Obama's call for gay rights makes history

[Batman007]

And I think Jimmy is actually making a fair point with regards to the status of opinion. Perhaps if I could put words into his mouth, I think his objection to your stance is, at a fundamental level, something like this.

He isn't criticising the fact that you hold an opinion about a moral issue, he's saying that without a moral reality unto which it can be compared it actually becomes meaningless (noting, of course, that the same problem applies to his own opinion). So if you say that morality is "subjective", then your moral opinions are reduced to something along the lines of "blue is better than purple." Moral claims are reduced to absurd or irrational preferences because like the absence of the reality of a "best colour", there is no moral reality unto which any opinion could hypothetically be compared.

So an example would be your claim that everyone has a right to freedom of the will. An opponent would take the negative position and deny that. Unless there is an actual objective moral reality upon which you can base your claim that everyone has the right to freedom of the will, your statement is false and the proponent of the negative claim will always be correct. In the same fashion, the person saying "blue is not better than purple" will be correct because there is no objective "best colour."

I don't think my opinion is meaningless. It has a lot of meaning to me. It has meaning because I'm using it to make an impact on the internet. It has meaning because it impacts those around me. Of course my opinion has meaning. If you're talking about meaning towards some kind of "greater force" out there, then no I guess it doesn't. I don't think that really matters, though.

No, there is no objective or "moral reality" to which anything can be compared. At least I seriously doubt there is one.

I don't think everyone has the right to free will, I just think we all have free will. It's not a question of morality.

 

[Batman007]

who is preventing?
they got what they wanted.

and so will the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA); the people who like to have sex with animals; and.....btw - dontcha just hate it that the name of their group is the same as your signature? "Equality for all"

Equality For All - The World’s First Bestiality-Rights Organization
Unfortunately, many of the views expressed in this site are still outlawed in many parts of the world. While we will spare no effort to rectify this situation and bring ...
google

but....morality, for you, is subjective so you won't object to any of that.
or anything else people decide they want to do.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Thelema

Hahaha what? Are you serious?

 

[zone]

Because what you perceive to be god's law isn't everyone else's law. You are against homosexuals marrying which is great, honestly, I love that you have your own opinion. I even love that you vote (if you do) because that's democracy. However I strongly disagree with your vote because you're preventing other people from enjoying the same things you are allowed to enjoy.

Imagine someone decided that straight people can't marry because it disagrees with their belief system. They think it's wrong. Some even think it's disgusting and unnatural. Here you are living your life, doing what you think is right. Then people decide to vote against that. They decide you can't get married. Would you not feel upset that someone with a belief different from yours came in and started to control your life, made your private marital affairs a political issue?

Like I said, I encourage you to have your views. I just disagree with your using your views to control and impose on other people's lives.

how about these views?

Equality For All - The World’s First Bestiality-Rights Organization
Unfortunately, many of the views expressed in this site are still outlawed in many parts of the world. While we will spare no effort to rectify this situation and bring ...
google

just fine with you?
your slogan matches theirs.

now that we have the "right to choose" (abortion); what about the people who say women should be allowed to kill their babies up to the age of three if they don't want them?

a certain legal system with power says this is perfectly fine.
think so?

 

[zone]

Hahaha what? Are you serious?

what's wrong?
is all that okay under your subjective morality system?
if not, why not?

 

[Batman007]

what's wrong?
is all that okay under your subjective morality system?
if not, why not?

This is probably going to be my last post to you because, well, you're ridiculous. I just have to say you made me laugh really hard, and I thank you for that. Honestly, made my night. If you're a troll you're really good, but the sad thing is I don't think you are.

 

[zone]

This is probably going to be my last post to you because, well, you're ridiculous. I just have to say you made me laugh really hard, and I thank you for that. Honestly, made my night. If you're a troll you're really good, but the sad thing is I don't think you are.

no dear.
you came to a christian site pushing trash amorality.
now man up and tell us why equality for all suddenly doesn't mean equality for all.
you said it's up to each to decide.
so, you ought not to object to anything.

if you do have objections, who are you to shove your views down the throats of people who want to have sex with 3 year old girls?
or actually have made legal arguments for killing children after birth as the new abortion.

you're pro-choice, right?
come on....you have the right view of a proper society.
speak up now...tell us how your Liberal equality for all really works.

and i don't need you to "post to me".
as long as you post, this is a public forum...remember?...i'll respond to your 'progressive ideas' as i choose.

