Conservatives, Justify Yourselves!

[GeeBee]

With all due respect- I just want to hear some well-reasoned thoughts on why Conservatism is the correct ideology in the U.S. If you were trying to convert me to "conservatism", what points would you raise? What are the upsides? Why is it superior to liberalism? My own perception is that conservatism has been largely a major impediment to every stepping stone toward progress. I'm open to being swayed to the right, given a rational argument for it.

[AJ F]

I like it because it holds people accountable for their own choices and actions. Liberals tend to blame the Government for every problem in this country.

[GeeBee]

I like it because it holds people accountable for their own choices and actions. Liberals tend to blame the Government for every problem in this country.

Hmm. Historically, that's meant holding them accountable for being black, or poor, or not being a Christian. You're painting with quite a broad brush. Elaborate a little bit more, please.

[a speedo model]

Why are you willing to be swayed?

[AJ F]

Hmm. Historically, that's meant holding them accountable for being black, or poor, or not being a Christian. You're painting with quite a broad brush. Elaborate a little bit more, please.

No. Holding people accountable not because they are black or christian or whatever other arbitrary classification but because of their actions like I said before. Example: Liberals' stance on taxes are that they should tax people with higher incomes a greater percentage because they have more money. Conservatives believe, regardless of income, everyone gets taxed by the same percentage because that's fair.

[x togepi x]

No. Holding people accountable not because they are black or christian or whatever other arbitrary classification but because of their actions like I said before. Example: Liberals' stance on taxes are that they should tax people with higher incomes a greater percentage because they have more money. Conservatives believe, regardless of income, everyone gets taxed by the same percentage because that's fair.

except it's not fair at all because the more you make, the bigger percentage you can give up without really being punished by it. 10% to someone who's only making 10,000 has a lot more impact to them than 10% of a million.

[GuitarR0cker1]

except it's not fair at all because the more you make, the bigger percentage you can give up without really being punished by it. 10% to someone who's only making 10,000 has a lot more impact to them than 10% of a million.
exactly, it wouldn't be fair if someone who is poor got taxed as much as someone who is rich because there are so many more obstacles in their lives already. I remember reading an article about how living in poverty is extremely expensive and taxing already. If you are poor you have to take the bus, pay for overpriced food, and spend hours of your time doing what would be rather menial tasks for most Americans.

[GeeBee]

Why are you willing to be swayed?

I simply mean that if there's a better argument for Conservatism than I believe exists for Liberalism, I'm all ears.

[GeeBee]

No. Holding people accountable not because they are black or christian or whatever other arbitrary classification but because of their actions like I said before. Example: Liberals' stance on taxes are that they should tax people with higher incomes a greater percentage because they have more money. Conservatives believe, regardless of income, everyone gets taxed by the same percentage because that's fair.

Not fair...not good example.
Try again.
People's "actions" have little to do with what socio-economic class they are born into.

Also, why does it seem like conservatism wants to "hold people accountable" to a standard that seems to be identical to a Christian standard?

[x togepi x]

yeah i don't understand the right wing's hard-on for holding people accountable for things out of their contol. yeah, some poor people made terrible decisions but a lot of them didn't, and even then, the punishment for making poor decisions is usually much worse than it should be. poverty is brutal.

[RyanBass80]

except it's not fair at all because the more you make, the bigger percentage you can give up without really being punished by it. 10% to someone who's only making 10,000 has a lot more impact to them than 10% of a million.

And thus, lies the liberal problem: Because life isn't fair, they believe that the Government should be responsible to make life fair. This applies in so many areas (ie, bailout, socialist healthcare, welfare) but since economics has been mentioned, I'll add my 2 cents. Liberals want the wealthy (what 'wealthy' actually means depends on which liberal you talk to) to be drained no matter how hard they work to serve the 'less' wealthy. In this case, it's the whole Joe the Plummer question. As soon as the government starts to redistribute wealth, there goes business, there goes equity, there goes money. Conservatives want to make money, Liberals want to spend it. Just look at California, or any other state government run by a majority of Democrats. Business are LEAVING CA because they can't afford all the restrictions introduced by Democrats. BTW, Arnold is a economic liberal, and a social conservative, so is regarded as a liberal in this argument.

'What generations created, the left destroys. There are few productive and noble institutions in America that the left has not hurt or attempted to hurt. But while the left destroys a great deal, it constructs almost nothing (outside of government agencies, laws, and lawsuits)...Everywhere possible the left works to inhibit religious institutions and values -- from substituting “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” to removing the tiny cross from the Los Angeles County Seal to arguing that religious people must not bring their values into the political arena.' -Dennis Prager

There's truly a Totalitarian temptation with liberals. They want more and more and more power. Conservatives, by definition, want less power. Conservatives want less government ruling our lives, more liberty. That's why the founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances. When big brother gets bigger people tend to rely on the government completely, as we're seeing with socialized healthcare, and are kept in a childlike state of suckling the on teat of government. Thus, less responsible citizens. I would challenge any liberal to think back to a time when they actually sat down with a conservative face to face, and had a good conversation about the issues. Because liberalism is more emotional, and less rational, they tend to listen to liberals, watch liberals, cloister with liberals without even coming in contact with a conservative, more or less having a conversation with one.

And in regards to holding people accountable for their choices or actions, the response about black, poor, or Christians has absolutely nothing to do with what AJ F said. Conservatives believe in a basis of principles laid down by our founding fathers in the Constitution, and yes, this country was founded by a set of Judeo-Christian values. You can't argue with that! It's fine if you disagree with Christianity, but its undeniable to see itself woven into the fabric of American heritage. The left wants to destroy religion in this country, and they destroy people's character and reputation if they disagree with the left doctrine. Just google Miss California Carrie Prejean with any curse word and watch how many hits come up.

Cheers

[GeeBee]

And thus, lies the liberal problem: Because life isn't fair, they believe that the Government should be responsible to make life fair.

This applies in so many areas (ie, bailout, socialist healthcare, welfare) but since economics has been mentioned, I'll add my 2 cents. Liberals want the wealthy (what 'wealthy' actually means depends on which liberal you talk to) to be drained no matter how hard they work to serve the 'less' wealthy.

In this case, it's the whole Joe the Plummer question. As soon as the government starts to redistribute wealth, there goes business, there goes equity, there goes money. Conservatives want to make money, Liberals want to spend it. Just look at California, or any other state government run by a majority of Democrats. Business are LEAVING CA because they can't afford all the restrictions introduced by Democrats. BTW, Arnold is a economic liberal, and a social conservative, so is regarded as a liberal in this argument.

'What generations created, the left destroys. There are few productive and noble institutions in America that the left has not hurt or attempted to hurt. But while the left destroys a great deal, it constructs almost nothing (outside of government agencies, laws, and lawsuits)...Everywhere possible the left works to inhibit religious institutions and values -- from substituting “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” to removing the tiny cross from the Los Angeles County Seal to arguing that religious people must not bring their values into the political arena.' -Dennis Prager

There's truly a Totalitarian temptation with liberals. They want more and more and more power. Conservatives, by definition, want less power. Conservatives want less government ruling our lives, more liberty.

That's why the founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances. When big brother gets bigger people tend to rely on the government completely, as we're seeing with socialized healthcare,

and are kept in a childlike state of suckling the on teat of government. Thus, less responsible citizens. I would challenge any liberal to think back to a time when they actually sat down with a conservative face to face, and had a good conversation about the issues. Because liberalism is more emotional, and less rational,
they tend to listen to liberals, watch liberals, cloister with liberals without even coming in contact with a conservative, more or less having a conversation with one.

And in regards to holding people accountable for their choices or actions, the response about black, poor, or Christians has absolutely nothing to do with what AJ F said. Conservatives believe in a basis of principles laid down by our founding fathers in the Constitution, and yes, this country was founded by a set of Judeo-Christian values. You can't argue with that!

It's fine if you disagree with Christianity, but its undeniable to see itself woven into the fabric of American heritage.

The left wants to destroy religion in this country, and they destroy people's character and reputation if they disagree with the left doctrine. Just google Miss California Carrie Prejean with any curse word and watch how many hits come up.

Cheers

You mean like making life fair for those to whom life has dealt the best hand? I've seen little from Conservatives but an effort to make sure the term "equality" is simply a nice whimsical term that holds little practical use.

Next time the "wealthy work to serve the less wealthy", please let me know about it. The wealthy work to enrich themselves and themselves only, usually on the backs of the working man whom the conservative movement pretends to take under its wing.

Funny, I think you may have slept through the last 8 years.

Yes, an insurance company making money off of my denied care is much better than the "socialized medicine"that every other western, industrialized nation with better health care than us offers.

I also was under the impressions that America's institutions of higher learning were generally thought of as "liberal". Now it turns out they're hotbeds of irrationality and emotion.

I absolutely can and will argue against the idea that this country was founded on some kind of religious principles. The fact that you purport to push this sort of nonsense says volumes about how educated you are, and what your motives for being conservative are...religious.

Slavery was woven into the American Heritage, but we tend to get rid of archaic and irrational ideas. Wasn't it just you who was pushing the "rationality" of conservatism? Religion seems to stand at odds with that.

The left doesn't want to destroy religion. Have it. Just keep it in your own home and stop trying to force it onto the civil and legislative discourse in my country. Theocracy is not a good thing (see Iran). Also...people hated Prejean for her babbling airheadedness and homophobia. She dug her own grave. Again, the fact that you bring her into this debate speaks volumes about your motivations for being conservative.

[RyanBass80]

I absolutely can and will argue against the idea that this country was founded on some kind of religious principles. The fact that you purport to push this sort of nonsense says volumes about how educated you are, and what your motives for being conservative are...religious.
I mean, there's so much literature on the subject. All you have to do is read any speeches, and books, or works by any of the founding fathers and you'll find that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Anything by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock. Does anyone even argue your position anymore? Let's be intellectually honest please.
My motives for being conservative are founded in a belief that there are a set of values that work in society and that this is right and wrong...Sure. They affect my worldview, of course. But you'd have to cede that its the same for the liberal position. You start with a non-religious belief, and form your worldview and ideology based on relative morality, and whatever feels good, and feels right in the moment. It works both ways...and it has to. So you have your own motivations found in a rejection of religion!

Slavery was woven into the American Heritage, but we tend to get rid of archaic and irrational ideas. Wasn't it just you who was pushing the "rationality" of conservatism? Religion seems to stand at odds with that.
Thanks for bringing this up, this is a typical argument that I face. A simple look the historical record will show that every country had slavery in it, not just the U.S., and it was CHRISTIANS who were the abolitionists that pushed both in Britain and the U.S. to abolish slavery. Furthermore, Lincoln the liberator was a Republican! Again, read anything by Lincoln. The religion that this country was founded in, Christianity, never supported slavery, which is why they were the ones to fight for an end to it.

The left doesn't want to destroy religion. Have it. Just keep it in your own home and stop trying to force it onto the civil and legislative discourse in my country. Theocracy is not a good thing (see Iran). Also...people hated Prejean for her babbling airheadedness and homophobia. She dug her own grave. Again, the fact that you bring her into this debate speaks volumes about your motivations for being conservative.
Who is forcing religion onto the civil and legislative discourse? Name an example please. Theocracy is a terrible thing!!! We agree on that! Christians don't want theocracy, that's the last thing they want. In fact, they Bible goes against theocracy!

Your right, liberals "hated" Prejean because they disagreed with her. That's exactly my point, conservatives don't hate nearly as much as liberals do. If you disagree with liberals, they'll destroy you for it. The funny thing is, she stated exactly what she believed. She never said that homosexuality was wrong, she even stated that she was glad that we could live in a country where we could choose homosexual or opposite sex marriage depending on what the state decides. See, the assumption is that if you don't believe in homosexual marriage because of the ramifications it has for the rest of society, then you are a homophobic bigot, not worthy to engage in civil discourse. She simply stated what she thought becuase of her worldview. You see, all the hate is on the liberal side, like you just said. Thanks for making my point!

[RyanBass80]

It's tough to face the music
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

[RyanBass80]

Yes, an insurance company making money off of my denied care is much better than the "socialized medicine"that every other western, industrialized nation with better health care than us offers.
Universal Healthcare sounds good, but that's typical 'stage-one' thinking on the left. If it sounds good, if it feels compassionate, then it must be right. However, the liberal bubble is not a good environment to enact policy from. You have to think past 'stage-one,' and wrestle with the consequences to whatever might feel good in the moment. If you read, yes...read (not watch leftwing mainstream media), especially from other countries...yes the places beyond our borders, you'll read and see the horror stories that come out of socialist countries where healthcare is socialized, but is so poor people WANT to move HERE to the U.S.! Sure, you might get seen by a doctor after waiting in a mile-long line. But you will be put on a waitlist so long, that you'll sucumb to your illness before you even get a treatment. It'll be like the DMV, like it is in Canada. Old people are dying off because they are the ones who need the most healthcare and can't get it. The quality of the treatment will be poorer becuase the companies making the drugs are restricted so far up the wazoo, they can't afford to do business. You think healthcare is bad now, and that millions are uninsured will stay uninsured a congretional report came out this week. GET THIS, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468245,00.html. Yes, a soda tax. Orwell couldn't have predicted this! Additional taxes will be enforced sucking more life, more money out of the American taxpayer. Just check out the new taxes in your state, we gotta pay attention! Again, getting back to the subject, the Liberals WANT MORE CONTROL, WANT MORE POWER. They already own the universities, television, hollywood, GM, soon healthcare, and they even want control of the radio, ie The Fairness Doctrine.

[thespearkid]

Who here believes in the one we call "Rush Limbaugh"?

[ArmedROBery]

It's tough to face the music
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Yes, like I believe a fucking site that tears down evolution in favor of Creationism. Give me a break.

[x togepi x]

obvious right wing troll is obvious.

[bung]

It's tough to face the music
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Sorry, no. Great objective, trustworthy site you chose, too.

"the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-John Adams (This is from the Treaty of Tripoli, which the Senate passed unanimously.) Regardless of Adams' personal beliefs, the nation itself is not built on a Christian foundation.

"That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity; and as it could not but happen that, in the course of ages, events would now and then turn up to which some of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the aid of allegories, figures, types, and other tricks upon words, they have not only preserved their credit with the Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who have schismatised from them. Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Dæmon. And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations, while perfectly sane on all other subjects."

-Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Short (as you will notice, the end of the passage has Jefferson insinuating that belief is insane). Jefferson could be said to have been a follower of Christ and his teachings, but he did not believe in his divinity. When he calls himself a Christian, it isn't anywhere near what you think it means. Look up something called the "Jefferson Bible." Jefferson, like Franklin and Paine, was a deist. And, as I assume most people interpret it, Christianity is clearly theistic.

[RyanBass80]

I absolutely can and will argue against the idea that this country was founded on some kind of religious principles. The fact that you purport to push this sort of nonsense says volumes about how educated you are, and what your motives for being conservative are...religious.
I posted the website because they're all quotes in defense of the point that whether or not you agree with Christianity, this country WAS founded with Judeo-Christian values.

Yes, like I believe a fucking site that tears down evolution in favor of Creationism. Give me a break.
So all those quotes are made up, huh? Nice argument. I can post a bunch more if you want. Thanks for bringing civility and courtesy to the debate. Because if you disagree with creation, I guess all those quotes are fabricated?

A discussion gets started asking Conservatives to defend themselves, or their policies more precisely. And in return, attacks against people rather than rebuttals against ideas. This is so typical!

obvious right wing troll is obvious.
I thought there was supposed to be conservatives defending conservative ideas, no ones hiding, x togepi x! But thanks for pointing out the obvious

[ArmedROBery]

So all those quotes are made up, huh? Nice argument. I can post a bunch more if you want. Thanks for bringing civility and courtesy to the debate. Because if you disagree with creation, I guess all those quotes are fabricated?

A discussion gets started asking Conservatives to defend themselves, or their policies more precisely. And in return, attacks against people rather than rebuttals against ideas. This is so typical!


No. I never said they were fabricated - my gripe is how such a dumb site twists the quotes around to serve a purpose. Some of the quotes weren't even from people who had a part in forming America! Of the ones I read through, NOT ONE directly (whether literally or by inference) connected the Constitution or any other founding documents to Christian beliefs. They mentioned God, but as just mentioned before me, most of the founding fathers were deists.

Liberalism is not awful and conservativism is not awful. Both have their merits; it's the wackjobs that believe in such a stark dichotomy, where everything about one system is evil.

