View Full Version : In other CO legislative news- CO General Assembly Passes Civil Unions Bill
Human Rights Campaign (a pro-gay movement, kind of a misleading name) President said this:
The Colorado legislature has taken a definitive step forward in the march toward equality. The passage of civil unions in the Centennial State is further proof that full equality for committed and loving gay and lesbian couples is in sight. From now on LGBT couples in Colorado will no longer be legal strangers in the eyes of their state, but rather recognized and supported by the law.
You can read the full story, but it looks to be that now it has to go to Hick and we become the 18th state to "provide the equivalent of state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples."
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/civil-unions-pass-in-colorado (http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/civil-unions-pass-in-colorado)
Teufelhund
03-12-2013, 14:33
I couldn't care less. The government doesn't belong in my bedroom or my marriage, and it doesn't belong in anyone else's either. Gay/straight/democrat/liberal - make friends, introduce them to the shooting sports, teach them firearm safety, take them to the range, teach them how to defend their self and their families, stay out of their private lives.
I just posted as an FYI, not taking any side- but I am happy that they call it Civil Unions and not "Marriage"... I still see a separation between the two.
Just to get the ball rolling in here... the term "marriage" has no real effect on the relationship me and my wife have. We would be just as content and happy if it were a "civil union". I think they should do away with marriage certificates and make it to where EVERYONE, who wanted the benefits that go along with a "marriage", had to go get a civil union. That takes the term marriage away from the state (where it doesn't belong) and puts it right back in the chapel. It seems like a win-win for everybody. Everyone gets the equal rights and treated the same. And for those of you who believe in a biblical definition of the word "marriage" you still have the ability to have a marriage ceremony at your chapel or place of choice with your ordained minister or individual of choice and the blessings of your particular god and family and friends. Gay people getting married has no effect on MY marriage. And if we flipped the boat... I bet my civil union with my wife would have no effect on the civil unions of gay couples. I wish that is the route states would take. You "save traditional marriage" and everyone gets the same rights and SHOULD be happy. I have a feeling some people wouldn't be happy with that though. Just a hunch! hehe
Now the question, to get us back on topic, is -- do two partners in a recognized 'civil union' get the same benefits for 'transfer' under our new Universal Background Check law?
Just to get the ball rolling in here... the term "marriage" has no real effect on the relationship me and my wife have. We would be just as content and happy if it were a "civil union". I think they should do away with marriage certificates and make it to where EVERYONE, who wanted the benefits that go along with a "marriage", had to go get a civil union. That takes the term marriage away from the state (where it doesn't belong) and puts it right back in the chapel. It seems like a win-win for everybody. Everyone gets the equal rights and treated the same. And for those of you who believe in a biblical definition of the word "marriage" you still have the ability to have a marriage ceremony at your chapel or place of choice with your ordained minister or individual of choice and the blessings of your particular god and family and friends. Gay people getting married has no effect on MY marriage. And if we flipped the boat... I bet my civil union with my wife would have no effect on the civil unions of gay couples. I wish that is the route states would take. You "save traditional marriage" and everyone gets the same rights and SHOULD be happy. I have a feeling some people wouldn't be happy with that though. Just a hunch! hehe
THIS! Well said. That's what I've been saying the entire time, and every subsequent time this subject gets debated among my friends- a UNION is recognized by the state, a MARRIAGE is recognized by the Church.
I couldn't care less. The government doesn't belong in my bedroom or my marriage, and it doesn't belong in anyone else's either. Gay/straight/democrat/liberal - make friends, introduce them to the shooting sports, teach them firearm safety, take them to the range, teach them how to defend their self and their families, stay out of their private lives.
Thank you! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I think it's fair to say if gun owners want to maintain their rights, the best way is to encourage people from all walks of life to exercise their Constitutional rights. I'm always on the lookout to educate ethnic minorities and the non-hetero community on their rights as Americans. If we want freedom and equality for all, let's walk the walk instead of letting our prejudices isolate us as citizens. I can happily say that out of all the gun shops I've walked into ever, only ONE has ever been racist towards me. It didn't stop me from maintaining my rights because I went elsewhere.
so this issue that got the D thier majority got sidelined to rush through the gun debacle... fucking lovely, this should have been the first bill they passed.
two shoes
03-12-2013, 15:45
Thank you! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I think it's fair to say if gun owners want to maintain their rights, the best way is to encourage people from all walks of life to exercise their Constitutional rights. I'm always on the lookout to educate ethnic minorities and the non-hetero community on their rights as Americans. If we want freedom and equality for all, let's walk the walk instead of letting our prejudices isolate us as citizens. I can happily say that out of all the gun shops I've walked into ever, only ONE has ever been racist towards me. It didn't stop me from maintaining my rights because I went elsewhere.
I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....
I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....
yeah, this sums it up very well.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody
don't skip the update at the bottom. wonder what state his friend was in.
I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....
Take the high road... As my BDE Chaplain once said "If you treat others well and fair, but they do not treat you well or fairly, you just proved to God and, more importantly, yourself, that you can be and are the better man."
Republicans continued the usual dumb-fuckery by trying to amend this bill to allow the license clerk to with hold the marriage license if they held a personal religious belief that was against gay marriage. This is the equivalent of the DMV clerk denying the renewal of your Driver's License because of his or her personal religious beliefs. Way to continue to be unelectable Republicans, thanks for all the new gun control. Don't say you're for less goverent if you don't mean it.
two shoes
03-12-2013, 16:10
yeah, this sums it up very well.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody
don't skip the update at the bottom. wonder what state his friend was in.
Good read merl... feel like I am done with others fights and concentrate on my own, with like minded individuals. LOVED the "AMFs" at the end and the update is sad...
I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....
Were you standing up for the rights of all people back in the late 1960's when the police were regularly raiding gay nightclubs and arresting gays for congregating?
