Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[BigBadWlf]

Why is that?

I've already served as a member on a court martial; the military equivalant of jury duty. I helped punish someone for having child pornography.

Because you just said you don’t care about truth or evidence…just your opinion

 

[Dogbean]

Big Bad Wolf! Nice to see you! I've missed you man!

 

[Dogbean]

Did you ignore the evidence presented in the case, and just go with your opinion? Or are you inconsistent int his respect?

I did not. Here are the facts. The military says child porn is a crime. This staff sergeant had child porn. Therefore, he broke the law and should be punished. It's that simple.

On what grounds do you base your opinions then?

On my values, my beliefs, and what I think is best for America and traditional family values. Obviously, the Bible as well, but I don't expect atheists to respect that.

 

[dies-l]

On my values, my beliefs, and what I think is best for America and traditional family values. Obviously, the Bible as well, but I don't expect atheists to respect that.

So you base your opinions on your values and beliefs? Isn't that like saying that you base your opinions on your opinions? And, on what do you base your belief that the Bible is credible? Did you just pick a random book to base your life on? I ask you this in hopes that you simply misspoke when you said that you do not care about evidence, as I would certainly hope that your values, beliefs, and faith in the Bible are based on something tangible. Otherwise, you would essentially be basing your entire outlook on life on a random book that is not more or less credible than any other random book. I would hope that you have considered at least some evidence pertaining to whether or not the Bible is a credible foundation for one's life.

 

[Dogbean]

So you base your opinions on your values and beliefs? Isn't that like saying that you base your opinions on your opinions? And, on what do you base your belief that the Bible is credible? Did you just pick a random book to base your life on? I ask you this in hopes that you simply misspoke when you said that you do not care about evidence, as I would certainly hope that your values, beliefs, and faith in the Bible are based on something tangible. Otherwise, you would essentially be basing your entire outlook on life on a random book that is not more or less credible than any other random book. I would hope that you have considered at least some evidence pertaining to whether or not the Bible is a credible foundation for one's life.

From Dictionary.com

o·pin·ion

/əˈpɪn

yən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuh

n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3.the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

Nowhere in the definitions of "opinion" does it say that opinions have to be based on facts. They are personal attitudes. So don't go telling me what I can base my opinions on. If you don't like them, that is YOUR opinion, and you have the right to it.

 

[KCKID]

From Dictionary.com

Nowhere in the definitions of "opinion" does it say that opinions have to be based on facts. They are personal attitudes. So don't go telling me what I can base my opinions on. If you don't like them, that is YOUR opinion, and you have the right to it.

The laws of the land are based on the opinions of supposed 'learned' men who make the laws and impliment them. Why then do these opinions over-ride the opinions of such as the staff sergeant you mention who evidently has the opinion that it's his business and no one elses to be in possesssion of child porn? It's your opinion that the Bible is the word of God. Some hold an opinion that would disagree with this. Their opinion is that 'men' wrote the Bible and that God had little do do with it. It's your opinion that the laws of the land or the military are to be upheld. Some have an opinion that would beg to differ in regard to some laws that infringe on their 'freedom of choice' ...such as their right to being in possession of child porn.

When does an opinion become the 'right' opinion?

 

[Dogbean]

The laws of the land are based on the opinions of supposed 'learned' men who make the laws and impliment them. Why then do these opinions over-ride the opinions of such as the staff sergeant you mention who evidently has the opinion that it's his business and no one elses to be in possesssion of child porn? It's your opinion that the Bible is the word of God. Some hold an opinion that would disagree with this. Their opinion is that 'men' wrote the Bible and that God had little do do with it. It's your opinion that the laws of the land or the military are to be upheld. Some have an opinion that would beg to differ in regard to some laws that infringe on their 'freedom of choice' ...such as their right to being in possession of child porn.

When does an opinion become the 'right' opinion?

The military has rules. This guy joined the military knowing those rules, and he chose to violate them. Thank God he got caught and punished. He made the choice. Whether he agrees with the rules or not, his enlistment was an agreement to follow the rules or be punished. He threw away 14 years of service only to be demoted to an E-1 and kicked out after 3 months of hard labor.

 

[KCKID]

The military has rules. This guy joined the military knowing those rules, and he chose to violate them. Thank God he got caught and punished. He made the choice. Whether he agrees with the rules or not, his enlistment was an agreement to follow the rules or be punished. He threw away 14 years of service only to be demoted to an E-1 and kicked out after 3 months of hard labor.

So, one's opinions are useless as long as they disagree with the opinions of those who make and enforce the rules? Gets a bit tricky doesn't it?

By the way, why do you think - just your opinion of course - that homosexuality would upset God so much? And, please don't use the term 'procreation' in your response since the majority of heterosexual sex has nothing to do with procreation.

 

[Dogbean]

So, one's opinions are useless as long as they disagree with the opinions of those who make and enforce the rules? Gets a bit tricky doesn't it?

By the way, why do you think - just your opinion of course - that homosexuality would upset God so much? And, please don't use the term 'procreation' in your response since the majority of heterosexual sex has nothing to do with procreation.

Don't ask a question and then tell somone how to answer it.

Anyway, you won't like my response. And I wasn't going to mention procreation.

God simply said it is detestable. That's good enough for me.

 

[KCKID]

Don't ask a question and then tell somone how to answer it.

Anyway, you won't like my response. And I wasn't going to mention procreation.

God simply said it is detestable. That's good enough for me.

