|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 13:34:24 GMT -5
Ok, I understand where you're coming from. I disagree though. People that do stupid things...are stupid, etc....etc....etc. If you want to recognize that a person does stupid things but don't want to label them accordingly, then don't. However, saying somebody else should not is where your argument has not been influential.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 13:40:13 GMT -5
Part of the problem is I made a typo above. It should read "you are a weirdo.
My point is that "labels" like this are unnecessary and unChristlike.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 13:53:23 GMT -5
Even if what you say is true, not everyone is a Christian. I go back to the fact that you use labels as well, when it suits you. So according to you, Christians can use labels for certain people based on a certain criteria.
When you use the term fundi-con it is used as an insult.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 14:06:43 GMT -5
We are all born with a sinful heart due to Adam's transgression and it manifests itself differently in every individual. In this scope, homosexuality is no different then any other manifestation of sin.
So, in this sense, we are all born with this sinful heart, not that we are born being homosexual or born being a murderer or born being a thief, etc.
What we are born with is not so strong that there is not a way of escape...the escape occuring through the power of the Lord...doing it on our own will continue to result in failure.
The thing is...I think we all murder, lust and steal, etc. in our hearts all the time....there are just some people that do outwardly what we all do inwardly. Jesus introduced this truth.
God judges by what is in our heart, not what shows outwardly...which means all those people in prison are not somehow worse off than we are...only in the immediate sense and by man's punishment does it appear so.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 14:25:52 GMT -5
...... My point is that "labels" like this are unnecessary and unChristlike. Matt 23:17 contradicts both statements.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 14:35:43 GMT -5
...... My point is that "labels" like this are unnecessary and unChristlike. Matt 23:17 contradicts both statements. A text without a context is a pretext to a prooftext.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 14:36:27 GMT -5
but, if you accept the notion that people are born gay (and I do), then, of my example groups, only the gays are compelled to engage in high-risk activities, where skydivers can stop, the obese diet and smokers quit. Do you really believe a Just God would cause (allow) some to be born a homosexual? Don't you realize it is a 'learned' life style, that one can either accept or reject! Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 14:55:33 GMT -5
No, it's a challenge to back up an unsubstantiated statement, lawman.
Put up or shut up, in other words.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 5, 2007 15:05:41 GMT -5
but, if you accept the notion that people are born gay (and I do), then, of my example groups, only the gays are compelled to engage in high-risk activities, where skydivers can stop, the obese diet and smokers quit. Do you really believe a Just God would cause (allow) some to be born a homosexual? Don't you realize it is a 'learned' life style, that one can either accept or reject! 1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Don't forget, your Bible also says that "All things are possible with God". So, yes, it is possible that people are born gay. Research is leaning towards this possibility.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 15:23:03 GMT -5
No, it's a challenge to back up an unsubstantiated statement, lawman. Put up or shut up, in other words. I won't 'shut up'...so now what? Something tragic? Hey, how about you find personal insult in everything I say, huh? I was trying, using very simple terms, to explain what I meant by "prove it." The fact that you are offended by this speaks volumes.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 5, 2007 15:35:42 GMT -5
Don't forget, your Bible also says that "All things are possible with God". So, yes, it is possible that people are born gay. Research is leaning towards this possibility. It appears they are born STUPID? If the shoe fits....
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 16:47:21 GMT -5
Do you really believe a Just God would cause (allow) some to be born a homosexual? Don't you realize it is a 'learned' life style, that one can either accept or reject! 1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Don't forget, your Bible also says that "All things are possible with God". So, yes, it is possible that people are born gay. Research is leaning towards this possibility. Luke 18:27 The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. KJV Mark 10:27 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible . KJV The context of what is possible with God is in relation to what is impossible for man and in this case, saving oneself from the death of sin..."Who shall be saved." So, I woudn't take these words out of context to suggest that God would do anything outside of his nature.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 17:08:22 GMT -5
... and you can demonstrate factually that people being born homosexual is outside of the nature of God.
OK, do it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 17:18:20 GMT -5
I didn't say that. I said man was not created with the nature of sin. Only after Adam's transgression did sin pass on to mankind. Homosexuality along with a lot of other behaviours are a manifestation of the sin nature. I don't think people are born with specific dispositions to any particular sin...we all have problems with all of them, some of them more so than others particular to the individual.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 5, 2007 17:19:21 GMT -5
I think the most convicing argument I've heard against the theory that people decide to be gay is the one raised (probably not originally but it's where I first heard it) by our very own Matt Murphy.
