Foundations of Liberalism

[red states rule]

Got this in an email last week


1. Government should never censor or regulate political speech--except, of course, when it comes to conservative talk radio.

2. It's discrimination for a Christian photographer to decline to attend and photograph a lesbian ceremony, but it's ok to force a Christian photographer to attend and photograph that ceremony against their will. And the idea of forcing a gay photographer to attend and photograph an evangelical seminar on the public health risks of gay sex is "outrageous."

3. The secret ballot is a fundamental right of every American--except for those Americans who take part in union elections.

4. The death penalty is immoral, but convenience abortion is not. In other words, it's wrong to execute a murderer, but it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby, even if there's been no rape or incest and even if the baby's birth poses no risk to the mother's life. This is true even if we're talking about a third-trimester baby.

5. People who try to stop whalers from killing whales are heroic, but people who try to stop women from killing their unborn babies are intolerant.

6. People who practice homosexuality have a right to get married, but adult-child marriage, beastiality marriage, consensual incest, and consensual pedophilia should all remain illegal.

7. Freedom of religion is a basic right of all Americans. Why, after all, freedom of religion is the very reason the first European settlers came to this land. However, freedom of religion does not apply to churches that refuse to conduct or host gay weddings--such churches should be stripped of their tax exemption and forced to treat gay weddings the same way they treat normal weddings. Such churches should also be forced to hire gay priests. But it goes without saying that no gay group should ever be forced to hire a Bible-believing Christian. And if a gay restaurant owner wants to prohibit people from vocally blessing their food in his establishment, he of course has that right, since public prayers over food may make other patrons "uncomfortable."

8. Our public schools can't even suggest to children that life came about by design. Nor can public schools display the Ten Commandments. Nor can they read George Washington's Farewell Address to children. However, public schools can teach children that life came about purely by chance, that two gay men shacking up is just as valid a relationship as a traditional marriage, and that there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex as long as they're careful and responsible about it.

9. Government should not fine TV networks for airing nudity, sex scenes, and profanity, since no one is forced to watch any show they don't want to watch--they can just change the channel. However, government should be able to force commercial radio stations to air opposing political views, even if they have to do so at their own expense because the opposing views are not popular with the audience and hence advertisers don't want to buy advertising during those times. Never mind the fact that no one is forced to listen to a radio program they don't like; never mind that people can just change the station if they run across a political talk show they don't like; and never mind that people with opposing views are free to start their own talk shows, provided of course that they can garner a large enough audience to attract advertisers, etc., etc. Nope, in this case the First Amendment is Dead On Arrival. The government must force radio stations to air liberal talk radio shows to "balance out" the conservative talk radio shows, even if liberal talk shows attract much smaller audiences and usually don't pay for themselves. Note: This "fairness doctrine" does NOT apply to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and MSNBC.

10. Government has a right to take as much of your paycheck as it thinks it needs, and if you object you're just being "selfish."

11. Freedom of choice does not apply to parents who want to use their education tax dollars to send their kids to private schools.

12. The government should have the right to determine whether or not a parent is qualified to educate their child themselves. The child really belongs to the state, not to the parent, and thus the state should have the final say as to who gets to teach the child. And just never you mind that home schoolers do better on standardized tests like the SAT and ACT than public school children do. Never you mind that the crime rate for home schoolers is a fraction of what it is for public school children. Never you mind that home schoolers usually excel in college and that on average they perform better in college than public school children do. Never you mind that the rate of rape, molestation, drug use, and violence is far greater in public schools than in home schools. Just never you mind all that.

13. The government should have the right to disarm the citizenry. If the government decides that it would be best if only the government had guns, then that's how it should be. Crime would go down if guns were outlawed and if only the government had guns. If it's in a good mood, the government may establish hunting centers around the country where licensed citizens (those "clingers") could come and do some heavily regulated hunting.

[retiredman]

Got this in an email last week


as if anyone would have EVER thought that YOU could have written it yourself!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

as if anyone would have EVER thought that YOU could have written it yourself!:laugh2:

and who would have thought you would contribute to the discussion :laugh2:

[retiredman]

and who would have thought you would contribute to the discussion :laugh2:

it's a humor piece. that is where it belongs.

and it's a cut and paste job, which is your hallmark.

If you want to write something of substance I would be happy to contribute to such a discussion. I've been waiting in vain for years for you to produce such a piece.

