| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2005 03:05:16 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. So you have a homosexual couple living next door to you now, unmarried. If that same homosexual couple were living next door to you but they were married, has the fact of their marriage affected your life one iota? |
If you answer this question, you will find the answer to the question you asked.
You have never answered THIS question. How would a prayer at a high-school graduation ceremony affect YOU, or the others?
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
Answer that, and you will also know MY answer. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:07:38 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Admit it. You used to pull the wings off of flies, didn't you? :P |
No, that would be sadism. Reading this thread is borderline masochistic. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:09:17 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Admit it. You used to pull the wings off of flies, didn't you? :P |
No, that would be sadism. Reading this thread is borderline masochistic. |
ROFL!! |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:15:40 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota? |
If the valedictorian were a devout Satanist, then I suspect you'd be outraged at the corresponding prayer. Ditto if she tried to push for laws prohibiting you from worshipping God in your own home. However, if the same person prayed to Satan (or whatever) within the private confines of her own home, then it WOULDN'T affect you one bit. You probably wouldn't even know about it. Same with sexual orientation.
Having answered that, I guess that's your answer. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:37:42 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota? |
If the valedictorian were a devout Satanist, then I suspect you'd be outraged at the corresponding prayer. |
I was responding to Judith, not you, but since you have decided to interject yourself into the debate, I will respond to you, too.
NO, you are wrong. I would NOT be outraged. I would feel that it was their speech, and unless they were attempting to incit riot, or preaching hatred, I wouldn't be upset at all.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ditto if she tried to push for laws prohibiting you from worshipping God in your own home. |
I would be upset, perhaps, but would recognize that she was exercising her legal right to petition the government. As long as she did so peacefully, than I would have the opportunity to oppose her peacefully.
Originally posted by scalvert:
However, if the same person prayed to Satan (or whatever) within the private confines of her own home, then it WOULDN'T affect you one bit. You probably wouldn't even know about it. Same with sexual orientation. |
But this debate is not about SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It's about homosexual MARRIAGE.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Having answered that, I guess that's your answer. |
You haven't answered the question. I wanted YOUR answer to the question. You apparently didn't "see" the question so let me repeat it:
How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
That is the question.
(edited to correct quote blocks)
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 15:58:21. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:42:14 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You haven't answered the question... How would her prayer affect your life one iota? |
Fine. Aside from annoying me, it wouldn't affect my life any more than gay marriage. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:55:06 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You haven't answered the question... How would her prayer affect your life one iota? |
Fine. Aside from annoying me, it wouldn't affect my life any more than gay marriage. |
Then would you be in favor of changing the law to specifically legalize such speech?
I ask because there have been MANY instances where student speakers have been forced to submit drafts of their proposed speeches beforehand, and either forced to promise to NOT include prayer, or prohibited from speaking althogether, if their speeches indicated that a prayer ( or ANY reference to God or Jesus Christ for that matter ) would be offered.
They only want the same rights as "everyone else in the country".
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 15:55:59. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:55:39 PM · #433 |
You know, nobody here is likely to change other peoples minds about whether there is a God, and if there is a God, what faith best serves him.
I really hope we CAN change peoples opinions about the role of government and religion.
As the United States has become even more diversified over time, we could all try to understand that civilized behaviour, being decent to each other and not enforcing our beliefs on others regardless of politics, religion or sexual preferences, could be a goal we could acheive.
We will never acheive unity of one religous faith or belief. I lean toward Christianity and many people who know me would even say I have a devout faith..but I don't think so compared against what I measure true faith.
That being said, people like me will never submit to a government that establishes one religous faith over another. I personally will fight against it and I will personally champion the struggle others face to acheive equality under the laws of our land.
I would find it a shame if we could not acheive, as a nation, the civility, fairness and national brotherhood we could realize because others would rather have me as an adversary in their fight to convert all men to their way of thinking.
Of course, many religions and groups demand that their followers convert or destroy the non-believer. They better watch their backs.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 15:56:36. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:07:24 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. So you have a homosexual couple living next door to you now, unmarried. If that same homosexual couple were living next door to you but they were married, has the fact of their marriage affected your life one iota? |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you answer this question, you will find the answer to the question you asked.
You have never answered THIS question. How would a prayer at a high-school graduation ceremony affect YOU, or the others?
