It doesn't specifically, but I was referring to what it's purpose was said to be. Isn't it's purpose to try to and protect the people's liberties and property? Well, sexual orientation would come under liberties I would imagine as liberties 'identify the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.' (paraphrased, Courtesy of Wikipedia).Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Hell, the first line of the wiki article is 'Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force.' Isn't it unneccesary to regulate how people of one sexual preference act when you treat another differently? Especially as it isn't exactly hurting anyone.
Everybody? Last I checked, that literally included everyone. Including me. But there are others who would disagree with you Sasquatch. Within the Catholic branch of Christianity alone there are several beliefs held by different people. I'm personally of the belief that acts of homosexuality are what the Christian God warns against (just after reading the bible a few times to get my head in order). It's not homosexuals, but those who give in to lust, and that's in the same area as pre-marital sex. Be it heterosexual hanky panky or homosexual hanky panky.It also conveys the Christian message, that through, Biblically, homosexuality is wrong, everyone can be "saved" from their sin through faith. Everybody already knows that Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. It's no big deal at all that a Christian hold the same beliefs that are congruent with Christianity and the Bible.
Others believe that homosexuality is alright, including the acts, and the specific bible verses in question were merely against anal rape, same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, men sexually abusing boys, heterosexuals violating their fundamental nature by engaging in same same-sex acts during orgies and men engaging in bestiality by attempting to have sex with another species, some angels. (The Roman Catholic Church and homosexuality: Introduction)
I do also feel after reading this article, that a lot of the problem is that some mistakenly believe that a same-sex couple isn't capable of loving eachother and is only capable of lust. Which I greatly believe to be false based on some homosexual people I know. Yes, some of them might be sex crazed lust mongers, but you get just as many straight people like that too.
Here's a direct quote from the Catholic Catechism:
The Church recognises that homosexuality ISN'T a choice, just as being heterosexual isn't. They may see homosexuality as a cross some must bare, but they also call for the avoidance of all unjust discrimination.2358: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
How are they 'special rights' when other demographics have those rights by default? It's not allowing the liberties of some people, and I see it as tarnishing the whole 'freedom' connotation the US usually pulses with to countries such as mine.Phantom's comment was that he "fears for the future ... for the country in general" if McCain and Palin end up in the White House. Worst case scenario, no more special rights are handed out. How is that in any way a "threat", or something to "fear"?
Her church (who she is a representative of) sees them as something that must be converted or changed into people like them. Don't get me started on some of the historical clashings (quite often involving unmoving Christians) that started as a result of one belief system clashing with another.Really? Where does she say that homosexuals are any "less" than heterosexuals? Where is it that she says homosexuals are sub-human, or not worthy of the respect or livelihood that heterosexuals have?
Violent or not, it breeds negative feelings, and it can get pretty personal.
So you wouldn't see religious beliefs as a person's personal beliefs? There aren't many things more personal than religion influenced core beliefs.I mean, really, in an article about HER CHURCH, where do you find any of Palin's personal beliefs?Or they could be full-blown homosexual (no pun intended) and end up heterosexual.
Absolutely. I was reading an article the other day (which I can't seem to find) and it suggested through research that 30% of a large sample seemed to be of more or less 'fixed' sexual orientation while the other 70% were deemed more or less bisexual though most often sticking to either 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'. I personally believed that most people's orientation was more or less fixed, but some people wouldn't admit it to themselves and others were confused. It wouldn't surprise me with how much of a social stigma homosexuality is in some places. Like how 'gay' is a common insult now despite not everyone meaning it that way.Do some people still believe that nobody "changes" their sexual preference?
Some do, that's barely disputable. But just because some can, does that mean all can? Also bare in mind, that some people seem to find it's fashionable these days and seem to go from straight to gay and back quicker than I can get up and have a nice strong drink and then walk to the dunny and take a piss.Despite ... well, despite people changing their sexual preference?
Not as loose as you might think. Even among single denominations, there are often several groups with their own interpretations/opinions. It doesn't help when you're generalising Christianity and it has over 20 denominations with an estimated 1.5 billion - 2.1 billion adherents around the world. My denomination is officially against discrimination no questions asked, yet there will always be those who look down on homosexuals because they are homosexual.How "loose" are you implying, when you believe somebody that goes against the beliefs of a religion can supposedly follow the beliefs of said religion without a problem?
And it doesn't mean they would neccesarily be acting anywhere outside of their religion. Christianity establishes the fact that humans aren't perfect and are capable of sin. The main thing is that we can genuinely feel sorry for the evils we commit and also how we should act towards our fellow man. Jesus himself said in the bible that however you treat a fellow man is how you treat God. I'll go further and say this: If you discriminate against someone, you are discriminating against God.Sure, a "Christian" could also be a murderer, a thief, or anything else, but that doesn't mean that they would be acting anywhere within the bounds of their religion.