He asked one very simple question: "At what time in your life did you decide to become straight?"
After all, if it really is a choice- to become heterosexual or to become homosexual- then at some point we all must have made our individual decisions, right?
My problem is....I never remember doing so.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 17:22:30 GMT -5
phineas, you've just shared your opinion again. I need some proof of your stance.
As it is, womi's position is the most rational.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 17:25:28 GMT -5
You asked me, ... "and you can demonstrate factually that people being born homosexual is outside of the nature of God."
My response was that I didn't say that, ie. I didn't imply that by my previous post. So, just omit all the rest of my comments after that then.
My response was to Kat in that there was context to the quote she gave and that it wasn't open ended in scope.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 17:28:53 GMT -5
"I woudn't take these words out of context to suggest that God would do anything outside of his nature"
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 17:29:44 GMT -5
I think the most convicing argument I've heard against the theory that people decide to be gay is the one raised (probably not originally but it's where I first heard it) by our very own Matt Murphy. He asked one very simple question: "At what time in your life did you decide to become straight?" After all, if it really is a choice- to become heterosexual or to become homosexual- then at some point we all must have made our individual decisions, right? My problem is....I never remember doing so. Problem with that is that there are kids that are abused by older kids or adults of the same sex..that muddies up the waters when you start getting into emotions and decisions of children.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 17:30:14 GMT -5
"I woudn't take these words out of context to suggest that God would do anything outside of his nature" see post #111
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Feb 5, 2007 17:36:11 GMT -5
Ok, I'll bite.
Pizza, why do you cling to this subject like a rabid pit bull on a kitten?
I'm very curious here. Most people cling to a subject because they have personal experience or belief. You claim to be straight but won't stop on the subject of Gay rights. Now I'm all for equality, and I'll be honest I have some gay friends. One you wouldn't have a clue he is...
But, I want to know why you are so hung up on this. Honestly.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 17:36:44 GMT -5
I think the most convicing argument I've heard against the theory that people decide to be gay is the one raised (probably not originally but it's where I first heard it) by our very own Matt Murphy. He asked one very simple question: "At what time in your life did you decide to become straight?" After all, if it really is a choice- to become heterosexual or to become homosexual- then at some point we all must have made our individual decisions, right? My problem is....I never remember doing so. Problem with that is that there are kids that are abused by older kids or adults of the same sex..that muddies up the waters when you start getting into emotions and decisions of children. Percentage of gay people for whom this applies?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 17:39:03 GMT -5
I would say a lot and more than what's admitted. The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender." 70 www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 5, 2007 18:43:28 GMT -5
phinehas wrote, "The thing is...I think we all murder, lust and steal, etc. in our hearts all the time....there are just some people that do outwardly what we all do inwardly. Jesus introduced this truth." Really? I get the lusting part. But do you really think most people murder and steal in their hearts?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 18:54:29 GMT -5
phinehas wrote, "The thing is...I think we all murder, lust and steal, etc. in our hearts all the time....there are just some people that do outwardly what we all do inwardly. Jesus introduced this truth." Really? I get the lusting part. But do you really think most people murder and steal in their hearts? There have been at least four or five times that I can remember wishing somebody was dead by my hands, especially as a kid. It was justified until the anger went away and you realize that death would not have been an appropriate punishment. Stealing? That was a bad choice of words..I meant wanting something that wasn't yours, so...closer to envy.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 5, 2007 20:22:06 GMT -5
Maccus- But then you are presupposing that ALL Libertarians believe in objective reality. I made no such assumption. Objective reality is an important precept of libertarian ideology. Based on that I did say, "No libertarian that believes in objective truth would espouse the relativism that you suppose, but it is rather easy to find libertine fascists that identify themselves as Libertarian." I use the capitalization purposefully to distinguish libertarians who subscribe to libertarian ideals from Libertarian Party members newly recruited from head shops and Workers Party anti-war protests. Many that have now embraced the label Libertarian do still have much to learn about advancing the cause of Liberty. As for not criminalizing 'mistakes' made by consenting adults. I'd ask you to give an example or two before I offer a rebuttal. The aforementioned (by you) decriminalization of drugs and the decriminalization of prostitution. (refereed to by lawman) I will go out on a narrow limb and assume that you might be referring to homosexual conduct as an example of "distasteful or destructive behaviors". If that be the case, I agree. Yep, that one also. We agree. Where I differ, though, is in your assertion that this behavior doesn't affect people outside those directly involved. I hate to be non-PC (actually, no, I don't) but homosexuals have a higher rate of specific STDs that are more difficult and expensive to treat than heterosexuals do. Are you arguing that they have the right to gov't provided care? As long as