And I don't attack conservatives. I consider myself just left of center, but one of my best friends is pretty staunchly conservative, and even we tend to overlap in some areas. I just have no tolerance for wingnuts with their heads so far up Rush Limbaugh's ass that they can get high of the oxycodone lingering in his fat gut.

[RyanBass80]

Sorry, no. Great objective, trustworthy site you chose, too.
Founding Father's quotes can be found everywhere on the internet. Obviously, they are trying to present all the evidence with the quotes so what's the need for objectivity? You posted two quotes that you think support your point...what makes you more objective?

Yes, Thomas Jefferson was a deist and didn't believe in the miracles in the Bible, but the fact that he spent so much time writing the Philosophy of Jesus, the re-writing of the Bible omitting miracles meant that he cared about religion and its influence on society. Just because he didn't hold to the idea of Jesus as diety didn't mean that he didn't have a deep respect for Christianity.

And if you continue the Adams quote: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
He is saying that the Christian religion, as it once had enmity against Muslims, ie: the Crusades, doesn't hold to the same religious biases it once had. Besides, if you read many other John Adams, whether he was very religious found the principles of Christianity to be a basis for law and society. It wasn't based on a religion, but based in relgiou(s) values. Such as, a belief in God, that he endows his creation with certain unalieable rights. We are created equal. The founders all agreed on that, which is why those ideas are SO prominent in early American literature.

I mean, this whole argument is going the wrong way. I'm not saying that everyone must be a Christian. That's silly. The founding fathers had different THEOLOGICAL views, but could all agree on the moral values brought from the Bible in the form of an American Value System. You can pick and choose quotes to support your point, but at the end of the day, you have to look at all the evidence. We must be systematic about our analysis on any given subject. It does no one any good to find a handful of quotes and deny the rest.

[RyanBass80]

No. I never said they were fabricated - my gripe is how such a dumb site twists the quotes around to serve a purpose. Some of the quotes weren't even from people who had a part in forming America! Of the ones I read through, NOT ONE directly (whether literally or by inference) connected the Constitution or any other founding documents to Christian beliefs. They mentioned God, but as just mentioned before me, most of the founding fathers were deists.

I don't think it's fair to say that the website 'twists' the quotes. I mean, they are excerpts from bigger literary works by those authors. You can find them anywhere on the internet, library, or database that holds those works. Yes, a handful of quotes were not from the 'well-known' founding fathers as if there were only 10 or so. But they were extremely influential in society during the late 1700s. Well, you're right if none of the quotes said, "I believe this so I'm writing this in the Constitution. But one cannot divorce what, say Thomas Jefferson said here, "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ" -writings of Thomas Jefferson pg. 385, and to say he doesn't believe that when he helped pen the Constitution. See, when you say twist...that carries the idea of manipulation, and distortion of truth.

Deism was a belief in God, but that belief arose out of a Judeo-Christian background. Mohammad was a diest (believer in God in it's most basic sense), but it came out of a belief different from Christianity. So yes, some founders were diests, believers in God, but the God of the Bible, the Christian Bible.

I would say that I dislike the Conservatives who only listen to Rush, just as many liberals who only watch CNN, the Daily Show, only listen to those they agree with. I'm with you on that! There's wingnuts on both sides. Liberals are some of my closest friends, because politics isn't everything.

[RyanBass80]

http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm
I guess, a bit more objective site with some same quotes...

[J.C.]

Furthermore, Lincoln the liberator was a Republican!

He was a Republican. He was also liberal. You would hate Abraham Lincoln if he were alive today and not some character in your history textbook who happened to have an R next to his name.

The religion that this country was founded in, Christianity, never supported slavery, which is why they were the ones to fight for an end to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

So you're saying this country was built on the good Christian values of the Founding Fathers, right? The ones who owned slaves? Or did they not own slaves?

Your right, liberals "hated" Prejean because they disagreed with her. That's exactly my point, conservatives don't hate nearly as much as liberals do.

This is comical, particularly in light of some recent events(the murder of Tiller, the Holocaust museum shooting). The far right has a propensity to lash out violently more often than the far left, who are just as vocal, but not as physical.

She never said that homosexuality was wrong, she even stated that she was glad that we could live in a country where we could choose homosexual or opposite sex marriage depending on what the state decides!

She's glad she lives in a country where the majority gets to vote on whether they want to recognize the rights of minorities? You realize that belies the whole premise this country was founded on?

You just celebrated Lincoln in the first quote of yours in this post. You realize Lincoln overrode states rights, right? So which is it, clown?

[ShShShark]

I grew up with conservativism force fed down my throat until I went to college. I guess I consider myself conservative. I dunno.

I don't trust the government. At all. I don't want to have to rely on them. I hate paying taxes, because I don't make that much as it is. Added to the fact that I have been denied all government programs and that's on TOP of being a dad. So not only am I paying taxes, but I can't even rely on them for some of the things they are supposed to give me. Public school systems in my area are a joke.

What cracks me up about the people in my community is that they say "we want healthcare reform! we want better roads! we want better social programs!" and then taxes go up and they cry and cry and say they cant afford to pay more taxes. Where the hell did you think that money was going to come from??? i want alot of things. i am not rich. i have a home and a family, and I don't get shit for it.

I can't rely on the government as a safety net. so I have to do things myself and work my ass off even harder. And i still haven't seen shit from the government for my efforts. So i say fuck it along with liberalism and conservativism.

I mean, in america is there really that big of a difference anymore?

[ShShShark]

and for fucks sake drop the religious argument. all conservatives aren't frigging christians.

so sick of seeing that come up. its old. its tired. find a new angle.

[J.C.]

I don't trust the government. At all. I don't want to have to rely on them.

You rely on them everyday for your safety. You rely on them everday to defend the country in case of a threat. You rely on them everyday to make sure the food you consume won't kill you. You rely on them everyday to make sure your roads and bridges are repaired when they're in need of repairing.

That's the kind of rhetoric I just can't put up with. Nobody fucking likes paying taxes, but funds are required to pay for the shit you take for granted when you make statements like that.

[Jesse00]

I mean, there's so much literature on the subject. All you have to do is read any speeches, and books, or works by any of the founding fathers and you'll find that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Anything by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock. Does anyone even argue your position anymore? Let's be intellectually honest please.
My motives for being conservative are founded in a belief that there are a set of values that work in society and that this is right and wrong...Sure. They affect my worldview, of course. But you'd have to cede that its the same for the liberal position. You start with a non-religious belief, and form your worldview and ideology based on relative morality, and whatever feels good, and feels right in the moment. It works both ways...and it has to. So you have your own motivations found in a rejection of religion!


Thanks for bringing this up, this is a typical argument that I face. A simple look the historical record will show that every country had slavery in it, not just the U.S., and it was CHRISTIANS who were the abolitionists that pushed both in Britain and the U.S. to abolish slavery. Furthermore, Lincoln the liberator was a Republican! Again, read anything by Lincoln. The religion that this country was founded in, Christianity, never supported slavery, which is why they were the ones to fight for an end to it.


Who is forcing religion onto the civil and legislative discourse? Name an example please. Theocracy is a terrible thing!!! We agree on that! Christians don't want theocracy, that's the last thing they want. In fact, they Bible goes against theocracy!

Your right, liberals "hated" Prejean because they disagreed with her. That's exactly my point, conservatives don't hate nearly as much as liberals do. If you disagree with liberals, they'll destroy you for it. The funny thing is, she stated exactly what she believed. She never said that homosexuality was wrong, she even stated that she was glad that we could live in a country where we could choose homosexual or opposite sex marriage depending on what the state decides. See, the assumption is that if you don't believe in homosexual marriage because of the ramifications it has for the rest of society, then you are a homophobic bigot, not worthy to engage in civil discourse. She simply stated what she thought becuase of her worldview. You see, all the hate is on the liberal side, like you just said. Thanks for making my point!

you obviously don't know much about the founding fathers. while it is true some were religious, many during the enlightenment were deist, choosing not to subscribe to any religion, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. were they to adhere to the enlightenment values of freedom, and more importantly reason, I highly doubt they would continue to be deist after darwin's the origin of species. If you were to read the Constitution, the only time religion is brought up is to restrict it's influence. Separation of Church and State, anyone? Here some quotes of deistic founding fathers -
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth
"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

I also think you groundlessly assume that all liberals have a secular, morally relative, hedonistic worldview? I'm guessing you are calling the non-religious moral relativists. You are wrong to say such a thing. Many of the irreligious have objective morality based on reason, solidarity, humanism, and universal human rights in general. Also, many liberals do believe in god (notably apologist C.S. Lewis, among others).

Again, this country was not founded on any religion. To say Christians and Christianity did not approve of slavery is laughable. Though Christian abolitionists worked to free the slaves, in doing so they went against many Biblical verses, in both Testaments, that approve of slavery.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
There were many secular abolitionist societies as well. Examples of secular abolitionist institutions included the Chicago Anti-Slavery Society and the Chicago Female Anti-Slavery Society. Also, Quakers made up a huge percentage of abolitionists, does that mean the government should take its values from their belief system (like Pacifism)? In the south, a good many Christians asserted that God willed slavery as morally just. Southern Baptists officially split with Northern Baptists over this very issue.

The Republican party, then and now, are two completely different entities. I'm not going to give you a history lesson, but suffice it to say there is a reason that the blacks switched from their beloved party of Lincoln. Lincoln himself was an admirer of deist Thomas Paine and what little belief he had in Christianity from his early life was clouded in his later years. Suffice it to say he did believe in some supernatural creator, but many believe he wasn't really a Christian.
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.




Read up on Prop. 8 in California. Please. That's just one of the many ways Christian morality is attempting to be legislated. This is not a Christian nation. Just because they may hold a majority does not make this country Christian. Whites are also a majority, is this a white nation? Women are a majority too, is this a female nation?


I, as a liberal can only speak for myself, but I hope some people can agree with me on the point I'm about to make. I do not hate Carrie Prejean, I hate her reasoning for not allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. It was "how she was raised." I was raised similarly, my parents teaching me marriage is between a man and a women. However, I thought for myself and employed reason to deduce that I could not find a single reason why homosexuals should be denied marriage. I do not believe Prejean is a homophobic bigot, I merely believe she should put a little more thought into important issues than deferring to how she was raised. I assume the "ramifications" you speak of is the old "gay marriage cheapens the sanctity of marriage" thing. I asked my sister how much gay marriage has cheapened her marriage. She said if anything, it made it better because she can share it with her good friend Todd, who is gay. The only ramification I can think of is that true equality is achieved. The argument that marriage is an exclusively religious institution is downright false. Humans appeared in roughly 43,000 BC, long before organized religion, and long before Christianity. Yet, during all this time, monogamy and common law marriage were present, and when social rituals refined, ceremonies were also conducted to celebrate these unions. All before Christianity. Some say that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm not even gonna argue that, I'm just gonna link them to this article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-j-zak/gay-marriage-is-natural_b_112256.html. I'm gonna stop writing now, cuz it's like 1 in the morning, and I need to get up for warped 2moro.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

why would any conservative stand up here, just to be called a clown, a troll etc...?
seriously, you may disagree with the politics, but a good deal of you could use some maturation.

[Jake Denning]

Conservatives put the slamma-jamma on terrorists, simple as that.
Liberals try to persuade terrorists not to kill us.

[Regards]

Who here believes in the one we call "Rush Limbaugh"?
I lol'd. I listen to him every once in a while for the lulz, and I'd consider myself more right-wing than anything.

[AJ F]

except it's not fair at all because the more you make, the bigger percentage you can give up without really being punished by it. 10% to someone who's only making 10,000 has a lot more impact to them than 10% of a million.

10% of $10,000 is less than 10% 1,000,000.

Taxes are inevitable. And just because someone makes less money than others shouldn't mean they get a deal. By making it an even percentage means everyone is on an level playing field. When taxes are cut, they are cut for everyone, when they rise, they affect everyone. How is that not fair? Just because someone has more money shouldn't imply they can afford to incur more severe taxing.



Not fair...not good example.
Try again.
People's "actions" have little to do with what socio-economic class they are born into.

Also, why does it seem like conservatism wants to "hold people accountable" to a standard that seems to be identical to a Christian standard?

I'm not sure what standard you are referring to? The Law?

I'm sure Marxists share your frustration with the social classes but it won't due to turn to Communism. You're right, the world isn't fair and some people are born with a better hand than others. But if you can find a solution to that, well... I suppose you could possibly rule the world right?

[thespearkid]

Again, this country was not founded on any religion. To say Christians and Christianity did not approve of slavery is laughable. Though Christian abolitionists worked to free the slaves, in doing so they went against many Biblical verses, in both Testaments, that approve of slavery.

Slavery was a part of society long before the Bible was written. What the Bible did was set up laws for slavery that made it so slaves would be treated better. However, the Bible is the living, breathing word of God. It changes and grows in interpretation.

[thespearkid]

10% of $10,000 is less than 10% 1,000,000.

Taxes are inevitable. And just because someone makes less money than others shouldn't mean they get a deal. By making it an even percentage means everyone is on an level playing field. When taxes are cut, they are cut for everyone, when they rise, they affect everyone. How is that not fair? Just because someone has more money shouldn't imply they can afford to incur more severe taxing.

Haha that's exactly what it means. How hard do you think it is to survive on $10,000-$15,000 a year? Now imagine if you have to pay 10% of that to the government? It adds even more stress on an already strained lifestyle. Poverty is EXTREMELY hard to pull oneself out of and taxing poor people 10% of their earnings would make it impossible for them and their children to ever achieve economic stability. A flat tax like that would comdemn millions of American families to a poverty cycle that will last for generations. Here in America, anyone who makes more than $400,000 is taxed 35% only on what they make above that. Which means the richest people in America are not taxed at all for $400,000. Tell me, how is that fair?

[diehtc0ke]

10% of $10,000 is less than 10% 1,000,000.

Taxes are inevitable. And just because someone makes less money than others shouldn't mean they get a deal. By making it an even percentage means everyone is on an level playing field. When taxes are cut, they are cut for everyone, when they rise, they affect everyone. How is that not fair? Just because someone has more money shouldn't imply they can afford to incur more severe taxing.

Seriously? Try living off of $9,000 when you could be making $10,000 and then try living of of $900,000 when you could be making $1,000,000. Something tells me that one is less fair than the other. When taxes are cut in the system you're talking about, everyone is affected but some are much more negatively affected than others.

[Jesse00]

Slavery was a part of society long before the Bible was written. What the Bible did was set up laws for slavery that made it so slaves would be treated better. However, the Bible is the living, breathing word of God. It changes and grows in interpretation.

The long existence of slavery does not excuse its immorality (just as its economic potential does not excuse its immorality). And while the Bible is well meaning in its reformation of some slave laws, it impedes on a little thing called universal human rights which we hold in much higher esteem this day and age. In 1435, the Pope decried the taking of other Christians as slaves, something which European slave traders gave little attention to over the years. The United States would become a heinous offender in the eventual taking of baptized slaves, breaking the existing cultural mores of slavery. However Christianity is called upon as a reason slavery was abolished in the US, despite the fact that the words in the Bible have not fundamentally changed and many Christians themselves approved of slavery, and viewed slavery as compatible with Christianity. What gives? It was the raised secular social consciousness of the time, that started to see slavery as wholly unjust. I believe that the Bible is an amazing piece of literature now deeply imbedded to our cultural DNA that can be appreciate by secularists provided we acknowledge its history and the socio-political conditions in which each section was written. Part of this history is that it was written and compiled by men, and as such it is as flawed and fallible as they were. The Bible does not have to be to our detriment, as the Iliad and the Odyssey are not to the Greeks detriment; on the contrary, it is to their credit having written that which we still study today, and yes even extracting morals from its various stories. The Bible doesn't change, nor, I believe, should it. Our perceptions of it should change, as it has changed on many things since the Bible was written, such as slavery.

[ShShShark]

You rely on them everyday for your safety. You rely on them everday to defend the country in case of a threat. You rely on them everyday to make sure the food you consume won't kill you. You rely on them everyday to make sure your roads and bridges are repaired when they're in need of repairing.

That's the kind of rhetoric I just can't put up with. Nobody fucking likes paying taxes, but funds are required to pay for the shit you take for granted when you make statements like that.

I definitely fucked up what I was trying to say. Its politicians I don't trust.

I'll pay my taxes for defense, roads, etc. But I'm sick of paying into these "social programs" that turn away people that need it. I work my ass off. I have a family to support. I'm not looking for handouts, but seeing the results of the percentage of my tax dollars that DO go in to these programs would be nice.

By the way, the food you eat IS killing you, unless you can afford to pay $1.35 for an organic pepper (that's actually how much A pepper costs at an organic market on 4th and south street in philadelphia. The FDA is a fucking joke.