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
Answer that, and you will also know MY answer. |
I have never been asked the question you pose to me here, so saying that I've never answered it is, I suppose, technically accurate but grossly misleading and meaningless. In any event, my answer is that her prayer wouldn't affect my life at all. Now, if you mean to enter into a debate about the establishment of religion, I think you picked a bad example. If you're attempting to draw parallels between establishment of religion principles and the principles of your belief system, perhaps I'm dense today but I don't see them as being analogous.
But beyond that, it would be awfully nice if, just once, you wouldn't be so obtuse and would just give a straight answer to a straight question without all the double-talk, feints and duck-and-cover games.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:22:07 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You haven't answered the question... How would her prayer affect your life one iota? |
Fine. Aside from annoying me, it wouldn't affect my life any more than gay marriage. |
Then would you be in favor of changing the law to specifically legalize such speech?
I ask because there have been MANY instances where student speakers have been forced to submit drafts of their proposed speeches beforehand, and either forced to promise to NOT include prayer, or prohibited from speaking althogether, if their speeches indicated that a prayer ( or ANY reference to God or Jesus Christ for that matter ) would be offered.
They only want the same rights as "everyone else in the country". |
Your example is just not pertinent because, first of all, there are MANY restrictions on speech in this country, and not just religious speech. None of us have a legal right to say anything we please at any time, in any venue. The situation you describe is just not at all analogous to whom we choose to marry.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:28:25 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Then would you be in favor of changing the law to specifically legalize such speech?
...there have been MANY instances where student speakers have been forced to submit drafts of their proposed speeches beforehand, and either forced to promise to NOT include prayer... |
There's no reason to change the law. The student could already thank God for inspiration, etc. in her speech without a problem. Those acknowledgements are common in any speeches of achievement, and we've all heard them (in the Olympics, Academy Awards, political victories, and yes, school commencements). What she CAN'T do is turn it into a sermon or force others to pray with her in a public school. That's a violation of the separation of church and state.
If you actually read the speeches in question, they typically include passages like this: "My prayer and challenge to you tonight is that you would seek the Lord Jesus, believe in Him, and give your heart and life to Him." That kind of solicitation isn't allowed in government settings. When the schools ask for religious references to be removed, it's because they've seen (or suspect) that the student is planning to give a sermon or religious solicitation, and potentially expose them to legal problems. If the same student simply said, "I'd like to thank my parents, and God, and my great uncle's chihuahua," then nobody would try to stop her. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:35:12 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
Answer that, and you will also know MY answer. |
Rather than face the definite possibility that I might be wrong in my perception, I would much prefer having you tell me what your answer is and then I could establish if indeed we are viewing this from similar perspectives my dear friend.
Unlike quite a number of the players in this forum, I have no interest in getting involved in circular discussion with you.... Tell me what your answer is.....and I will readily tell you if it indeed is in agreement with my views......end of discussion.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:49:23 PM · #438 |
I spent a few hours today at a Veterans Ceremony. God was thanked numerous times. But not once was I forced to have a moment of prayer. There is a vast difference.
If a gay couple want to get married, let them get married. As long as you don't force me to do it, I have no problem with it.
You have to draw the correct parallels... :)
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:57:19 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by "scalvert":
NOT believing in something doesn't require any more knowledge than believing. |
Exactly...I 100% agree. Which is why I said an atheist is no different than a theist. Both require an absolute decision based on inabsolute information. And such is a personal decision.
Where as if you're going to approach from a purely scientific and non-personal way than one must take an agnostic approach.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Atheism comes in many forms. Principally, it is an absence in belief, not denial of existence of a deity. |
a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Yes, we can get into semantics as such. Atheist - Deist - Agnostic - Believer - etc.
However, in much common practicality the general atheist thought is there is not god. If you simply do not believe in a god. You're probably more agnostic than an atheist.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I accept that the unknown is there as regards what is "beyond" the universe in time or space (though that may be irrelevant) and that one answer might be something akin to what we currently consider to be a deity. But I think it more likely that the answer to the unknowns (and possibly unknowables) will be very different from the common perception of a "god".....rather I am refusing to be drawn into a societal construct based upon a specific belief. .....I don't think that this is inconsistent with interpreting the world using the scientific method. |
This sounds more agnostic than atheist in thinking. And nor do I think the above is inconsistent with science. However, when one says there is no god - than I see it being inconsistent with the scientific method.
