POLITICAL THREAD

[wkycatfan]

No I am not.

Are all men created equal Wkycat?

Where did I call people sub-human? Twisting.

Equal? Of course they are. Have a ceremony, live together, visit each other in the hospital, etc. Knock yourself out, nobody stopping you.

A marriage, it is not. I dislike redefining a sacred institution on principle. If that makes me a bigot, guilty. My goal is to defend that institution, not judge people on their lifestyle.

Skin color is not the same as behavior, and people try to equate the two. If I was african-american, I would resent the comparison. It's only a matter of time before a pastor is taken to task over this, with our current culture, IMO.

 

[Willy4UK]

Wkycat, hate to burst your bubble, but the bible isn't authoritative go-to for defining marriage. It's not the place for the bible to define law.

If they are equal then they are equal to all terms.

 

[wkycatfan]

Wkycat, hate to burst your bubble, but the bible isn't authoritative go-to for defining marriage. It's not the place for the bible to define law.

If they are equal then they are equal to all terms.

Didn't say it was. Twisting....again. I'm arguing on principle, not law.

 

[Willy4UK]

Didn't say it was. Twisting....again. I'm arguing on principle, not law.

If all men created, they are protected by laws written by our founding fathers. The same terminology, same definition.
It's hard to have a discussion on this when the very core of human existence's goal is to be equal. I am no better than the guy who sucks seamen out of another man's anus. The deformed man who had 4 titty nipples is the same as you, I, or Clint Eastwood.

 

[krazykats]

If Sarah Palin never spoke I'd swear she was hot. Once that mouth moves though she becomes gross!

So I'm voting Trump......I mean watching Farakhan and several black leaders lately take up for him and everyday people take up for him and media act like they are just shocked with noting to say and it's just too much really!

Seriously I'm to the point I think it's a joke if you don't. Yes he can be picked apart as can the person you will vote for if it isn't him.

Crazy MFing world we live now days. Never would I expect that Donald F'n Trump would be the best option. But I'm sold and will vote Trump and then go hands free like its a roller coaster!

 

[KopiKat]

Interesting how choice of religion is protected from discrimination yet sexual orientation "choice" isn't.

Yes, that is interesting, Jam. And a valid observation, not to be denied. But what can also be observed is the absence of legitimate persecution.

Just to narrow it down for a short discussion, the Treaty of Nantes was signed in late 16th century, ending many years of religious persecution to Calvinist Protestants (or Hugeunots if you prefer and I may have spelled that wrong). The number of these people killed or put to death by other means was in the millions. Again, this is the European persecution to Calvinist Protestants alone in southern France. Eventually this treaty was revoked almost a hundred years later, and it was persecution all over again, including in the form of mass departure. This is an over-simplified version of their story, one with which I am sure you are familiar.

But as the Huguenots (think that may be the right spelling) made their way to Switzerland and later England and eventually the new world, if somebody could only have told them that eventually they would be assured a consideration free from discrimination on a level no better or worse than new world homosexuals do you think they would have had the right to ask for the location of 4 million dead gays?

 

[stevo51]

If Sarah Palin never spoke I'd swear she was hot. Once that mouth moves though she becomes gross!

So I'm voting Trump......I mean watching Farakhan and several black leaders lately take up for him and everyday people take up for him and media act like they are just shocked with noting to say and it's just too much really!

Seriously I'm to the point I think it's a joke if you don't. Yes he can be picked apart as can the person you will vote for if it isn't him.

Crazy MFing world we live now days. Never would I expect that Donald F'n Trump would be the best option. But I'm sold and will vote Trump and then go hands free like its a roller coaster!

I'd like to be nailin' some Palin

 

[fuzz77]

Where did I call people sub-human? Twisting.

Equal? Of course they are. Have a ceremony, live together, visit each other in the hospital, etc. Knock yourself out, nobody stopping you.

A marriage, it is not. I dislike redefining a sacred institution on principle. If that makes me a bigot, guilty. My goal is to defend that institution, not judge people on their lifestyle.

Skin color is not the same as behavior, and people try to equate the two. If I was african-american, I would resent the comparison. It's only a matter of time before a pastor is taken to task over this, with our current culture, IMO.