That stupid article that Zundfolge posted only does further damage to all causes. One could simply say, "Where were the gays to stand up for us back in 1934?!" We can dick measure about who turned their back on whom first, until the origin of time. It is a continuous Chicken or the Egg question, and it doesn't mayyer when it started, only when it ends. People can step up and put their "less government" money where their "less government" mouths are, or we can just continue to fuck each other over in the face of a common enemy like we do every election when we vote for the lesser evil.
I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....
I'm one of them, and I believe that if the republican party REALLY wants to make a comeback it has to go back to its old school roots of personal liberties and keeping government out of people's personal lives. That would also include keeping religion out of politics, and they need to take a step back and really weed out the messes they have created among their own party. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
Republicans continued the usual dumb-fuckery by trying to amend this bill to allow the license clerk to with hold the marriage license if they held a personal religious belief that was against gay marriage. This is the equivalent of the DMV clerk denying the renewal of your Driver's License because of his or her personal religious beliefs. Way to continue to be unelectable Republicans, thanks for all the new gun control. Don't say you're for less goverent if you don't mean it.
Yup! Totally agreed.
Teufelhund
03-12-2013, 16:33
I'm one of them, and I believe that if the republican party REALLY wants to make a comeback it has to go back to its old school roots of personal liberties and keeping government out of people's personal lives. That would also include keeping religion out of politics, and they need to take a step back and really weed out the messes they have created among their own party. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
Well said. I'm not sure the GOP is capable of being this honest with itself. If it were, the time to do so was well before this last election.
two shoes
03-12-2013, 16:34
Were you standing up for the rights of all people back in the late 1960's when the police were regularly raiding gay nightclubs and arresting gays for congregating?
That stupid article that Zundfolge posted only does further damage to all causes. One could simply say, "Where were the gays to stand up for us back in 1934?!" We can dick measure about who turned their back on whom first, until the origin of time. It is a continuous Chicken or the Egg question, and it doesn't mayyer when it started, only when it ends. People can step up and put their "less government" money where their "less government" mouths are, or we can just continue to fuck each other over in the face of a common enemy like we do every election when we vote for the lesser evil.
two shoes did not exist in the sixties, 1960's nor 1860's nor 1760's...
I understand fighting the "good fight" and doing so for nothing more than knowing it is the right thing to do.... Just frustrated that it is like this.
When choosing between the lesser of two evils, no matter which the choice, is still evil...
SigShooter
03-12-2013, 16:41
I'm one of them, and I believe that if the republican party REALLY wants to make a comeback it has to go back to its old school roots of personal liberties and keeping government out of people's personal lives. That would also include keeping religion out of politics, and they need to take a step back and really weed out the messes they have created among their own party. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
Yes
two shoes did not exist in the sixties, 1960's nor 1860's nor 1760's...
I understand fighting the "good fight" and doing so for nothing more than knowing it is the right thing to do.... Just frustrated that it is like this.
When choosing between the lesser of two evils, no matter which the choice, is still evil...
I wasn't alive either, which makes it difficult for me to pound my chest about all the times I've been thrown under the bus, when some of the people I'm screaming at have been thrown under the bus long before I was born.
Who cares. Doesnt affect anyone other than the party involved and they get the same rights as everyone else. Now they need to realize what the government is doing to all citizens and get behind ( not literally) those groups and support them!
Goodburbon
03-12-2013, 19:04
Good. One less issue the left will have to rally people to their side.
New campaign slogan to get gays to help us out, "An armed homosexual is better than a dead one!"
muddywings
03-12-2013, 21:26
in case anybody is curious, you don't need a judge or a priest or anybody to marry you in CO. You can pretty much just have the two people sign the marriage certificate and boom-married!
My wife and I had a friend marry us. He is one of those naturally gifted funny people who can hold an audience well!
As for my opinion on this matter...eh don't care. Heterosexual married couples have screwed up the institution of mariage well enough at this point. Let homosexual couples have at it. It will still be just as screwed up as it was yesterday.
From a purely constitutional perspective, it is a joke. First, why should "married" people have any financial benefit over the unmarried? They should not and marriage tax benefits create two classes of people...unconstitutional. Second, I can grant any person I want Power of attorney for any variety of issues. Signing a "Civil Union" gives no more "joint property" benefit than drafting a contract did before. Three pieces of paper gave my wife MORE legal authority of her fathers medical information and decisions than our marriage grants her, and it was a HECK of a lot cheaper. So, instead of making everyone equal under the tax code, we added a segment (small) to a protected class. We should have gone the other way. I know a same sex couple who were adamantly opposed to this law. They put all their property and financial vehilces in trust, are both members of the trust and signed medical directives. They have more tax advantage and if they dissolve their "trust" the details are spelled out and they won't end up clogging up divorce court.
Who cares. Doesnt affect anyone other than the party involved and they get the same rights as everyone else. Now they need to realize what the government is doing to all citizens and get behind ( not literally) those groups and support them!
We should all care, because the dumbass Republicans in office last year had a huge fillibuster to block this bill last year. That stunt left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they all got booted out of office and now we have 5 gun control measures. Besides that, I totally agree with you.
SA Friday
03-12-2013, 22:27
We should all care, because the dumbass Republicans in office last year had a huge fillibuster to block this bill last year. That stunt left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they all got booted out of office and now we have 5 gun control measures. Besides that, I totally agree with you.
i completely agree.
Republicans lost more than one seat over what... a feel-good law. It changed nothing, represented little to nothing, and cost nothing to sign off on. So stupid and so easy to avoid the fallout.
If I remember correctly, doesn't Colorado have common law marriage where if you live with someone for more than 7 years and others know then by default you end up married?
We should all care, because the dumbass Republicans in office last year had a huge fillibuster to block this bill last year. That stunt left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they all got booted out of office and now we have 5 gun control measures. Besides that, I totally agree with you.
