kill, so why would you not put any limitations on guns?

There are limitations on guns already, just as there are limitations on free speech. But you’re still opposing civil liberties when you do it.

Harsher gun laws were the best thing that happened in Australia I think, they don’t have to go overboard with it, but I would definatly be supporting the removal of Assualt Rifles and concealed weapons like handguns from the streets if I was in America.

Great - you think opposing civil liberties and various rights was a good idea. I’m not disputing whether it is or isn’t a good idea. (You may want to see Australia’s violent crime rates since that ban, by the by.) I’m simply pointing out that it’s an attack on civil liberties, and it’s an attack coming consistently from the ‘left’.

 

[josh987654321]

There are limitations on guns already, just as there are limitations on free speech. But you’re still opposing civil liberties when you do it.

Great - you think opposing civil liberties and various rights was a good idea. I’m not disputing whether it is or isn’t a good idea. (You may want to see Australia’s violent crime rates since that ban, by the by.) I’m simply pointing out that it’s an attack on civil liberties, and it’s an attack coming consistently from the ‘left’.

They say alot on American debates about it “If you remove guns it wont drop the crime rate, because people will just use knives etc” and they are exactly right, Australia’s crime rate didn’t drop, but just ask yourself what would you rather, someone intending to kill you with a gun or a knife? id prefer the knife so I can defend myself and see it coming and you wont have to worry about any massacre’s happening, stopping massacre’s is the main reason why it’s a good thing id say, and if that meant forgoing the enjoyment of an Assualt Rifle because of those who can’t be trusted with them, than I think it would be worth it, just like speed limits, to reduce those who can’t be trusted in a car from doing dangerous things.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Crude]

They say alot on American debates about it “If you remove guns it wont drop the crime rate, because people will just use knives etc” and they are exactly right, Australia’s crime rate didn’t drop, but just ask yourself what would you rather, someone intending to kill you with a gun or a knife?

Would you rather have a .1% likelihood to be shot with a gun or a 10% likelihood to be stabbed with a knife? If you ban guns ‘for the public safety’ and now you have a rise in violent crime, I question whether your effort paid off.

I say this while not caring whether gun bans make crime rise or fall. But in Australia’s case, saying it was ‘the best thing that ever happened’ cannot mean ‘we’re safer after the ban’. You’re not.

id prefer the knife so I can defend myself and see it coming and you wont have to worry about any massacre’s happening, stopping massacre’s is the main reason why it’s a good thing id say, and if that meant forgoing the enjoyment of an Assualt Rifle because of those who can’t be trusted with them, than I think it would be worth it, just like speed limits, to reduce those who can’t be trusted in a car from doing dangerous things.

Do you have any idea how rare ‘massacres’ are, even with the current US law? What’s more, ‘those who can’t be trusted with them’ would also be - historically speaking - the government. Yet, of course, attacks on gun rights rarely affect them. Meanwhile, many, many people in Australia who could ‘be trusted with guns’ are not, because of the extent of the ban.

What’s more, it’s not merely the ‘enjoyment’ of an assault rifle. It is about rights, liberty, and duty. If you want to squash some rights because you feel safer, I suppose you can argue for that. But it doesn’t end up being anything other than an attack on civil liberties just because you think it’s worthwile.

Finally, you say you can defend yourself with a knife. Again, look at the Australian crime statistics. Let me know how that self-defense is working out. At the very least, Australians are getting much more opportunities to ‘defend themselves’ than they previously had.