No, most don't do it as they're either taught they should look out for their fellow man, or they fear the law. And many will beat up on homosexuals, especially verbally regardless of their stated belief. But either way, they're bullying the homosexual, and a true Christian should have a problem with that I'd like to think.That's why most Christians -- despite what some people would tell you -- don't beat up homosexuals.
There's a huge difference between tolerance and intolerance too. Is it still being tolerant if you're placing restrictions on a person's rights when you're not doing that same thing to another demographics?There's a difference in tolerance and encouragement.
They're preaching that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals should be encouraged to convert to heterosexuality. And the way they word it would be quite insulting to some homosexuals I would imagine. How do you think that church would feel if the local decently sized homosexual community started trying to convert them into homosexuals? And the bible says nothing that can be directly used to show homosexuality is evil. It's all in the interpretations of the little snippets you see every here and there.The only "negative" thing the church has said about homosexuals is that they can become Christian and heterosexual. Within the Bible, that's all they can do -- they're not going to denounce the Bible for teh sake of PR and say there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Yeah. Are you actually serious with that question? I mean some people could be bad representatives, but they're still representatives.So every member of an organization is a representative of that organization?
I'd have no clue honestly. We don't have Republicans here that I know of as our two largest parties are the Liberals and Labour, and both seem fairly Liberal. Do Republicans attempt to establish a code or rule system that everyone is expected to pick up or are they individuals believing in allowing a person to hold their own thoughts?If I'm a member of the Republican Party (which I'm not), would EVERY Republican hold the same beliefs as I do?
What about those two people? I'll admit personally that Obama appeals to me just as poorly as McCain does, but I haven't read any article about their churches advocating such measures. I do recall hearing that Obama was Muslim, but it shouldn't matter regardless as contrary to popular belief, Islam does tend to be one of the better religions in terms of what it allowed before people of other denominations. An example would be how Islam recognised the rights of women (albeit widows) to own land before any other society at that time would. After I heard he was Muslim, I then heard a conflicting report that he belonged to the United Church of Christ, which I also hear is pretty lax in terms of allowing a person to believe what they wish in terms of their faith.If your argument is that a member of the church is a representative, and that every church member holds the exact same beliefs as every other member -- and the leadership -- of said church ... Where is your outrage over Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright?
Wright, I haven't heard all that much about thus far, but didn't he retire from being a pastor, and wasn't he denounced by Obama for the unpatriotic comments he made? That was the impression I got from the World News.
So what? If you cover every groups interests to some degree or at least seem to express some interest in them, it's a lot better than being silent when your church has issues with one or two.Really? The "gay vote" is something Democrats are fighting hard for?
Not every Christian is anti-homosexual you know. Some can get pretty fired up when seeing someone treated unjustly over something like sexual orientation. Why pretend when you can seriously make an effort to give a damn? It wouldn't lose her any votes to try and look out for the intersts of some of the people she might end up being in some semblance of control over.She's conservative and Christian. Most anybody can look at those two facts and tell you that she won't get the "gay vote". There's no point in her trying to pretend that she's something she's not to get an extra couple thousand votes in areas that are probably already decidedly Democrat anyway.
My problem is that you are using the one bill to describe her full stances on homosexuality. A bill she flipflopped on. Being constitutional or not, it's not properly supporting any member of the homosexual community if you're gonna be indecisive in the long haul.She found out it was unconstitutional and stopped supporting it. Once again, what is your problem with this. Would you like her to have supported an unconstitutional bill?
What did Jesus do? He focused on Sinners, even associating with prostitutes and tax collectors. And if a person is to follow his example, he/she shouldn't look down on others even if he/she does feel they are sinning. Jesus never seemed to aggressively change a person's beliefs. He gave them the decision with no threats, ill will nor with any words indicating he thought himself superior in his way of doing things. If a church has a specific belief that does show that another person may be considered inferior in any way due to a choice in lifestyle, it's the church's view, not the view of Christianity as a whole.If that's the case, Christianity "emits vibes against homosexuals". In the same sense, they "emit vibes against" every sinner -- "What you do is wrong, but if you want to be "Saved", become a Christian and give up your sinful behavior". This isn't something special to Palin's church, this is Christianity. So once again, it's not Palin's beliefs or Palin's church that's the problem, it's Palin's Christianity.
No, I said there's a 'conflict of interest' if her church displays a negative stance on homosexuality.Finally, an admittal that your problem is her Christianity.
Now, now, you make it sound like a powerless position. If I recall correctly, the President has the power to sign into law or veto any bills passed by congress. This could directly affect those seeking the same rights for homosexuals as the president could veto any bills supporting that end result. yeah, the President's magic fairy wand is a useless twig. But his (or her) signature is a damn powerful tool indeed.And even the President doesn't have the power to wave his (or her) magic wand and "strip rights" away from anybody.