Yep. This is the crux of the issue. I'm completely fine with gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it. I'm also fine with legalized weed.
Suffice it to say, I think most people in Colorado, even those who may dislike gay marriage or pot, are probably willing to tolerate these things to one extent or another. Furthermore, given that the evangelical movement has been somewhat on the wane in the last couple of years, it seems very clear to me that the Republican party has already reaped any gains to be had from beating the drum for social issues in order to get votes and contributions from the God Squad, while essentially alienating any middle-of-the-road moderates or Colorado libertarians.
Now the question, to get us back on topic, is -- do two partners in a recognized 'civil union' get the same benefits for 'transfer' under our new Universal Background Check law?
When I talked with Kent Lambert, I brought this issue up. He said that once civil unions pass, all of the language in Colorado law would be changed to recognize civil unions, which meant that, as far as he understood it, a gay couple wouldn't have to worry about engaging in an illegal transfer.
Yep. This is the crux of the issue. I'm completely fine with gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it. I'm also fine with legalized weed.
Suffice it to say, I think most people in Colorado, even those who may dislike gay marriage or pot, are probably willing to tolerate these things to one extent or another. Furthermore, given that the evangelical movement has been somewhat on the wane in the last couple of years, it seems very clear to me that the Republican party has already reaped any gains to be had from beating the drum for social issues in order to get votes and contributions from the God Squad, while essentially alienating any middle-of-the-road moderates or Colorado libertarians.
Yup, we're on the same page. I don't care if you want to sleep with someone of the opposite sex or same sex, I don't care if you want to hit that bong as long as you're not being disruptive to others. As long as we can all be Americans and keep our Constitutional right, that's all that matters.
If I remember correctly, doesn't Colorado have common law marriage where if you live with someone for more than 7 years and others know then by default you end up married?
I believe it is six months.
palepainter
03-13-2013, 08:36
Although I could completely care less what any one does I their bedroom, I am still disappointed with what I had heard during testimonial in the State House. I listened to a bunch of whiney homosexuals cry about their rights.... The very same day that the Senate decided to take away our rights. So part of me say...fuck them all. It is apparently ok to have the rights to be a butt plunger or a dildoe jockey, but ok for me to have my rights to bear arms infringed.
BlasterBob
03-13-2013, 08:41
Although I could completely care less what any one does I their bedroom, I am still disappointed with what I had heard during testimonial in the State House. I listened to a bunch of whiney homosexuals cry about their rights.... The very same day that the Senate decided to take away our rights. So part of me say...fuck them all. It is apparently ok to have the rights to be a butt plunger or a dildoe jockey, but ok for me to have my rights to bear arms infringed.
+1,000
... Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
Um, no, it doesn't.
Amendment 1 USC
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.
... "An armed homosexual is better than a dead one!"
Um, no, it isn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650663
AbstractIs domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.
People most likely to be in abusive relationships are least in need of protection. Got it.
We're happy it passed but we've never voted any issue before gun rights. Ever. I've gone further, criticizing hate crimes legislation, as the priority to be self-reliant and defend yourself against the predator requires (in my case, as I'm not the physical equivalent to a pumped-up nutcase) Vermont-style shall-issue concealed carry foremost!
And that got the GLBT community pissed.
If I remember correctly, doesn't Colorado have common law marriage where if you live with someone for more than 7 years and others know then by default you end up married?
In Colorado you just have to meet some qualifiers to prove it in court. Some of them are cohabitation, joint bank account, filling joint tax returns, introducing your self as husband and wife. There is no fixed time period, you just need to convey your self as if you were legally married and you have a common law marriage.
Rucker61
03-13-2013, 11:21
Um, no, it doesn't.
Amendment 1 USC
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.
What does Freedom From Religion mean to each of you? Unless the definition is agreed upon, the argument is not going to accomplish much.
Um, no, it isn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650663
Abstract
Is domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.
Nice try, I never specified what kind of violence they are defending themselves against whether it was domestic violence or an attacker trying to carry out a hate crime. Your statistics hold nothing, it doesn't even make a mention of use of a firearm in homosexual domestic violence. Add to the fact that the Family Research Institute has religious bias tied into their views. I should also mention that you're entitled to throw numbers at a personal opinion all you want, even if you have no idea what my broad statement is about.
Teufelhund
03-13-2013, 12:13
What does Freedom From Religion mean to each of you? Unless the definition is agreed upon, the argument is not going to accomplish much.
It means one cannot be forced to adhere to the rules of any religion. The First Amendment, as quoted above, restricts the government (to be clear, this applies to every level of government, not just Federal) from passing legislation which imposes religious beliefs. In keeping with the spirit of every other right guaranteed to Americans: you are free to practice any religion, in any way, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another; you cannot be forced to practice any religion.
Nice try, I never specified what kind of violence they are defending themselves against whether it was domestic violence or an attacker trying to carry out a hate crime. Your statistics hold nothing, it doesn't even make a mention of use of a firearm in homosexual domestic violence. Add to the fact that the Family Research Institute has religious bias tied into their views. I should also mention that you're entitled to throw numbers at a personal opinion all you want, even if you have no idea what my broad statement is about.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
"In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that as a whole (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual)homosexual (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality) couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual) In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Murders)."
http://www.advocate.com/health/mental-wellness/2012/10/04/bisexual-women-and-gay-men-higher-risk-intimate-partner-violence
http://www.massresistance.org/
Teufelhund
03-13-2013, 12:18
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
"In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that as a whole (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual)homosexual (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality) couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual) In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Murders)."
http://www.advocate.com/health/mental-wellness/2012/10/04/bisexual-women-and-gay-men-higher-risk-intimate-partner-violence
http://www.massresistance.org/
Wow. Yeah, that doesn't sound biased at all. . .