the patients pay their own way then the effects of their acts are still limited. If the gays have insurance, said insurance company will have to pay out HUGE bucks should one or both of them come down with AIDS. While an insurance company can perhaps hold down premiums by spreading the risk among both low- and high-risk clients, enough people who engage in high risk behaviors WILL, inevitably, cause rates to increase for everyone. Same for smokers, the obese, skydivers, etc. but, if you accept the notion that people are born gay (and I do), then, of my example groups, only the gays are compelled to engage in high-risk activities, where skydivers can stop, the obese diet and smokers quit. Why would the insurance company assume the risk? All of the high risk activities you list are taken into account by insurance companies -except homosexuality would likely lead to a discrimination lawsuit- when determining if the applicant will be accepted and the rate that applicant might pay. Now I will concede your very valid point about my assumption that I might have an inkling as to how a Libertarian might feel about moral certainty versus moral relativism. Guilty as charged. However, in my defense, I'd venture to say that more than a few coverts to Libertarianism do so not because they necessarily agree with the Libertarian position on the issues but more out of frustration/disdain for the two major partys. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a high percentage of 'converts' probably do not know, nor would they care if they did know, the official Libertarian position on gambling, prostitution, drugs, isolationism, etc. They only know that being a Libertarian absolves you of the blame for the damage done by Demopublicans and Republicrats. Hence my distinguishing between libertarians and Libertarians.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 6, 2007 17:38:31 GMT -5
This more or less goes back to the misperceptions that many, if not most, people have about Libertarianism.
I liken it to the youthful infatuation that many college students have with socialism. Socialism taps into their naiveity and lack of real world experience, coupled with the indoctrination that regularly occurs on college campuses that almost romanticizes socialist/communist states. Presented with only one side, I can see the appeal to them and, presented with a flawed interpretation of what Libertarianism is really about, I can see the appeal to the same crowd (and even a bit of overlap).
Frankly, there is much I admire from my research into Libertarianism. Not enough to compel me to abandon Conservatism- yet- but enough to let me know that, if republicans don't return to their ideological roots and soon, I have a political home elsewhere.
I'll have to chew on this one a bit.
I did see an article in today's USA Today's Life section that addressed the possibility that marijuana might not be as harmless as is generally believed, even if they stopped short of calling it a 'gateway drug'.
Ack! Not a chance!
I would still say though that the greater chance of certain risk factors in homosexuals will inevitably lead to higher premiums for all insured at some point.
A private insurer, without any government intervention, should be within its rights to refuse to insure people with what they consider excessive risk factors; with a government-mandated system, even if the actual coverage was provided by private companies, premiums would be artifically higher than they would otehrwise be because the insurers would HAVE to cover everybody. Maybe we'd all pay basically the same individual premiums but I'd bet that taxes would go up on the achievers ("anyone with a job") to pay for it.
And you're spot on about the possibility of discrimination lawsuits. I'd venture to bet though that insurers would simply either refuse to cover people with excessive risk factors or charge incredibly high premiums to do so and ascribe the conditional coverage or rejection to "other reasons" that aren't obviously and easily linked to homosexuality.
Sort of like charging very high premiums to someone with smoking-related emphysema but not mentioning the smoking factor in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 6, 2007 21:38:16 GMT -5
Frankly, there is much I admire from my research into Libertarianism. Not enough to compel me to abandon Conservatism- yet- but enough to let me know that, if republicans don't return to their ideological roots and soon, I have a political home elsewhere. Another overlap that occurs is that most conservatives are/should be interested in conserving the liberal (classical) reforms of the past. Republicans can never, as you say return to ideological roots. They are a political coalition that attempts to resolve issues between ideologues to the degree that we can defeat the Dems. The poor Libertarian Party can not even decide whether it can build a coalition or must remain perfectly true to principle. Most that have identified themselves to me as Libertarians of late cause me to think that they attempt to coalesce unresolvable ideologues. That's good to hear. A private insurer, without any government intervention, should be within its rights to refuse to insure people with what they consider excessive risk factors; Agreed. I'd venture to bet though that insurers would simply either refuse to cover people with excessive risk factors or charge incredibly high premiums to do so and ascribe the conditional coverage or rejection to "other reasons" that aren't obviously and easily linked to homosexuality. Sort of like charging very high premiums to someone with smoking-related emphysema but not mentioning the smoking factor in doing so. And so the elevated risk would be limited to those that engage in the risky behaviors. Unfortunately, I think neither of us believes the insurers code would remain unbroken for very long. Edit: Most that have unidentified themselves to me as Libertarians of late cause me to think that they attempt to coalesce unresolvable ideologues. That wasn't right I fixed it in the text that it occured.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 6, 2007 22:49:43 GMT -5
Maccus, you bring up a really great point and one that I have debated within myself to no resolution.