Originally posted by "scalvert":
Pat Robertson just blew right past Jessica Simpson as perhaps the dumbest public figure on the planet. According to this clown, the people of Dover, PA have turned their backs on God |
Pat Robertson suffers from a moronic case of foot in mouth, down throat and out the arse syndrome.
And just for grins and giggles, I am possibly looking at buying a house in Dover, PA. *lol*
Originally posted by "scalvert":
The student could already thank God for inspiration, etc. in her speech without a problem. Those acknowledgements are common in any speeches of achievement, and we've all heard them (in the Olympics, Academy Awards, political victories, and yes, school commencements). What she CAN'T do is turn it into a sermon or force others to pray with her in a public school. |
I believe that such speeches as Valedictorian speeches are "testimonials & thanks" and as such they should be such. So I see no problem with someone sharing how their faith in God (and although it might rub me the wrong way, I believe it's within a student's rights to express how their goddess likewise )helped them get thru and accomplish what they did.
And yes, I do not believe it should be a forced evangelistic message outside of the testimony.
I went to a friend's wedding and was extremely bothered by the fact the preacher gave a fire & brimstone evangelistic message. I came to a wedding, it's a joyous occasion. Scripture states that we should rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. I did not want to be subjected to a sermon of mourning when it was cause for rejoicing. I felt it was very out of line. *shrug*
Originally posted by "milo655321":
You get âan atheist is one who disbelieves in the existence of God or godsâ and âan atheist is one who denies the existence of God or gods.â Then you proceed to the second sentence as if the first and second definition were the second definition, thus equating denial with disbelief. Denial and disbelief are two different concepts. |
Not so mistaken. If you believe or disbelieve, that is an internal thing. But if you profess or state such believes you affirm or deny. (ie: a christian may believe in God, but as soon as he says I believe in God he affirms the existence of God. Likewise, an atheist who states he does not believe in god denies the existence of god.
REGARDLESS OF ALL THIS....
I am a christian - and I support the seperation of all civil rights (rights as in practices, procedures, etc.) from all religious rights. I believe the sacrament of marriage "spiritual union" which is in numerous varying faiths should be seperated from the values, benefits and responsibilities associated in unions from a "civil" perspective.
Thus allowing religions to recognize the spiritual elements only within like faiths who have similar spiritual elements. Likewise, a "spiritual union" would bring no civil benefits nor would it be recognized by the state as a union. One would need to incorporate in a "civil union" in order to gain any such benefits.
I see this as a very fair compromise that achieves the core goals of both sides. But prevents either side from having a total victory so as to thumb their noses in each other's faces. (Which I believe is what is happening in the varying states that pass bans on gay marriage or pass allowances. Due to the state/religion practices being blended together they are assured conflicts in both cases.)
- Saj
PS - No prob Milo, hope you get your Net back soon.
PPS - I also want to say that in no way am I offended or even heated with regards to this topic. So if anything comes across wrong or insulting. I'm sorry. (Yes, there was a touch of humorous sarcasm with the case of the "great" Milo but that was more in play than anything else.) I just hope that some of you will read my thoughts regarding the dividing of church and state on this matter and consider (or pray) depending on your leanings, as it being a good balanced step toward a workable solution in this area. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 05:13:33 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
...if you're going to approach from a purely scientific and non-personal way than one must take an agnostic approach. |
My [perhaps oversimplified] understanding is that the athiest doesn't believe, and the agnostic doesn't care. I don't think that being a "true" scientist would necessarily put you into one camp or the other. Scientists just follow a particular method of hypothesis and testing. Whether or not they believe or care about an expected result is really irrelevant. There are true scientists and astronomers at the Vatican.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 17:14:57. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:04:05 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
PPS - I also want to say that in no way am I offended or even heated with regards to this topic. So if anything comes across wrong or insulting. I'm sorry. (Yes, there was a touch of humorous sarcasm with the case of the "great" Milo but that was more in play than anything else.) |
Well ... I did weep quietly into my pillow last night, but I think I've got it all out of my system.
Not to worry, when dueling with words, everyone risks the possibility of getting nicked. I'm sure I enjoy trying to craft a good verbal parry/thrust combination just as much as the next person. Not intending or taking it too personally is the, at times difficult, trick. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:18:39 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by "scalvert":
My [perhaps oversimplified] understanding is that the athiest doesn't believe, and the agnostic doesn't care. |
Well, I've met agnostics who care quite a bit. They don't know. But they keep an open mind. In fact, I've met several agnostics who enjoy learning about varying religions and beliefs and keep an open mind toward them. *shrug* They haven't found evidence weighty enough to lead to accept a particular belief though.