I heard all gun-owners are deranged sociopaths, hell-bent on the destruction of civilization with their mass-murder machines. Oh, and they all have small penises.
Davsel, I'd like to personally thank you for this state's five newest gun laws. Pat yourself on the back.
Wow. Yeah, that doesn't sound biased at all. . .
I heard all gun-owners are deranged sociopaths, hell-bent on the destruction of civilization with their mass-murder machines. Oh, and they all have small penises.
Perhaps you could provide a link to historical statistics to back that claim?
Even when statistics point to facts you are not comfortable with, the truth remains.
Davsel, I'd like to personally thank you for this state's five newest gun laws. Pat yourself on the back.
Seriously?
I do not agree with celebrating homosexuality, and you somehow twist that into me being personally responsible for Colorado gun laws passing?
Seriously?
Teufelhund
03-13-2013, 12:37
Perhaps you could provide a link to historical statistics to back that claim?
Even when statistics point to facts you are not comfortable with, the truth remains.
Pointing to "statistics" on conservapedia is akin to Rhonda Fields posting on her Facebook page that "92% of Americans support universal background checks." You can't poll a cross section of 0.5% of the population and then apply those statistics to everyone as if it is undeniable truth. Don't look now, but your irrational prejudice is showing.
It's none of your business what other people do in their personal lives. Unless there's two dudes blowing each other on your front porch and you can't get to your car, get over yourself and move on with your life. It doesn't affect you.
Pointing to "statistics" on conservapedia is akin to Rhonda Fields posting on her Facebook page that "92% of Americans support universal background checks." You can't poll a cross section of 0.5% of the population and then apply those statistics to everyone as if it is undeniable truth. Don't look now, but your irrational prejudice is showing.
It's none of your business what other people do in their personal lives. Unless there's two dudes blowing each other on your front porch and you can't get to your car, get over yourself and move on with your life. It doesn't affect you.
Um, no, it is not "akin."
Opinion polls != statistics
I agree, it is none of my business what other people do in their personal lives. However, when they bring their personal lives into public, it certainly becomes my business as a member of the public.
If you want me to stay out of your personal business, keep it personal.
What you really want, is for me to approve, condone, promote, accept, tolerate, etc. your "personal business." That is not something I will ever do.
Seriously?
I do not agree with celebrating homosexuality, and you somehow twist that into me being personally responsible for Colorado gun laws passing?
Seriously?
If you support and encourage elected officials who engaged in the filibuster to prevent the Civil Union debate lasy year, then yes I hold you responsible.
If you support and encourage elected officials who engaged in the filibuster to prevent the Civil Union debate lasy year, then yes I hold you responsible.
I am still not understanding the correlation between last year's filibuster over Civil Unions and the recent gun control bills.
I do not want to jump to any conclusions as to what you intend. Can you please explain?
You are new to the site, so I will explain again. That filibuster was what got the Republicans swept out of office. Not marijuana legislation, not energized new voters etc.
You are new to the site, so I will explain again. That filibuster was what got the Republicans swept out of office. Not marijuana legislation, not energized new voters etc.
Let me see if I have this straight:
Republicans kept the Civil Union bill from passing last year.
The public got upset and voted Democrats into office because of this.
Democrats passed gun control bills.
I am responsible.
Sounds plausible to me, but hey, I am "new to this site" and all.
In the end, I will never give up my morality in order to appease the general public's fragile sensibilities.
Guilty as charged!
Teufelhund
03-13-2013, 13:34
Um, no, it is not "akin."
Opinion polls != statistics
I agree, it is none of my business what other people do in their personal lives. However, when they bring their personal lives into public, it certainly becomes my business as a member of the public.
If you want me to stay out of your personal business, keep it personal.
What you really want, is for me to approve, condone, promote, accept, tolerate, etc. your "personal business." That is not something I will ever do.
You're right, my example was poor. My point is that your biased statistics are bullshit.
I totally agree one should keep their personal business personal. I cringe when my own wife tries to kiss me in public.
Thanks for telling me what I really want; it turns out you're wrong. I wouldn't ask you to promote or support anything, because I honestly don't give a shit what you approve or condone, but you don't have the right to tell someone else they can't do something you disapprove of if it doesn't affect you. Approval is not the same thing as apathy.
You're right, my example was poor. My point is that your biased statistics are bullshit.
I totally agree one should keep their personal business personal. I cringe when my own wife tries to kiss me in public.
Thanks for telling me what I really want; it turns out you're wrong. I wouldn't ask you to promote or support anything, because I honestly don't give a shit what you approve or condone, but you don't have the right to tell someone else they can't do something you disapprove of if it doesn't affect you. Approval is not the same thing as apathy.
I should not have used the word, "you" in my statement. "the homosexual lobby," would have been a better choice.
Yes, I certainly can "tell someone else they can't do something [I] disapprove of." I do it all the time. And have no intention of stopping the practice.
"Civil Union" is one step closer to "Marriage." This is where it is going to end up. Marriage is defined and explained throughout the Bible. I do not believe homosexuals should be "Married." This is my belief, and I vote/speak accordingly. There is not enough space here to get into all the ways public acceptance of homosexuality affects me and my family. In short, it is another glaring sign of the next fall of civilization. I can't stop it, but I will never accept it as valid.
Your morals are likely different than mine. No problem from here - I know where I'm grounded.
Rucker61
03-13-2013, 14:53
There is not enough space here to get into all the ways public acceptance of homosexuality affects me and my family.
It affects you because you let it. WWJD?
It affects you because you let it. WWJD?
Tell them to go, and sin no more.
See John 8:11
Gays can marry and your morals can remain unchanged at the same time. Similarly, the Country Music Awards and Hip Hop Awards can co-exist with little interference between the two.
I should not have used the word, "you" in my statement. "the homosexual lobby," would have been a better choice.
Yes, I certainly can "tell someone else they can't do something [I] disapprove of." I do it all the time. And have no intention of stopping the practice.