 

[SarahM777]

Well I'm posting this in response to Zone's thread about Obama's call for gay rights making history. But it's very much a personal experience from this past week, so I'm also gonna promote my post here as a "blog". Man I really wouldn't choose this topic to be my first official "blog", because it's not what I'm all about, but what the heck, it happened to me, so let me tell you about it.


1. He insisted that it's SCIENTIFIC FACT that homosexuality is genetic. The scientists have discovered the "gay gene". According to him, no person has any choice in the matter, and it's nothing to do with anything environmental (not even being homosexually molested as a child, etc.). You're either "born that way" or you're not. It's SCIENTIFIC FACT. It's "science". (How can you argue with "science"?) *sigh*

This is where we are at. Try just bringing up the real facts that gays and lesbians are at much higher health risks,live much shorter lives and just the fact that maybe the reason God says not to do it is because it's not good for us,and there are very severe consequences. (Been there) Got the same reaction.

Those are saying that it has been proven that science has "Proven" a gay gene are wrong. It has not been proven at this point. You can make the case for those who are intersexed (which may at best run into some but not all of those claiming to be transsexual) but that is as far as science has proven anything along those lines.


Dealing with some of the same issues myself,and seeing what really goes on there,and how it really affects us,please do not try to baffle me that this is somehow a good lifestyle. I am old enough to have seen way more then I ever want to on the consequences it brings. How many of us have lied for years to those around us. (Doesn't make us real trustworthy) How many have cheated on their partners,(most have multiple partners and usually far more then heterosexuals again doesn't make one trustworthy),how many marriages have been destroyed because the person lied to their spouse before getting married the first time (again doesn't make us real trustworthy),how many more of us will die to illnesses that if we weren't doing it we would never get,is it right to pass along something to someone else? Is it right for us to destroy someone else's life? How many more will take there own lives because of the guilt they carry because of the guilt that they have knowing it's wrong and are trying to justify that somehow this is good and right? I am saying this from a position of one that has been there.

 

[Kefa52]

The government has the authority to arbitrate in disputes over property and cases of conflicting rights. That's why it has a role in marriage, in which property is held in community between the two individuals. The government doesn't make or define marriage - that is already defined by the very nature of creation (hence "natural law"). It is, however, involved in marriage for the purposes of dispute resolution and the maintenance of justice in relationships between individuals, which is the purpose of government in the first place.

So what I hear you saying is that the government has taken responsibility for Divorce to be sure the government gets their fair share of assets or taxes.

 

[tribesman]

sigh Robo. yep. this antiChrist antiBible agenda has succeeded, as i see from your exchange with your neighbor....and this.....is exactly where it's all going.
8
maybe i'll tomorrow post on the hate crime portion of the agenda.
that's the end game. tied directly to all the PCisms.
it worked very well in the soviet system.

Please do. It all lines up with the same forces which were at work in the Soviet Union (who created that entity btw and why were christians persecuted in it while certain other religions were not [until later]).

There are powerful people in charge today who want to classify New Testament as hate literature. If anyone dispute them they put their labels on them and keep others in fear of being labeled likewise.

It's a scary, but not surprising, development. Most scary of all is that many times deceived christians are in the frontline of this machinery.

 

[zone]

No, there is no objective or "moral reality" to which anything can be compared. At least I seriously doubt there is one.

some agree with you.
there's no limit to these progressive views of a liberal society.
is it safe to assume you agree with the esteemed experts at Oxford's Journal of Medical Ethics?

if not, why not?

would you agree that i and others who object are “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”?


Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph <click

 

[zone]

Please do. It all lines up with the same forces which were at work in the Soviet Union (who created that entity btw and why were christians persecuted in it while certain other religions were not [until later]).

There are powerful people in charge today who want to classify New Testament as hate literature. If anyone dispute them they put their labels on them and keep others in fear of being labeled likewise.

It's a scary, but not surprising, development. Most scary of all is that many times deceived christians are in the frontline of this machinery.

indeed tribesman.
and in spite of the predictable response from the few, i will post the hate crime connection in the next few days.
since that's what all this is really about.

