Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

The Bible does talk about what happens to nations where the rich exploit the poor and do not give them their just wages. Those nations get destroyed. Read some of the old testament some time.

I should quote that.

Which nation are you referring to?

[Elok]

Um, whenTF did Jesus say "it's my money, I can spend it how I wish?" Is BK somehow confusing Jesus with Ronald Reagan?

[Ben Kenobi]

Um, whenTF did Jesus say "it's my money, I can spend it how I wish?" Is BK somehow confusing Jesus with Ronald Reagan?

Parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Matthew 20:13-5

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

[MrFun]

I don't think I've been offering people advice on how to get laid . . . .

thank god

[rah]

[QUOTE]Have I said otherwise? Beyond 'not having had sex', and 'not having ever been married', well, there's a pretty broad range of things, would you say, rah?

I mean, I'm not albert, I don't post threads on 'help me get a girlfriend', etc. [/QUOTE

I didn't say different. I just said that I give more credence to those with first hand experienced. i value your opinions less, if at all as a result.

[Elok]

Wow, BK took that one obviously metaphorical line from a parable about the mercy of God, ignored render unto Caesar and all the stuff about giving up all for the poor, and used it as justification for a Christian doctrine of hating taxes. Somebody quote that one line from the parable in Luke where the King says something like "bring all those who would not serve me and slay them before me." It gets quoted all the time by really childish atheists, somebody here probably knows it by heart. By BK's logic, we all need to start killing NOW.

[Nikolai]

thank god

Thankfully life doesn't revolve around such matters. It will come to Ben andme and everyone at some point, but it's not the most important thing in life

[Asher]

Look at the religious breakdown:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Ha...-Marriage.aspx

It's a clear trend.

Even the GOP pollsters are warning the GOP to wake the **** up.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ay-issues.html

Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.

Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:

...



In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:

“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:

“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals:

“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

[Aeson]

I understand why they might feel that way perfectly well. They want social acceptance and validation. But a desire for social acceptance and validation is not a reason to make a law. Social acceptance and validation occurs via society accepting that form of relationship, by definition. Not by legislation.Those who refuse to socially accept gays will do so whether or not we introduce a gay marriage law. Creating gay marriage laws to recognise love is a bit like a legislative command to turn back the tides, like the fairy tale of King Canute.

Not turn back the tide... that's what those opposing gay marriage are trying to do. It's obviously coming (and obviously the right thing to do if we're going to legally recognize marriage at all).

Back then, the American public didn't like the idea of interracial marriage, either. In 1958, 94 percent of Americans surveyed by Gallup said they disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites. Ten years later -- the year after the Loving decision -- the number had declined to a still-strong 73 percent. It wasn't until 1991 that more Americans approved of interracial marriage than disapproved. In the most recent Gallup poll on the topic, taken a year ago, the number disapproving had fallen to 17 percent.

[notyoueither]

I think that the increase in gay bashing that has arose in the last ~10 years is caused by attacks ('bigots bigots bigots') against people who don't follow the 'change' argument.

We haven't seen the same decrease in gay bashing that we would expect from the increase in other signs of acceptance of homosexuals/homosexuality.

Maybe we need to repost that plot about gay marriage?

JM

You are making some extraordinary claims.

First, you are attributing a rise in reported cases of hate crimes against homosexuals to a greater incidence of crimes motivated by hate. The numbers of such crimes being reported with Jews, Muslims, and blacks as victims are also rising. How do you account for this? How long have such stats even been gathered?

Next, you assume that there should have been a decrease in violent crimes motivated by hate directed at homosexuals due to a wider acceptance of them. Is it not probable that far more people are out of the closet and there are more homosexuals in more places that violent homophobes would be aware of?

And then there is the extraordinary claim that my calling Ben a bigot may tip some otherwise good person to go out and bash the next homosexual he becomes aware of. This one is high on the scale for wow factor.

What I am getting at is I would like to know what you are basing your claims on. Can you explain?

[loinburger]

I think that the increase in gay bashing that has arose in the last ~10 years is caused by attacks ('bigots bigots bigots') against people who don't follow the 'change' argument.

Right-Wing Douchebag: I hate homosexuals
Sane Person: Then you are a bad person
Right-Wing Douchebag: Now I'm going to physically attack a homosexual, and it's all your fault

In general, if verbally attacking somebody causes them to physically attack somebody, then the person in question is a terrible human being.