"Civil Union" is one step closer to "Marriage." This is where it is going to end up. Marriage is defined and explained throughout the Bible. I do not believe homosexuals should be "Married." This is my belief, and I vote/speak accordingly. There is not enough space here to get into all the ways public acceptance of homosexuality affects me and my family. In short, it is another glaring sign of the next fall of civilization. I can't stop it, but I will never accept it as valid.
Your morals are likely different than mine. No problem from here - I know where I'm grounded.
So let me get this straight... Freedom, as you define it, is a one way street? Your way or no way at all? And what about those who do not agree or follow the bible? Are they wrong? I understand that your morals are dictated by your religious beliefs, somehow inspired by the teachings of a society that condoned slavery, women to be 2nd class citizens, and other archaic beliefs... Christianity, as per defined and outlined by the biblical writings of 2000+ years ago, cannot be taken literally in our modern society, otherwise anyone working on Sunday would be put to death, gays would be put to death, and a lot of other very bad things would happen. I often see the bible as a good guide, pointing those of us who wish to subscribe to those religious ideals in the direction needed when it becomes unclear. But the other great thing about liberty is CHOICE. We are free to choose to believe whatever we want, be it from the strict literal version of biblical Christianity, to the loose, libertarian-esque interpretation of Christianity (like what I follow), and everything else under the sun. I choose to believe that we are all free to live how we wish and do what makes us happy, if that means that two women want their union recognized by the state so they may be granted the same benefits as a legally married man and woman, so be it, I'm not one to judge, and as God said, neither should you be.
I leave this for you davsel... God bless...
http://xcntrik.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wpid-13373990301.jpg
Oh and for the record, my uncle, RIP, was a homosexual, and a very devout Christian who loved his family and followed the teachings of Christ, more specifically, treating others justly, fairly and how you would like them to treat you. [Beer]
Gays can marry and your morals can remain unchanged at the same time. Similarly, the Country Music Awards and Hip Hop Awards can co-exist with little interference between the two.
Certainly true.
I am not concerned about my morals changing, but with societies morals changing.
I am simply expressing my moral beliefs.
Some will hear, most will not, but I will continue to my last breath, God willing.
Others wish to shout down my morals and tell me I must accept what is immoral, or that I should just keep quiet. I will not.
So let me get this straight... Freedom, as you define it, is a one way street? Your way or no way at all? And what about those who do not agree or follow the bible? Are they wrong? I understand that your morals are dictated by your religious beliefs, somehow inspired by the teachings of a society that condoned slavery, women to be 2nd class citizens, and other archaic beliefs... Christianity, as per defined and outlined by the biblical writings of 2000+ years ago, cannot be taken literally in our modern society, otherwise anyone working on Sunday would be put to death, gays would be put to death, and a lot of other very bad things would happen. I often see the bible as a good guide, pointing those of us who wish to subscribe to those religious ideals in the direction needed when it becomes unclear. But the other great thing about liberty is CHOICE. We are free to choose to believe whatever we want, be it from the strict literal version of biblical Christianity, to the loose, libertarian-esque interpretation of Christianity (like what I follow), and everything else under the sun. I choose to believe that we are all free to live how we wish and do what makes us happy, if that means that two women want their union recognized by the state so they may be granted the same benefits as a legally married man and woman, so be it, I'm not one to judge, and as God said, neither should you be.
I leave this for you davsel... God bless...
Oh and for the record, my uncle, RIP, was a homosexual, and a very devout Christian who loved his family and followed the teachings of Christ, more specifically, treating others justly, fairly and how you would like them to treat you.
This is another false "teaching" attributed to the Bible.
This link explains it better than I:
http://www.letusreason.org/Pent44.htm
"This article is being written on behalf of all the ministries and people that defend the faith with the truth and are accused of judging because they test those who teach falsely with the Word of God.
The premise-Does God tell us [B]not to judge?
The Bibles answer-No He does not.
John 7:24 Jesus says: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” What Jesus does tell us is not to judge by our own opinions, but instead judge by the word of God, that is what it means to judge righteously. He always encouraged the people to judge. God told Israel to judge the prophets in the Old Testament. He had the true prophets judge the false but the people reacted saying the very same things people are saying today. Your being negative oh you never have anything good to say. In the New Testament we are told to judge prophecy, to discern, to test the spirits and we are told to test ALL things. We are told to do this because it helps keep us away from what is false and evil. The apostle Paul showed us how to judge so there would be no second guesswork. The apostle Paul said, “If anyone preaches another gospel let him be accursed” Would anyone say to Paul's face “your judging.” In 2 Thess. 3:14-15 “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Strong guidelines that many avoid to do today. These are done not to condemn but to bring repentance and restoration."
This is another false "teaching" attributed to the Bible.
This link explains it better than I:
http://www.letusreason.org/Pent44.htm
"This article is being written on behalf of all the ministries and people that defend the faith with the truth and are accused of judging because they test those who teach falsely with the Word of God.
The premise-Does God tell us not to judge?
The Bibles answer-No He does not.
John 7:24 Jesus says: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” What Jesus does tell us is not to judge by our own opinions, but instead judge by the word of God, that is what it means to judge righteously. He always encouraged the people to judge. God told Israel to judge the prophets in the Old Testament. He had the true prophets judge the false but the people reacted saying the very same things people are saying today. Your being negative oh you never have anything good to say. In the New Testament we are told to judge prophecy, to discern, to test the spirits and we are told to test ALL things. We are told to do this because it helps keep us away from what is false and evil. The apostle Paul showed us how to judge so there would be no second guesswork. The apostle Paul said, “If anyone preaches another gospel let him be accursed” Would anyone say to Paul's face “your judging.” In 2 Thess. 3:14-15 “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Strong guidelines that many avoid to do today. These are done not to condemn but to bring repentance and restoration."