As you correctly pointed out, both of our major political parties are basically coalitions of various special interest groups who believe that they can get their agenda pushed best by whichever party best representes their particular narrow interests.
I think Democrats suffer- and I use that erm deliberately- from this to a somewhat greater degree than do Republicans, but that's not really germaine to this particular discussion.
My internal debate centers around adherence to principal versus pragmatism, to wit:
Is it justified (in whatever sense of the word you choose) to support a candidate with which you have several areas of disagreement with their position on various issues if that candidate has the best chance to defeat the opposition, which you view to be potentially disastrous to your way of life?
Here's my particular quandary:
I am a Conservative first and a Republican second. Of all announced or potentially announcing Republican candidates for President, I would support Newt Gingrich. I believe him to be a visionary statesman, which is a trait sorely lacking in modern US politics.
However, I'm realist enough to know that he stands very little chance of getting the nomination and still less chance of beating the presumptive Democrat nominee, The Hildebeast.
I do think that John McCain could beat Clinton, but I have MANY reservations about Sen. McCain, most notably his stance on illegal immigration, his blatantly unconsitutional McCain-Feingold Act and others.
Would it be right to stick to my principals, even if the result was to have Hitlery elected President, or is it right to give into pramatic reason and vote Republican just to keep her out of the White House?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 7, 2007 17:46:09 GMT -5
I think Democrats suffer- and I use that erm deliberately- from this to a somewhat greater degree than do Republicans, but that's not really germaine to this particular discussion. It may have nothing to do with guests that the host are likely never to invite, but it is germane to the discussion that has arisen between us. The reason that Democrats do suffer this to a greater degree is that they like recent Republicans are a victim of their past success. Both have made promises to a wide range of ideologues that they can not keep. The difference being that the Democrats were in power still longer than the Republicans. My internal debate centers around adherence to principal versus pragmatism, to wit: Is it justified (in whatever sense of the word you choose) to support a candidate with which you have several areas of disagreement with their position on various issues if that candidate has the best chance to defeat the opposition, which you view to be potentially disastrous to your way of life? An honest assessment of what the candidate can do under their constitutional powers helps me to resolve such conflicts. A presidential candidate that has shown executive leadership, that has predispositions toward legislation that I oppose, is a better candidate than my favorite legislator. Here's my particular quandary: I am a Conservative first and a Republican second. Of all announced or potentially announcing Republican candidates for President, I would support Newt Gingrich. I believe him to be a visionary statesman, which is a trait sorely lacking in modern US politics. However, I'm realist enough to know that he stands very little chance of getting the nomination and still less chance of beating the presumptive Democrat nominee, The Hildebeast. I like Gingrich because of the clear and limited way that he realizes that policy must be introduced. He was a great legislator and I think he could translate some of that experience into being a good exec. I think the biggest problem of his getting the nomination is that he will not run if current candidates will only adopt his reforms. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She is self destructive. The only thing we can count on her doing is completely destroying Obama and ensuring the harried nomination of Edwards. I do think that John McCain could beat Clinton, but I have MANY reservations about Sen. McCain, most notably his stance on illegal immigration, his blatantly unconsitutional McCain-Feingold Act and others. McCain is unelectable. The only thing that causes most Republicans to support him is the same reason they support Lieberman. I think Lieberman is a more electable Republican candidate than McCain. -yes, I realize that he is not GOP- Would it be right to stick to my principals, even if the result was to have Hitlery elected President, or is it right to give into pramatic reason and vote Republican just to keep her out of the White House? If you can resolve your issues with a candidate then vote with the most electable. If not, then invest your vote in elections to come. Vote on principle that you can be counted by those that create the coalitions.
|
|