Oh really, I wasn't aware of this fact. I mean I know the individual states have different laws, but I also thought the President had quite a lot of power if he/she wanted something, despite the set of checks and balances in place to stop one trying to seize ultimate power. So the president could have absolutely no bearing on any issues affecting homosexual individuals? Or is it just the local legislation type issues the the President has no control over?It's a state decision -- as shown by each STATE deciding. The views of somebody in a federal position hold no bearing on state decisions.
Some people believe that 'some' people can be converted. Others believe that 'most' people can be. But if either of these are the case, what of those who can't or just plain don't want to change from homosexual to heterosexual? Shouldn't they have the right to live as they want to with the same benefits others in a heterosexual relationship get?Why won't I comment on the idea that if somebody realizes that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, they're unfit to lead the country? I didn't comment, basically, to keep the peace. It happens, Palin's church knows it happens and encourages it, Palin might hold the same belief, and if she does, it's nothing short of asinine to think that she'd be unfit to lead a country because she recognizes a fact that some people don't like.
True as far as you believe. It's something you still get a lot of professionals split on. And her church does look down on heterosexuals which I see as being quite obvious through their wording.Once again, tell me where she's said anything about homosexuals. The only thing that's been produced so far is from her church of six years, which believes that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, which is true.
Unconstitutional or not, either way she flipflopped on the one piece of evidence you've displayed that she might be supportative of homosexual rights.You read it wrong. The article stated that she found that the bill would be unconstitutional and stopped supporting it.
Because she hasn't stated anything to suggest otherwise.And why do you think Palin would be any different?
Umm, she flipflopped on benefits for homosexuals. If the homosexuals in question got the benefits than good for them, just as it would be good for blacks to be treated fairly. I do hope people aren't still giving them shit there, because that's just as much if not moreso petty than discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.Umm, she supported benefits for homosexuals. If blacks couldn't get spousal benefits and they didn't make up that much of the state payroll and she fought to give them their benefits, would you be whining that it's not important because there weren't many of them?
And Palin's association with the aforementioned church. Just to be picky of course. And why would you think gender would make any difference to his political preference? He hasn't exactly been actively targetting females or doing anything else to give you a reason to think such a thing. Or has he?Actually, it's concerning Palin's church, if you want to get picky about it. It was a simple question, on whether gender made any difference to his political preference.
No I meant discriminatory in terms of not allowing homosexuals to be left alone to do as they will. As for the KKK, I thought they were considering themself Christian? They were just one of those smaller sects most religions get who're like the bad eggs of the family. I know they're anti-catholic, anti-black, anti-homosexual and anti-several other groups, but I have heard them quoting from bibles and stuff.If you mean "discriminatory", as in, "refusing to give special rights to", then yes, some are. I you consider the KKK a "Christian group", you're sorely mistaken.
I couldn't find many statistics on abortions that seemed to agree with one another too closely, but I did notice that there seems to be a trend of being twice as many in 1995 than halfway through this decade. The world average agrees with you however at 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies. Bearing in mind this statistic would be bolstered by some countries where abortions are performed much more commonly, I really couldn't say I knew what percentage of abortions in the USA are performed for those reasons. Feel free to enlighten me.Do you know any numbers on how many -- what percentage -- of abortions are performed for any of those reasons? I know that the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience. "It was a mistake" and "I'm just not ready" are by far the most common excuses, not "carrying to full-term would be harmful to my health". There's a difference between abortion as a therapeutic procedure and abortion as an elective procedure.
Considering that most of the experts (fetal development researchers) believe that a fetus is unlikely to feel any pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy, I'd say it isn't as brutal as you would suggest. Keeping in mind it becomes illegal after a certain period of development (a deal shorter than seven months), the fetus wouldn't be in any way to feel pain.With an abortion, the baby is either starved, cut into pieces and sucked out, cut into pieces and scraped out, torn out piece-by-piece, injected with poison, or "born" feet-first until only his or her head remains inside the mother, then stabbed in the skull and has his or her brain sucked out.
How is that not brutal?
I'm not really a fan of abortions myself, BUT I know the proper procedures (with the exception of illegal abortions) are believed to be pain free for the fetus (though usually not the mother).
But both of your examples are very small minorites, both smaller than the gay community. And you've said before to some extent that they don't matter politically, so why should these smaller groups?There are also women who sleep around, and end up getting a paycheck from the father of the child. There are some advocates -- I believe it's even been mentioned here -- of "male abortion", basically, the father cutting all ties to the baby. If the mother can decide to murder the child or to keep the baby and suck money from the father every week, the father should be able to decide if he wants the child or if he wants nothing to do with it, including a paycheck.