WKY, marriage as defined in this discussion is a legal status. It requires no religious blessing. You can play word games if you want but it doesn't change those facts. The issue has never been about religious institutional acceptance, it's about the ability of people to obtain a legal status which grants them rights and privileges in the eyes of the law.
How your church seeks to define the religious ceremony that goes by the same name is between you and your church. You and your church are free to set whatever rules and parameters seen fit. There is no legal status obtained from what your church decides. Even in a church wedding the clergy states that his power to wed is granted by the state.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Bigblue- Since you're the only one who seems to be able to answer my questions on legality.

Maybe get Transy's thoughts on it.

Does the Declaration of Independence trump the bible when it comes to making laws for this country?

I am just having a hard time seeing how gov't can't involve itself when people have not been treated as equals in this country, and how do equal people get equality without gov't intervention?

Because obviously people who think like Wkycat are a-okay classifying people as sub-human and not equal.

The bible doesn't trump anything legally. The real issue is whether or not the rights of homosexuals outweigh those of the individual wishing to practice their religion.

The more practical questions are: why does anyone care and how will these disputes be decided? The language of these bills are a disaster above and beyond their intent.

 

[warrior-cat]

[QUOT="DaBossIsBack, post: 4271637, member: 11798"]You wouldn't.[/QUOTE]
That is because it was not funny.

 

[warrior-cat]

No I am not.

Are all men created equal Wkycat?

Yes.

 

[warrior-cat]

Awww they're (JWs) were just the firstIthat popped into my head. Any of the following denominations could have been substituted for JW and my post still wouldn't have been very funny...

• Church Of Christ
• Seventh Day Adventists
• Pentecostals
• Mormons
• Catholics
• Methodists
• Lutherans
• etc...

I was not offended, just rattling your chain a bit. Did not agree with their stances with Jehova's Witnesses but it is who they were/are.

 

[Willy4UK]

The bible doesn't trump anything legally. The real issue is whether or not the rights of homosexuals outweigh those of the individual wishing to practice their religion.

The more practical questions are: why does anyone care and how will these disputes be decided? The language of these bills are a disaster above and beyond their intent.

Because it becomes "gotcha politics". If you need gov't intervention to act on behalf of a freed people, you're a socialist. If you let religion trump the equal rights granted to individuals under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you're a bigot.

See where this has taken us?

 

[jamo0001]

Trump's favorability ratings....among *Republican* voters. WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

 

[wkycatfan]

There is no legal status obtained from what your church decides. Even in a church wedding the clergy states that his power to wed is granted by the state.

And there you have it. The power of the state trumps all. The road we are on.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Trump's favorability ratings....among *Republican* voters. WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Kudos for persistence. But its still dumb to argue polls citing disfavorables is somehow more of an indication of popularity than actual election results. No matter how many times you post it.

 

[wkycatfan]

"I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

[Mashburned]

Hey guys the "FBI" *wink* cracked the iphone! That's crazy!!

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Hey guys the "FBI" *wink* cracked the iphone! That's crazy!!

It is. Especially considering they swore under oath it was impossible. And we know theyd never lie! Good thing they made sure to let us know their method would only work for this ONE single iphone. Whew. Otherwise Id be concerned the government was monitoring our every move.

 

[jamo0001]

Kudos for persistence. But its still dumb to argue polls citing disfavorables is somehow more of an indication of popularity than actual election results. No matter how many times you post it.

Yeah, a completely arbitrary and convoluted method of allocating delegates is more indicative of WILL OF THE PEOPLE than, you know, asking voters.....much less contemplating the fact that Trump hasn't gotten anywhere close to a majority of the popular vote (8M vs 12M)

 

[Mashburned]

It is. Especially considering they swore under oath it was impossible. And we know theyd never lie! Good thing they made sure to let us know their method would only work for this ONE single iphone. Whew. Otherwise Id be concerned the government was monitoring our every move.

Wow, talk about a revolt! If the government ever used technology against the people, that is when we the people would certainly fight back. I am certain of it.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Yeah, a completely arbitrary and convoluted method of allocating delegates is more indicative of WILL OF THE PEOPLE than, you know, asking voters.....much less contemplating the fact that Trump hasn't gotten anywhere close to a majority of the popular vote (8M vs 12M)

Voters were asked, at the polls. They answered. The end.

