“I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people”

[quip]

Hmmm same thought occurred to me 3 posts back from you. Are you through yet? I doubt it. :chuckle:

With you?...obviously.

The issue at hand....just getting started.

 

[Kdall]

my mother had a homosexual son
but
I don't think she was ever aware of it
and
that is a good thing
nobody needs to know
especially your mother
so
please

keep it to yourself

Haha what? Are you speaking about yourself? You might not mean it that way, but that's how it sounds.

Then, if you are speaking about yourself, it gets funnier because you're saying that nobody needs to know while telling everyone that you are gay. Lol. I liked this post

 

[Kdall]

You're just completely ignorant of reality.

By all means, explain.

They don't align with God, and I don't want to kill anyone. Just like I don't want to spank my child. But I know it's necessary when certain lines have been crossed.

You don't want to kill them, but you advocate for killing them. Got it.

And you are saying that killing and spanking are comparable. What. The. Hell.

Where?

Been through this already. If you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer, judge, or law professor. Maybe their opinion will be acceptable to you

 

[republicanchick]

Sounds like my sister.

She used to be a rabid homophobe...until she birthed one!

no one "births one" b/c they are not born that way. I am 99% convinced of that.

and again, even if someone IS born that way, that does not change a thing b/c homosexual acts are disgusting, against nature and most importantly AGAINST God.. If a straight person can turn gay, a gay person can turn straight.. happens all the time

The Bible says it is no easy thing (paraphrase) to get into Heaven. If you don't give up mortal sin, you do not have a chance.

The bible is either the Word of God or it is not... take your pick. I have read the Bible and I have been in Christ's Church off/on all my life. I also have that priceless thing called Experience


+++

 

[republicanchick]

Haha what? Are you speaking about yourself? You might not mean it that way, but that's how it sounds.

Then, if you are speaking about yourself, it gets funnier because you're saying that nobody needs to know while telling everyone that you are gay. Lol. I liked this post

I don't think he did that


+

 

[Lighthouse]

By all means, explain.

I don't think I will ever be able to.

You don't want to kill them, but you advocate for killing them. Got it.

Just like I advocate spanking disobedient children. Or executing murderers, kidnappers, rapists, child molesters and adulterers. Or flogging all criminals.

I would rather people stop doing those things. But as not everyone will then it is only right to discipline and punish as befits the crime.

And you are saying that killing and spanking are comparable. What. The. Hell.

Only in that they are necessary at times and I don't want to have to do it, but will if I have to.

Been through this already. If you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer, judge, or law professor. Maybe their opinion will be acceptable to you

Where does the Constitution actually call for the complete separation of church and state?

Hint: It doesn't. It only states that congress shall not establish a religion, nor pass a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And yet here we are in a time when such laws are being passed, at least on local levels.

 

[TracerBullet]

no one "births one" b/c they are not born that way. I am 99% convinced of that.

and again, even if someone IS born that way, that does not change a thing b/c homosexual acts are disgusting, against nature and most importantly AGAINST God..

so is bigotry but you don't seem to have a problem with that

 

[Kdall]

I don't think I will ever be able to.


Just like I advocate spanking disobedient children. Or executing murderers, kidnappers, rapists, child molesters and adulterers. Or flogging all criminals.

I would rather people stop doing those things. But as not everyone will then it is only right to discipline and punish as befits the crime.


Only in that they are necessary at times and I don't want to have to do it, but will if I have to.


Where does the Constitution actually call for the complete separation of church and state?

Hint: It doesn't. It only states that congress shall not establish a religion, nor pass a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And yet here we are in a time when such laws are being passed, at least on local levels.

Thomas Jefferson explained that the Consitution explicitly calls for w separation of church and state. As a writer of it, I think he knows what it meant. Again, if you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer, judge, or law professor.

Your explanation of your views regarding killing for sins fits you in well with Muslim sharia law. I still am offering that first class ticket to Tehran if you want it

 

[Eeset]

Thomas Jefferson explained that the Consitution explicitly calls for w separation of church and state. As a writer of it, I think he knows what it meant. Again, if you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer, judge, or law professor.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He did not write the constitution. James Madison wrote most of it.

 

[Kdall]

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He did not write the constitution. James Madison wrote most of it.

You are correct. I was off.

Yet his ideals and influence were present. And no one disputed his "separation of church and state" statement. Which makes sense, as the Constitution was drafted from Enlightenment ideology and not Christian values

 

[Lighthouse]

Thomas Jefferson explained that the Consitution explicitly calls for w separation of church and state. As a writer of it, I think he knows what it meant. Again, if you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer, judge, or law professor.

Which is why you can't tell any of us where it does so.

Your explanation of your views regarding killing for sins fits you in well with Muslim sharia law. I still am offering that first class ticket to Tehran if you want it

I don't advocate killing anyone for sin. Christ died for sin, once, for all. I advocate executing certain criminals, for their crimes. Sin has nothing to do with it.

 

[TracerBullet]

I advocate executing certain criminals, for their crimes. Sin has nothing to do with it.

That certainly sounds more palatable than genocide

 

[Kdall]

Which is why you can't tell any of us where it does so.

Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

[Lighthouse]

Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

And Jefferson was the only person who thought that clause meant that.

 

[Kdall]

And Jefferson was the only person who thought that clause meant that.