[thespearkid]

The long existence of slavery does not excuse its immorality (just as its economic potential does not excuse its immorality). And while the Bible is well meaning in its reformation of some slave laws, it impedes on a little thing called universal human rights which we hold in much higher esteem this day and age. In 1435, the Pope decried the taking of other Christians as slaves, something which European slave traders gave little attention to over the years. The United States would become a heinous offender in the eventual taking of baptized slaves, breaking the existing cultural mores of slavery. However Christianity is called upon as a reason slavery was abolished in the US, despite the fact that the words in the Bible have not fundamentally changed and many Christians themselves approved of slavery, and viewed slavery as compatible with Christianity. What gives? It was the raised secular social consciousness of the time, that started to see slavery as wholly unjust. I believe that the Bible is an amazing piece of literature now deeply imbedded to our cultural DNA that can be appreciate by secularists provided we acknowledge its history and the socio-political conditions in which each section was written. Part of this history is that it was written and compiled by men, and as such it is as flawed and fallible as they were. The Bible does not have to be to our detriment, as the Iliad and the Odyssey are not to the Greeks detriment; on the contrary, it is to their credit having written that which we still study today, and yes even extracting morals from its various stories. The Bible doesn't change, nor, I believe, should it. Our perceptions of it should change, as it has changed on many things since the Bible was written, such as slavery.
There was no concept of universal human rights back then. The people who wrote the Bible assumed that slavery was just a part of life, as it had been for hundreds and years before their birth and was for hundreds of years after. It just sounded to me as if you were blaming the Bible for "condoning" slavery when the only affect the Bible had on slavery was trying to place laws on it to make it more humane. If people didn't follow these laws is it really fair to blame the Bible? If anything, the New Testament of the Bible should be commended for pushing the concept of all people being created equal under God even further into the standards of the time. However, neither of those stances is really fair considering the Bible can't force anyone to do anything.

[BrennanHickson]

I simply mean that if there's a better argument for Conservatism than I believe exists for Liberalism, I'm all ears.
There isn't.

[J.C.]

10% of $10,000 is less than 10% 1,000,000.

Taxes are inevitable. And just because someone makes less money than others shouldn't mean they get a deal. By making it an even percentage means everyone is on an level playing field. When taxes are cut, they are cut for everyone, when they rise, they affect everyone. How is that not fair? Just because someone has more money shouldn't imply they can afford to incur more severe taxing.

Forget the flat tax, why not just make it one flat fee for everybody!

[x togepi x]

And thus, lies the liberal problem: Because life isn't fair, they believe that the Government should be responsible to make life fair.

So, if you were alive during the 1800s would you tell an enslaved black person: life isn't fair?
On the same token, during the Holocaust would you tell a Jew who's about to get on train to Auschwitz: life isn't fair?

Of course you wouldn't. While these are two of the most extreme examples I can think of, they are proof that basically everyone can find issues on which we turn to the State to make life fair. Progressives just feel the need to go further, since poverty is a pressing issue that destroys any chance people have for freedom.

We aren't pushing for "equality as sameness", we're pushing for people to have an equal opportunity. We don't have an equal opportunity as long as poverty exists in the form that it does now.

So why exactly is this a bad thing? Nowhere in your misguided rant do you ever touch on why making life as fair as possible is wrong.

Liberals want the wealthy (what 'wealthy' actually means depends on which liberal you talk to) to be drained no matter how hard they work to serve the 'less' wealthy.

Especially telling of your views is the use of the word "drained". Progressive taxation hardly "drains" people over their wealth. Yes, they pay more than the people at the bottom but that is because they control more money and benefit from their status more than those at the bottom.

But, a quick question: do you know anyone who's rich? I do. My roommate has a trust fund. He has way more money than most people our age. He paid more in taxes than my entire family did last year combined. While he paid a ton more, he also didn't struggle to pay his taxes like my parents did. The amount of money, which dwarfed my parent's contribution, did not effect his standard of living at all. To say he was "drained" is wrong.

That's what's important to note here. People who speak the way you do ignore the fact that money is exponential. The more you make, the less each individual dollar means to you, which means you can handle paying more into the system at less burden to yourself.

Explain to me why the poor ought to shoulder a heavier burden than the rich when the rich are the ones who benefit from the system the most.


As soon as the government starts to redistribute wealth, there goes business, there goes equity, there goes money.

This is empirically denied by Roosevelt's response to the great depression. I know "blah blah blah, WW2 got us out", but the example proves that spending money (as well as government programs that were gutted by republicans) keeps industry going.

Conservatives want to make money, Liberals want to spend it. Just look at California, or any other state government run by a majority of Democrats.

It's important to note here that two of the conservative movement's icons Bush and Reagan created insanely huge deficits that haven't been matched by liberal icons. Yes, I know Obama has spent a lot, but he isn't exactly a liberal, and he's just cleaning up Bush's mess.

Business are LEAVING CA because they can't afford all the restrictions introduced by Democrats. BTW, Arnold is a economic liberal, and a social conservative, so is regarded as a liberal in this argument.

This a very misguided viewpoint. Businesses are leaving because it's cheaper to do work elsewhere. Your point here that restrictions=bad is empirically denied by all of the companies that were leaving the country while Bush was in office, since the Bush administration was all about cutting restrictions on big business.

There's truly a Totalitarian temptation with liberals. They want more and more and more power.

There's truly a totalitarian temptation by all ideologies born from the west. Your incessant need to demonize liberals in this post is telling. You're employing the same tactics as the totalitarian States in the 20th century, only on a micro level. The logical position to take here is that there's something within our culture that causes totalizing perspectives, regardless of politics, that we must deal with instead of demonizing the other.

Conservatives, by definition, want less power. Conservatives want less government ruling our lives, more liberty.

This isn't true either. Conservatives tend to push policies that regulate sexual activity. They also tend to be reactionary, meaning they opposed the civil rights movements of the 20th centuries, which were all about diffusing the power within our society from the white straight male elite.

Less government doesn't mean less power, it merely transfers that power to corporations, where there are no checks but the invisible hand of the market, which has proven time and time again to be a useless check at best.

. Thus, less responsible citizens.

The key point here that you're missing is, as i pointed out earlier, that you're willing to hold people responsible for things out of their control, which renders the entire idea of personal responsibility meaningless.

I would challenge any liberal to think back to a time when they actually sat down with a conservative face to face, and had a good conversation about the issues.

almost everyday since i live in the bible belt. i could also make this claim about conservatives. there's nothing inherent in an ideological outlook that precludes them from engaging in conversations.

Because liberalism is more emotional, and less rational, they tend to listen to liberals, watch liberals, cloister with liberals without even coming in contact with a conservative, more or less having a conversation with one.

First off, this claim can also be made about conservatives. Turn on Fox News, watch them yell about the issues. Turn on talk radio, listen to them yell about the issues. It's the same type of thing.

Secondly, this idea that one side is better because it's "more rational" and "less emotional" is fucking stupid. It's right out Ayn Rand's abortion of a philosophy, which some psychologists say leads to repression of the self.

And in regards to holding people accountable for their choices or actions, the response about black, poor, or Christians has absolutely nothing to do with what AJ F said.

It has everything to do with it, as liberals tend to reach out and help the underprivileged because they need not be held accountable for things out of their control.

Conservatives believe in a basis of principles laid down by our founding fathers in the Constitution, and yes, this country was founded by a set of Judeo-Christian values. You can't argue with that!

Actually I can for a couple reasons.

First, what many people point to as "Judeo-Christian" values tend to be found in almost any religious perspective that's gained some sort of prominence. Secondly, read the political philosophy inherent in the creation of our country; it's not based around Christianity at all (in fact, many of the philosophers that built these ideologies specifically shied away from using Christian justifications). Our State is built on Enlightenment values.

[x togepi x]

10% of $10,000 is less than 10% 1,000,000.

Taxes are inevitable.

This point right here basically proves my position. One could say that paying more taxes when you get rich is inevitable.

And just because someone makes less money than others shouldn't mean they get a deal. By making it an even percentage means everyone is on an level playing field.

This point is so far moved from reality it's not even funny. As i stated before, the more money you make, the more you are able to give away without it effecting your standard of living. The level playing field is negated by a flat tax because it's forcing the lower classes to shoulder a heavier burden when they're already burdened by the fact that they have less money while the rich get to shoulder even less of one. how is that a level playing field?

When taxes are cut, they are cut for everyone, when they rise, they affect everyone. How is that not fair? Just because someone has more money shouldn't imply they can afford to incur more severe taxing.

It doesn't "imply" anything, it's a solid fact. The more money you have, the more you can spend.

[BrennanHickson]

10% of $10,000 is less than 10% 1,000,000.

Taxes are inevitable. And just because someone makes less money than others shouldn't mean they get a deal. By making it an even percentage means everyone is on an level playing field. When taxes are cut, they are cut for everyone, when they rise, they affect everyone. How is that not fair? Just because someone has more money shouldn't imply they can afford to incur more severe taxing.
I've done a few calculations to put the economic differences between Liberals and Conservatives into perspective.

Since the U.S. per capita personal income was $39,751 in 2008, I will use this statistic in comparison with a wealthy person. With that being said, I'm sure we'll have no problem agreeing that a millionaire should be considered "wealthy."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point A (Conservatives): 10% average tax payment from each individual, regardless of their financial situation.

10% of $39,751 = $3,975.10
10% of $1,000,000 = $100,000

In other words, with Conservatives' plan in play, wealthier taxpayers would be paying twenty-five times the amount as the average American.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point B (Liberals): 7% tax payment from average taxpayer, 15% tax payment from wealthy taxpayer.

7% of $39,751 = $2,782.57
15% of $1,000,000 = $150,000

With Liberals' plan in play, wealthier taxpayers would be paying fifty-three times the amount as the average American, thus making their economic impact greater on America as a whole.

[J.C.]

Conservatives want to make money, Liberals want to spend it.

It's just that simple!

It's not as if the GDP grew at a rate of 3.5% a year under Conservative-Deity Reagan while it grew at a rate of 3.6% under Clinton.

Ronald Reagan deficit-spent like a son of a bitch. He also raised taxes and dug us in a deeper economic hole over his two terms.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USDebt.png

The myth of fiscal conservatism as a practice of Republicans is hilarrrrrrious.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692)

The Tax-Cut Con (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/the-tax-cut-con.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)

Take a Walk on the Supply Side (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/supply_side.pdf)

[Praetor]

The Supply-Side pdf was pretty neat, some of the graphs are interesting. I need to read up more on the Laffer curve.

[Brand-new-123]

It's just that simple!

It's not as if the GDP grew at a rate of 3.5% a year under Conservative-Deity Reagan while it grew at a rate of 3.6% under Clinton.

Ronald Reagan deficit-spent like a son of a bitch. He also raised taxes and dug us in a deeper economic hole over his two terms.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USDebt.png

The myth of fiscal conservatism as a practice of Republicans is hilarrrrrrious.
That's true but Presidents simply don't pass budgets. The congress does. Under most of Reagan's years Democrats controlled congress. Under most of Clinton's years Republicans controlled the Congress.

[mybreakingpoint]

I mean, there's so much literature on the subject. All you have to do is read any speeches, and books, or works by any of the founding fathers and you'll find that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Anything by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock. Does anyone even argue your position anymore? Let's be intellectually honest please.
My motives for being conservative are founded in a belief that there are a set of values that work in society and that this is right and wrong...Sure. They affect my worldview, of course. But you'd have to cede that its the same for the liberal position. You start with a non-religious belief, and form your worldview and ideology based on relative morality, and whatever feels good, and feels right in the moment. It works both ways...and it has to. So you have your own motivations found in a rejection of religion!


Thanks for bringing this up, this is a typical argument that I face. A simple look the historical record will show that every country had slavery in it, not just the U.S., and it was CHRISTIANS who were the abolitionists that pushed both in Britain and the U.S. to abolish slavery. Furthermore, Lincoln the liberator was a Republican! Again, read anything by Lincoln. The religion that this country was founded in, Christianity, never supported slavery, which is why they were the ones to fight for an end to it.


Who is forcing religion onto the civil and legislative discourse? Name an example please. Theocracy is a terrible thing!!! We agree on that! Christians don't want theocracy, that's the last thing they want. In fact, they Bible goes against theocracy!

Your right, liberals "hated" Prejean because they disagreed with her. That's exactly my point, conservatives don't hate nearly as much as liberals do. If you disagree with liberals, they'll destroy you for it. The funny thing is, she stated exactly what she believed. She never said that homosexuality was wrong, she even stated that she was glad that we could live in a country where we could choose homosexual or opposite sex marriage depending on what the state decides. See, the assumption is that if you don't believe in homosexual marriage because of the ramifications it has for the rest of society, then you are a homophobic bigot, not worthy to engage in civil discourse. She simply stated what she thought becuase of her worldview. You see, all the hate is on the liberal side, like you just said. Thanks for making my point!

i don't typically join in political discussions, but in reading this thread, this stood out to me. the vast majority of the liberals i know are much much much more accepting and tolerant of people who have different views from themselves. the majority of the conservatives i know are the ones who criticize and ridicule those that don't agree with them. i hear a lot of "yeah, well, they're going to hell for thinking/doing that." i don't hear that from liberals. it's the conservatives who think anything that goes against their viewpoint is automatically immoral just because it differs from their ideals. whose to really say what's immoral and what's not? liberals tend to be more accepting of the flaws of others, even people's destructive habits. it's the conservatives who claim that those who do one thing or another are terrible people whom are going to hell. it's the conservatives who think the liberals are awful people for being pro-abortion, aren't they?

i don't know, i live in an area full of very religious, intolerant conservatives, so perhaps my viewpoint is slightly biased, but from what i observe around me and in the media and in the lives of my friends and family, it's the conservatives who more often result to tearing other people down for their opposing beliefs, rather than the liberals. the liberals are typically the tolerant ones. you're gay? that's cool. you're not? that's cool, too. i don't know many conservatives who are tolerant of homosexuality, if any at all. i hear them bash them and tear them down left and right. if i didn't know any better, i'd say conservatives hate homosexuality. that's not very tolerant of them, is it?

again, i don't typically join in political discussions, but i really almost laughed out loud when i read that so i really felt the need to comment.

[a speedo model]

i don't typically join in political discussions, but in reading this thread, this stood out to me. the vast majority of the liberals i know are much much much more accepting and tolerant of people who have different views from themselves. the majority of the conservatives i know are the ones who criticize and ridicule those that don't agree with them. i hear a lot of "yeah, well, they're going to hell for thinking/doing that." i don't hear that from liberals. it's the conservatives who think anything that goes against their viewpoint is automatically immoral just because it differs from their ideals. whose to really say what's immoral and what's not? liberals tend to be more accepting of the flaws of others, even people's destructive habits. it's the conservatives who claim that those who do one thing or another are terrible people whom are going to hell. it's the conservatives who think the liberals are awful people for being pro-abortion, aren't they?

i don't know, i live in an area full of very religious, intolerant conservatives, so perhaps my viewpoint is slightly biased, but from what i observe around me and in the media and in the lives of my friends and family, it's the conservatives who more often result to tearing other people down for their opposing beliefs, rather than the liberals. the liberals are typically the tolerant ones. you're gay? that's cool. you're not? that's cool, too. i don't know many conservatives who are tolerant of homosexuality, if any at all. i hear them bash them and tear them down left and right. if i didn't know any better, i'd say conservatives hate homosexuality. that's not very tolerant of them, is it?

again, i don't typically join in political discussions, but i really almost laughed out loud when i read that so i really felt the need to comment.
To be fair, to say that conservatives hate homosexuals is naive. Not met a single Christian who has ever said anything close to that. There is a disagreement between the two, but not hatred from Christians. Sects always exist, extremists as well, to act as if they speak for the whole is silly. Islam is a perfect example, should we judge the entire religion based off of things sects have done in its name? Of course not. To take an issue such as homosexuality and make it as simple as "they hate them, we don't" is very naive. The issue is simply not that easy. My uncle is gay and I love him, favorite uncle by far. One of my best friends is gay too. I disagree with them the same way I do with several of my other friends, who drink of the weekend and so on. I do not hate homosexuals and in my whole life of being in the Christian/conservative side, I have not heard a single person say they HATE homosexuals for being gay. Not once.

Also, speaking on the whole who is more tolerant, for liberals who seem to think they are naturally more tolerant it's funny that as soon as you disagree with them they don't seem interested at all in finding out why. I rarely hear a liberal who finds out that I am pro-life, or whatever, that wants to actually discuss the issues. Instead they rant.