[red states rule]

it's a humor piece. that is where it belongs.

and it's a cut and paste job, which is your hallmark.

If you want to write something of substance I would be happy to contribute to such a discussion. I've been waiting in vain for years for you to produce such a piece.

In order for anything to be humorous, there must be an element of truth. There is alot of truth in the piece about liberals and their double standards

[red states rule]

Back to the topic

Liberals have only 3 values, or goals in life

1. Power, and expanding that power power

2. Money, coming from anyone who has earned it, especially the rich

3. The ends justify the means, whatever it takes to achieve numbers one and two

[retiredman]

In order for anything to be humorous, there must be an element of truth. There is alot of truth in the piece about liberals and their double standards

one could write a similar piece about conservatives and it would also belong in the humor forum.... this is not anything for serious debate. none of your cut and paste tripe is.

[stephanie]

one could write a similar piece about conservatives and it would also belong in the humor forum.... this is not anything for serious debate. none of your cut and paste tripe is.

you don't like the post, stay the hell out of it.

[red states rule]

one could write a similar piece about conservatives and it would also belong in the humor forum.... this is not anything for serious debate. none of your cut and paste tripe is.

Liberals like you MFM have no values whatsoever. You find them too restraining.

As in post # 6, all that matters to you is power and the means needed to attain that power

[red states rule]

one could write a similar piece about conservatives and it would also belong in the humor forum.... this is not anything for serious debate. none of your cut and paste tripe is.

MFM is out to derail any thread he disagrees with. He will not debate the topic - only flame

[retiredman]

Got this in an email last week


1. Government should never censor or regulate political speech--except, of course, when it comes to conservative talk radio.

bullshit. Government has a right to regulate the content of material broadcast over public airwaves. period.



2. It's discrimination for a Christian photographer to decline to attend and photograph a lesbian ceremony, but it's ok to force a Christian photographer to attend and photograph that ceremony against their will. And the idea of forcing a gay photographer to attend and photograph an evangelical seminar on the public health risks of gay sex is "outrageous."


I don't think that any photographer should be forced to photograph anything he doesn't want to photograph. If his employer thinks otherwise, the photographer is probably not working for the right employer


3. The secret ballot is a fundamental right of every American--except for those Americans who take part in union elections.


The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots." Under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose the union formation process—elections or majority sign-up. Under current law, the choice to recognize a union rests only with employers.

What the Employee Free Choice Act does prevent is an employer manipulating the flawed system to influence the election outcome. When faced with organizing campaigns: 25 percent of employers illegally fire pro-union workers; 51 percent of employers illegally threaten to close down worksites if the union prevails; and, 34 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing the union with bribes and favoritism.




4. The death penalty is immoral, but convenience abortion is not. In other words, it's wrong to execute a murderer, but it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby, even if there's been no rape or incest and even if the baby's birth poses no risk to the mother's life. This is true even if we're talking about a third-trimester baby.


abortion is immoral as well. I have never said otherwise and know few, if any, liberals who approve of abortions. I certainly do not approve of abortions, and only reluctantly support a woman's right to chose what happens in her own uterus over the prospect of having the state make that determination



5. People who try to stop whalers from killing whales are heroic, but people who try to stop women from killing their unborn babies are intolerant.

I think that greenpeace is wrong in its methodology. completely. Just like I think that anti-abortion groups are wrong in their methodology


6. People who practice homosexuality have a right to get married, but adult-child marriage, beastiality marriage, consensual incest, and consensual pedophilia should all remain illegal.

I think that any two people should have the right to enter into a legally binding civil contract. I think the state should stay out of the church's business regarding holy matrimony


7. Freedom of religion is a basic right of all Americans. Why, after all, freedom of religion is the very reason the first European settlers came to this land. However, freedom of religion does not apply to churches that refuse to conduct or host gay weddings--such churches should be stripped of their tax exemption and forced to treat gay weddings the same way they treat normal weddings. Such churches should also be forced to hire gay priests. But it goes without saying that no gay group should ever be forced to hire a Bible-believing Christian. And if a gay restaurant owner wants to prohibit people from vocally blessing their food in his establishment, he of course has that right, since public prayers over food may make other patrons "uncomfortable."

see above re: gay marriage. regarding saying grace at a restaurant, I am completely against any prohibitions of it