2+2=5 dontcha know?

 

[SarahM777]

One of the realities of life is that for every action there are consequences whether they are good,bad or neutral. Take an already risky and dangerous "behavior",minimize the consequences in someones mind. (Not that it has a basis in reality) Take it put a stamp of approval,legalize it and what are long term consequences? Where is anyone who is trying to make it legal talking about it? What is the long term cost in lives? What is the long term consequences in emotional health? Does one actually think things will really get better for gays and lesbians or is it going to be much worse in the long run? If the "behavior" is wrong in the first place will allowing marriage somehow make it right or better,or are there long term consequences that will in the long run be so much worse then it is in the first place?

 

[Kefa52]

Well I'm posting this in response to Zone's thread about Obama's call for gay rights making history. But it's very much a personal experience from this past week, so I'm also gonna promote my post here as a "blog". Man I really wouldn't choose this topic to be my first official "blog", because it's not what I'm all about, but what the heck, it happened to me, so let me tell you about it.

I just moved to a new subdivision (here in the Philippines) and I have one American neighbor. We started talking about a week or so ago and sorta became buddies. But then a few days ago we started talking about politics. So we talked all about Obama. He is apparently a big fan of Obama, and he sees Obama as persecuted, and says the real reason people are against him is racism (as if all people who are against Obama's policies are simply racist!). (My neighbor his white by the way.) At that point I had to make it clear that I wouldn't vote for Obama (regardless of his skin color) and that doesn't make me a racist.

Anyway, since we were talking all about Obama and his policies, I mentioned one of the main things about Obama, being the first president in US history to officially, vocally endorse gay marriage (with the whole shebang of giving children to gay "families", etc.). Well you wouldn't believe what happened.

It's amazing how liberal (and deceived) much of America has become, and is becoming. Don't get me wrong. I honestly did not preach at him, I wasn't condemning, self-righteous, etc. etc. I even said I don't care if gays shack up together; I don't think you can outlaw the act of homosexuality just like you can't outlaw fornication and adultery.

But to give innocent babies and children to sets of gay men and sets of lesbian women, and say "this your daddy and your daddy", or "this is your mommy and your mommy"... umm that's where your hurting innocent children. To put a baby or child into that is the ultimate homosexual indoctrination, and no our law shouldn't allow pairs of gay men and pairs of lesbian women to take over the lives of innocent children.

Well, though I was kind with my words, and not even as dogmatic as him, my neighbor took great offense. (By the way he's married to a woman, and he's not gay. But he has a lesbian sister, I later found out.) Anyway it's quite interesting what he did. He repeatedly did all of the following:

1. He insisted that it's SCIENTIFIC FACT that homosexuality is genetic. The scientists have discovered the "gay gene". According to him, no person has any choice in the matter, and it's nothing to do with anything environmental (not even being homosexually molested as a child, etc.). You're either "born that way" or you're not. It's SCIENTIFIC FACT. It's "science". (How can you argue with "science"?) *sigh*

2. He would actually use the Bible to support homosexuality. For one, he tried to say that the Bible doesn't say it's a sin. And for another, he referred to how Jesus "accepted" Mary Magdalene. (More on this in a moment.) [By the way Obama has done this too -- I mean used the Bible, or Jesus, at least referring to "what Jesus would do" -- I could show you a youtube clip of that.]

3. While using the Bible, at the same time he would diminish the Bible. I know this is totally contradictory to the previous thing. I mean, why would people quote the Bible in one breath, and diminish it in another breath? But this is what he constantly did. For example, when he insisted that the Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is a sin, well I pressed him on that and got him to acknowledge that it actually wouldn't matter at all even if I did prove to him that the Bible does say it's a sin. Because, he absolutely doesn't believe the Bible anyway. He repeatedly made it clear that it's a book written thousands of years ago by MEN, and we've progressed now -- we now know about the "gay gene"! And regarding Jesus "accepting" Mary Magdalene, well when I responded to that with the fuller context and message of Jesus, he couldn't accept those other parts of the Bible, or even the words of Jesus, and said those parts were written by men (so he just picks and chooses the parts he wants and makes his own religion).