My dilemma is this ...God (or the Bible-writers anyway) mention a whole bunch of abominations and 'no-nos' that Christians flat out ignore. For instance, some poor guy was stoned to death for violating the Sabbath by collecting wood for a fire (Numbers 15:32-36). What? I mean, that's how seriously the Sabbath-command was (is?) to be taken! The majority of Christians these days don't even realize - or care - that the Sabbath-command has now been tossed out. What was it that suddenly made the Sabbath command (and the breaking of it an abomination to God deserving of the death penalty) a non-event while the questionable 'man lying with man' text is evidently still alive and well and to be enforced against homosexuals?

If we're basing our opinions on God's opinion or the Bible writers' opinions then it's MY opinion that you should be keeping God's Holy Sabbath (7th-day) every week if you're not already. Should you be honoring Sunday (a man-made 'holy' day) in lieu of the Sabbath on which you are not even allowed to collect wood for a fire then you're committing a grave sin punishable by death. See the dilemma?

 

[David Brider]

God simply said (homosexuality) is detestable. That's good enough for me.

Did He? When? Where? And why?

David.

 

[Dogbean]

Did He? When? Where? And why?

David.

David! You are a believer and you are seriously asking this? Here's one verse. I can give you others.
Leviticus 18:22-23 (New International Version)




22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

 

[KCKID]

David! You are a believer and you are seriously asking this? Here's one verse. I can give you others.
Leviticus 18:22-23 (New International Version)

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

I can't believe that you gave the actual scripture that I contested you with in my previous post!

 

[Dogbean]

Different conversation.

 

[KCKID]

Different conversation.

Excuse me ...?

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

No Massachusetts or California legislator who supported same gender marriage (nor any in Oregon, New Jersey, and Connecticut where same gender marriage was proposed but not yet passed) lost a bid for re-election. Nor did any federal Member of Congress who voted against the Federal marriage amendment. Nor has any judge who ruled for human rights been removed. Thus the evidence is clear the 'will of the people' is for marriage equality. Polls indicate this already. The old heterosexist order is over and human progress marches on.

I have no desire to be confrontational here but in fact most scientifically conducted polls indicate the opposite.

The most recent national poll on same-sex marriage in the United States was conducted in July 17, 2008 by Quinnipiac University, with 55 percent opposed, and 36 percent in favor.[1] An ABC News poll found that the majority (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them. However, on the question of a constitutional amendment, more are now opposed than for it. The majority (51%) of Americans say the issue should be left for the states to decide, while 43% would agree with amending the Constitution.[2]


This is from Wikipedia which I realize is not a strong source but I checked the Quinnipiac and ABC, and CBS polls and indeed this information is correct.

Additionally I would add that your theory as presented above ignores the fact that the majority of states have passed a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage, thus it seems your conclusion that homosexual marriage is the will of the people is not accurate.

 

[Dogbean]

I have no desire to be confrontational here but in fact most scientifically conducted polls indicate the opposite.

The most recent national poll on same-sex marriage in the United States was conducted in July 17, 2008 by Quinnipiac University, with 55 percent opposed, and 36 percent in favor.[1] An ABC News poll found that the majority (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them. However, on the question of a constitutional amendment, more are now opposed than for it. The majority (51%) of Americans say the issue should be left for the states to decide, while 43% would agree with amending the Constitution.[2]


This is from Wikipedia which I realize is not a strong source but I checked the Quinnipiac and ABC, and CBS polls and indeed this information is correct.

Additionally I would add that your theory as presented above ignores the fact that the majority of states have passed a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage, thus it seems your conclusion that homosexual marriage is the will of the people is not accurate.

Very well said! The numbers show that gay marriage is NOT the will of the people.

 

[BigBadWlf]

David! You are a believer and you are seriously asking this? Here's one verse. I can give you others.
Leviticus 18:22-23 (New International Version)




22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.


Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20





A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I have no desire to be confrontational here but in fact most scientifically conducted polls indicate the opposite.

The most recent national poll on same-sex marriage in the United States was conducted in July 17, 2008 by Quinnipiac University, with 55 percent opposed, and 36 percent in favor.[1] An ABC News poll found that the majority (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them. However, on the question of a constitutional amendment, more are now opposed than for it. The majority (51%) of Americans say the issue should be left for the states to decide, while 43% would agree with amending the Constitution.[2]


This is from Wikipedia which I realize is not a strong source but I checked the Quinnipiac and ABC, and CBS polls and indeed this information is correct.

Additionally I would add that your theory as presented above ignores the fact that the majority of states have passed a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage, thus it seems your conclusion that homosexual marriage is the will of the people is not accurate.

And in 1956 the majority supported segregation. Did that make segregation morally right? Did the fact that majority supported segregation justify racism?

In 1967 the majority was against interracial marriage. Did that make such laws morally right? Did the fact that majority supported it justify discrimination?

In 1936 the majority was opposed to anti-lynching laws. Did that make lynching ethically good? Did the fact that majority supported it justify the kidnapping and murder of random black men?

In 1942 the majority supported Japanese interment camps. Did that make the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps morally right? Did the fact that the majority supported this justify racism?


Just because bigotry is popular does not mean it is acceptable

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

And in 1956 the majority supported segregation. Did that make segregation morally right? Did the fact that majority supported segregation justify racism?

In 1967 the majority was against interracial marriage. Did that make such laws morally right? Did the fact that majority supported it justify discrimination?

In 1936 the majority was opposed to anti-lynching laws. Did that make lynching ethically good? Did the fact that majority supported it justify the kidnapping and murder of random black men?

In 1942 the majority supported Japanese interment camps. Did that make the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps morally right? Did the fact that the majority supported this justify racism?


Just because bigotry is popular does not mean it is acceptable

I'm not making the argument that the majority is right. I am simply refuting the contention that same-sex marriage is the will of the people that was made by our friend TexasLynn.

It is clear that the majority isn't always right. But, sometimes they are.