8. Our public schools can't even suggest to children that life came about by design. Nor can public schools display the Ten Commandments. Nor can they read George Washington's Farewell Address to children. However, public schools can teach children that life came about purely by chance, that two gay men shacking up is just as valid a relationship as a traditional marriage, and that there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex as long as they're careful and responsible about it.

see above


9. Government should not fine TV networks for airing nudity, sex scenes, and profanity, since no one is forced to watch any show they don't want to watch--they can just change the channel. However, government should be able to force commercial radio stations to air opposing political views, even if they have to do so at their own expense because the opposing views are not popular with the audience and hence advertisers don't want to buy advertising during those times. Never mind the fact that no one is forced to listen to a radio program they don't like; never mind that people can just change the station if they run across a political talk show they don't like; and never mind that people with opposing views are free to start their own talk shows, provided of course that they can garner a large enough audience to attract advertisers, etc., etc. Nope, in this case the First Amendment is Dead On Arrival. The government must force radio stations to air liberal talk radio shows to "balance out" the conservative talk radio shows, even if liberal talk shows attract much smaller audiences and usually don't pay for themselves. Note: This "fairness doctrine" does NOT apply to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and MSNBC.


see #1 above



10. Government has a right to take as much of your paycheck as it thinks it needs, and if you object you're just being "selfish."

determination of the marginal tax rate is and has always been a political determination. I see no reason why that should change


11. Freedom of choice does not apply to parents who want to use their education tax dollars to send their kids to private schools.

let them go somewhere and form their own country. Until then, the goverment has the power to tax and the power to spend those tax dollars. sorry.


12. The government should have the right to determine whether or not a parent is qualified to educate their child themselves. The child really belongs to the state, not to the parent, and thus the state should have the final say as to who gets to teach the child. And just never you mind that home schoolers do better on standardized tests like the SAT and ACT than public school children do. Never you mind that the crime rate for home schoolers is a fraction of what it is for public school children. Never you mind that home schoolers usually excel in college and that on average they perform better in college than public school children do. Never you mind that the rate of rape, molestation, drug use, and violence is far greater in public schools than in home schools. Just never you mind all that.

I have no problem with home schooling whatsoever


13. The government should have the right to disarm the citizenry. If the government decides that it would be best if only the government had guns, then that's how it should be. Crime would go down if guns were outlawed and if only the government had guns. If it's in a good mood, the government may establish hunting centers around the country where licensed citizens (those "clingers") could come and do some heavily regulated hunting.

I do not think that the government has the right to disarm the citizenry. I do think it has the right to regulate the sale and possession of firearms. two different things altogether[/QUOTE]

anything else?

[darin]

Okay - Back on Topic folks.

MFM - there is no REQUIREMENT for you to reply to threads you read. Please don't derail threads.




as if anyone would have EVER thought that YOU could have written it yourself!:laugh2:


and who would have thought you would contribute to the discussion :laugh2:


it's a humor piece. that is where it belongs.

and it's a cut and paste job, which is your hallmark.

If you want to write something of substance I would be happy to contribute to such a discussion. I've been waiting in vain for years for you to produce such a piece.


In order for anything to be humorous, there must be an element of truth. There is alot of truth in the piece about liberals and their double standards


Back to the topic

Liberals have only 3 values, or goals in life

1. Power, and expanding that power power

2. Money, coming from anyone who has earned it, especially the rich

3. The ends justify the means, whatever it takes to achieve numbers one and two


one could write a similar piece about conservatives and it would also belong in the humor forum.... this is not anything for serious debate. none of your cut and paste tripe is.


Liberals like you MFM have no values whatsoever. You find them too restraining.

As in post # 6, all that matters to you is power and the means needed to attain that power


MFM is out to derail any thread he disagrees with. He will not debate the topic - only flame

[red states rule]

Before going out on disablity, I got into an argument with a coworker. We are forced to smoke in our cars, and as he was walking by my car he told me he was offended by my bumper stickers

He said I shouldn't be allowed to have those hate filled stickers on my car.

However, he had 2 Obama 08 bumper stickers on his car.

When I asked him why I couldn't have it on my car, but he could have the Obama 08's on his car; he told me because it offended people.

I told him with a smile: "I'm sorry, I did not know that YOU were the official spokesperson for the offensive bumper-sticker committee."