[Zevico]

Not turn back the tide... that's what those opposing gay marriage are trying to do. It's obviously coming (and obviously the right thing to do if we're going to legally recognize marriage at all).

King Canute command to the tides was unsuccessful because it was beyond his power to command the tides. You misunderstand the parable.

My point is that the mere passage of a gay marriage law is not, in and of itself, a rational reason for anyone to accept and validate gay relationships on a social level. To that extent, any attempt to legislate with respect to gay marriage as a means of inducing social acceptance of gay relationships is foolish.

The reason to accept and validate gay relationships on a social level does not find its place in books of statute but in principles which tolerant persons ought, in my view, accept. How we view each other socially is different from what we do by law.

Whether "it's coming" I don't know and nor do you. The most recent poll on Obama after his statement on gay marriage hhad his ratings drop what, 7%? In any case, its supposed inevitability doesn't make it right or wrong, any more than its absence from the statute books today makes the anti-gay marriage argument right or wrong.

If this thread is any indicator, this issue doesn't involve the application of reason but of faith. Spout vague, mindless generalities about marriage being "about love", about gay marriage being inevitable, or about those opposed to it being bigots and you've won the argument, all the while fully admitting to the fact that you simply do not comprehend the arguments against gay marriage. What a crock! "I do not know what you mean or what you argue, but I will steadfastly argue that you are a prejudiced bigot" is just plain nonsense.

[Aeson]

King Canute command to the tides was unsuccessful because it was beyond his power to command the tides. You misunderstand the parable.

I understand it perfectly. You are simply wrong about which way the tide is moving. Legislating against gay marriage now is trying to turn back the tide. Legislating for it would be simply to move with the tide.

My point is that the mere passage of a gay marriage law is not, in and of itself, a rational reason for anyone to accept and validate gay relationships on a social level. To that extent, any attempt to legislate with respect to gay marriage as a means of inducing social acceptance of gay relationships is foolish.

The reason to legislate in respect to gay marriage is not to change people's minds... it's to change the law. The law which currently discriminates against homosexual couples. You want to pretend that just because changing the law wouldn't eliminate bigotry against homosexuals completely that it's useless. It's an inane argument you are making. Acceptance is increased simply by the law being accepting. This is actually the most important step in acceptance, since the law either enforces discrimination against homosexuals, or enforces their right to not be discriminated against.

There will always be bigots. There are still people who think slavery should be legal. The turning point is when law stops favoring the bigots.

Whether "it's coming" I don't know and nor do you. The most recent poll on Obama after his statement on gay marriage hhad his ratings drop what, 7%? In any case, its supposed inevitability doesn't make it right or wrong, any more than its absence from the statute books today makes the anti-gay marriage argument right or wrong.

It is very obviously coming when you look at the trend. We are actually further along towards accepting homosexual relationships now than we were towards accepting interracial relationships at the time of Loving vs Virginia. And the rate is accelerating. Only a fool wouldn't see it coming.

If this thread is any indicator, this issue doesn't involve the application of reason but of faith. Spout vague, mindless generalities about marriage being "about love", about gay marriage being inevitable, or about those opposed to it being bigots and you've won the argument, all the while fully admitting to the fact that you simply do not comprehend the arguments against gay marriage. What a crock! "I do not know what you mean or what you argue, but I will steadfastly argue that you are a prejudiced bigot" is just plain nonsense.

You're a hypocrite who is relying on "can't turn back the tides" rather than actually looking at statistical trends.

[MrFun]

Thankfully life doesn't revolve around such matters. It will come to Ben andme and everyone at some point, but it's not the most important thing in life

Should I be thankful that you tried pinning an entirely different meaning to my snarky remark? I was not implying that life revolves around getting laid.

[Zevico]

I understand it perfectly. You are simply wrong about which way the tide is moving. Legislating against gay marriage now is trying to turn back the tide. Legislating for it would be simply to move with the tide.

I am not asserting that support for this policy is rising. I am asserting that the mere passage of a law is not going to do much to effect social acceptance. Nor is it the proper purpose of a law to certify that we love, hate, distrust, like, or enjoy one another's presence or company. I understand that there are other arguments in favour of gay marriage and I don't pretend otherwise.