[CS Lewis]

I try to keep my political stance separate from my faith. There is no doubt in my mind that America was found on Christian morals, but ultimately the big picture of our constitution and the foundation of our nation is set on our freedom of consciousness, being able to believe whatever you want to believe. We're sovereign over our own mind. I am indeed a Christian but don't consider myself a conservative. I'd consider my a moderate who leans towards the left. My dad on the other hand who is an evangelical pastor considers himself a liberal. As far as better living conditions for all go, liberalism definitely has their stuff together. However I disagree with a lot of the ideologies they promote. My job is to spread the gospel but not through politics. America is not a Christian nation and I have to respect other people and can't vote in accord to impose my beliefs on others.

With that said, I personally believe a lot the stuff in the liberal camp is bunk. Yeah, we can say liberals are accepting but I really view it as being weak. I hate the whole "what's good for you is fine, it just may not be good for me" crap." If that is the mindset that every American had about things, then sure, it was cool for Hitler to kill everyone who conquered that didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, just wasn't cool for us. Likewise, if my buddy likes to rape girls, well then, that's just good for him but not good for me. If you're going to be accepting, be accepting of everyone and embrace everyone, not just what's convenient for you.

[paper halo]

With that said, I personally believe a lot the stuff in the liberal camp is bunk. Yeah, we can say liberals are accepting but I really view it as being weak. I hate the whole "what's good for you is fine, it just may not be good for me" crap." If that is the mindset that every American had about things, then sure, it was cool for Hitler to kill everyone who conquered that didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, just wasn't cool for us. Likewise, if my buddy likes to rape girls, well then, that's just good for him but not good for me. If you're going to be accepting, be accepting of everyone and embrace everyone, not just what's convenient for you.

lolwut?

[CS Lewis]

lolwut?

In short, there is no standard for morals in the liberal camp I find. And with no basis for morals who are we to tell another person what they do is wrong? If each individual is the standard for what is right and wrong then no one should have power over him. You know, because if it's good for him then cool, it's just not good for me.

[paper halo]

In short, there is no standard for morals in the liberal camp I find. And with no basis for morals who are we to tell another person what they do is wrong? If each individual is the standard for what is right and wrong then no one should have power over him. You know, because if it's good for him then cool, it's just not good for me.

That's absurd.

[CS Lewis]

That's absurd.


How so?

[paper halo]

How so?

Wow, I can't believe I have to answer this.

Firstly, I would just like to ask, what exactly is your basis for assuming that liberals have "no standard for morals"?

[a speedo model]

I try to keep my political stance separate from my faith. There is no doubt in my mind that America was found on Christian morals, but ultimately the big picture of our constitution and the foundation of our nation is set on our freedom of consciousness, being able to believe whatever you want to believe. We're sovereign over our own mind. I am indeed a Christian but don't consider myself a conservative. I'd consider my a moderate who leans towards the left. My dad on the other hand who is an evangelical pastor considers himself a liberal. As far as better living conditions for all go, liberalism definitely has their stuff together. However I disagree with a lot of the ideologies they promote. My job is to spread the gospel but not through politics. America is not a Christian nation and I have to respect other people and can't vote in accord to impose my beliefs on others.

With that said, I personally believe a lot the stuff in the liberal camp is bunk. Yeah, we can say liberals are accepting but I really view it as being weak. I hate the whole "what's good for you is fine, it just may not be good for me" crap." If that is the mindset that every American had about things, then sure, it was cool for Hitler to kill everyone who conquered that didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, just wasn't cool for us. Likewise, if my buddy likes to rape girls, well then, that's just good for him but not good for me. If you're going to be accepting, be accepting of everyone and embrace everyone, not just what's convenient for you.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the blonde hair and blue eyes a myth that has been disproven?

[yves.]

who the fuck says "oh, raping ain't my thang but it's cool if you do it!!"? what 'liberals' (I don't know why they are being singled out for this) refer to when saying these kinds if things, I think, they are referring to things that won't affect other people.

[diehtc0ke]

In short, there is no standard for morals in the liberal camp I find. And with no basis for morals who are we to tell another person what they do is wrong? If each individual is the standard for what is right and wrong then no one should have power over him. You know, because if it's good for him then cool, it's just not good for me.
And where should this moral standard come from?

[Machu505]

I must say, I've never heard anyone (let alone any liberals) say that raping is cool.

[a speedo model]

I must say, I've never heard anyone (let alone any liberals) say that raping is cool.
The government should poll all convicted rapists, ask whether they are Conservative or Liberal. Then this can be settled once and for all, which side approves of rape.

[CS Lewis]

I assume there is no moral standard because I don't see one evident. If there is a moral standard then please, enlighten me. But as far as I can see, and this isn't just for liberals but as America as a whole, man in and of himself is the moral judge. Each man for himself decides what is right and what is wrong. Which I think causes a huge dilema. There are a lot of men who would like to think women are inferior. A lot of white people who would like to think black people are inferior and a lot of black people who would say that they are the superior race. Some people want to legalize marijuana, others despise it because their brother died in a car crash while under the influence. I'm not saying that liberals don't have morals. Again, my whole family consists of liberals and the majority of my friends. I'm just saying for the most part there is no standard in which everyone is on one accord. And that being the case I don't see how anyone can justly say what one person does is wrong or is right. It's not a problem only liberals face but our nation as a whole. I'm identifying it with the liberal camp though because primarily and historically convervatives has been known to sticking with traditional values stemmed out of a Christian moral standard where as liberals have generally been more accepting of exploring new idealogies. I'm just saying with accepting new idealogies and dealing with the ones we've already embraced and accept, who is to say what is right and wrong in a justly manner?

[CS Lewis]

I'm not saying that liberals approve of rape. That wasn't my point. My point is why don't they? I think it's a moral dilema. To say that what's good for you isn't what's good for me but to condone something like rape. I don't think anyone condones rape, but obviously some people do if they have the drive to do it.

[Brand-new-123]

To be fair, to say that conservatives hate homosexuals is naive. Not met a single Christian who has ever said anything close to that. There is a disagreement between the two, but not hatred from Christians. Sects always exist, extremists as well, to act as if they speak for the whole is silly. Islam is a perfect example, should we judge the entire religion based off of things sects have done in its name? Of course not. To take an issue such as homosexuality and make it as simple as "they hate them, we don't" is very naive. The issue is simply not that easy. My uncle is gay and I love him, favorite uncle by far. One of my best friends is gay too. I disagree with them the same way I do with several of my other friends, who drink of the weekend and so on. I do not hate homosexuals and in my whole life of being in the Christian/conservative side, I have not heard a single person say they HATE homosexuals for being gay. Not once.

Also, speaking on the whole who is more tolerant, for liberals who seem to think they are naturally more tolerant it's funny that as soon as you disagree with them they don't seem interested at all in finding out why. I rarely hear a liberal who finds out that I am pro-life, or whatever, that wants to actually discuss the issues. Instead they rant.
Or believe that God exists. Especially on this site.

[GeeBee]

I assume there is no moral standard because I don't see one evident. If there is a moral standard then please, enlighten me. But as far as I can see, and this isn't just for liberals but as America as a whole, man in and of himself is the moral judge. Each man for himself decides what is right and what is wrong. Which I think causes a huge dilema. There are a lot of men who would like to think women are inferior. A lot of white people who would like to think black people are inferior and a lot of black people who would say that they are the superior race. Some people want to legalize marijuana, others despise it because their brother died in a car crash while under the influence. I'm not saying that liberals don't have morals. Again, my whole family consists of liberals and the majority of my friends. I'm just saying for the most part there is no standard in which everyone is on one accord. And that being the case I don't see how anyone can justly say what one person does is wrong or is right. It's not a problem only liberals face but our nation as a whole. I'm identifying it with the liberal camp though because primarily and historically convervatives has been known to sticking with traditional values stemmed out of a Christian moral standard where as liberals have generally been more accepting of exploring new idealogies. I'm just saying with accepting new idealogies and dealing with the ones we've already embraced and accept, who is to say what is right and wrong in a justly manner?

I'm not saying that liberals approve of rape. That wasn't my point. My point is why don't they? I think it's a moral dilema. To say that what's good for you isn't what's good for me but to condone something like rape. I don't think anyone condones rape, but obviously some people do if they have the drive to do it.

So let me get this straight...because I don't believe in god, I MUST not have any moral compass? No sense of right and wrong?

You're an ignorant ass. GTFO.

[CS Lewis]

So let me get this straight...because I don't believe in god, I MUST not have any moral compass? No sense of right and wrong?

You're an ignorant ass. GTFO.


That is not what I said. I said you don't have a basis for it other than yourself and the beliefs you have cultivated for yourself. And I don't understand how one single man has the right to tell another single man what is wrong based on the beliefs he cultivated for himself. I have no doubt that you have a moral compass or a sense of right and wrong.

[GeeBee]

That is not what I said. I said you don't have a basis for it other than yourself and the beliefs you have cultivated for yourself. And I don't understand how one single man has the right to tell another single man what is wrong based on the beliefs he cultivated for himself. I have no doubt that you have a moral compass or a sense of right and wrong.

You absolutely DID say that. "I don't see a moral standard other than every man as his own".

You said I "don't have a basis for it other than yourself". Where else would I get them? You don't have any "BASIS" for morals being handed down by any god other than the traditions and rantings of religious zealots, so get off your high horse and learn a little. Your posts have done little but put your ignorance and backwardness on full display.

[CS Lewis]

You absolutely DID say that. "I don't see a moral standard other than every man as his own".

You said I "don't have a basis for it other than yourself". Where else would I get them? You don't have any "BASIS" for morals being handed down by any god other than the traditions and rantings of religious zealots, so get off your high horse and learn a little. Your posts have done little but put your ignorance and backwardness on full display.

Again, I did NOT say that. I said that as a WHOLE man alone does not have a moral standard. As individuals we all cultivate our own. That doesn't mean that you yourself don't have a standard. It's just saying there is no consistent basis on which every person is on one accord. And if people aren't on one accord then there will inevitably be problems. It's logical. Sorry.

And no, I never attacked you or criticized you for your beliefs, I just showed where I think they fail. But thanks for calling me ignorant and backwards for having a belief system. Yes, my basis for morals comes from the God and doctrine of Christian Theism. At the same time, I don't hope to impose my belief system on anyone else that's why I don't vote conservative. I act through my gospel through love and try my best to live by showing the love of Christ. Go ahead and make fun of me for it. All I did was show my dilema with secular thinking. That's all. If it comes off as being on a high horse then I'm sorry.

[thespearkid]

So let me get this straight...because I don't believe in god, I MUST not have any moral compass? No sense of right and wrong?

You're an ignorant ass. GTFO.
Not what he said at all. Although and I don't agree with his point, you're definitely putting words in his mouth.

[GeeBee]

In short, there is no standard for morals in the liberal camp I find.

I'm identifying it with the liberal camp though because primarily and historically convervatives has been known to sticking with traditional values stemmed out of a Christian moral standard where as liberals have generally been more accepting of exploring new idealogies.

That is not what I said.

Again, I did NOT say that. I said that as a WHOLE man alone does not have a moral standard.

I just showed where I think they fail. Yes, my basis for morals comes from the God and doctrine of Christian Theism.

All I did was show my dilema with secular thinking. That's all. If it comes off as being on a high horse then I'm sorry.

Not what he said at all. Although and I don't agree with his point, you're definitely putting words in his mouth.

I don't think EITHER of you know what CS Lewis is saying.

Also, you haven't shown ANY dilemma whatsoever with secular thinking. Your posts are as incoherent as they are false.

[saysmydoctor]

In short, there is no standard for morals in the liberal camp I find. And with no basis for morals who are we to tell another person what they do is wrong? If each individual is the standard for what is right and wrong then no one should have power over him. You know, because if it's good for him then cool, it's just not good for me.
You don't even know what liberalism is, clearly.

[CS Lewis]

It really isn't that hard to understand. Really. There isn't a moral standard by which America holds itself to. Each individual decides what is right and wrong for themselves. There is a general consensus, yes, but there is no moral standard that applies for everyone. Christian conservatives would like to think America is a Christian nation and the morals of America should continue to be based on the bible. I do not agree with that. America is a nation where all ideas are accepted and imposing the Bible as a moral standard would be a contradiction. Again, that's why I don't vote conservatively. At the same time, I don't think the problems we face as a nation will ever ultimately be solved because we'll never be on one accord. It just annoys me when anybody period says "do what's good for you and I'll do what's good for me," just as it annoys me when conservatives try to impose their values on everyone else. I think that mindset that a lot of my liberal friends share open up a lot of problems and I see it as a dilema. Shoot me.

And I'm not saying that the idea of what's good for you may not be what's good for me is what makes liberalism what it is. Liberalism focus on individual liberty and equality for all. As far as social justice is concerned I believe liberalism is spot on which is why I vote primarily democratic, I'm just saying I disagree with an ideology I see more in the liberal camp than the conservative. That's all.

[saysmydoctor]

Democrats aren't liberal.

[Machu505]

Liberals don't say "Let's let everyone do whatever the fuck they want!". They say "Let's let everyone do whatever the fuck they want as long as what they're doing doesn't hurt anyone!"

[GeeBee]

You don't even know what liberalism is, clearly.

Add conservatism to that as well.

It really isn't that hard to understand. Really. There isn't a moral standard by which America holds itself to. Each individual decides what is right and wrong for themselves. There is a general consensus, yes, but there is no moral standard that applies for everyone. Christian conservatives would like to think America is a Christian nation and the morals of America should continue to be based on the bible. I do not agree with that. America is a nation where all ideas are accepted and imposing the Bible as a moral standard would be a contradiction. Again, that's why I don't vote conservatively. At the same time, I don't think the problems we face as a nation will ever ultimately be solved because we'll never be on one accord. It just annoys me when anybody period says "do what's good for you and I'll do what's good for me," just as it annoys me when conservatives try to impose their values on everyone else. I think that mindset that a lot of my liberal friends share open up a lot of problems and I see it as a dilema. Shoot me.

And I'm not saying that the idea of what's good for you may not be what's good for me is what makes liberalism what it is. Liberalism focus on individual liberty and equality for all. As far as social justice is concerned I believe liberalism is spot on which is why I vote primarily democratic, I'm just saying I disagree with an ideology I see more in the liberal camp than the conservative. That's all.

Incoherent rambling is incoherent. Holy hell, man. What is your bloody point?! Everyone's well aware that there's no objective morality. And again, you apparently don't understand liberalism at all, nor do you understand the ideology you apparently disagree with.

[thespearkid]

I don't think EITHER of you know what CS Lewis is saying.

Also, you haven't shown ANY dilemma whatsoever with secular thinking. Your posts are as incoherent as they are false.
There's a difference between not having morals and not having a universal moral standard.

[GeeBee]

There's a difference between not having morals and not having a universal moral standard.

Yes. And claiming that liberals don't have morals because of a lack of a universal moral standard is as inane as it is stupid. My brain is about to explode just trying to figure out what the fuck you and CS Lewis are trying to argue.

[CS Lewis]

If democrats aren't primarily liberal and if republicans aren't primarily conservative then I have to rethink my whole political stance. Haha.

And again, I still find that to be a moral dilema. To claim individual liberty of consciousness, then if a person believes that given their circumstances it makes perfect sense and they are just in stealing from or killing someone, who are we to convict them? I know that we all have a sense of morality and we feel that if you do someone wrong then they should be punished, but who are we to say what they did is wrong? It's a dilema to me. I'm sorry. That doesn't mean that liberals are wrong. It just means there's a point of disconnect for me.

[J.C.]

Also, speaking on the whole who is more tolerant, for liberals who seem to think they are naturally more tolerant it's funny that as soon as you disagree with them they don't seem interested at all in finding out why.

Seriously? I always question Conservatives when I hear their stance on a particular issue and they, more often than not, end up getting defensive about being questioned.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/jrc6248/gaymarriage.jpg

[CS Lewis]

Yes. And claiming that liberals don't have morals because of a lack of a universal moral standard is as inane as it is stupid. My brain is about to explode just trying to figure out what the fuck you and CS Lewis are trying to argue.

NO ONE SAID LIBERALS DON'T HAVE MORALS. There is no universal standard. I'm not saying that because of a lack of a moral standard that liberals don't have morals. I'm saying that since there is no universal standard problems will inevitably always arise. That's all.

[GeeBee]

In short, there is no standard for morals in the liberal camp I find.

NO ONE SAID LIBERALS DON'T HAVE MORALS.

Say not shit else.