He did not like it and stormed off in a huff. How typical of the tolerant left

[darin]

abortion is immoral as well. I have never said otherwise and know few, if any, liberals who approve of abortions. I certainly do not approve of abortions, and only reluctantly support a woman's right to chose what happens in her own uterus over the prospect of having the state make that determination




where did I EVER say that I did not "have a problem" with people getting abortions?

When you said you support a woman's ability to get an abortion on demand.


I do not waffle in the least. I am morally opposed to abortion. I do NOT, however, feel that embryos have souls and deserve protection under the law when such protection deprives women of THEIR rights.

Yet by your own admission you have no idea WHEN a cluster of cells becomes a living soul? Only GOD knows - yet without ANY biblical backing, you've decided it CANNOT be at the moment of conception? How do you reconcile the fact you may very well be SUPPORTING the killing of innocent souls? Where is a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion? Bill of rights? When has congress created a law giving an abortion as a RIGHT of it's populace? Women have a right to PRIVACY. That's what roe v. wade is about. You're trumping the right of the baby's LIFE (We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit...ring any bells?) with the CONVIENIENCE of a woman to kill her offspring WITHOUT visible repercussoins (We all know, don't we? When a woman kills her baby it DOES cause damage to HER...like Abbey says - one killed, two wounded.).

That's just sick - especially from one who CLAIMS Christianity, or a version thereof.

[darin]

We are forced to smoke in our cars,


Even non-smokers? How can a place of employment force people to smoke?

[red states rule]

Right to Choice? Why don't say what you really mean. To kill the unborn. I love how it's called the right to choice....choice of what? Homocide?

[retiredman]

When you said you support a woman's ability to get an abortion on demand.



Yet by your own admission you have no idea WHEN a cluster of cells becomes a living soul? Only GOD knows - yet without ANY biblical backing, you've decided it CANNOT be at the moment of conception? How do you reconcile the fact you may very well be SUPPORTING the killing of innocent souls? Where is a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion? Bill of rights? When has congress created a law giving an abortion as a RIGHT of it's populace? Women have a right to PRIVACY. That's what roe v. wade is about. You're trumping the right of the baby's LIFE (We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit...ring any bells?) with the CONVIENIENCE of a woman to kill her offspring WITHOUT visible repercussoins (We all know, don't we? When a woman kills her baby it DOES cause damage to HER...like Abbey says - one killed, two wounded.).

That's just sick - especially from one who CLAIMS Christianity, or a version thereof.

I have no idea when the soul enters the body and neither do you. As I have said countless times, I am profoundly conflicted about abortion. I would never condone anyone in my family having one..that is for certain. I also have a problem with government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with what is happening inside her own body, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. I think that sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives and our bodies.

And you can stop your moral pontificating anytime, darin. For you to suggest that being a Christian and being pro-choice are incompatible is your opinion... but hardly fact. There are many devout Christians like myself who are reluctantly pro-choice for the very reasons I have stated.

[red states rule]

I love how liberals name things, Right to Choice....it's freedom right?

If it were the called the Right to kill the Unborn, it would not have that catchy sound.

[darin]

I have no idea when the soul enters the body and neither do you. As I have said countless times, I am profoundly conflicted about abortion. I would never condone anyone in my family having one..that is for certain. I also have a problem with government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with what is happening inside her own body, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. I think that sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives and our bodies.

The government 'intrudes' on what happens in our lives and in our bodies frequently. That's the the issue. At issue is the government allowing women to destroy a human life at a whim. A side issue is the co-creator of said life - the father - has NO LEGAL say. You support allowing women to destroy the life within them based on NO EVIDENCE the life is not sentient - and PLENTY of evidence fetuses can feel pain, move, and operate just fine.

You support what you call an Immoral Act. As a "Pastor" - YOU SUPPORT allowing women to kill their baby. Just say it. Tell it to your congregation too, Virgil. Let them know The Church shouldn't INTRUDE nor form opinions against Immorality. That'd go over GREAT.



And you can stop your moral pontificating anytime, darin. For you to suggest that being a Christian and being pro-choice are incompatible is your opinion... but hardly fact. There are many devout Christians like myself who are reluctantly pro-choice for the very reasons I have stated.