Hmm, really? Is that why nobody disagreed with him, it's the same meaning that we have today, and you can't provide a citation saying that there is no "separation of church and state"?

Grow up and take a civics class

 

[moparguy]

Religious nut = ultra fundamentalists who think that only they are right and have no ability to see things from another POV. They only make decisions based on their religion, and religion can't and shouldn't define how society is to be run.

Everyone affirms that what they believe is right, and that whatever said belief, by definition, excludes, is wrong, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

"No ability to see things from another POV" - if you mean, have a very hard time understanding people who don't think like them about many important and very foundational points ... that goes for everyone. However, yes, there are a lot of jerks out there, and no one faction has that market monopolized; it's a human problem.

You're only making decisions based on your views, and your views can't and shouldn't define how a society is to be run. Wow, that was easy! Maybe we can do better?

The Bible community is to be recognized, but not catered to any more than any other religious group. You will unfairly discriminate against those of other religions if you make laws based on the Bible. All people should be given the rights that they desire, provided those rights don't infringe upon those of others and are not in some way detrimental to society (see anti-incest marriage example below)

Ok, now that we know at least some of your position... why should we agree that it would be "unfair" and why do humans have rights? Nothing hidden here; these are simple questions.

Because they gather data objectively, and give information on which informed decisions can be made. The complete, truly objective ones will be scrutinized by the scientific community at large, and will stand up to the scrutiny. Without data, all we have to base decisions on is emotion or religion, or more commonly a combination of the two.

Naive. Have you ever read in the philosophy of science section of any of your local libraries? You don't even need to read anything by "religious" people... for example, Karl popper, or the God-loving ultra-fundie Bertrand Russel. Any form of the scientific process you care to choose is completely subjective and can't rise above subjectivity. Long story short, humans can't observe any brute facts via our perceptions.

No, I am not a skeptic, by the way. I do believe we can know truth. God, who possesses all perfections, is perfectly capable of not only knowing all possible knowledge, he's also capable of giving his creations that knowledge. However, if you reject the idea that knowable truths must come from God, you're stuck with no way to logically justify your knowledge, and thus have no choice but to be an irrationalist. There is no other way for humans to have knowable truths. Science = fail, emotions = fail, man pulling ideas out of a hat (rationalism) = fail, Man makes truth = fail. All are irrational and thus give no grounds for belief in them.

two part answer here:

1. These nuts put interests that they think are God's will ahead of everything. The problem with that, is that the Bible has too many verses that are open to polar opposite interpretations, and also contains verses that contradict one another. The nuts may think that a verse means something, when in reality it means something completely opposite. For example, the Bible was used to justify slavery for many centuries.

2. God's interests aren't what matters in regards to state and national law. The people's interests are what matter. If God says that homosexuals are to be denied equal rights, then He doesn't have every individual's interests at heart. Not on this Earth anyway. Furthermore, if you can't prove the existence of something, you shouldn't be forcing its will on people who don't believe in it. We don't have aircraft combing the skies for UFOs because you can't prove the existence of extra-terrestrial spacecraft roaming our skies.

I should have been a bit clearer. I was simply asking if you had ever even had the thought that such a belief might be possible. Maybe even true. Now to reply to the content.

Would you object to being called an scientific nut, because you apparently have such a hard time understanding the POV of "religious" people?

"Polar opposites" - just because you can find people who will disagree over everything doesn't mean the thing disagreed over isn't clear or knowable. All that means is that people disagree. It's irrational to conclude anything more from said disagreement.

Humans can't prove the existence of anything, including themselves.

I believe that #2 above answers this

It doesn't.

I'll clarify. Studies can't make laws on their own, and sometimes studies on the same subject contradict each other. It's up to people to look at the results, and make a decision based upon all of the available information gathered from the credible, scrutinized ones. They CAN and do provide government lawmakers with important social information, such as if being gay is nature or nurture, for example. By looking at the results of such studies, good justifiabke laws can be made. Another example would be denying close relatives the right to marry because it often produces children with deficient mutations.



They define and create laws based on these studies. Government is the body by which the results of such studies can be factored into policymaking. That's what I mean by "informed" decision making.

What I've been saying is that you can't have the law without the study, thus, the study is the primary, so whatever makes the study is the primary defining source.

 

[PureX]

As far as I know, there are no specifically identified genes or gene sequences that dictate the facial features of a human being. And yet we see humans who's facial features resemble their parents to a remarkable degree, all the time. We also see children who's facial features do not resemble their parents, all the time. And since facial features cannot be chosen or changed at will, nor can they be "socialized" onto a person's body, it stands to reason that they are passed on to us genetically, even though they do not ALWAYS mirror our parent's. This obviously being the case, it's not at all difficult to assume, then, that the traits that involve sexual orientation are passed on to us similarly, and with similar inexplicable variations. Anyone with even a little intellectual honesty, and an ability to reason, will conclude the same.

No. Anyone with even a little intellectual honesty would not accuse others of intellectual dishonesty merely because they hold a different opinion.

I explained why holding a "different opinion" regarding this is intellectually dishonest, or at best, unreasonable.

Please feel free to explain how my explanation regarding my position is wrong. And please keep in mind that your opinions do not trump reason.

 

[Lighthouse]

Hmm, really? Is that why nobody disagreed with him, it's the same meaning that we have today, and you can't provide a citation saying that there is no "separation of church and state"?

Grow up and take a civics class

You're a joke.