White House shines rainbow colors to hail same-sex marriage ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3DOCTORS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
No, I don’t believe reason eliminates the option of cultural relativism. The latter exists and I think it is reasonable for us to attempt to understand and appreciate the differences in religious beliefs and rituals, moral values, customs, ways of thinking about oneself and the world, language, emotional expression, motivational drives, and child-rearing practices based on cultural differences.
Click to expand...
But don’t religions try to make claims about reality that are either true or aren’t? One might say there’s no afterlife, another might say there is reincarnation. These things either happen or they don’t. Maybe we can ignore reason and appreciate the cultural differences, but it’s not like those cultures have different objective realities.
 
So Daddy’ Girl and Syn are now able to tells us our feelings are right or wrong, really?:confused:
 
laircy said:
But don’t religions try to make claims about reality that are either true or aren’t? One might say there’s no afterlife, another might say there is reincarnation. These things either happen or they don’t. Maybe we can ignore reason and appreciate the cultural differences, but it’s not like those cultures have different objective realities.
Click to expand...
If you think those cultures don’t have different objective realities, what makes you think our culture has objective reality according to their perspective? Every culture has its own sense of reality which suits that specific culture. Relativism does not only apply to religion and its rituals, but also to ways of perceiving and thinking about oneself and others, shaped by childhood socialization and language acquisition, as well as norms of behavior which are based on the demands of social institutions and traditional ethical values. There may also be overlapping beliefs between cultures in the form of certain common principles in addition to the cultural variations. The latter, however, are so much more interesting to explore.
 
phil19034 said:
Not to mention he said he opposed this idea when he was running for office. He either plainly lied or simply allows his morality to flow with the wind (like the majority of the democrats)
Click to expand...
And MAYBE he just changed his mind after he realized he was wrong in his original thinking on the subject. Lots of people change their minds.
 
Reflect on the disgraces of heterosexual unions/marriages over the past 50 or so decades. Recall all the well publicized divorces and atrocities related to heterosexual activities. Think about the offenses that touch your own personal life. All that has lead up to the rainbow stripes on the WH is a spawn of those years and that set of people and their lifestyle. Much destruction has spawned from the group of people call baby boomers.
Rainbow stripes on the WH is more a by-product from a set of people than a sexual orientation issue. :twocents:
 
Sy_Noe said:
Did you mean the new thing as another poster put it, being “shoved down our throats” in states like Texas? That “new thing” is equality, liberty and justice for all.
Click to expand...
No! Those are old principles that have existed for all time, as long as one understands what equality is. The cripple man does not have the equality of mobility and the poor man does not have equality of spending. Yet all have equality of dignity.

What is new, undeniably new, is that that marriage might exist between two women or two men. From the very beginning of creation marriage is ordered between a man and a woman. This is undeniable. It is right there in the start of Genesis. After to the sexual revolution, after millennia of marriage being properly understood, this new idea arose. No generation up to this time ever saw the conflict between proper marriage and justice.

The Supreme Court did not change what marriage is. They changed the definition of the word, and now the word has no stable meaning. There is now neomarriage, and matrimony. One is a perversion of another. I suspect the day will come when ministers will only be able do administer the latter right, and people getting neomarried will have to do that at the Court House first. Then the Church will be able to celebrate Holy Matrimony.
 
blindmouse said:
Texa also didn’t want brown vs the board shoved down its throat its not a great argument
Click to expand...
Equating race with choices of sexual activity is old and not accepted by most people here. I find it an offense to the suffering people endured through no fault of their own and for something over which they had no control.

Another difference, Brown was unanimous, not 5-4.
 
Beautiful said:
Reflect on the disgraces of heterosexual unions/marriages over the past 50 or so decades.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that this latest change follows no fault divorce and the acceptance of shacking up together between men and women. These are far more damaging to families. Likewise, to think that this “right” is the last sexual activity to be normalized, is naïve.
 
TarkanAttila said:
And I’m fairly sure the man knows a major part of the country - granted, a minority, but almost half the country - opposes this idea. The nerve of this guy.
Click to expand...
As a moderate who greatly respects the office, I have often defended the president and respected him as a person, if not all his beliefs. I have to say that this respects very poorly on his integrity, contradicting his previous statements about marriage, as well as his lip-service of wanting to bridge factions. It is the most insensitive, divisive and rude move on the part of any President that I have witnessed.
 
To me, it’s just another sign that we will get little to nothing done by politics.
 
We are witnessing the difference between a democracy and a republic. This all started a long time ago, and through incrementalism has advanced to what we now see. Democracies ultimately devolve to mob rule, then totalitarianism. The secular progressives are winning this round. Not sure who wins the war.
But in all things Christ the King is victorious.
 
Birdpreacher said:
No it doen’t. Every person gets to define their own truth. You choose to the definitions of a church, others do not.
Click to expand...
Truth isn’t nebulous or subjective.That is what cracks me up about all the liberal moral relativists. Everything is illogical and emotion based.:rolleyes:
 
When I think how this is going to effect the innocence of children growing up in a society that accepts SSM as normal and good, I thought of this verse
"If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.
Click to expand...
and just so no one thinks I’m judging the souls of Obama and the 5 justices
15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Click to expand...
There is always hope.
 
There is no question left regarding how the rest of the world views our country. I am praying that we can jump safely out of Obama’s basket to hell while there is still a chance. We must have the courage to elect leaders that have proven their honesty, open their past because they have nothing to hide, and are not related in any way to the lying Clintons and Obamaites! The judicial system has slid into the ditch and is in need of repair.

Adding to the “play” - Obama sings a solo of “Amazing Grace”. Go figure!
 
Beautiful said:
Reflect on the disgraces of heterosexual unions/marriages over the past 50 or so decades. Recall all the well publicized divorces and atrocities related to heterosexual activities. Think about the offenses that touch your own personal life. All that has lead up to the rainbow stripes on the WH is a spawn of those years and that set of people and their lifestyle. Much destruction has spawned from the group of people call baby boomers.
Rainbow stripes on the WH is more a by-product from a set of people than a sexual orientation issue. :twocents:
Click to expand...
correct. heterosexuals have not set good examples for marriage and we see that by the divorce rate in our country. what will the divorce rate be among same sex marriages? it will not be less painful for them the breakup of a marriage. how many current heterosexual relationships will dissolve so that one partner can pursue a same sex relationship now that it is legal. I daresay that some people might be in both a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage in their lifetime.
 
3DOCTORS said:
cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/white-house-rainbow-marriage/

:mad: Okay, I know that in light of the SCOTUS ruling itself, this is small potatoes, but it still makes me angry that taxpayer money and administrative time was spent on this display of lording it over the American people - imagine if, after Roe V. Wade, the president had made a big graphic display celebrating “abortion rights.” :banghead:
Click to expand...
Or if taxpayers’ money were spent on Christmas displays, crucifixes, biblical quotes or images in public buildings, or events at which explicit Christian prayers were said?

Golden rule, baby. If you mean this, take it all the way and I might even support you. If it only applies to others, but not to you, not so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top