Being pro-murder is inherently anti-christian. There are No devout Christians who can support murder. It's like - it's impossible to be a follower of christ and be one who litters because one litters out of arrogance and disregard. Same is true of abortion. One supports laws allowing women abortion-on-demand out of a lack of love for innocent lives. It's 'lack of love' at best. It's hatred at worse.

[red states rule]

Liberal views akways revolve around, and strive for, passing legislation at a national level. This legislation almost usually involves taking from one group to provide for another, something that goes against the US Constitution.

But it accomplishes the goals of liberals

It increases their power, makes them feel good all over, and does nothing to actually solve the issue

[Yurt]

mfm supports jesus's mother's right to get an abortion....mfm supports incest marriage

nuff said

[red states rule]

mfm supports jesus's mother's right to get an abortion....mfm supports incest marriage

nuff said

Bottom line is, liberals have bloated our govenerment to ridiculous proportions. We have a president elect who promised the masses other people's money in order to get ellected. We have an agenda to deny peoiple the right to bear arms. And liberals want to mandate how private buisness's operate their business buisness.

Liberalism has become very hostile and aggressive. They want us to make us submit or they will demonize and try to crush us.

[retiredman]

The government 'intrudes' on what happens in our lives and in our bodies frequently. That's the the issue. At issue is the government allowing women to destroy a human life at a whim.

You need to accept the fact that many Americans do not believe that an embryo is a human life


A side issue is the co-creator of said life - the father - has NO LEGAL say. You support allowing women to destroy the life within them based on NO EVIDENCE the life is not sentient - and PLENTY of evidence fetuses can feel pain, move, and operate just fine.

I support no such thing


You support what you call an Immoral Act. As a "Pastor" - YOU SUPPORT allowing women to kill their baby. Just say it. Tell it to your congregation too, Virgil. Let them know The Church shouldn't INTRUDE nor form opinions against Immorality. That'd go over GREAT.

Again... I support no such thing. AndI have ZERO problems with the church forming opinions about any issue... certainly not this one.


Being pro-murder is inherently anti-christian. There are No devout Christians who can support murder. It's like - it's impossible to be a follower of christ and be one who litters because one litters out of arrogance and disregard. Same is true of abortion. One supports laws allowing women abortion-on-demand out of a lack of love for innocent lives. It's 'lack of love' at best. It's hatred at worse.

I do not support murder. And I would merely suggest that for St. Augustine, Gratian, St. Aquinas, Pope Gregory IX, and other church leaders, early abortion did not involve taking human life but rather prevented life from beginning, by removing the body before a living soul was present.

[retiredman]

mfm supports jesus's mother's right to get an abortion....mfm supports incest marriage

nuff said

I would never have presumed to tell Mary what she could or could not do with her body. and I do not support incest marriage. where do you GET weird shit like that?

[red states rule]

Liberals should be in favor of increasing the population, thus providing more tax revenue to the government.

The most basic function of government is to protect the innocent - but liberals would rather protect the guilty, and allow the innocent to be slaughtered

[Yurt]

I would never have presumed to tell Mary what she could or could not do with her body. and I do not support incest marriage. where do you GET weird shit like that?

you support mary's right to an abortion, you said so before and you said so again...if she wanted one, you would not stop her...as you would not tell mary what to do with her body. so you support her right to abortion, simple really.

as to incest, easy, your own words tell the story and convict you AGAIN:


6. People who practice homosexuality have a right to get married, but adult-child marriage, beastiality marriage, consensual incest, and consensual pedophilia should all remain illegal.



I think that any two people should have the right to enter into a legally binding civil contract. I think the state should stay out of the church's business regarding holy matrimony

right now, the very definition of marriage is a civil contract...you are merely changing the words to civil contract (which it already is).. so you support an incesterous civil contract/marriage. at a minimum, you support the right of folks to have an incest civil contract that is LIKE marriage..

gross

[red states rule]

The bottom line is liberals have no problem with bigotry and discrimination if it is directected toward people they don't like; and want to silence

Libs would have a fit if a gay photographer were forced to attend and photograph a health conference on homosexuality, but they're just fine with a Christian photographer being forced to photograph a lesbian ceremony.

As far as abortion, what about the childs right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness?