[CS Lewis]

Say not shit else.

Oh my gosh. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Liberals as a whole don't have a universal standard of morals on which they agree with and are on one accord. That does not mean that as individuals liberals aren't moralistic or have morals. It only means there is no universal standard and with no universal standard problems will inevitably arise. Some liberals promote legalization of marijuana, others don't. I have friends and family on both sides of that argument. If you can't understand this then I'm done talking because it is very simple.

[GeeBee]

Oh my gosh. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Liberals as a whole don't have a universal standard of morals on which they agree with and are on one accord. That does not mean that as individuals liberals aren't moralistic or have morals. It only means there is no universal standard and with no universal standard problems will inevitably arise. Some liberals promote legalization of marijuana, others don't. I have friends and family on both sides of that argument. If you can't understand this then I'm done talking because it is very simple.

Who fucking does? You're stating the completely obvious, and failing to show how this is exclusive to liberals, or even why this is a bad thing.

Thank god.

[thespearkid]

Yes. And claiming that liberals don't have morals because of a lack of a universal moral standard is as inane as it is stupid. My brain is about to explode just trying to figure out what the fuck you and CS Lewis are trying to argue.
I don't think he said liberals didn't have morals. He said they didn't have a universal moral code. I'm not trying to argue any point except that you're taking what he's saying out of context.

[thespearkid]

Say not shit else.
"No standard for morals" is different from "no morals".

[CS Lewis]

Who fucking does? You're stating the completely obvious, and failing to show how this is exclusive to liberals, or even why this is a bad thing.

Thank god.

I've said, multiple times, how this is not a problem only liberals face but America as a whole. I also said that though the it's also a problem in the conservative camp, they primarily use the Bible as their moral standard which I think is a problem because it's imposing their beliefs on the rest of the nation. Learn how to read and pay attention to what the other person is saying before picking out flaws in their argument. And I know it's obvious, when I said it, it wasn't meant to ruffle and feathers but you got all defensive calling me ignorant and what not. All I'm saying is that if there is no universal standard problems will always arise. And yes, I know many. And yes, problems tend to be a bad thing. You're really trying too hard to disprove something that was said and making it into something it's not.

[reckoner]

I think it's pretty clear that NOT having a "universal code" for morals has worked out a little better than having one, like the bible. That way people can't pick and choose the morals from the "code" they want to follow.

[GeeBee]

I've said, multiple times, how this is not a problem only liberals face but America as a whole. I also said that though the it's also a problem in the conservative camp, they primarily use the Bible as their moral standard which I think is a problem because it's imposing their beliefs on the rest of the nation. Learn how to read and pay attention to what the other person is saying before picking out flaws in their argument. And I know it's obvious, when I said it, it wasn't meant to ruffle and feathers but you got all defensive calling me ignorant and what not. All I'm saying is that if there is no universal standard problems will always arise. And yes, I know many. And yes, problems tend to be a bad thing. You're really trying too hard to disprove something that was said and making it into something it's not.

Well, you've spent a ton of time stating something blatantly obvious. I'm not sure many would disagree with your assertion- "Gee, it's a shame there's no objective morality, then there wouldn't be any problems!"

[derekmoyer4]

per the title of this thread....is it even conceivably possible to justify one's political stance be it liberal or conservative. i think people get lost into thinking there are only "two sides/parties" when debating topics such as this.

and there have been arguments made about the fact that the nation was founded upon christian beliefs. but i must ask if those who have made this claim know that most of the important founding fathers were in fact deists?

[CS Lewis]

Well, you've spent a ton of time stating something blatantly obvious. I'm not sure many would disagree with your assertion- "Gee, it's a shame there's no objective morality, then there wouldn't be any problems!"

I know. I spent so much time on it because you made it sound as if because I thought that then I somehow called people who didn't believe in God as moralistic. I think that there is an objective morality, just not one that we have the right to impose on people. It's not that that I have a problem with. It's when people say that although there is no objective morality, we can all share a coke, hold hands, and sing happy songs and everything will be okay. Just like blowing up any nation that doesn't agree with the bible belt of America won't solve anything. That's all. It wasn't meant to step on toes or hurt feelings. And again, I really am sorry if it came off as arrogant or demeaning.

[GeeBee]

There is no universal standard.

I think that there is an objective morality

Keep digging.

[CS Lewis]

Dude, seriously. I'm trying to be mature about this. Can you stop nitpicking over every little thing? I believe in an objective morality being the word of God. How about you quote the whole thing and not one portion? I said "I think there is an objective morality, just not one that can be imposed on everyone." Not everybody believes in God. Let alone the God of Christian theism. And I wish not to force it on the world or America which is why I don't vote conservatively. I don't think that there is a universal standard by which everyone in America abides by. These are two contradictory ideas. Seriously man. Just stop it. Let go.

[CS Lewis]

Are not two contradictory ideas*

[GeeBee]

Dude, seriously. I'm trying to be mature about this. Can you stop nitpicking over every little thing? I believe in an objective morality being the word of God. How about you quote the whole thing and not one portion? I said "I think there is an objective morality, just not one that can be imposed on everyone." Not everybody believes in God. Let alone the God of Christian theism. And I wish not to force it on the world or America which is why I don't vote conservatively. I don't think that there is a universal standard by which everyone in America abides by. These are two contradictory ideas. Seriously man. Just stop it. Let go.

No, seriously, you stop. You've made about 5 different contradictory assertions, and made one outrageously obvious claim. You've made no point, just rambled on incessantly about god knows what.

[CS Lewis]

No, seriously, you stop. You've made about 5 different contradictory assertions, and made one outrageously obvious claim. You've made no point, just rambled on incessantly about god knows what.

And you've put words in my mouth to create a pointless argument. I supposedly made one outrageously obvious claim and you took such offense and still can't admit you misinterpreted my original post. Good job, man. :)

[GeeBee]

And you've put words in my mouth to create a pointless argument. I supposedly made one outrageously obvious claim and you took such offense and still can't admit you misinterpreted my original post. Good job, man. :)

I don't take offense at the claim. I take offense at how horrible you are at making a point. We're all still waiting for it.

[CS Lewis]

"Because I don't believe in god I don't have a moral compass blah blah blah you're ignorant GTFO blah blah blah" Yep. If my lack of talent to make a point gets you that upset then you really need to find a better way to spend your time.

I was never trying to make some deep philosophical point. I could have come in here and said that my main beef with liberals is that they have a black man leading their party and now our nation. Obvious? Yes. Profound? Wouldn't say so. All I was saying is that I don't like how some liberals I've encountered act as if that if everyone follows their heart and spreads love then everything will be okay. That's not possible if everyone has different moralistic beliefs and values. Obvious, yep, but if you really take offense to my obvious point then you didn't have to respond in the first place.

[thespearkid]

I think it's pretty clear that NOT having a "universal code" for morals has worked out a little better than having one, like the bible. That way people can't pick and choose the morals from the "code" they want to follow.
Doesn't everyone just pick and choose which morals they want to follow? Rather they be Christians or atheists, we all have the ability to just pick and choose our actions. Your post doesn't make any sense.

[thespearkid]

Dude, seriously. I'm trying to be mature about this. Can you stop nitpicking over every little thing? I believe in an objective morality being the word of God. How about you quote the whole thing and not one portion?
That's how GeeBee argues haha. He's a liberal but argues like a conservative.

[derekmoyer4]

Doesn't everyone just pick and choose which morals they want to follow? Rather they be Christians or atheists, we all have the ability to just pick and choose our actions. Your post doesn't make any sense.
you are right. morality need not be based upon religious beliefs. morals are societal not religious. therefore, anyone and any group can have morals.

[GeeBee]

That's how GeeBee argues haha. He's a liberal but argues like a conservative.

And spearkid is a religious nut but he pretends to be at home here in reality.

[GeeBee]

"Because I don't believe in god I don't have a moral compass blah blah blah you're ignorant GTFO blah blah blah" Yep. If my lack of talent to make a point gets you that upset then you really need to find a better way to spend your time.

I was never trying to make some deep philosophical point. I could have come in here and said that my main beef with liberals is that they have a black man leading their party and now our nation. Obvious? Yes. Profound? Wouldn't say so. All I was saying is that I don't like how some liberals I've encountered act as if that if everyone follows their heart and spreads love then everything will be okay. That's not possible if everyone has different moralistic beliefs and values. Obvious, yep, but if you really take offense to my obvious point then you didn't have to respond in the first place.

So...is this really your main beef with liberals?

[thespearkid]

you are right. morality need not be based upon religious beliefs. morals are societal not religious. therefore, anyone and any group can have morals.
Yup.

[thespearkid]

And spearkid is a religious nut but he pretends to be at home here in reality.
Oh, the intolerance.

[GeeBee]

Oh, the intolerance.

Yeah. When someone calls BS on your claims, it's pure intolerance.

[thespearkid]

Yeah. When someone calls BS on your claims, it's pure intolerance.
If you use the term "religious nut", yeah.

[CS Lewis]

So...is this really your main beef with liberals?

Being an Afrian-American and having already said I consider myself moderate leaning slightly to the left, voting for Obama myself and having an Obama poster in my room and had it in my locker at school full of Christian conservatives, no I wouldn't say that would be a beef of mine of any sort :) I was just using it as an example to show that I don't care if my post was obvious. Seriously man, I really don't want any problems.

[GeeBee]

Being an Afrian-American and having already said I consider myself moderate leaning slightly to the left, voting for Obama myself and having an Obama poster in my room and had it in my locker at school full of Christian conservatives, no I wouldn't say that would be a beef of mine of any sort :) I was just using it as an example to show that I don't care if my post was obvious. Seriously man, I really don't want any problems.

Fair enough.
On with the convo.

[GeeBee]

If you use the term "religious nut", yeah.

If the shoe fits...and based on our previous conversations...it does.

[thespearkid]

GeeBee, I want to know why you hate Christians so much.

[reckoner]

Doesn't everyone just pick and choose which morals they want to follow? Rather they be Christians or atheists, we all have the ability to just pick and choose our actions. Your post doesn't make any sense.

I'm saying that for the most part christian conservatives are the ones who publicly use the bible for moral reference. From what I know, the bible generally promotes, for lack of a better word, love for everyone. But I think conservatives do not follow that. It seems they are only interested in personal gain and believe their beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong. Obviously this is generalizing to some degree, but I think for the most part, many conservatives are intolerant of different views and want to control other people's lives who have absolutely no affect on them. Does the bible not promote tolerance? I just think that liberals grasp that important concept better than a lot of conservatives.

[thespearkid]

I'm saying that for the most part christian conservatives are the ones who publicly use the bible for moral reference. From what I know, the bible generally promotes, for lack of a better word, love for everyone. But I think conservatives do not follow that. It seems they are only interested in personal gain and believe their beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong. Obviously this is generalizing to some degree, but I think for the most part, many conservatives are intolerant of different views and want to control other people's lives who have absolutely no affect on them. Does the bible not promote tolerance? I just think that liberals grasp that important concept better than a lot of conservatives.
I agree completely (barring notable exceptions). Like I said though, it's not fair to say the Bible isn't a good moral compass just because some people pick and choose morals from it since that's what everyone does (pick and chooses their morals).

[peder458]

To be fair, to say that conservatives hate homosexuals is naive. Not met a single Christian who has ever said anything close to that. There is a disagreement between the two, but not hatred from Christians. Sects always exist, extremists as well, to act as if they speak for the whole is silly. Islam is a perfect example, should we judge the entire religion based off of things sects have done in its name? Of course not. To take an issue such as homosexuality and make it as simple as "they hate them, we don't" is very naive. The issue is simply not that easy. My uncle is gay and I love him, favorite uncle by far. One of my best friends is gay too. I disagree with them the same way I do with several of my other friends, who drink of the weekend and so on. I do not hate homosexuals and in my whole life of being in the Christian/conservative side, I have not heard a single person say they HATE homosexuals for being gay. Not once.

Also, speaking on the whole who is more tolerant, for liberals who seem to think they are naturally more tolerant it's funny that as soon as you disagree with them they don't seem interested at all in finding out why. I rarely hear a liberal who finds out that I am pro-life, or whatever, that wants to actually discuss the issues. Instead they rant.

it is pretty obvious to me that a significantly large number of Christians think homosexuality is a choice, and that it is wrong/a sin. plain and simple; that in-and-of-itself is 'hate'. i could be wrong though...

[reckoner]

I agree completely (barring notable exceptions). Like I said though, it's not fair to say the Bible isn't a good moral compass just because some people pick and choose morals from it since that's what everyone does (pick and chooses their morals).

I agree with this.

My main problem with many conservatives is that they just aren't tolerant. We live in a world with many different people with many different lifestyles and to say that one way of living is supieror to every other one doesn't make sense to me. Can any conservative jusitfy this? Why do you feel the need to tell people to live one way when they are far more comfortable with their own? I would really like an answer to that. I'm not saying every conservative is like this. I guess that is unfortunately how my introduction to politics (the Bush era) was. But when you have a man like Rush Limbaugh is something along the lines of the unofficial head of your party, or people with primetime shows like Bill O'Reily, it's hard to say most conservatives are not like that.

[thespearkid]

I agree with this.

My main problem with many conservatives is that they just aren't tolerant. We live in a world with many different people with many different lifestyles and to say that one way of living is supieror to every other one doesn't make sense to me. Can any conservative jusitfy this? Why do you feel the need to tell people to live one way when they are far more comfortable with their own? I would really like an answer to that. I'm not saying every conservative is like this. I guess that is unfortunately how my introduction to politics (the Bush era) was. But when you have a man like Rush Limbaugh is something along the lines of the unofficial head of your party, or people with primetime shows like Bill O'Reily, it's hard to say most conservatives are not like that.
I'm a liberal as well and grew up in the Bush era so I know where you're coming from. I think what the conservative Christian viewpoint is missing is the fact that God never called Christians to FORCE others to be Christians. Legislation is the not the place for witnessing.

[peder458]

i also just wanted to mention that based on the topic, this has been (minus a few posts) a fairly intelligent conversation/debate. these are tough subjects and everyone seems to be handling them really well. i am impressed.

[thespearkid]

it is pretty obvious to me that a significantly large number of Christians think homosexuality is a choice, and that it is wrong/a sin. plain and simple; that in-and-of-itself is 'hate'. i could be wrong though...
Not true at all. The Bible tells us to treat all sinners with the utmost love. Jesus Christ Himself was often seen eating with the adulterers and the other sinners. Any Christian who would use someone else's sin as a basis for hate is a moron because we are ALL sinners and all sin is equal in God's eyes. Hell, hate itself is a sin so anyone who hates gay people for living in sin should equally hate themselves for doing the same thing.

[J.C.]

Not true at all. The Bible tells us to treat all sinners with the utmost love. Jesus Christ Himself was often seen eating with the adulterers and the other sinners. Any Christian who would use someone else's sin as a basis for hate is a moron because we are ALL sinners and all sin is equal in God's eyes. Hell, hate itself is a sin so anyone who hates gay people for living in sin should equally hate themselves for doing the same thing.

That's the problem. You're qualifying homosexuality as a sin and lumping it in with things like adultery and other 'immoral' behavior.

It's like thinking that being black is a sin, then saying you don't hate/look down on black people.

[thespearkid]

That's the problem. You're qualifying homosexuality as a sin and lumping it in with things like adultery and other 'immoral' behavior.

It's like thinking that being black is a sin, then saying you don't hate/look down on black people.
I don't hate adulterers or anyone who engages in sinful behavior because I'm no better than they are.

[J.C.]

You did an outstanding job missing the point of that post.

[thespearkid]

What was the point?

[SlappedActor]

Yeah, but didn't Jesus also call people out on their sins and tell them not to commit them anymore? I don't know the Bible too much, and I'm not very religious, but the main theme to me always seemed to be helping one another pull each other out of sin, not just being cool with everyone doing whatever they want.

edit: And if Christians believe that they should follow Christ's example in all things, don't they feel that justifies them in pointing out other people's sins, if it is done in a spirit of helping them and not tearing them down? I'm genuinely curious about Christians see this.

[thespearkid]

Yeah, but didn't Jesus also call people out on their sins and tell them not to commit them anymore? I don't know the Bible too much, and I'm not very religious, but the main theme to me always seemed to be helping one another pull each other out of sin, not just being cool with everyone doing whatever they want.
True but He did it with love, not with hate or force.

[J.C.]

What was the point?

You equated being gay with things like adultery and 'other sinful behavior'. Therefore, you think it's a sin. Therefore, you think homosexuals are inherently flawed since you don't perceive heterosexuality in the same manner. If you think they're inherently flawed, you think they're inferior. If you believe someone/something is inferior, that's a form of hatred.

