Not unless you're accusing the mods who make the stickies of being the glowbois.
Ultimately, it's a discussion that needs to be had. We may not reach consensus. That's part of living in a free country. I will never support homosexuality. Period. I have strong beliefs about it, have thought deeply about it, have spoken with many gay people at great length about it. I'm not going to hear a new argument that makes me start waving a pride flag around.
The best you'll get from me is acknowledgement that in a free country people should be free to live their own lives in a manner that makes them happy, and that they should be entitled to equal rights, and freedom from harassment.
And that's the best outlook, and a stance that should be applaudable from people on both sides. That is the Constitutional stance.
That said, it does infringe on others when you push gay pride parades that close off streets and expose children to shit that they don't need to be seeing, and when you invade schools with it.
Yeah and the fundamentalists aren't helping either. If anything, they're stoking it by doubling down on "returning to Christian values" specifically values that support and justify their shitty behavior towards other Americans.
Even for discussion sake if you could prove undoubtedly that this nation WAS founded on Christian principles, that changes nothing. We're under the Constitution. NOT the Bible or any other religious text. If you choose to submit to those rules and regulations willingly, great. I support your dedication. I also support and will defend people's right to choose to live how they want. If you can't respect the consent of others, then you should not be respected. The end.
Do you think the Bible is the only reason we are not killing each other or stealing from each other? You know these things are illegal in non-Christian countries, right?
There is a reason that there is no state religion. Henry VIII used the state religion as a weapon to create his own morality and force it on others. At the time this country was founded, there were well over 200 different brands of Christianity in Europe, each one claiming to be the one and only correct one. And if you talk to a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or countless others, they'd tell you all 200 brands of Christianity were wrong. The Declaration refers to a "Creator" not to "God" or "a god."
This country was meant to accommodate people living according to their conscience. We called it freedom. Government's role was never meant to include defining a moral absolute. Again, see Henry VIII. Government's role was to create a structure in which people could live together freely.
I will agree that the founders did make some assumptions though, which did include the Christian norm from which they came. They assumed a moral society with general consensus on issues like the value of human life and respect for private property. Marxists throw those assumptions out the window, and that makes the discussion much harder. What if the moral consensus of a free people was to grant government the right to define a moral authority? The Founders never considered the possibility of some of what we've seen in the 20th century. There is no easy affirmative answer, even "the Bible."
Consent. That is the moral absolute that is indisputable. It applies to all aspects of our lives and is the basis of all morality.
Right after that or at the same level is truth. There is never justification for lying under any circumstance. Discretionary disclosure is a bit of a gray area, but ultimately the truth will set us all free and that idea transcends ideologies.
The only thing we all need to be in 100% agreement is respecting each other's right to life. Beyond that, most of the rest is semantics.
What even sparked all this discussion about "the gays"? Aren't the T's making the most waves lately?
It reeks of Glowie divide & conquer BS.
Not unless you're accusing the mods who make the stickies of being the glowbois.
Ultimately, it's a discussion that needs to be had. We may not reach consensus. That's part of living in a free country. I will never support homosexuality. Period. I have strong beliefs about it, have thought deeply about it, have spoken with many gay people at great length about it. I'm not going to hear a new argument that makes me start waving a pride flag around.
The best you'll get from me is acknowledgement that in a free country people should be free to live their own lives in a manner that makes them happy, and that they should be entitled to equal rights, and freedom from harassment.
And that's the best outlook, and a stance that should be applaudable from people on both sides. That is the Constitutional stance.
That said, it does infringe on others when you push gay pride parades that close off streets and expose children to shit that they don't need to be seeing, and when you invade schools with it.
Well said.
Yeah and the fundamentalists aren't helping either. If anything, they're stoking it by doubling down on "returning to Christian values" specifically values that support and justify their shitty behavior towards other Americans.
Even for discussion sake if you could prove undoubtedly that this nation WAS founded on Christian principles, that changes nothing. We're under the Constitution. NOT the Bible or any other religious text. If you choose to submit to those rules and regulations willingly, great. I support your dedication. I also support and will defend people's right to choose to live how they want. If you can't respect the consent of others, then you should not be respected. The end.
So what moral absolute would you suggest? If the Bible isn't good enough for you then what do you suggest? Spill the beans smart guy!
Do you think the Bible is the only reason we are not killing each other or stealing from each other? You know these things are illegal in non-Christian countries, right?
There is a reason that there is no state religion. Henry VIII used the state religion as a weapon to create his own morality and force it on others. At the time this country was founded, there were well over 200 different brands of Christianity in Europe, each one claiming to be the one and only correct one. And if you talk to a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or countless others, they'd tell you all 200 brands of Christianity were wrong. The Declaration refers to a "Creator" not to "God" or "a god."
This country was meant to accommodate people living according to their conscience. We called it freedom. Government's role was never meant to include defining a moral absolute. Again, see Henry VIII. Government's role was to create a structure in which people could live together freely.
I will agree that the founders did make some assumptions though, which did include the Christian norm from which they came. They assumed a moral society with general consensus on issues like the value of human life and respect for private property. Marxists throw those assumptions out the window, and that makes the discussion much harder. What if the moral consensus of a free people was to grant government the right to define a moral authority? The Founders never considered the possibility of some of what we've seen in the 20th century. There is no easy affirmative answer, even "the Bible."
Consent. That is the moral absolute that is indisputable. It applies to all aspects of our lives and is the basis of all morality.
Right after that or at the same level is truth. There is never justification for lying under any circumstance. Discretionary disclosure is a bit of a gray area, but ultimately the truth will set us all free and that idea transcends ideologies.
The only thing we all need to be in 100% agreement is respecting each other's right to life. Beyond that, most of the rest is semantics.
You're suffering from Fundamentalist Derangement Syndrome.
The "Bible thumpers" are living in your head rent free at this point.
You mean the one who quotes the Bible in the Q posts? That fundamentalist?
Fair, I forgot, thought that had died down. No one around me has mentioned it in weeks.