One of the difficulties of forum thread arguments is that, on the one hand, you're arguing with specific people and you've made specific points before. On the other hand, other people simply read your latest post and assume that a particular statement is all you have to say.

The reason to legislate in respect to gay marriage is not to change people's minds... it's to change the law. The law which currently discriminates against homosexual couples. You want to pretend that just because changing the law wouldn't eliminate bigotry against homosexuals completely that it's useless.

No, I don't make any such pretence. Anyone can see that there are other arguments in favour of gay marriage, whatever their merit. You're engaging in mind-reading and making assumptions about my views that aren't founded in what I've written in this thread. You're simply assuming that because I've pointed out the illogicality of the "marriage is about love" meme or the "it's inevitable" meme that I'm wholeheartedly against, or unaware of (or both) any argument in favour of gay marriage. In short, you're not so much attacking my views so much as what you would imagine or prefer my views to be.

Acceptance is increased simply by the law being accepting.

I disagree. For example, bad laws, once implemented, can accelerate disfavour towards those laws, once people see their actual effect.

You're a hypocrite who is relying on "can't turn back the tides" rather than actually looking at statistical trends.

I'm not a hypocrite. Majority support for or against a given policy doesn't make it the right policy. It doesn't matter to me whether gay marriage is likely to receive popular support; it matters to me if that support is based on sound thinking and common sense. It may well be that most people will take a pro-gay marriage view in future but that doesn't make it right.

It's funny how voicing the slightest objection to anything but full-on support for every argument in favour of gay marriage policy creates a lightning rod for thoughtless assumptions and projection by some of its proponents. Suddenly this isn't a good faith-argument; rather I'm "pretending"--overtly, consciously lying to myself and others--that there's only one argument in favour of gay marriage, which happens, in my view, to be nonsense. The fact that I've expressly pointed out another argument in favour of some state-based recognition of gay parenting and custody laws, well, either you haven't bothered reading it or it's just plain irrelevant to you. Heaven forbid that I should point out that the "marriage is about love" meme is tired, brainless nonsense, because that wouldn't suit the 'gay marriage is inevitable' narrative.

[Braindead]

I am not asserting that support for this policy is rising. I am asserting that the mere passage of a law is not going to do much to effect social acceptance. Nor is it the proper purpose of a law to certify that we love, hate, distrust, like, or enjoy one another's presence or company. I understand that there are other arguments in favour of gay marriage and I don't pretend otherwise.

[q]The reason to legislate in respect to gay marriage is not to change people's minds... it's to change the law. The law which currently discriminates against homosexual couples.

I totally agree. Changing the law will not magically change opinions (but may cause some people to think "this is a stupid law"). It won't change minds but it will, as you say, change the law. Changes to the law that will provide various remedies and options.

[Jon Miller]

I should quote that.

Which nation are you referring to?

Israel.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Right-Wing Douchebag: I hate homosexuals
Sane Person: Then you are a bad person
Right-Wing Douchebag: Now I'm going to physically attack a homosexual, and it's all your fault

In general, if verbally attacking somebody causes them to physically attack somebody, then the person in question is a terrible human being.

Conservative minded person: "marriage is between a man and a woman, what in the world are you talking about when you say that it should be between two men?"
"Sane person": "you are a bigoted *******, a right-wing douchebag, and a terrible human being"
Conservative minded person: "you must hate people like me and seek to destroy everything that is important to me, I hate you and people like you"

I didn't say the physical attacks were done by 'sane' conservative minded people. They are pretty few physical attacks period, really (and I think obviously none by 'sane'). What is a much bigger deal is the suicides/etc, which are caused by 'sane' conservative minded people striking back with words. Also, those words can inspire 'insane' people to violent acts.

I think words are important.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Matthew 20:13-5

That is where Jesus is talking about paying everyone a day's wage regardless of how much work they do.

Read the whole Bible sometime, not just the bits that fit your notions. Read what many of the OT prophets said about the wealthy and those who exploited the workers in Israel.

JM

[MRT144]

[QUOTE=Kidicious;6111608]

Well, as a gay bashing christian, obviously nothing. But you know, you're really a poor example of christian living just like Ben.[/
QUOTE]

You're calling ME a bigot?

Yeah I am you stupid ****.

[Zevico]

. Changes to the law that will provide various remedies and options.