[GeeBee]

GeeBee, I want to know why you hate Christians so much.

I don't hate Christians. I hate unfounded, irrational ideas being peddled as if they were valid. You're full of them.

[GeeBee]

True but He did it with love, not with hate or force.

Just like abusive parents beat their children "out of love". You seem to slap "out of love" on the end of hateful sentiments, and think that justifies them.

[thespearkid]

You equated being gay with things like adultery and 'other sinful behavior'. Therefore, you think it's a sin. Therefore, you think homosexuals are inherently flawed since you don't perceive heterosexuality in the same manner. If you think they're inherently flawed, you think they're inferior. If you believe someone/something is inferior, that's a form of hatred.
No, just no. Saying I think gay people are inferior or flawed would insist that I think someone is superior to them or perfect and no one is. If gay people are inferior, then I'm just as inferior. I think you miss the point of my post.

To be clear, gay people are not flawed or inferior.

[thespearkid]

Just like abusive parents beat their children "out of love". You seem to slap "out of love" on the end of hateful sentiments, and think that justifies them.
I don't see how you can possibly equate sharing the love of God with slapping a child.

[thespearkid]

I don't hate Christians. I hate unfounded, irrational ideas being peddled as if they were valid. You're full of them.
All ideas are unfounded and irrational. If they weren't, they wouldn't be called ideas.

[J.C.]

No, just no. Saying I think gay people are inferior or flawed would insist that I think someone is superior to them or perfect and no one is. If gay people are inferior, then I'm just as inferior. I think you miss the point of my post.

To be clear, gay people are not flawed or inferior.

Is homosexuality a sin?

[thespearkid]

Is homosexuality a sin?
Yes. No worse than any other sin and it would be intolerant to hate someone who is gay and try to use "they live in sin" as an excuse.

[J.C.]

Yes.

So it's inferior to heterosexuality.

[thespearkid]

So it's inferior to heterosexuality.
Nope. Because heterosexuality can just as easily be used in sin as homosexuality can. What you're doing is equating the sinner to the sin.

[J.C.]

Nope. Because heterosexuality can just as easily be used in sin as homosexuality can.

Are there instances where heterosexuality isn't a sin?

Are there instances where homosexuality isn't a sin?

[thespearkid]

Are there instances where heterosexuality isn't a sin?

Are there instances where homosexuality isn't a sin?
Yes and yes. Homosexuality isn't a sin by itself. The act of homosexual sex, however, is explicitly outlined as sinful in the Bible. Heterosexuality by itself isn't a sin either. However, fornication and adultery are both outlined as sins. Look, I see what you're trying to do but I can assure you I don't find homosexuals to be inferior to heterosexuals.

[J.C.]

In what instance is homosexuality not a sin?

[thespearkid]

I edited my post. Check it out.

[thespearkid]

Sorry if I didn't make this totally clear before but I'll try again. The act of homosexual sex is a sin. However, God never called His people to fight sin with hate because we ALL live in sin. With the exception of Jesus Christ, no one is superior to anyone and, therefore, no one is inferior. Any Christian who says any differently is a hypocrite.

[J.C.]

I don't really care whether you have a personal bias against homosexuals or not, that wasn't what I was arguing.

You believe there are instances of heterosexual sex that aren't sinful, but you believe there aren't instances of homosexual sex that aren't sinful. That follows logically that you believe one is superior to the other. I don't mean all heterosexual sex, I mean the types that you don't believe are sinful.

The whole idea of sin is that you're engaging in inferior/incorrect behavior.

[thespearkid]

I don't really care whether you have a personal bias against homosexuals or not, that wasn't what I was arguing.

You believe there are instances of heterosexual sex that aren't sinful, but you believe there aren't instances of homosexual sex that aren't sinful. That follows logically that you believe one is superior to the other. I don't mean all heterosexual sex, I mean the types that you don't believe are sinful.

The whole idea of sin is that you're engaging in inferior behavior.
You're trying to twist my words to make it seem like I think gays are inferior to straights and that is just not the case. Like I said before, you're equating the sin to the sinner. I believe homosexual sex is a sin and as a Christian, I know that it is better to strive for sin free lifestyles. However, no one has ever or will ever live a sin free lifestyle so if I would be intolerant enough to make the claim that homosexuals are inferior, I would have to say ALL people are inferior to Christ, which is true.

[J.C.]

You're trying to twist my words to make it seem like I think gays are inferior to straights and that is just not the case.

I'm saying you think their behavior is. And their behavior is reflective of who they are as people.

Like I said before, you're equating the sin to the sinner.

There's no separating people from their indentity. Like I said before, if someone thought that being black was a sin, how do you separate that from the person?

I believe homosexual sex is a sin and as a Christian, I know that it is better to strive for sin free lifestyles.

Why do you believe gays are gay? What motive are you attributing to them?

However, no one has ever or will ever live a sin free lifestyle so if I would be intolerant enough to make the claim that homosexuals are inferior, I would have to say ALL people are inferior to Christ, which is true.

I don't care about this part. Nobody's perfect and we can all acknowledge that. The difference is you think homosexuals who engage in gay sex are sinful and thus flawed, which is part of why you believe they're not perfect.

[thespearkid]

I'm saying you think their behavior is. And their behavior is reflective of who they are as people. There's no separating people from their indentity. Like I said before, if someone thought that being black was a sin, how do you separate that from the person?
Sins aren't something that are just thought up randomly so the whole "what if" thing is a moot point. If someone thought being black was a sin, I'd ask them to show me a Bible verse that explicitly says being black is a sin.

Why do you believe gays are gay? What motive are you attributing to them?
I believe gays are gay because they're born that way. The Bible says we're ALL born into sin.

I don't care about this part. Nobody's perfect and we can all acknowledge that. The difference is you think homosexuals who engage in gay sex are sinful and thus flawed, which is part of why they're not perfect.
I think everyone is sinful and thus flawed.

[J.C.]

I believe gays are gay because they're born that way. The Bible says we're ALL born into sin.

A sin is "deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."

You're saying their homosexuality is the will of God. Therefore, they aren't disobeying the will of God, they're going along with it. So how's it a sin if they're doing what God wants them to do?

[thespearkid]

A sin is "deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."

You're saying their homosexuality is the will of God. Therefore, they aren't disobeying the will of God, they're going along with it. So how's it a sin if they're doing what God wants them to do?
God didn't make it so we're all born into sin. Man did that in the garden of Eden. Before our fall, we were one with God. Now, we are born into sin and must strive to maintain the covenant with God. See, God gives us free will to sin if we so choose but he wants us to strive for a sin free lifestyle (our end of the covenant) and in exchange, we're granted paradise (His end of the covenant).

It is not God's will that we sin.

[J.C.]

See, God gives us free will to sin if we so choose

No, you said gay people are born sinners. Therefore, they don't have a choice.

[thespearkid]

No, you said gay people are born sinners. Therefore, they don't have a choice.
We're all born sinners. We will all die sinners. However, I've said before in this thread that there is a difference between the sinner and the sin. We're born sinners but the choice of each individual sin is our own.

[J.C.]

So what should people who are homosexual do?

[saysmydoctor]

Yes. No worse than any other sin and it would be intolerant to hate someone who is gay and try to use "they live in sin" as an excuse.
The Bible is not the law of the land so regardless of how the Christian conservative movement views homosexuality, it's irrelevant.

[thespearkid]

The same thing God wants all sinners to do; strive for a sin free lifestyle through Him and ask for forgiveness when they slip.

[saysmydoctor]

I have a question, do you believe the Earth is round?

[thespearkid]

The Bible is not the law of the land so regardless of how the Christian conservative movement views homosexuality, it's irrelevant.
That's what I said very early on in the conversation. I just happened to mention I thought homosexual sex is a sin and the conversation splintered off.

[J.C.]

The same thing God wants all sinners to do; strive for a sin free lifestyle through Him and ask for forgiveness when they slip.

I meant in terms of relationships.

[CS Lewis]

No, you said gay people are born sinners. Therefore, they don't have a choice.

I think the point he's trying to make is that we are all born sinners. God, nor should Christians hate homosexuals. God calls us all to treat each other with worth, value, dignity, respect, and love. God hates the sin, not the sinner. Homosexuality is no more of a sin than theft, adultery, etc. We're all fallen and all on the same level, no one is superiror, etc. Yes, homosexuals are born with a natural tendecy to be attracted to people of their own sex. In the same children that are born of parents that are alcoholics usually have a natural tendecy towards alcohol. Drunkedness is still a sin. One people with that tendecy can refrain from, just as homosexuals can refrain from the act of sex. Again, I think that's the point he's trying to make. I may be wrong though, I actually haven't read each and everyone of the posts so I may be wrong about the conversation.

On another note: not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. There are some denominations within Christian evangelism that ordain homosexual ministers. I say this because I think Christians get painted in a light as if all they care about is abortion and how much God hates gays. It's the image the media paints of Christians, but it's also an inconvenient truth that there are a lot of Christians that think that way. I'd just like to make a point that such matters aren't the central message of Christianity but the central message of the gospel is the love of Christ and the history of redemption.

[Mister Mak]

Seriously? Try living off of $9,000 when you could be making $10,000 and then try living of of $900,000 when you could be making $1,000,000. Something tells me that one is less fair than the other. When taxes are cut in the system you're talking about, everyone is affected but some are much more negatively affected than others.


the point is that a graduated income tax, where those who make more pay more taxes, reduces the incentive to earn. its basic economics. When people know they will lose a larger portion of their earnings to taxes, they will earn less to put themselves in a lower tax bracket. when this happens, the government will receive less tax revenue that it planned for because of a consumer reaction to the policy.

[thespearkid]

I meant in terms of relationships.
Gay people being together is not a sin. The sex part, however, is so I would assume God would have no problem with gays being together and not engaging in sexual activities with each other (and if they were married to each other, no sex with anyone else either).

[saysmydoctor]

That's what I said very early on in the conversation. I just happened to mention I thought homosexual sex is a sin and the conversation splintered off.
Well you are openly approving of discrimination against gays because what they do is sin by calling it sin.

[thespearkid]

On another note: not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. There are some denominations within Christian evangelism that ordain homosexual ministers. I say this because I think Christians get painted in a light as if all they care about is abortion and how much God hates gays. It's the image the media paints of Christians, but it's also an inconvenient truth that there are a lot of Christians that think that way. I'd just like to make a point that such matters aren't the central message of Christianity but the central message of the gospel is the love of Christ and the history of redemption.
Yup. A lot of people around here have trouble separating how the media paints Christians compared to what true Christianity really is. Just like liberals and conservatives are both misrepresented in the media, as are Christians.

[Mister Mak]

The Supply-Side pdf was pretty neat, some of the graphs are interesting. I need to read up more on the Laffer curve.


laffer curve is simple. government can raise taxes to bring in revenue to a certain point. if taxes are raised higher than that point, people choose to stop earning and government revenue falls. historically, a government can tax at %40 to optimize its revenue.

[thespearkid]

Well you are openly approving of discrimination against gays because what they do is sin by calling it sin.
I'm not advocating discrimination at all. If I'm discriminating against gays, I'm discriminating against everyone. I'm a sinner too. Where have I discriminated?

[speakhandsforme]

No. Holding people accountable not because they are black or christian or whatever other arbitrary classification but because of their actions like I said before. Example: Liberals' stance on taxes are that they should tax people with higher incomes a greater percentage because they have more money. Conservatives believe, regardless of income, everyone gets taxed by the same percentage because that's fair.

Alright, let's take a tired example out for a spin: that way it's less of a reach for you.

We abduct a workforce from another country. We refuse to allow them their own rights or a continuance of their former culture. After fighting it, tooth and nail, we grudgingly give them their rights.

We release them into society. Yes, release them, like wild animals. However, they have no education, social standing, or real means of acquiring either. They are also hated or feared by most of their fellow citizens. This enstills both a survivalist instinct and a individualistic nature into their culture, which struggles to develop from within the country's larger culture.

Now, is it their fault that a large chunk of their society is born into poverty with largely insufficient means of rising from their roots? Better yet, that their cultural development, inherited from their ancestors, counters the progression of their people? Even more, that their isolation from the rest of the country and (sometimes criminal) inclinations garner racism from parts of their society that aren't already ignorantly racist already?


Now, that's just one hypothetical. Explain this one in its entirety and maybe we'll move on.

[J.C.]

Gay people being together is not a sin. The sex part, however, is so I would assume God would have no problem with gays being together and not engaging in sexual activities with each other (and if they were married to each other, no sex with anyone else either).

So people born with heterosexual tendencies are allowed to engage in sex, but people born with homosexual tendencies are not.

How does this follow the idea that all people are born equal?

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not advocating discrimination at all. If I'm discriminating against gays, I'm discriminating against everyone. I'm a sinner too. Where have I discriminated?
Look below.
Gay people being together is not a sin. The sex part, however, is so I would assume God would have no problem with gays being together and not engaging in sexual activities with each other (and if they were married to each other, no sex with anyone else either).
Do you not realize the fucking backwards logic presented in this?

[thespearkid]

So people born with heterosexuality tendencies are allowed to engage in sex, but people born with homosexuality tendencies are not.

How does this follow the idea that all people are born equal?
Because certain kinds of heterosexual sex are not sinful. The same standards are employed to both heterosexuals and homosexuals; homosexual sex is a sin. It's just like how I have a tendency towards jealousy and lying but God doesn't want me to lie just like he doesn't want a homosexual to lie, even if the homosexual doesn't have any inclination to lie at all.

[J.C.]

Because certain kinds of heterosexual sex are not sinful. The same standards are employed to both heterosexuals and homosexuals; homosexual sex is a sin.

And not all heterosexual sex is.

So how is that fair?

[thespearkid]

Look below.

Do you not realize the fucking backwards logic presented in this?
The logic is that sin is sin no matter who the person is. Also, how is this discrimination? These are my personal beliefs and I would be outraged if I saw anything like this try to be placed into law.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm so glad religious law doesn't govern society, because the religious conservatives would have no problem with openly saying that gays aren't equal which is exactly what you are implying--and trying to say you aren't implying because you realize how hateful it is. So, you are against equal rights, realize it's a disgusting thing to be against but don't have the balls to admit that what you believe is discriminatory. You are what's wrong with the civil liberties fight in the US.

[lonelysuperstar]

I'm a Christian too spearkid, but can you really equate one's sexual identity with your desire to tell lies?

[thespearkid]

And not all heterosexual sex is.

So how is that fair?
This question equates to asking why jealousy is a sin.

[saysmydoctor]

The logic is that sin is sin no matter who the person is. Also, how is this discrimination? These are my personal beliefs and I would be outraged if I saw anything like this try to be placed into law.
Your personal beliefs specifically rate heterosexuals to be morally above homosexuals. How is that not discriminatory?

[Big_Guy]

god is not real though. so basically this is how you feel, but you get to cover that up by saying that "god" wouldn't like it.

[saysmydoctor]

Weren't you arguing in the God thread that you allowed to have an open view of the Bible and don't have to believe verbatim?

[J.C.]

This question equates to asking why jealousy is a sin.

Answer my question.

How is that fair?

[thespearkid]

I'm so glad religious law doesn't govern society, because the religious conservatives would have no problem with openly saying that gays aren't equal which is exactly what you are implying--and trying to say you aren't implying because you realize how hateful it is. So, you are against equal rights, realize it's a disgusting thing to be against but don't have the balls to admit that what you believe is discriminatory. You are what's wrong with the civil liberties fight in the US.
Gay rights is one of the things I'm MOST passionate about in politics and it really offends me to hear you insist that I'm against civil rights when everything I'm saying insists otherwise. All you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "blah blah blah" and painting the same Christian image over me that the media does. Take a second and read what I'm saying: The fact that gay people aren't allowed to get married is one of the greatest injustices in America right now.

[CS Lewis]

god is not real though. so basically this is how you feel, but you get to cover that up by saying that "god" wouldn't like it.

I'd have to disagree here. I have a cousin who is a natural born homosexual. He used to cross dress, practice homosexual acts and everything. It was his own personal conviction that brought him to Christ. He has decided to live a single life. No one's holding a gun to his head telling him to do that and I doubt he hates himself. He's a fun loving guy. My point is, whether you believe God exists or not, saying that people use "God" as an excuse to hate people is absurd. No doubt, it probably does happen. I just don't think it's the case in speakid's case.