I believe I'm going to be a broken record here and repeat myself- YOU CANNOT, in our modern society, interpret the bible literally. And the bible is full of contradictory statements... Hence why I stated I do not follow it to the T and take the passages within with a grain of salt:
Matthew 7
1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Certainly true. I am not concerned about my morals changing, but with societies morals changing. I am simply expressing my moral beliefs. Some will hear, most will not, but I will continue to my last breath, God willing. Others wish to shout down my morals and tell me I must accept what is immoral, or that I should just keep quiet. I will not.So here is the crux of it, you wish to impart your morals on the society and any divergence from your morals is determined to be the prophetic downfall of civilization.
Yes, you can vote to try to push a moral agenda, or any other agenda, and I am glad we theoretically live in a country where this is allowed and encouraged. But don't be surprised when the same system that gaurantees your freedom to have a religion that your moral foundation is based upon, then affords someone else a privelage that you deem unworthy or immoral by the same voting.
I don't have a dog in the fight and could give 2 shts less either way. But wasting government time and money trying to regulate the things people do that has zero impact on others is what is really pointless. Smoke weed, but contribute to the society, fine. Live a ethical and honorable life, but marry (civil union, whatever) the same sex, who cares? It's the removing of our rights that should have everyone up in arms. The rights are what are common for every law abiding American. Everything else is just more fodder from the divide and conquuer playbook.
Teufelhund
03-13-2013, 16:01
I should not have used the word, "you" in my statement. "the homosexual lobby," would have been a better choice.
Yes, I certainly can "tell someone else they can't do something [I] disapprove of." I do it all the time. And have no intention of stopping the practice.
"Civil Union" is one step closer to "Marriage." This is where it is going to end up. Marriage is defined and explained throughout the Bible. I do not believe homosexuals should be "Married." This is my belief, and I vote/speak accordingly. There is not enough space here to get into all the ways public acceptance of homosexuality affects me and my family. In short, it is another glaring sign of the next fall of civilization. I can't stop it, but I will never accept it as valid.
Your morals are likely different than mine. No problem from here - I know where I'm grounded.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said "tell" when what I meant was "prohibit." Of course you can say whatever you want. I believe liberty means being free from imposition of someone else's beliefs, and everyone is entitled to that modicum of liberty.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree at this point. You feel you have an obligation to correct everyone else's sin as you perceive it, and I think you have an obligation to leave them alone.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said "tell" when what I meant was "prohibit." Of course you can say whatever you want. I believe liberty means being free from imposition of someone else's beliefs, and everyone is entitled to that modicum of liberty.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree at this point. You feel you have an obligation to correct everyone else's sin as you perceive it, and I think you have an obligation to leave them alone.
I like where your head's at! [Beer]
So here is the crux of it, you wish to impart your morals on the society and any divergence from your morals is determined to be the prophetic downfall of civilization.
Yes, you can vote to try to push a moral agenda, or any other agenda, and I am glad we theoretically live in a country where this is allowed and encouraged. But don't be surprised when the same system that gaurantees your freedom to have a religion that your moral foundation is based upon, then affords someone else a privelage that you deem unworthy or immoral by the same voting.
I don't have a dog in the fight and could give 2 shts less either way. But wasting government time and money trying to regulate the things people do that has zero impact on others is what is really pointless. Smoke weed, but contribute to the society, fine. Live a ethical and honorable life, but marry (civil union, whatever) the same sex, who cares? It's the removing of our rights that should have everyone up in arms. The rights are what are common for every law abiding American. Everything else is just more fodder from the divide and conquuer playbook.
Thank you! Hatred and bigotry won't solve the bigger problems the government keeps throwing onto the people. If we are to get anywhere as a nation, people have to get along peacefully. I would happily educate a homosexual on their 2nd Amendment rights, the same would go for an ethnic minority who has become a US citizen. I've met plenty of people from all religions living peacefully bothering no one who are willing to help me uphold my right to bear arms even if they themselves don't believe in gun ownership.
The davesels in the shooting community make it difficult to feel comfortable shooting alone in controlled ranges because I wear a gay pride pin everywhere to be visible as a reference to dismantle stereotypes. On my old denim jacket there was an American flag, and beneath it, a rainbow flag. On the lapel were my GOA pin and pagan (wiccan) pin (it's the religion of my ancestors, not the modern thing).
I wear only the gay pride pin and the GOA pin now.
I dress very modestly - it's easier to CCW and have layers.
Hate is so easy, such a cop-out. The sheer numbers of GLBT in EMS, in LE, in the military that I personally know who celebrate the beginning of basic legal equality for civil unions number in the dozens - and I am a stay-at-home housewife. It isn't about intercourse, it's about who you love, to the exclusion of all others. That's the core of a family. Since government is in the business of having special benefits for hetero married couples, then the reality of a civil union for gay couples is equable from an administrative perspective if the values of stable families are deemed significant enough to elevate above those granted all others.
I get that some religious folks will hemorrhage over it.
It comes with the territory of not living a lie.
The davesels in the shooting community make it difficult to feel comfortable shooting alone in controlled ranges because I wear a gay pride pin everywhere to be visible as a reference to dismantle stereotypes.
Speaking of stereotypes, at no point an any of my posts, here or elsewhere, did I ever speak of hating anyone.
First law: Love God
Second: Love everyone as yourself
Not all "religious types" are hate-filled Westboro Baptist followers. I have often stood between Phelps and funeral attendees as a Patriot Guard Rider.
I have a very close lesbian LE friend and several lesbian acquaintances (through my wife's work), and more than one gay family member. I was friends with several homosexuals while serving 21 years in the USAF (during a time when it was a private matter). I try to love 'em all. I do not agree with their lifestyle, and they know this. Hate does not come into the equation.