[retiredman]

you support mary's right to an abortion, you said so before and you said so again...if she wanted one, you would not stop her...as you would not tell mary what to do with her body. so you support her right to abortion, simple really.

as to incest, easy, your own words tell the story and convict you AGAIN:






right now, the very definition of marriage is a civil contract...you are merely changing the words to civil contract (which it already is).. so you support an incesterous civil contract/marriage. at a minimum, you support the right of folks to have an incest civil contract that is LIKE marriage..

gross


I do not support incestuous marriage....no amount of your word twisting will make what I said mean that. I am sorry. And.... all I ever said was that I would not presume to tell Mary what to do with her body. And... if a mule had inadvertently kicked her in the abdomen and caused her to miscarry, do you not think that God would have found another way to send His Son down to save us?

[Yurt]

I do not support incestuous marriage....no amount of your word twisting will make what I said mean that. I am sorry. And.... all I ever said was that I would not presume to tell Mary what to do with her body. And... if a mule had inadvertently kicked her in the abdomen and caused her to miscarry, do you not think that God would have found another way to send His Son down to save us?

bullshit, you support a marriage like contract for gays do you not? you said ANY TWO consenting adults to a civil contract which you know damn well you want to take the place of marriage. stop your spinning bullshit and get honest here.

you and i both want the government out of marriage. fine. but you have repeatedly said you want gays to be able to have a civil contract and don't BS here mfm, you know that contract will replace marriage in everyway except the word marriage. and your answer responded to an incest marriage and you support ANY TWO people to a marriage like contract.

i'm surprised you can still type...that spin must be making you dizzy by now

[Des]

I hate mass emails, especially ones that demonstate such a wide misunderstanding of so many issues, make blanket statements, and try to connect things based on a belief system and somehow tie it in with the government...all the while insisting that the government needs to stay out of things. Priceless.

[retiredman]

bullshit, you support a marriage like contract for gays do you not? you said ANY TWO consenting adults to a civil contract which you know damn well you want to take the place of marriage. stop your spinning bullshit and get honest here.

you and i both want the government out of marriage. fine. but you have repeatedly said you want gays to be able to have a civil contract and don't BS here mfm, you know that contract will replace marriage in everyway except the word marriage. and your answer responded to an incest marriage and you support ANY TWO people to a marriage like contract.

i'm surprised you can still type...that spin must be making you dizzy by now

I support civil contracts as an instrument of the state. I support holy matrimony as an instrument of the church. I have absolutely no problem if two elderly spinster first cousins, for example, want to enter into a civil contract. That is not a marriage. It is a contract. I do NOT support incestuous marriage. period. Words have meanings yurt.... you can't just twist them to suit your weak arguments.

So... either retract your lie about me supporting incestuous MARRIAGE or find a quote where I say that.

I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for YOU to show some class, however...that's for sure.

[darin]

You need to accept the fact that many Americans do not believe that an embryo is a human life


What's your point? Why would that matter? What does that have to do with Christianity? Most Americans - most of the WORLD isn't Christian.



I support no such thing


Liar.



Again... I support no such thing. AndI have ZERO problems with the church forming opinions about any issue... certainly not this one.


yet, as a (BIG QUOTEY FINGERS HERE) PASTOR, you say you support a woman's right to kill her baby for any reason she chooses.


I do not support murder. And I would merely suggest that for St. Augustine, Gratian, St. Aquinas, Pope Gregory IX, and other church leaders, early abortion did not involve taking human life but rather prevented life from beginning, by removing the body before a living soul was present.

Abortion is murder. You have stated clearly you are unsure WHEN the fetus becomes a living soul, yet you support a woman's right to kill that fetus. You very likely (my opinion) are supporting evil. You err on the side of 'supporting evil' vs the side of 'supporting goodness' (a new baby. A child.).

[jimnyc]

I have absolutely no problem if two elderly spinster first cousins, for example, want to enter into a civil contract. That is not a marriage. It is a contract.

Wow. You would support relatives wanting to get together, whether it be called a civil union or marriage? It starts with first cousins and the next thing you know you have brothers and sisters rioting in the streets of California about "proposition H8" and how they are being discriminated against. A civil and morally driven society has to know when wrong is wrong and right is right. People can't be given EVERYTHING they want purely because they feel discriminated against. 95% of discrimination is legal and for good reason.