*shrug* |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:23:42 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I've met agnostics who care quite a bit. They don't know. |
Point taken. Maybe the better descriptors would be Theopublicans, Denycrats and Undecided. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:31:05 PM · #444 |
Or "polyticks"
Poly = multiple
Ticks = blood sucking insects
;)
- Saj
PS - it's so blasted hard debating with one of your favorite photographers...."intimidation+respect" *lol* |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:35:19 PM · #445 |
I've sort of been reading of the thread for the past couple days and I don't recall seeing this mentioned.
So here's a hypothetical question for the opposers of gay marraige: What are you going to do if one of your kids ends up being gay? Support them? Kick them out of the house?
And if they wanted to get married? Would you still be opposed to it? What happens then?
edit for clarity.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 18:36:54. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:17:56 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But this debate is not about SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It's about homosexual MARRIAGE. |
I think that the debate is about whether people in a same sex relationship should be allowed to have the same civil (ie non-religious) rights as people in mixed sex relationships. Texas says no. Most people here, including devout Christians such as theSaj, object to the Texan prohibition on any civil union encompassing legal rights outside of mixed sex unions.
However, some suggest that homosexuality is wrong based upon their (here Christian) belief set, and their belief set should be imposed upon all members of their locality because it represents majority thinking for that locality.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 20:37:19.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:31:20 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Atheism comes in many forms. Principally, it is an absence in belief, not denial of existence of a deity. |
a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Yes, we can get into semantics as such. Atheist - Deist - Agnostic - Believer - etc.
However, in much common practicality the general atheist thought is there is not god. If you simply do not believe in a god. You're probably more agnostic than an atheist. |
I do not believe in any god. I am not agnostic (literally, unknown or unknowable). I merely will not reject the possibility, in the same way as I do not reject the possibility of the spaghetti monster and his noodley goodness having created the world, if it ultimately proves to be the right answer. I certainly reject all forms of deity as projected upon any such force by mankind in formal and informal religious teaching, subject to them somehow being prived true.
There is a better discursive consideration of the term here:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
If strongly pushed, I might accept the term agnostic atheist (the question of whether there is a god is ultimately unknowable, but my sway is strongly on the side of no existence, atheism, and certainly not in any form recognisable as a deity in the traditional sense) per Bertram Russell.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:38:00 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
But the question remains - are "wants" sufficient to force a change in the law? If so, then what's your beef? The [majority of] voters in Texas have expressed THEIR "wants" at the polls. And their wants are different than yours. And you seem to be upset at that. Aren't they entitled to the same "rights" as "everyone else in the country"? The right to vote their conscience?
You can go around and around on this, but when it comes to the end, not everyone gets what they want. Some have to live with what they do NOT want. Like those who are ashamed to be Texans. |
So, if a majority in the State of, say, Delaware, voted to deny certain civil liberties to, say, Native Americans, this would be OK with you? |
No, it wouldn't. But whether it was OK with me or not is not germain to the issue, is it?
If I were VERY upset with the ruling, I would attempt as best I could to lend support to those who petition to have the ruling overturned in a court of review, or, failing that, to garner enough voter support to have the ruling overturned in a subsequent referendum.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Everything's according to the collective conscience of the particular demographic? |
In the democratic republic called the United States, yes. Especially so since ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Nothing's universal, "right", set in stone? |
Not in this day and age.
Originally posted by bear_music:
I can't believe you said that... |
"that" in this statement is somewhat ambiguous. Could you break out the specific "that" that you can't believe I said? |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:44:45 PM · #449 |
You know... I cant pass up this argument ! I tried but oh well...
In congress in December of the year 1912 a ammendment to to Constitution of the United States was offered that stated in part
"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."
History also shows that this was roundly supported by upwards of 80% of the population.
The reason given by some at the time was that interracial marrage was just immorial.
Fast forward to today. Are we just adorning the same religious bigitory that existed in 1912 with the power of law today.
What is the difference ... what we have done in my adopted state is simply say to the world that we are run by religious bigots.
BTW I am not gay ... I am Black..I can draw the historical paralell. And I am not a screaming lib... but right is right ... This law simply isn't
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:46:35 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Everything's according to the collective conscience of the particular demographic? |
In the democratic republic called the United States, yes. Especially so since ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. |
Oh, the tyranny of the majority.
|
|