 

[fuzz77]

And there you have it. The power of the state trumps all. The road we are on.

You just don't get it.
When laws, rights and privileges are concerned, yeah, I guess so. Do you have to get a license from the state to marry?

IIRC you said earlier that you had no problem with civil unions. How can you be so obtuse not to see that civil unions = marriages in the eyes of the law? Your objection is one of semantics.

You are stuck on the idea that the only thing marriage can be is the thing that your church decides it to be. That is like saying that the only Wildcats are Kentucky Wildcats. Sorry Villanova, Arizona, Northwestern, Kansas St, Weber St and a host more...you guys all have to change your names because when we talk about Wildcats we are only talking about UK.

You are free to "marry in your church's eye" anyone and you don't need a license from the state. But you also don't get the legal benefits, rights and privileges that the state's sanctioned form of marriage bestows. And if you aren't worried about the power of the state, why should that bother you?

 

[jamo0001]

Voters were asked, at the polls. They answered. The end.

37% of the popular vote (Cruz at 27%).

A party who wins only 37% of the seats in a legislature might as well not even show up.

There's a reason the Founders didn't adopt as simple-minded of a system as what you're advocating.

 

[warrior-cat]

Wow, talk about a revolt! If the government ever used technology against the people, that is when we the people would certainly fight back. I am certain of it.

Whew! That's good news.

 

[fuzz77]

Kudos for persistence. But its still dumb to argue polls citing disfavorables is somehow more of an indication of popularity than actual election results. No matter how many times you post it.

Have there been more votes cast for Trump or against him?

 

[warrior-cat]

Have there been more votes cast for Trump or against him?

Have there been only 2 candidates this whole time or more of them? See how this works?

 

[jamo0001]

Is there any form of democracy in which winning 37% of votes translates to assuming power? I'm curious whether it's even possible with the electoral college, much less any other form of democracy on the planet.

 

[wkycatfan]

@fuzz. At what point did the state become involved in marriage at all? It hasn't always been this way. Maybe that's the problem.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

37% of the popular vote (Cruz at 27%).

A party who wins only 37% of the seats in a legislature might as well not even show up.

There's a reason the Founders didn't adopt as simple-minded of a system as what you're advocating.

I mean, should we just call up prospective voters, get their opinions, then announce a winner? You act as if there isnt an election going on, with actual results.

Have there been more votes cast for Trump or against him?

He is currently leading the nomination process. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant.

 

[warrior-cat]

Point of this should be, if he gets the nod, is the disapproval of Hillary greater and therefore offsets the numbers or will people just stay at home and say screw it.

 

[jamo0001]

So if Trump were leading the delegate count but trailing in the popular vote, would that be Will Of The People? How about winning the popular vote but trailing in the delegate count? How about if his plurality were 28% vs 27% for Cruz?

There's a lot of absurd logic his campaign is depending on in order to win the nomination, but the idea that he's The Voters' Choice (largely perpetuated by flawed media narratives) is possibly the biggest lie coming out of his campaign....which is saying a lot.

 

[wkycatfan]

@fuzz. At what point did the state become involved in marriage at all? It hasn't always been this way. Maybe that's the problem.

Food for thought.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...t-involved-marriage-anyway-kathryn-jean-lopez

 

[JHB4UK]

noone in the GOP has the imagination or vision to deny the nomination to the candidate who goes through the primaries & amasses the most delegates. for damn sure they ain't gonna nominate someone who didn't even compete in the primaries.

the die is cast, Trump will be the nominee

 

[Big_Blue79]

I think I'll weigh on this. Skin color not the same as behavior, from a biblical standpoint. From a biblical standpoint, homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage isn't a real marriage. In fact, a man/woman marriage is compared to Christ and the church. Pastors typically will counsel couples he will marry, and certainly could not condone a homosexual marriage, on biblical grounds. Find somebody else who is okay with it.