Well, again, honestly, I didn't preach at him, I wasn't condemning, self-righteous, or obnoxious. He, however, was quite loud (in the street) and totally blew up at me in my face (I was actually bracing myself for a punch). It was at the point where I gave an honest Biblical response to what he referred to in the Bible, about Jesus "accepting" Mary Magdalene. I mean this is where he blew up, and couldn't take it anymore, when I responded to that. Would you like to know what I said that ignited him? (I wasn't trying to do so, honestly -- I was just being "me", or a child of God, and responding to what he said about the Bible.)

Okay................ you want to know?

When he said that Jesus accepted Mary Magdalene, I simply said the following:

Absolutely! Jesus said he did not come to condemn the world, but to save the world. He came to SAVE SINNERS. And his first message that he was preaching to people (recorded by the gospel writers) was "Repent!". We're all sinners and we all need to repent, and Jesus came to save sinners.

Well I had a hard time even finishing my words. He made it clear that he doesn't like words like "sin", "sinner", and "repent". Especially not in the context of homosexuality! (Though I meant it totally general, and made it clear that it applies to homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc. -- sin is sin, and we all need to repent and be saved.)

Well he couldn't take that. He practically shouted, in my face: "YOU'RE VIOLATING ME!!!!!!!".

And the last thing he said was that he would send me the "proof" of the "gay gene" but he knows I wouldn't accept it anyway, because, according to him, that would prove that the Bible is wrong, and my "whole life would fall apart".

Those were his last words and we haven't spoken since.

Well, I now feel like people like this would accuse me and us Christians of "hate crime" just for believing the Bible. (And he even told me that it's wrong for me to even think these things in my heart.) And yet, it seems that he/they are the ones full of hate -- hate for the Bible and anyone who actually believes the Bible.

Funny thing is, I had actually prayed the night before to be at peace with all my neighbors. I least expected that I would have a problem with the American that I had become buddies with. But Jesus did tell us to not marvel if the world hates us.

I even tried to examine myself, but honestly, I did nothing but nicely, honestly respond in our long conversation. The only thing is, if I had known that he has a lesbian sister, I may not have mentioned my disagreement with Obama's support for gay marriage. But hey, we were talking all about Obama, and that's one major thing about Obama, and again, what it boils down to is giving innocent children to gays to be their "daddy and daddy" and "mommy and mommy". And this neighbor is so anti-Christ and anti-Bible, that this was bound to happen anyway. Jesus did say "woe to you if everybody likes you!".

I have a brother. He has gay sin/behavior. We are not our sin or behavior or what ever we want to call it. I love my brother and his friends are nice people. I do not condemn my brother. When he is happy I am happy. the problem is that he is not happy in his so-called marriage.
The big problem is that my brother knows Jesus. He knew Jesus before the world convinced him of the lie of gay marriage.
My brother went to the heart doctor yesterday. the stress,the internal anger and feelings of being a failure. ( We have talked) ar killing him. He is 48 years old and he has a bad valve and has to have a pacemaker.
His friends are all the same way. Defending themselves to the world while all the time they are trying to convince themselves they are happy.
The doctor told him that the best thing he can do is go see a shrink, and get on a good stress reduction program. ( More lies)

How is that Happiness??

Thank You for your post.
I am on a committee of folks for a foundation that preserves historical homes and buildings. Sometimes we have meetings in our home. You should see the looks that the athiest folks give when they see our 7 candle Menorah in our living room.

 

[SarahM777]

If the people that truly say they care for us did,they would not throw us an anchor to drown us even faster but they would be looking for a life line to help us escape this. All I see when those who promote this is that you really don't care all that much for us,you would rather have us remain bound in chains instead of being free from the very thing that would destroy us in the long run. You all say you care about us and I just can't see it that way. All I see is someone saying the same thing to a drug abuser,lets make it OK and just give you more drugs. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Red_Tory]

I don't think my opinion is meaningless. It has a lot of meaning to me. It has meaning because I'm using it to make an impact on the internet. It has meaning because it impacts those around me. Of course my opinion has meaning. If you're talking about meaning towards some kind of "greater force" out there, then no I guess it doesn't. I don't think that really matters, though.

No, there is no objective or "moral reality" to which anything can be compared. At least I seriously doubt there is one.

I don't think everyone has the right to free will, I just think we all have free will. It's not a question of morality.

Yeah, about that... Kind of contradicts what you were arguing earlier.