You will be perfectly safe wearing your gay pride pin in my presence. I will not even bring up the subject. However, if you bring it up, I will openly share my beliefs. Take 'em or leave 'em. Agreeing to disagree is no problem for me. Some will hear, most will not.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-13-2013, 21:39
Speaking of stereotypes, at no point an any of my posts, here or elsewhere, did I ever speak of hating anyone.
First law: Love God
Second: Love everyone as yourself
Not all "religious types" are hate-filled Westboro Baptist followers. I have often stood between Phelps and funeral attendees as a Patriot Guard Rider.
I have a very close lesbian LE friend and several lesbian acquaintances (through my wife's work), and more than one gay family member. I was friends with several homosexuals while serving 21 years in the USAF (during a time when it was a private matter). I try to love 'em all. I do not agree with their lifestyle, and they know this. Hate does not come into the equation.
You will be perfectly safe wearing your gay pride pin in my presence. I will not even bring up the subject. However, if you bring it up, I will openly share my beliefs. Take 'em or leave 'em. Agreeing to disagree is no problem for me. Some will hear, most will not.
You're asking them to keep their personal lives and opinions private.... Maybe you should follow your own advice and shut the hell up. :D
I believe I'm going to be a broken record here and repeat myself- YOU CANNOT, in our modern society, interpret the bible literally. And the bible is full of contradictory statements... Hence why I stated I do not follow it to the T and take the passages within with a grain of salt:
I am certain I have heard that broken record applied by liberals to the United States Constitution; specifically the 2nd Amendment.
Just an observation.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-13-2013, 22:05
33 posts is all it took for you to piss off half the board.... Good job, Obama voter.
Is it safe to say the overwhelming majority of Colorado State Legislators who voted for Civil Unions, are the same ones who voted for gun restrictions?
And, the overwhelming majority of those that voted against Civil Unions, voted against gun restrictions?
Might be time to zero your compass.
I am certain I have heard that broken record applied by liberals to the United States Constitution; specifically the 2nd Amendment.
Just an observation.
I was going to point out this same thing.
Damn glad I stopped in this thread (popcorn)
I am ok with it as long as someone enacts a high capacity condom ban those extra 2 inches are the dangerous ones
Speaking of stereotypes, at no point an any of my posts, here or elsewhere, did I ever speak of hating anyone.
First law: Love God
Second: Love everyone as yourself
Not all "religious types" are hate-filled Westboro Baptist followers. I have often stood between Phelps and funeral attendees as a Patriot Guard Rider.
I have a very close lesbian LE friend and several lesbian acquaintances (through my wife's work), and more than one gay family member. I was friends with several homosexuals while serving 21 years in the USAF (during a time when it was a private matter). I try to love 'em all. I do not agree with their lifestyle, and they know this. Hate does not come into the equation.
You will be perfectly safe wearing your gay pride pin in my presence. I will not even bring up the subject. However, if you bring it up, I will openly share my beliefs. Take 'em or leave 'em. Agreeing to disagree is no problem for me. Some will hear, most will not.
Now you're backpedaling. You earlier called for them to not have the rights they seek (I never knew God relinquished his powers to you), now you have no problem as long as they keep it quiet?
I am certain I have heard that broken record applied by liberals to the United States Constitution; specifically the 2nd Amendment.
Just an observation.
Ah, a reaching argument, nice try. Okay, so come strike me down, because my next statement can be construed as blasphemous and according to the old testament I shall be put to death... The BIBLE was written by men, it is not the word of God himself. Since you believe we must follow the bible... Oh and you better go after those Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Satanists, Jedi, and Taoists because they put false Gods before your one true God. This is the reason why my interpretation and following of the Christian faith fails to conform to the organized system of beliefs because I use logic and reason to realize that the Bible, A) cannot be interpreted literally, and B) was written by man, not God and thus should be regarded as such (ie, pun sorry, not in fact Gospel, but as tales and examples of doing good and clarifying right and wrong loosely).
... The BIBLE was written by men, it is not the word of God himself. Since you believe we must follow the bible... Oh and you better go after those Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Satanists, Jedi, and Taoists because they put false Gods before your one true God. This is the reason why my interpretation and following of the Christian faith fails to conform to the organized system of beliefs because I use logic and reason to realize that the Bible, A) cannot be interpreted literally, and B) was written by man, not God and thus should be regarded as such (ie, pun sorry, not in fact Gospel, but as tales and examples of doing good and clarifying right and wrong loosely).
FWIW
I once believed as you do now. I spent years arguing with "Christians" over the origins and interpretations of the Bible, written by man, cause of war, used for control of the masses/finances, great moral stories, etc.
What changed my mind was when a friend gave me a copy of a Greek/English translation of the New Testament. She wanted to take away my argument of translation differences. I read it front to back and became a believer about half way through. I then spent a couple of years studying the Bible through college courses and on my own. It has made a defining difference in my life.
YMMV
FWIW
I once believed as you do now. I spent years arguing with "Christians" over the origins and interpretations of the Bible, written by man, cause of war, used for control of the masses/finances, great moral stories, etc.
What changed my mind was when a friend gave me a copy of a Greek/English translation of the New Testament. She wanted to take away my argument of translation differences. I read it front to back and became a believer about half way through. I then spent a couple of years studying the Bible through college courses and on my own. It has made a defining difference in my life.
YMMV
Then by that argument even the Greek to English translation holds no weight because you'll need to learn Aramaic and Hebrew if you want the full meaning.
FWIW
I once believed as you do now. I spent years arguing with "Christians" over the origins and interpretations of the Bible, written by man, cause of war, used for control of the masses/finances, great moral stories, etc.
What changed my mind was when a friend gave me a copy of a Greek/English translation of the New Testament. She wanted to take away my argument of translation differences. I read it front to back and became a believer about half way through. I then spent a couple of years studying the Bible through college courses and on my own. It has made a defining difference in my life.