Exactly. All I wish we would is look at those remedies and options specifically and ask ourselves whether they're good ideas: whether they ought to apply to homosexual couples and/or heterosexual couples and why; or whether there's no sense in them at all. I mean, is a family tax benefit really a human right? We can't wait to examine whether a family tax benefit is a good idea in the first place before extending it to gay couples with families? We have to assume that every aspect of family law is inevitably proper and correct and deserves extension? That every aspect of it is the same and alike for gays and heterosexuals, that they face no individual issues of policy?

Is it really so radical to contend, for example, that most people should engage in heterosexual couplings if a society is going to have a sustainable birth rate and a stable society--and that this is a desirable thing? I'm not saying that gay marriage law will destroy heterosexuality, that there's some conspiracy to turn everyone gay. (It's bizzare but I feel I have to add that to prevent half the board to jump into a frenzy of projections and assumptions). I am saying that we actually should look to see how we, and the laws we make, affect society. If--note the conditional word "IF", people--gay marriage laws have a tendency to lead to more gay couplings and lowers the birth rate is that good or bad? Will it? Won't it? I don't pretend to have thought every single part of this issue through but I damn well am not going to make up my mind because people tell me it's offensive to so much as think about these questions.

[Braindead]

(It's bizzare but I feel I have to add that to prevent half the board to jump into a frenzy of projections and assumptions).

One can always have complete confidence that half the board lives in a permanent frenzy of projections and assumptions.

I can't see the point of making the slightest attempt to prevent such a frenzy.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is where Jesus is talking about paying everyone a day's wage regardless of how much work they do.

The workers want Jesus to pay them a fair wage, and want to decide for Jesus how his money should be spent. This is why Jesus says to them - it's my money, shouldn't I get to decide who gets how much?

Read the whole Bible sometime, not just the bits that fit your notions. Read what many of the OT prophets said about the wealthy and those who exploited the workers in Israel.

Where?

[Jon Miller]

Because no one discussed it last time (or I missed it, this thread has too many posts to read), religion/politics are not the most highly correlated with being pro-gay marriage, but rather education. And education is one of the sociological factors that makes a person more pro-change.

"
One of the more interesting pieces of data is that the variable with the least impact is religion. For every extra percentage point of a county's population that is religiously adherent, there is only a 0.1-point change we would see in support for marriage bans.

Education, it turns out, is far more important at accounting for the differences between county votes in favor of same sex marriage bans. When holding religious adherence and Obama support constant, we would expect that the percentage of support for same-sex marriage bans to drop by 0.8-0.9 of a point for every extra 1% of a county's population that has at least a bachelor's degree.
"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oting-bansface
(I wanted to close that tab, so wanted to be sure that people read my point before I did so)

Education is the answer. Not 'bigots' or 'douchebags' or '*******s'. And saying 'change' is not education.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The workers want Jesus to pay them a fair wage, and want to decide for Jesus how his money should be spent. This is why Jesus says to them - it's my money, shouldn't I get to decide who gets how much?



Where?

The fair wage was the 1 den. for a days work. He gave them that, but he also gave those who worked for only an hour 1 den.

It was about gifts/grace/mercy, not that it is OK to take advantage of the poor/those who work for you. It is disgusting.

Try reading Micah, Amos, and others.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Education, it turns out, is far more important at accounting for the differences between county votes in favor of same sex marriage bans.

I'm not surprised I did a study with that for abortion. Years of education, (even greater than age), is the most likely indicator that someone is pro abortion.

So the main conclusion is that education is teaching people to support gay marriage and abortion. It's clearly NOT unbiased, and liberal professors are overwhelmingly promoting their views on their students.

[Nikolai]

Should I be thankful that you tried pinning an entirely different meaning to my snarky remark? I was not implying that life revolves around getting laid.

It was something called a joke. Hence the . You know, tongue in cheek?

[Ben Kenobi]

It was about gifts/grace/mercy, not that it is OK to take advantage of the poor/those who work for you

There's a difference between getting taken advantage of, and perceived unfairness in compensation. Arguing that the employer shouldn't have the right to compensate some more than others, or that others should decide how he should compensate them, is wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was something called a joke. Hence the . You know, tongue in cheek?

Remember you're talking to Mr. Fun, Nikolai.

[Nikolai]

He's no fun atm.