"In my opinion everyone has the right to free will. You're breaking that."



So since you are now denying that everyone has a right to freedom of the will and contradicting yourself, any case you were making for equality based on personal freedom has now utterly demolished itself.

If people do not actually have the right in addition to the ability to exercise their freedom of will (which would require the reality of a moral law) and marry whoever they please, then I fail to see any grounds upon which you can claim that Jimmy is breaking anything.

If anything, without the existence of an objective moral law the only thing Jimmy would be guilty of doing is breaking some fictional construct you have created in your imagination - one that fails to correspond to any external, objective reality. In essence, if there is no such reality of the law then any positive claim you make about rights, any claims made about a duty to respect free will, or any claims about morality in general will ultimately have no basis.

If there is no moral reality then there is simply no such thing as a correct moral proposition. Implicit sentiments such as "we ought not to impose our will on others" are patently false, and in the end all that matters is one's ability to either persuade others or commit acts of violence in order to force them to submit.

 

[KCKID]

I am very sorry you missed the point of the post.

So am I. I thought you were being humble. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So much of Christianity wants a fluffy understanding God. So much that we bring God down to our level and we think he understands.

Seems a pity that God created human beings but has absolutely no understanding that human beings can never live up to His expectations. Or, have I misunderstood you again? I don't know about you, Kefa, but I make no apologies for being human.

God is the same and will not change.

Really? Have you actually read the Bible?

It is our job to learn about him and be subject to GOD's standards.

Well, for most of us - can't speak for you - THAT is an impossibility. Hint: That's the reason - according to the Bible - that Jesus came to act on our behalf and impute His righteousness to us mere mortals. If we could be subject to or conform to God's standards we would be God and be in no need of grace.

I haven't judged anyone. I just apply the lies and sin
to Gods standards.

Then you should be concerned for yourself and leave the 'fruit inspection' of others, at least, to God. If 'gay' people are indeed sinners then they, like you, have the excuse of being human and incapable of having attained or EVER attaining the status of God. One more time, according to scripture, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners ...NOT to make them perfect . . .

 

[Red_Tory]

It's odd that you're even here arguing this, given that you deny a person's right to freedom of will... Given that this is what the argument for homosexual marriage is based upon, if one denies a person's right to exercise their will freely then the entire notion that one should have the right to marry freely collapses (unless you can think of some other reason...?).

Since you are in favour of homosexual marriage, presumably you would think that those who seek to prohibit it are in some way or another incorrect in their thinking... How do you assert the supremacy of one position over the other without appealing in some way to any objective moral value?

 

[Kefa52]

So am I. I thought you were being humble. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



Seems a pity that God created human beings but has absolutely no understanding that human beings can never live up to His expectations. Or, have I misunderstood you again? I don't know about you, Kefa, but I make no apologies for being human.



Really? Have you actually read the Bible?



Well, for most of us - can't speak for you - THAT is an impossibility. Hint: That's the reason - according to the Bible - that Jesus came to act on our behalf and impute His righteousness to us mere mortals. If we could be subject to or conform to God's standards we would be God and be in no need of grace.



Then you should be concerned for yourself and leave the 'fruit inspection' of others, at least, to God. If 'gay' people are indeed sinners then they, like you, have the excuse of being human and incapable of having attained or EVER attaining the status of God. One more time, according to scripture, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners ...NOT to make them perfect . . .

Is there any particular reason why you choose to go off on me? What is your point?

 

[Red_Tory]

I don't think my opinion is meaningless. It has a lot of meaning to me. It has meaning because I'm using it to make an impact on the internet. It has meaning because it impacts those around me. Of course my opinion has meaning. If you're talking about meaning towards some kind of "greater force" out there, then no I guess it doesn't. I don't think that really matters, though.

No, there is no objective or "moral reality" to which anything can be compared. At least I seriously doubt there is one.

I don't think everyone has the right to free will, I just think we all have free will. It's not a question of morality.

And yes, perhaps "meaningless" was a poor choice of words - I meant something more along the lines of "true" or "sensical."

 

[KCKID]

Is there any particular reason why you choose to go off on me? What is your point?

You're obviously bewildered by my responses and I'm obviously misunderstanding where you actually stand on this issue. If that be the case I apologize and I'll therefore leave you alone.