[namvet]

Liberalism defined

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/194500/194504msUQ_w.jpg

[retiredman]

Wow. You would support relatives wanting to get together, whether it be called a civil union or marriage? It starts with first cousins and the next thing you know you have brothers and sisters rioting in the streets of California about "proposition H8" and how they are being discriminated against. A civil and morally driven society has to know when wrong is wrong and right is right. People can't be given EVERYTHING they want purely because they feel discriminated against. 95% of discrimination is legal and for good reason.

you presume a sexual component to civil contracts when none need not exist. There are laws against incest and I have never suggested that those laws be repealed. sharing assets and estates does not mean sharing bodily fluids.

[retiredman]

What's your point? Why would that matter? What does that have to do with Christianity? Most Americans - most of the WORLD isn't Christian.

exactly. therefore, those of us who ARE Christian really have no right to impose our religious based value system on other people. If Churches want to condemn abortion, they should and I support such activism. Should our government adopt that position? I think not.




Liar.

no. I am not a liar and you are only being intentionally provocative and inflammatory by calling me one. I will try not to rise to the bait.



yet, as a (BIG QUOTEY FINGERS HERE) PASTOR, you say you support a woman's right to kill her baby for any reason she chooses.

more of the same... ho hum


Abortion is murder. You have stated clearly you are unsure WHEN the fetus becomes a living soul, yet you support a woman's right to kill that fetus. You very likely (my opinion) are supporting evil. You err on the side of 'supporting evil' vs the side of 'supporting goodness' (a new baby. A child.).

I listed some rather notable Christian theologians who disagree with you. I tend to go with their opinions over yours... I'm sorry.

[jimnyc]

you presume a sexual component to civil contracts when none need not exist. There are laws against incest and I have never suggested that those laws be repealed. sharing assets and estates does not mean sharing bodily fluids.

My bad MFM. I read this part very quickly:


I have absolutely no problem if two elderly spinster first cousins, for example, want to enter into a civil contract.

But read so fast that I missed this part:


I do NOT support incestuous marriage. period.

Apologies for my misread. For the record, I'll support civil unions but will never support gay marriages. I'll also never support any type of incestual or other wacky marriages outside of one man and one woman.

[retiredman]

My bad MFM. I read this part very quickly:



But read so fast that I missed this part:



Apologies for my misread. For the record, I'll support civil unions but will never support gay marriages. I'll also never support any type of incestual or other wacky marriages outside of one man and one woman.

no sweat.... we are on the same page.

as I have said before, I think that holy matrimony should be the province of the church with zero state interference, and civil unions and contracts should be the province of the state with zero church interference....

if you want the religious benefits, get married and let churches decide who they will marry.... if you want the civil benefits, go to your city hall and get a civil union....if you want both religious and civil benefits, do both.

[April15]

Got this in an email last week


1. Government should never censor or regulate political speech--except, of course, when it comes to conservative talk radio.

2. It's discrimination for a Christian photographer to decline to attend and photograph a lesbian ceremony, but it's ok to force a Christian photographer to attend and photograph that ceremony against their will. And the idea of forcing a gay photographer to attend and photograph an evangelical seminar on the public health risks of gay sex is "outrageous."

3. The secret ballot is a fundamental right of every American--except for those Americans who take part in union elections.

4. The death penalty is immoral, but convenience abortion is not. In other words, it's wrong to execute a murderer, but it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby, even if there's been no rape or incest and even if the baby's birth poses no risk to the mother's life. This is true even if we're talking about a third-trimester baby.

5. People who try to stop whalers from killing whales are heroic, but people who try to stop women from killing their unborn babies are intolerant.

6. People who practice homosexuality have a right to get married, but adult-child marriage, beastiality marriage, consensual incest, and consensual pedophilia should all remain illegal.

7. Freedom of religion is a basic right of all Americans. Why, after all, freedom of religion is the very reason the first European settlers came to this land. However, freedom of religion does not apply to churches that refuse to conduct or host gay weddings--such churches should be stripped of their tax exemption and forced to treat gay weddings the same way they treat normal weddings. Such churches should also be forced to hire gay priests. But it goes without saying that no gay group should ever be forced to hire a Bible-believing Christian. And if a gay restaurant owner wants to prohibit people from vocally blessing their food in his establishment, he of course has that right, since public prayers over food may make other patrons "uncomfortable."