YMMV
That's the beauty of the ideas passed on by Jefferson- he wasn't anti-religion, he simply said that one's religion is the business of that individual, not the state nor the church. That's kind of how I believe... We all choose to believe whatever we like, and I choose to believe, and acknowledge that the bible was still written by men. Men, who at the time thought it wrong to lay with another man, covet their neighbors wives (covet, not pursue), depictions of pornography (guilty here!), and many other things that are not viewed as bad these days. I look at the evolution of our society as a dictation of moral "good," this may sound liberal, but I do retain some limitations based on my morals and beliefs. Look at the 1820's... Slavery was still legal, society believed at that time that blacks were a lesser race, and this was viewed as acceptable. Now if you had the mentality of that time today, surely you would be ostracized and labeled a bigot. But just under 200 years ago this was okay. I view the homosexuality matter in the same light, our society is now viewing equality as right and just as the morals of years past had not reached full maturity.
Again, the bible was written by men of a time where such teachings were appropriate... And I understand your desire to use this argument as a dish on the Constitution, but the wording is different and less restrictive in the constitution, and can more freely advance through time... Also the Constitution contains amendments so that it may be updated, the Bible does not.
That's the beauty of the ideas passed on by Jefferson- he wasn't anti-religion, he simply said that one's religion is the business of that individual, not the state nor the church. That's kind of how I believe... We all choose to believe whatever we like, and I choose to believe, and acknowledge that the bible was still written by men. Men, who at the time thought it wrong to lay with another man, covet their neighbors wives (covet, not pursue), depictions of pornography (guilty here!), and many other things that are not viewed as bad these days. I look at the evolution of our society as a dictation of moral "good," this may sound liberal, but I do retain some limitations based on my morals and beliefs. Look at the 1820's... Slavery was still legal, society believed at that time that blacks were a lesser race, and this was viewed as acceptable. Now if you had the mentality of that time today, surely you would be ostracized and labeled a bigot. But just under 200 years ago this was okay. I view the homosexuality matter in the same light, our society is now viewing equality as right and just as the morals of years past had not reached full maturity.
Again, the bible was written by men of a time where such teachings were appropriate... And I understand your desire to use this argument as a dish on the Constitution, but the wording is different and less restrictive in the constitution, and can more freely advance through time... Also the Constitution contains amendments so that it may be updated, the Bible does not.
Yes, this does sound very liberal to me.
I base my moral values on the Word of God - Has not changed in over 2000 years.
I understand you base your moral values on logic and reason - Constantly changing.
I will stick with my baseline, and do my best to keep it.
Is it safe to say the overwhelming majority of Colorado State Legislators who voted for Civil Unions, are the same ones who voted for gun restrictions?
And, the overwhelming majority of those that voted against Civil Unions, voted against gun restrictions?
Might be time to zero your compass.
+1
Yes, this does sound very liberal to me.
I base my moral values on the Word of God - Has not changed in over 2000 years.
I understand you base your moral values on logic and reason - Constantly changing.
I will stick with my baseline, and do my best to keep it.
You still ignore my main argument... How do you know for sure that it's in fact, verbatim, THE word of God? Of course the very obvious answer is faith or "that's what I choose to believe," but as I've seen in my limited but very educational experience of this world the word of man can only be trusted so much, I naturally question, therefore I am a Christian in a very basic sense of the word, but get along great with Atheists because I ask questions instead of blindly leaping and letting my faith ensure I don't leap into a 1,000 foot chasm. Last time I checked, we've been calling for the liberals to use logic and reason in their decision on pending laws... how is my use of it now liberal?
That's the beauty of the ideas passed on by Jefferson- he wasn't anti-religion, he simply said that one's religion is the business of that individual, not the state nor the church. That's kind of how I believe... We all choose to believe whatever we like, and I choose to believe, and acknowledge that the bible was still written by men. Men, who at the time thought it wrong to lay with another man, covet their neighbors wives (covet, not pursue), depictions of pornography (guilty here!), and many other things that are not viewed as bad these days. I look at the evolution of our society as a dictation of moral "good," this may sound liberal, but I do retain some limitations based on my morals and beliefs. Look at the 1820's... Slavery was still legal, society believed at that time that blacks were a lesser race, and this was viewed as acceptable. Now if you had the mentality of that time today, surely you would be ostracized and labeled a bigot. But just under 200 years ago this was okay. I view the homosexuality matter in the same light, our society is now viewing equality as right and just as the morals of years past had not reached full maturity.
Again, the bible was written by men of a time where such teachings were appropriate... And I understand your desire to use this argument as a dish on the Constitution, but the wording is different and less restrictive in the constitution, and can more freely advance through time... Also the Constitution contains amendments so that it may be updated, the Bible does not.
You still ignore my main argument...How do you know for sure that it's in fact, verbatim, THE word of God? Of course the very obvious answer is faith or "that's what I choose to believe," but as I've seen in my limited but very educational experience of this world the word of man can only be trusted so much, I naturally question, therefore I am a Christian in a very basic sense of the word, but get along great with Atheists because I ask questions instead of blindly leaping and letting my faith ensure I don't leap into a 1,000 foot chasm. Last time I checked, we've been calling for the liberals to use logic and reason in their decision on pending laws... how is my use of it now liberal?
Um, I was agreeing with you.
Yes, faith
I do not believe one's morals should be an "evolving" target.
The Bible provides me an excellent source of "simple" values to pursue.
I found it very comforting to let go of trying to sort it out for myself when I became able to trust the Bible as a manual. Once I started looking deeper into the interconnection of scripture, more and more was revealed to me and made sense. And yet, there are always more puzzling scriptures to keep me interested and engaged for ever. Each path I study to understand, usually reinforces or expands on the previous paths I took, and always leads to another.
BTW, I get along well with Atheists also, as I once was an adamant Atheist. I have an idea as to where they are coming from.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.