Hello everybody

[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.

[Egbert]

(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/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/10/gay-marriage-three-key-factors-voting-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.

[molly bloom]

What happened to Boissoin was persecution.

You previously made the ludicrous claim that your 'faith' was persecuted in Canada.

This seems to depend upon this Reverend representing the whole of Roman Catholicism in Canada- which as far as I know, he doesn't.


Could he continue in his ministry ?

Keep attending church ?

Did he have to abjure his faith, walk upon a crucifix or 'holy image'- like the Japanese Christians in 17th Century Japan ?



My guess is no.

You're a liar, Ben. Not just a liar, but a liar who makes hysterical unsupported claims.

[kentonio]

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.

Yes Ben, obviously its not just that educated people hold certain stances, its that they must have been brainwashed by liberals. ****wit. No-one is 'pro-abortion'.

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.

You and Ben have both been waving this 'Marriage isn't about love' strawman around. Gay marriage is about equality and granting all citizens the same opportunities. It's not a complex concept to understand, and it is based primarily around the simple idea of fairness. There is simply no good reason to deny a homosexual couple the same rights to marry as a hetrosexual one.

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

You can disagree all you want, but given that we saw it happen in practice with interracial marriage, you don't have a leg to stand on. Equality laws are not bad laws, and given time they help to change attitudes for the better. Its a lot easier for people to discriminate against a group when the law also discriminates.

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.

We're still waiting for you to raise any genuine argument as to why it isn't right.

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.

And there's that strawman again.

[kentonio]

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"

You seem to have missed a few parts out. Lets try an amended version.

Conservative minded person: "Despite decades of discussion, introduction of homosexuals into mainstream popular culture, highly publicized cases of how discrimination affects real people, and the general acceptance of homosexuals into public life I still don't get why they should be allowed to marry!
"Sane person":Well I don't know what else I can say to you at this point, you're being quite bigoted.
Conservative minded person: "HOW ****ING DARE YOU!! I WILL NOW KILL ALL THE GAYS!!"

Is that the argument you were making?

Also, those words can inspire 'insane' people to violent acts.

I think words are important.

Would that be like when pro-life people shout about baby killing and then clinics get bombed and doctors murdered?

I agree, words are indeed important.