[thespearkid]

Weren't you arguing in the God thread that you allowed to have an open view of the Bible and don't have to believe verbatim?
The Bible is open to interpretation in a lot of aspects but it's very explicit in the status of homosexual sex.

[Mister Mak]

Add conservatism to that as well.



Incoherent rambling is incoherent. Holy hell, man. What is your bloody point?! Everyone's well aware that there's no objective morality. And again, you apparently don't understand liberalism at all, nor do you understand the ideology you apparently disagree with.


I think he is trying to say that conservatives have a moral standard based in God, and because this is the case, because God is a divine power, it is a suitable moral standard for everyone.
Where the liberals differ is that individuals form unique moral standards, based not in God, but in a personal core of values of what is right or wrong. Because the liberal moral standard is created by the individual, one cannot rightly criticize another for having a different moral standard. It would be like criticizing someone for having a different favorite color. There is simply a difference of opinions and would be meaningless to do so. While, yes, most people do agree on very vicious evils like rape, there is still no justifying the criticism of other things like drug use, abortion, etc. And because there is no justifying criticism, things can spin into an "anything goes" society.

[thespearkid]

Answer my question.

How is that fair?
I have strong sexual tendencies as well but I know fornication is a sin just like homosexual sex is a sin. It's fair because God's will doesn't change for anyone.

[thespearkid]

Your personal beliefs specifically rate heterosexuals to be morally above homosexuals. How is that not discriminatory?
My personal beliefs equate as ALL as sinners, as I've said a hundred times in this thread. Heterosexuals are not above homosexuals but we're all sinners.

[J.C.]

I have strong sexual tendencies as well but I know fornication is a sin just like homosexual sex is a sin. It's fair because God's will doesn't change for anyone.

There will be circumstances where you'll be able to engage in heterosexual sex and not have it be a sin.

There are no circumstances where homosexuals can engage in homosexual sex and not have it be a sin.

So again, rationalize the fairness behind that.

[lonelysuperstar]

I think he is trying to say that conservatives have a moral standard based in God, and because this is the case, because God is a divine power, it is a suitable moral standard for everyone.

Yeah I see his point. But I disagree. I don't think Christians are called to impose their moral beliefs on anyone else. It's not fair to ask someone to live by the moral code spelled out in the bible, if they don't believe in it's divinity. It's ok to give personal opinions, but I don't think it's right that the law should be able to make moral decisions for us.

[thespearkid]

There will be circumstances where you'll be able to engage in heterosexual sex and not have it be a sin.

There are no circumstances where homosexuals can engage in homosexual sex and not have it be a sin.

So again, rationalize the fairness behind that?
Because homosexual sex is a sin and marital heterosexual sex is not. It would be unfair if God approved of gays sinning but not heterosexuals.

[thespearkid]

Yeah I see his point. But I disagree. I don't think Christians are called to impose their moral beliefs on anyone else. It's not fair to ask someone to live by the moral code spelled out in the bible, if they don't believe in it's divinity. It's ok to give personal opinions, but I don't think it's right that the law should be able to make moral decisions for us.
This.

[CS Lewis]

Yeah I see his point. But I disagree. I don't think Christians are called to impose their moral beliefs on anyone else. It's not fair to ask someone to live by the moral code spelled out in the bible, if they don't believe in it's divinity. It's ok to give personal opinions, but I don't think it's right that the law should be able to make moral decisions for us.

Exactly.

[J.C.]

Because homosexual sex is a sin and marital heterosexual sex is not. It would be unfair if God approved of gays sinning but not heterosexuals.

Why is martial homosexual sex a sin?

[saysmydoctor]

Gay rights is one of the things I'm MOST passionate about in politics and it really offends me to hear you insist that I'm against civil rights when everything I'm saying insists otherwise. All you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "blah blah blah" and painting the same Christian image over me that the media does. Take a second and read what I'm saying: The fact that gay people aren't allowed to get married is one of the greatest injustices in America right now.
I'm sure they find it incredibly offensive that you are saying they are essentially eternal sinners for being gay and having sex. In their minds, they were born gay. You just said earlier that your personal beliefs lead you to believe that homosexuality in its nature is wrong and sinful. Yet, you realize the error in your logic and are throwing your support behind gay rights. You can't have it both ways. There is a very specific difference in saying I don't understand homosexuality and saying I don't approve homosexuality.
The Bible is open to interpretation in a lot of aspects but it's very explicit in the status of homosexual sex.
It's also very explicit in what it says about numerous things. It says the Earth is flat, but the Earth is round, so you already throwing out a Bible definition.

[Mister Mak]

Say not shit else.

That's the problem. You're qualifying homosexuality as a sin and lumping it in with things like adultery and other 'immoral' behavior.

It's like thinking that being black is a sin, then saying you don't hate/look down on black people.


This stems back to the argument before about liberals not having that one uniform moral standard.
If we agree on this fact, that conservatives' moral standard is uniform and based in God, and liberals' moral standard is based perhaps on an objective standard but left to the individual on a number of issues (marijuana, abortion, etc.), then the argument goes as follows:
You criticize the conservatives for calling homosexuality a sin, yet without one all-encompassing moral standard, you cannot rightly do so. Thinking homosexuality is a sin is someone's right, and it is not your right to criticize it, as you do not believe in one uniform moral standard.

[saysmydoctor]

Because homosexual sex is a sin and marital heterosexual sex is not. It would be unfair if God approved of gays sinning but not heterosexuals.
But it isn't unfair that heterosexual sex isn't a sin but homosexual sex is? But you are a supporter of gay rights and aren't discriminating.

[J.C.]

This stems back to the argument before about liberals not having that one uniform moral standard.
If we agree on this fact, that conservatives' moral standard is uniform and based in God, and liberals' moral standard is based perhaps on an objective standard but left to the individual on a number of issues (marijuana, abortion, etc.), then the argument goes as follows:
You criticize the conservatives for calling homosexuality a sin, yet without one all-encompassing moral standard, you cannot rightly do so. Thinking homosexuality is a sin is someone's right, and it is not your right to criticize it, as you do not believe in one uniform moral standard.

You can criticize someone's opinion and still defend their right to have it.

[saysmydoctor]

You can criticize someone's opinion and still defend their right to have it.
Thomas Jefferson.

[thespearkid]

Why is martial homosexual sex a sin?
Because it is still homosexual sex.

I'm sure they find it incredibly offensive that you are saying they are essentially eternal sinners for being gay and having sex. In their minds, they were born gay.
We're all born in sin. You are. I am. Gay people are. Straight people are. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, everyone.

You just said earlier that your personal beliefs lead you to believe that homosexuality in its nature is wrong and sinful. Yet, you realize the error in your logic and are throwing your support behind gay rights. You can't have it both ways. There is a very specific difference in saying I don't understand homosexuality and saying I don't approve homosexuality.
I have always said I believe in gay rights. Ask my girlfriend, as her and I have almost broken up because I refuse to accept her view that homosexuals shouldn't allowed to get married.

It's also very explicit in what it says about numerous things. It says the Earth is flat, but the Earth is round, so you already throwing out a Bible definition.
That is one of the little things that doesn't really matter. I mean, I don't care that Jesus didn't know what shape the world was and the people who wrote the Bible didn't know either. What matters is what they taught about what it means to be a good person and show love to everyone.

[thespearkid]

You can criticize someone's opinion and still defend their right to have it.
Yup.

[Mister Mak]

I'm saying you think their behavior is. And their behavior is reflective of who they are as people.



There's no separating people from their indentity. Like I said before, if someone thought that being black was a sin, how do you separate that from the person?



Why do you believe gays are gay? What motive are you attributing to them?



I don't care about this part. Nobody's perfect and we can all acknowledge that. The difference is you think homosexuals who engage in gay sex are sinful and thus flawed, which is part of why you believe they're not perfect.


The point is that homosexuals who engage in gay sex are sinful, as are the rest of us. Yes, homosexual sex would be, as you say "inferior" to heterosexual sex in it's intended use. But it is still one sin, just as abusing someone is. The person is a sinner for having committed a sin, not for being homosexual.

[lonelysuperstar]

You can criticize someone's opinion and still defend their right to have it.
I think he's asking on what basis you are arguing that the conservatives are wrong on this issue. What ethical theory are you using to make your judgement on what is right and wrong? Do you have a standard by which you judge behaviour?

[Mister Mak]

So what should people who are homosexual do?


not buttfuck. sorry, make a sacrifice.

[J.C.]

Because it is still homosexual sex.

I thought homosexual sex wasn't inferior.

[saysmydoctor]

Because it is still homosexual sex.


We're all born in sin. You are. I am. Gay people are. Straight people are. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, everyone.


I have always said I believe in gay rights. Ask my girlfriend, as her and I have almost broken up because I refuse to accept her view that homosexuals shouldn't allowed to get married.


That is one of the little things that doesn't really matter. I mean, I don't care that Jesus didn't know what shape the world was and the people who wrote the Bible didn't know either. What matters is what they taught about what it means to be a good person and show love to everyone.
So you just admitted you are discriminating.

This excuse is much like Sarah Palin's "I have gay friends, I just don't think..." It's called hypocrisy.

So, you have a choice in selecting what to believe and you chose to choose what does really matter and what doesn't and when you had the option of rejecting something hateful, you accepted it. Y

[thespearkid]

But it isn't unfair that heterosexual sex isn't a sin but homosexual sex is? But you are a supporter of gay rights and aren't discriminating.
I'm not advocating treating anyone differently based on how they were born. Heterosexual sex isn't a sin because sex is meant to have two purposes; to give pleasure to married couples and to procreate. Homosexual sex misses out on #2 and therefore takes sex and uses it purely for pleasure.

[saysmydoctor]

not buttfuck. sorry, make a sacrifice.
You, sir, are fucking stupid.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not advocating treating anyone differently based on how they were born. Heterosexual sex isn't a sin because sex is meant to have two purposes; to give pleasure to married couples and to procreate. Homosexual sex misses out on #2 and therefore takes sex and uses it purely for pleasure.
The two purposes are mutually exclusive. You can have sex just for the pleasure portion--it's called utilizing condoms, birth control.

You are discriminating. And the thing is you know what you believe is discriminatory. Jesus christ...

[Mister Mak]

You, sir, are fucking stupid.

no. dont commit the sin. dont have gay sex. avoid sin is what i would have the do, the same as id avoid adultery or other lustful forms of sex

[TotalCollapse]

I have always said I believe in gay rights. Ask my girlfriend, as her and I have almost broken up because I refuse to accept her view that homosexuals shouldn't allowed to get married.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you say that you believe in gay rights when you think that homosexual sex is a sin? If you do believe in gay rights, then shouldn't you also believe that homosexuals can engage in anything that heterosexuals do?

[thespearkid]

So you just admitted you are discriminating.

This excuse is much like Sarah Palin's "I have gay friends, I just don't think..." It's called hypocrisy.

So, you have a choice in selecting what to believe and you chose to choose what does really matter and what doesn't and when you had the option of rejecting something hateful, you accepted it. Y
Where exactly are you finding that I'm discriminating? Better yet, what is your definition of discrimination?

Also, I'm concerned with the Bible in regards to what it tells me about how to have a relationship with God. I don't use it for a geography book.

How is this hateful? I keep saying that God desires that we treat EVERYONE with love and I strive for that. Just because I say something is a sin, doesn't mean I'm hating the sinner. If I did, I'd hate everyone, including myself.

[Mister Mak]

The two purposes are mutually exclusive. You can have sex just for the pleasure portion--it's called utilizing condoms, birth control.

You are discriminating. And the thing is you know what you believe is discriminatory. Jesus christ...


In Christian belief, the two are not mutually exclusive. Sex with birth control of any kind is not acceptable.

[saysmydoctor]

no. dont commit the sin. dont have gay sex. avoid sin is what i would have the do, the same as id avoid adultery or other lustful forms of sex
Why should they have to make a sacrifice? It's not their fault they were born gay.

[thespearkid]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you say that you believe in gay rights when you think that homosexual sex is a sin? If you do believe in gay rights, then shouldn't you also believe that homosexuals can engage in anything that heterosexuals do?
Because my religious beliefs aren't meant to be law. God doesn't want anyone to sin but He also gave us a free will to do so and laws against gay marriage take some of that free will away. I personally find that blasphemous.

[Mister Mak]

Why should they have to make a sacrifice? It's not their fault they were born gay.


You don't want to hear this answer, but because that's how life is. We are all called to make sacrifices in our lives, and do things we don't want. We have different crosses to bear.

[thespearkid]

The two purposes are mutually exclusive. You can have sex just for the pleasure portion--it's called utilizing condoms, birth control.

You are discriminating. And the thing is you know what you believe is discriminatory. Jesus christ...
How am I discriminating? What do you think discrimination is?

[lonelysuperstar]

In Christian belief, the two are not mutually exclusive. Sex with birth control of any kind is not acceptable.
This is not a biblical idea. I'm a Christian and I have sex with my wife - she's on the pill, I use condomns. All good.

[J.C.]

The point is that homosexuals who engage in gay sex are sinful, as are the rest of us. Yes, homosexual sex would be, as you say "inferior" to heterosexual sex in it's intended use. But it is still one sin, just as abusing someone is. The person is a sinner for having committed a sin, not for being homosexual.

If you believe people are born inherently inferior, that's your call.

I think he's asking on what basis you are arguing that the conservatives are wrong on this issue. What ethical theory are you using to make your judgement on what is right and wrong? Do you have a standard by which you judge behaviour?

1. thespearkid isn't a conservative, to my knowledge

2. I am admittedly using my own sense of right and wrong, as opposed to the religious who are relying on the standards of some people a couple thousand years ago.

[saysmydoctor]

Where exactly are you finding that I'm discriminating? Better yet, what is your definition of discrimination?

Also, I'm concerned with the Bible in regards to what it tells me about how to have a relationship with God. I don't use it for a geography book.

How is this hateful? I keep saying that God desires that we treat EVERYONE with love and I strive for that. Just because I say something is a sin, doesn't mean I'm hating the sinner. If I did, I'd hate everyone, including myself.
I think the better question is what your definition is of discrimination, because you believe you aren't, but yet you clearly believe that homosexuals are a second rate citizen by calling their form of sex inferior--even if not directly, that is what you are saying.

Oh, so, you are saying God is a discriminatory entity and you are approving of that. Got it.

Yet, the Bible, his Bible, specifically treats homosexuals as a second rate citizen and restricts how they live their life by saying that their particular lifestyle is a sin.
In Christian belief, the two are not mutually exclusive. Sex with birth control of any kind is not acceptable.
So Christian belief is discriminatory, judgmental, restricts civil rights, and hateful. I didn't already know that.

[saysmydoctor]

You don't want to hear this answer, but because that's how life is. We are all called to make sacrifices in our lives, and do things we don't want. We have different crosses to bear.
I'm glad to know to you are a status quo individual who realizes that what is occurring is wrong, but it's acceptable because that's how life is.

[J.C.]

I'm not advocating treating anyone differently based on how they were born. Heterosexual sex isn't a sin because sex is meant to have two purposes; to give pleasure to married couples and to procreate. Homosexual sex misses out on #2 and therefore takes sex and uses it purely for pleasure.

So there should not be any sex except for procreation?

[Mister Mak]

I'm glad to know to you are a status quo individual who realizes that what is occurring is wrong, but it's acceptable because that's how life is.


What does this refer to? What is the occurring wrong that is somehow acceptable?

[saysmydoctor]

How am I discriminating? What do you think discrimination is?
You said their form of sex is inferior. There is nothing inferior about their lifestyle--there is something different about it. You call it sin, saying it's wrong. That is discriminatory.

[lonelysuperstar]

2. I am admittedly using my own sense of right and wrong, as opposed to the religious who are relying on the standards of some people a couple thousand years ago.
But if everyone uses their own sense of right and wrong, this presents problems. For instance, some people are of the state of mind whereby committing a murder is a right course of action. Surely, you believe there should be some sort of universal code for people? Or at least a method of assessing specific situations for their relative rightness (or wrongness)?

[saysmydoctor]

What does this refer to? What is the occurring wrong that is somehow acceptable?
Why should gays make a sacrifice that heterosexuals don't have to make? You basically said the Bible doesn't approve of equal rights and then justified it by saying that's how life is. That is unacceptable.

[thespearkid]

I think the better question is what your definition is of discrimination, because you believe you aren't, but yet you clearly believe that homosexuals are a second rate citizen by calling their form of sex inferior--even if not directly, that is what you are saying.

Oh, so, you are saying God is a discriminatory entity and you are approving of that. Got it.

Yet, the Bible, his Bible, specifically treats homosexuals as a second rate citizen and restricts how they live their life by saying that their particular lifestyle is a sin.