- she had hired a private lawyer in an ethics investigation against her in Alaska, where she is governor. (After getting elected in 2006 on an ethics reform platform, I hope the irony there isn't lost.)Like all what? The only "scandal" mentioned is an investigation about some people she had fired.
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | International | Palin scandal scalds Republicans
The Associated Press: Investigation dogs Alaska governor
- Sarah Palin endorsed a contingency lawsuit against one of the State of Alaska's pension consultants after the state legislature refused to bankroll the legal effort:
The state filed a $1.8 billion malpractice lawsuit Thursday against a consulting firm it claims is a reason Alaska's public employee pension system is in crisis.
JustOneMinute: A Not-Yet-Reported Palin "Scandal"
- And this page sums up the rest.
Open Left:: Palin Scandal Compendium
Nope. Just saying that if she has any difficulties controlling her family, how could she be expected to handle a country as big as the USA if it came to it? I'm smart and I also consider the smaller things that could possibly have an impact later. Would you rather have someone with a flaw or someone without a flaw, even if it's just something tiny?Her daughter being pregnant is a "scandal"?
Are you honestly implying that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is Sarah Palin's fault? Come on, I know you're smarter than that.
It's negative that she sold out her faction, especially if the US might one day be her faction. I imagine those in power can get access to a lot of intelligence...It's "negative" that she called out corruption in her own party?
It's about Palin's churches views. And why would she be a member if she didn't share their views? Even if she's faking it for some reason, chances are she'd want to make herself look genuine by sticking with their message. Or are those branches of Christianity like fashion accessories there?The article has no quotes from Palin, no questions of Palin, no statements made by Palin or anybody representing Palin. The article isn't about Palin, it's about Palin's church.
Oh I'm sure some have worse views concerning homosexuality. But on the same token, many have better views. You're generalising Christianity too much for my liking, especially as some denominations have made it known they're not ready to reform unless the views they hold differently are reconciled in some way. And even there, you'll find some who'll disagree and merge with a few others such as the Uniting Church here.No more than any other church has "decidely anti-homosexual views".
That's not the point. The point is that she might be less inclined to do things in the best interests of the homosexual community than some other candidate.Because she's tried to take rights away from homosexuals before? NO, she hasn't.
I consider myself Christian. I just don't consider some Christians to be acting very Christian. Especially those who won't stand up for others, even with it being as overbearingly self-righteous as it might make some look.It's an issue that is being blown out of proportion by people who take personal offense to anything Christian or conservative.
By definition it's a controversy, even if it's just people like us turning it into one. The views of her church which she is a representative of can be seen as controversial as some would harshly disagree with them.That's not a controversy, it's an exaggeration.
Based on one point. And like I mentioned earlier, one she flipflopped on. Constitutional or not, it's the only example of anything I've seen pro-homosexual that she has supported. And she didn't stick with it. That's factual information.Except that my bias is towards common sense and factual information. The fact is that she supported benefits for homosexual partners of public employees. Common sense would dictate that, since she supported that, she wouldn't jump into office and start forming a task force to crusade around the country giving homosexuals the chance to repent and become Christian and heterosexual or be burned at the stake.
And we mightn't, but the store would get more business from the anchovy lovers of the world, wouldn't it? And so long as it makes flavours for the rest of us, it'd likely only be those prejudiced against Anchovy Pizza who would stop doing business with the store.It doesn't mean that Republicans should focus on what a small group wants so they can get the vote of that small group, and ignore what the larger groups want so they can get the vote of the larger groups. For the same reason, you don't hear much about "little people" legislation. It's like Pizza Hut introducing an "Anchovy Lovers" pizza. Sure, it'd win over some anchovy fans, but most of the rest of us wouldn't give a damn.
So are you dismissing the existence of conservative homosexuals then? Because even if they are a minority, they do exist. And one of the ones I know is one of the most conflicted people I've ever met, solely through trying to please the expectations of society while remaining himself.Homosexuals aren't the type to be conservative. Even if the Republicans did try to kowtow to homosexual special interests, chances are that the vast majority of them would support Democrats on other issues anyway.
It's still a decent leap. I mean I'm Christian and me and Phantom are on friendly terms via MSN. Some of the others that hang around on MSN I'd also imagine are Christian. If anything I'd say he has a problem with those who are against him having the same rights as someone else. And can you blame him?The only displayed reason, other than abortion, for his contempt of Sarah Palin is her possible stances that fall in line with Christianity. It's no great leap.
Good for you. It's good that someone's letting you know that minorities shouldn't be treated unfairly. You might learn something.Actually, he has "called me out on that" in the past.
Bookmarks