8. Our public schools can't even suggest to children that life came about by design. Nor can public schools display the Ten Commandments. Nor can they read George Washington's Farewell Address to children. However, public schools can teach children that life came about purely by chance, that two gay men shacking up is just as valid a relationship as a traditional marriage, and that there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex as long as they're careful and responsible about it.

9. Government should not fine TV networks for airing nudity, sex scenes, and profanity, since no one is forced to watch any show they don't want to watch--they can just change the channel. However, government should be able to force commercial radio stations to air opposing political views, even if they have to do so at their own expense because the opposing views are not popular with the audience and hence advertisers don't want to buy advertising during those times. Never mind the fact that no one is forced to listen to a radio program they don't like; never mind that people can just change the station if they run across a political talk show they don't like; and never mind that people with opposing views are free to start their own talk shows, provided of course that they can garner a large enough audience to attract advertisers, etc., etc. Nope, in this case the First Amendment is Dead On Arrival. The government must force radio stations to air liberal talk radio shows to "balance out" the conservative talk radio shows, even if liberal talk shows attract much smaller audiences and usually don't pay for themselves. Note: This "fairness doctrine" does NOT apply to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and MSNBC.

10. Government has a right to take as much of your paycheck as it thinks it needs, and if you object you're just being "selfish."

11. Freedom of choice does not apply to parents who want to use their education tax dollars to send their kids to private schools.

12. The government should have the right to determine whether or not a parent is qualified to educate their child themselves. The child really belongs to the state, not to the parent, and thus the state should have the final say as to who gets to teach the child. And just never you mind that home schoolers do better on standardized tests like the SAT and ACT than public school children do. Never you mind that the crime rate for home schoolers is a fraction of what it is for public school children. Never you mind that home schoolers usually excel in college and that on average they perform better in college than public school children do. Never you mind that the rate of rape, molestation, drug use, and violence is far greater in public schools than in home schools. Just never you mind all that.

13. The government should have the right to disarm the citizenry. If the government decides that it would be best if only the government had guns, then that's how it should be. Crime would go down if guns were outlawed and if only the government had guns. If it's in a good mood, the government may establish hunting centers around the country where licensed citizens (those "clingers") could come and do some heavily regulated hunting.

Great straw man piece. Pure hyperboil but nice just the same.

[red states rule]

Great straw man piece. Pure hyperboil but nice just the same.

Based on what libs have posted here, and what I have seen libs say on TV the email was spot on

Liberals don’t have any values but, they do have rules they follow

Criticize everything but do nothing.

Call Republicans names; particularly “stupid” and "Nazis"

Use lies to say what is not true.

Accuse opponents of racism even if none existsImpose double standards upon all.

America be damned if it means more power for the Democrat party

[April15]

Based on what libs have posted here, and what I have seen libs say on TV the email was spot on

Liberals don’t have any values but, they do have rules they follow

Criticize everything but do nothing.

Call Republicans names; particularly “stupid” and "Nazis"

Use lies to say what is not true.

Accuse opponents of racism even if none existsImpose double standards upon all.

America be damned if it means more power for the Democrat party

It's an odd take on reality, but so be it for you.

[red states rule]

It's an odd take on reality, but so be it for you.

April, I based my post on the "discussions" I have had with liberals like you.

[April15]

April, I based my post on the "discussions" I have had with liberals like you.And if that is what you came away with then that is your right.

[red states rule]

And if that is what you came away with then that is your right.

In fairness, not only you April but also Virgil, BP, PB, and Gabby

[April15]

I am more than a liberal. I am a radical left over from the sixties.

[red states rule]

I am more than a liberal. I am a radical left over from the sixties.

That is common knowledge April. To you personal freedom and responsibility is always second to the common good, tolerance, and social equality.

[Yurt]

I am more than a liberal. I am a radical left out from the sixties.

fixed it for you :beer:

[hjmick]

I am more than a liberal. I am a radical left over from the sixties.

I hate leftovers...

[April15]

I hate leftovers...I don't eat leftovers either.

[red states rule]

I don't eat leftovers either.

You are the leftovers. Yesterdays flower children are todays blooming idiots

[April15]

You are the leftovers. Yesterdays flower children are todays blooming idiotsNow that cracks me up!!!!! Funnnny.

[Yurt]

Now that cracks me up!!!!! Funnnny.

what about mine....ah schucks....post 47

sits on bleachers....