Just how do you figure that the Bible and myself treat homosexuals are second-rate citizens? The Bible says we're ALL sinners and that ALL sinners are to be shown love overflowing. So if we're all sinners showing love to other sinners, who is the second-rate citizen?

My definition of discrimination is to either hate someone for living a different lifestyle or to treat that person differently than you treat other people. I treat all people the same because we ARE all the same. I PASSIONATELY believe we should all have the same rights.

[Mister Mak]

So there should not be any sex except for procreation?

Strictly following the Bible, yes. There is a passage somewhere that says something about thou shalt not spilleth the seed, i dont have it front of me.
It is saying you shouldn't have sex without the intended result being a child.

[Mister Mak]

Why should gays make a sacrifice that heterosexuals don't have to make? You basically said the Bible doesn't approve of equal rights and then justified it by saying that's how life is. That is unacceptable.


I think you're looking at it wrong. The Bible approves of equal rights. Unfortunately, homosexual sex would not be a right for anyone. Saying generally, everyone has the right to sex, does not mean everyone has the right to the kind of sex of their choice

[saysmydoctor]

Just how do you figure that the Bible and myself treat homosexuals are second-rate citizens? The Bible says we're ALL sinners and that ALL sinners are to be shown love overflowing. So if we're all sinners showing love to other sinners, who is the second-rate citizen?

My definition of discrimination is to either hate someone for living a different lifestyle or to treat that person differently than you treat other people. I treat all people the same because we ARE all the same. I PASSIONATELY believe we should all have the same rights.
The Bible also grants rights to heterosexuals--the right to have sex--that gays don't have.

You also have made very clear that you passionately believe homosexual is sinful and wrong and inferior to heterosexual sex.

[thespearkid]

You said their form of sex is inferior. There is nothing inferior about their lifestyle--there is something different about it. You call it sin, saying it's wrong. That is discriminatory.
But you continually overlook when I say we're all sinners. No, there's nothing "inferior" about their lifestyle because we ALL live a lifestyle of sin.

[lonelysuperstar]

Strictly following the Bible, yes. There is a passage somewhere that says something about thou shalt not spilleth the seed, i dont have it front of me.
It is saying you shouldn't have sex without the intended result being a child.
I know the passage you're talking about, and it referred to a specific incident that God wasn't happy with, but didn't in any way imply that using contraception is sinful.

[saysmydoctor]

I think you're looking at it wrong. The Bible approves of equal rights. Unfortunately, homosexual sex would not be a right for anyone. Saying generally, everyone has the right to sex, does not mean everyone has the right to the kind of sex of their choice
The Bible doesn't approve of equal rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals do not have the equal right to sex without judgment from God. Heterosexuals can have marital sex. Homosexuals can't because it's homosexual sex and that is a sin. That is not equal. That is the opposite of equal. I think you are looking at wrong.

[Mister Mak]

I know the passage you're talking about, and it referred to a specific incident that God wasn't happy with, but didn't in any way imply that using contraception is sinful.

but i think it was from a parable, of Onan i think, and parables are meant to be accepted as general moral truth

[saysmydoctor]

But you continually overlook when I say we're all sinners. No, there's nothing "inferior" about their lifestyle because we ALL live a lifestyle of sin.
But I'm allowed to have sex and gays aren't, because their sex is sinful. You are continually overlooking the inequality promoted by the Bible and are instead embracing it.

[thespearkid]

The Bible also grants rights to heterosexuals--the right to have sex--that gays don't have.

You also have made very clear that you passionately believe homosexual is sinful and wrong and inferior to heterosexual sex.
God gives everyone the right to free will. We can all do whatever we want. God just prefers we strive for a life free from sin. Gay people can have sex but homosexual sex is a sin. Based on your standards, the Bible discriminates against everyone, which is oxymoronic.

[thespearkid]

But I'm allowed to have sex and gays aren't, because their sex is sinful. You are continually overlooking the inequality promoted by the Bible and are instead embracing it.
You're putting homosexual sex on a different level than other sins.

[Mister Mak]

The Bible doesn't approve of equal rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals do not have the equal right to sex without judgment from God. Heterosexuals can have marital sex. Homosexuals can't because it's homosexual sex and that is a sin. That is not equal. That is the opposite of equal. I think you are looking at wrong.

You might think its unfair but its like this:
Heterosexuals - Right to hetero sex
Homosexuals - Right to hetero sex

Heterosexuals - No right to homosexual sex
Homosexuals - No right to homosexual sex

Goes back to everyone has their cross to bear.

[saysmydoctor]

God gives everyone the right to free will. We can all do whatever we want. God just prefers we strive for a life free from sin. Gay people can have sex but homosexual sex is a sin. Based on your standards, the Bible discriminates against everyone, which is oxymoronic.
Gays do not choose to be gay, so free will is irrelevant.

Also, heterosexuals can have sex but it is not a sin. How do you not see this blatant fucking contradiction?

[saysmydoctor]

You're putting homosexual sex on a different level than other sins.
Homosexual sex isn't wrong, so I don't classify it as a sin. I'm rejecting that ridiculous unequal philosophy of the Bible as hateful.
You might think its unfair but its like this:
Heterosexuals - Right to hetero sex
Homosexuals - Right to hetero sex

Heterosexuals - No right to homosexual sex
Homosexuals - No right to homosexual sex

Goes back to everyone has their cross to bear.
So homosexuals have to embrace a lifestyle contrary to how they are genetically, but heterosexuals don't. Good to know you are also embracing the blatant inequality of the Bible. Got it.

[Mister Mak]

Gays do not choose to be gay, so free will is irrelevant.

Also, heterosexuals can have sex but it is not a sin. How do you not see this blatant fucking contradiction?


So because someone is gay, they absolutely must have gay sex? No.
Because I am human doesnt mean Im driven to make every sin possible. You do your best not to sin. Gays must try not to have gay sex

[thespearkid]

Gays do not choose to be gay, so free will is irrelevant.

Also, heterosexuals can have sex but it is not a sin. How do you not see this blatant fucking contradiction?
Gays don't choose to be gay but they do choose to engage in homosexual sex. Homosexuals are born in sin (just like we all are) and God wants them to strive to live a sin free lifestyle (just like he wants from all of us).

[lonelysuperstar]

8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Not a parable - it actually happened. What displeased God wasn't the act of spilling his seed, but rather his disobedience to the prophet. This is so vague - to say it outlaws contraception is a huuuge stretch. And it is not mentioned elsewhere in the bible, to my knowledge.

[saysmydoctor]

So because someone is gay, they absolutely must have gay sex? No.
Because I am human doesnt mean Im driven to make every sin possible. You do your best not to sin. Gays must try not to have gay sex
Oh my fucking God, how do you not realize what you are saying is inherently hateful and discriminative? Why should they have to make a sacrifice that heterosexuals don't have to make?

[J.C.]

But if everyone uses their own sense of right and wrong, this presents problems.

Everybody's been using their own sense of right and wrong since the beginning of time. Even those who are religious all interpret scripture differently than one another. There's no universal interpretation of the Bible or any religious document.


For instance, some people are of the state of mind whereby committing a murder is a right course of action. Surely, you believe there should be some sort of universal code for people? Or at least a method of assessing specific situations for their relative rightness (or wrongness)?

So religious people have never commited murder?

I'm not sure what you're arguing. What would a universal code be based on?

[thespearkid]

Homosexual sex isn't wrong, so I don't classify it as a sin. I'm rejecting that ridiculous unequal philosophy of the Bible as hateful.
That's your choice and I wouldn't try to change your mind.

[Mister Mak]

Homosexual sex isn't wrong, so I don't classify it as a sin. I'm rejecting that ridiculous unequal philosophy of the Bible as hateful.

So homosexuals have to embrace a lifestyle contrary to how they are genetically, but heterosexuals don't. Good to know you are also embracing the blatant inequality of the Bible. Got it.

It is not inequality of the Bible, it is that everyone has different, "inequal," if you must, things they have to fight against in life. Gays not having gay sex is, unfortunately, something they should strive not to do. Other people have things to fight against too. Someone can be born with a drug addiction, yes, and this does not permit them to abuse drugs.

[saysmydoctor]

Gays don't choose to be gay but they do choose to engage in homosexual sex. Homosexuals are born in sin (just like we all are) and God wants them to strive to live a sin free lifestyle (just like he wants from all of us).
And heterosexuals choose to engage in heterosexual sex, but THAT ISN'T SINFUL. Yet, the sex homosexuals embrace is, even though it's what they designed to do. God has granted them unequal rights.

I'm done with this debate, especially with you because you realize how disgusting your beliefs are allegedly, by saying you are for gay rights, yet inversely embrace the hate and separative laws that the Bible defines that gays should have to make an unequal sacrifice that heterosexuals don't have to make. You disgust me.

[Mister Mak]

Oh my fucking God, how do you not realize what you are saying is inherently hateful and discriminative? Why should they have to make a sacrifice that heterosexuals don't have to make?

How is that hateful? I dont hate gay people. I hate the sin, just as I would hate any other sin.

[lonelysuperstar]

Everybody's been using their own sense of right and wrong since the beginning of time. Even those who are religious all interpret scripture differently than one another. There's no universal interpretation of the Bible or any religious document.




So religious people have never commited murder?

I'm not sure what you're arguing. What would a universal code be based on?
Do some research on ethical theories. I studied an ethics paper at university. Some common ones are "Kantian etics", "utilitarianism", "virtue ethics", "ethics of care". You can find them all in wikipedia, which I know isn't a great source, but it's good for gaining a simple understanding of a topic.

[thespearkid]

And heterosexuals choose to engage in heterosexual sex, but THAT ISN'T SINFUL. Yet, the sex homosexuals embrace is, even though it's what they designed to do. God has granted them unequal rights.

I'm done with this debate, especially with you because you realize how disgusting your beliefs are allegedly, by saying you are for gay rights, yet inversely embrace the hate and separative laws that the Bible defines that gays should have to make an unequal sacrifice that heterosexuals don't have to make. You disgust me.
Yes, the Bible telling me to love all people is very hateful.

[J.C.]

Do some research on ethical theories. I studied an ethics paper at university. Some common ones are "Kantian etics", "utilitarianism", "virtue ethics", "ethics of care". You can find them all in wikipedia, which I know isn't a great source, but it's good for gaining a simple understanding of a topic.

No, I wanted your opinion. I also wanted your response to my other comments.

[Mister Mak]

8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Not a parable - it actually happened. What displeased God wasn't the act of spilling his seed, but rather his disobedience to the prophet. This is so vague - to say it outlaws contraception is a huuuge stretch. And it is not mentioned elsewhere in the bible, to my knowledge.

Sorry, you are absolutely right. I guess my reasoning for this is that Roman Catholic religion, which I adhere to, uses this instance to prohibit other forms of sex. So for someone with my beliefs, my point stands. For someone else, i suppose not, but then that takes us back to the debate between moral standards which was a mess

[derekmoyer4]

the way that i see it is that until someone proves that the bible is definitely and without doubt the ultimate word from the only god, i will never look to the bible as support for an argument any more than i would look at any other book(s) written throughout history. makes no sense.

[CS Lewis]

I think it is important to understand that there is more to life than sex. Period. A good friend of mine is the son of an alcoholic. He naturally has a tendency to drink. He refrains from alcohol because he nows drunkeness is a sin and a lifestyle he can easily fall into. Does God hate my friend for genetically making him with a natural inclination towards alcohol? Not at all. My friend is a devout Christian and is on fire for Christ and is eager to share Christ's love and hope with everyone he meets. I think saying that God hates homosexuals because they are called not to have homosexual sex is absurd. A homosexual can live his life perfectly fine without having sex. As I said, my cousin does it. It comes back to each person having their own cross to bear.

And again: the topic of homosexuality is not the core message of Christianity. Within Christianity there are some who believe that it's not a sin and some that do, and unfortunately and shamefully, some who claim that God hates those who are homosexuals. Regardless, I'd encourage people not to write of Christianity as being hateful because of a topic that people within the church themselves disagree about. Take Christianity for what the people of the church generally accept (at least should if they claim the name of Christ) as their message: to spread the love and hope of Jesus Christ and to spread the gospel, the history of redemption.

[lonelysuperstar]

No, I wanted your opinion. I also wanted your response to my other comments.
Sorry, I didn't think the other comments warranted reply. For instance, about religous people never murdering? Of course religous people have murdered, but murder is wrong, regardless of who does it. I'm sure we agree on that.

The ethical theory I most value is called "virtue ethics". Rather than presenting absolute ideas of right or wrong, it encourages the individual to cultivate certain characteristics or "virtues". For instance, a person who has cultivated the virtue of honesty will always act honestly in any given situation. The only problem that arises is when two virtues are in opposition to each other. For instance, if I was in a situation where I needed to lie to protect someone my virtues of honesty and compassion would be in opposition to each other. I guess the person then needs to decide which virtue is more important to them in that given situation, and to me compassion takes the win there. Despite this, being a Christian, I do take many moral cues from the bible. I think if God does exist (I know you probably don't believe in him, but I'm just giving my personal opinion here) then he's well placed to make judgements about right and wrong, since he is our creator and the source of all good in the universe.

[thespearkid]

I think it is important to understand that there is more to life than sex. Period. A good friend of mine is the son of an alcoholic. He naturally has a tendency to drink. He refrains from alcohol because he nows drunkeness is a sin and a lifestyle he can easily fall into. Does God hate my friend for genetically making him with a natural inclination towards alcohol? Not at all. My friend is a devout Christian and is on fire for Christ and is eager to share Christ's love and hope with everyone he meets. I think saying that God hates homosexuals because they are called not to have homosexual sex is absurd. A homosexual can live his life perfectly fine without having sex. As I said, my cousin does it. It comes back to each person having their own cross to bear.

And again: the topic of homosexuality is not the core message of Christianity. Within Christianity there are some who believe that it's not a sin and some that do, and unfortunately and shamefully, some who claim that God hates those who are homosexuals. Regardless, I'd encourage people not to write of Christianity as being hateful because of a topic that people within the church themselves disagree about. Take Christianity for what the people of the church generally accept (at least should if they claim the name of Christ) as their message: to spread the love and hope of Jesus Christ and to spread the gospel, the history of redemption.
This.

[lonelysuperstar]

I think it is important to understand that there is more to life than sex. Period. A good friend of mine is the son of an alcoholic. He naturally has a tendency to drink. He refrains from alcohol because he nows drunkeness is a sin and a lifestyle he can easily fall into. Does God hate my friend for genetically making him with a natural inclination towards alcohol? Not at all. My friend is a devout Christian and is on fire for Christ and is eager to share Christ's love and hope with everyone he meets. I think saying that God hates homosexuals because they are called not to have homosexual sex is absurd. A homosexual can live his life perfectly fine without having sex. As I said, my cousin does it. It comes back to each person having their own cross to bear.

But your friend wasn't born an alcoholic. He was born in an environment where he was more likely to be tempted by alcohol than most others, but there's nothing genetically different about him that makes him crave alcohol. That's why these comparisons fall short, and why homosexuality is a different issue altogether.

[thespearkid]

But your friend wasn't born an alcoholic. He was born in an environment where he was more likely to be tempted by alcohol than most others, but there's nothing genetically different about him that makes him crave alcohol. That's why these comparisons fall short, and why homosexuality is a different issue altogether.
Heterosexual men are genetically born with the desire to have sex with as many different women as possible. Is that a more appropriate comparison?

[Mister Mak]

I think it is important to understand that there is more to life than sex. Period. A good friend of mine is the son of an alcoholic. He naturally has a tendency to drink. He refrains from alcohol because he nows drunkeness is a sin and a lifestyle he can easily fall into. Does God hate my friend for genetically making him with a natural inclination towards alcohol? Not at all. My friend is a devout Christian and is on fire for Christ and is eager to share Christ's love and hope with everyone he meets. I think saying that God hates homosexuals because they are called not to have homosexual sex is absurd. A homosexual can live his life perfectly fine without having sex. As I said, my cousin does it. It comes back to each person having their own cross to bear.

And again: the topic of homosexuality is not the core message of Christianity. Within Christianity there are some who believe that it's not a sin and some that do, and unfortunately and shamefully, some who claim that God hates those who are homosexuals. Regardless, I'd encourage people not to write of Christianity as being hateful because of a topic that people within the church themselves disagree about. Take Christianity for what the people of the church generally accept (at least should if they claim the name of Christ) as their message: to spread the love and hope of Jesus Christ and to spread the gospel, the history of redemption.

Thank you.