However, from a biblical standpoint, nothing at all wrong with interracial marriage. It's not there. In fact, if you believe the Noah account, as I do, the whole earth was populated from the 8 people who were left, Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives. So, bibllically, we are all their descendants, and you can't be opposed to interracial marriage.

I get this argument, and it's one I've had before with people in my family and church I grew up in. I think the premise is false, and that homosexuality is just as much of an immutable characteristic as skin color or medical defects. Left-handedness used to be considered devilish (in Latin left is something like sinestra, with obvious connotations) but many societies and cultures, and now is seen as just part of who someone is.

Easy, my parents were/are J/W. I grew up in it and yes it is a bit weird.

I was in Rochester, MN, when the JW national convention was there. Interesting people. Not my thing, but interesting to see JW outside the door to door context.

Your post makes no sense in regards to what I said.

The other real problem here is not only the state intrusion, but theres no effective way to resolve the dispute. Everytime a pastor turns down a wedding, he may well be sued (in theory). Then what? Courts are tied up on a he said/she said case? What a waste of time.

So how many times has it happened? And then why have the bill exempt non-profits from performing services for which they receive federal and state dollars? Pretext is pretext.

Bigblue- Since you're the only one who seems to be able to answer my questions on legality.

Maybe get Transy's thoughts on it.

Does the Declaration of Independence trump the bible when it comes to making laws for this country?

Neither has any binding effect. Both are looked to for persuasive effect, but that cannot trump a clear statute or constitutional provision. So maybe a judge looks to the Declaration to say that all men are created equal when discussing an ambiguous law that treats people differently, or when SCOTUS was ruling on Jim Crow laws in the 1950s. But a judge could not use the Declaration to trump a law that, say, restricts the drinking age to 21. The Bible was used/cited much more in the past than now, obviously (and in my view, illegally), and it should have no legally binding effect. In fact, in today's environment, I would be surprised if any federal judge cited it for more than history or allegory.

A marriage, it is not. I dislike redefining a sacred institution on principle. If that makes me a bigot, guilty. My goal is to defend that institution, not judge people on their lifestyle.

The whole issue (as fuzz77 put it very nicely below) is about legal marriage, not marriage as defined by the church. Falsely equating the two is problematic not only for the state but also the church. Sanctity should come from the religion, not the state. My marriage to my wife is no more blessed or damned by however the state labels the union and legal rights of anyone else. Period.

WKY, marriage as defined in this discussion is a legal status. It requires no religious blessing. You can play word games if you want but it doesn't change those facts. The issue has never been about religious institutional acceptance, it's about the ability of people to obtain a legal status which grants them rights and privileges in the eyes of the law.
How your church seeks to define the religious ceremony that goes by the same name is between you and your church. You and your church are free to set whatever rules and parameters seen fit. There is no legal status obtained from what your church decides. Even in a church wedding the clergy states that his power to wed is granted by the state.

Well said.

 

[fuzz77]

@fuzz. At what point did the state become involved in marriage at all? It hasn't always been this way. Maybe that's the problem.

Required (was required by the church that was part of the state) in England since 1215. Since 1639 in Massachusetts. Mid 19th Century for the rest of the US.

 

[Mashburned]

Required (was required by the church that was part of the state) in England since 1215. Since 1639 in Massachusetts. Mid 19th Century for the rest of the US.

Gd we are dumb animals.

 

[wkycatfan]

noone in the GOP has the imagination or vision to deny the nomination to the candidate who goes through the primaries & amasses the most delegates. for damn sure they ain't gonna nominate someone who didn't even compete in the primaries.

the die is cast, Trump will be the nominee

I dunno JHB. If Trump shows up at the convention with less than 1237, all bets are off. Delegates will have to start moving around if a consensus can't be reached.

 

[jamo0001]

The Atlantic with a great analysis of what Trump would have to do in order to win the electoral college.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trumps-path-through-the-rust-belt/475767/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trumps-path-through-the-rust-belt/475767/

 

[jamo0001]

I dunno JHB. If Trump shows up at the convention with less than 1237, all bets are off. Delegates will have to start moving around if a consensus can't be reached.

And all evidence points to the Cruz Machine pilfering a huge share of those Trump delegates. His organization has been outperforming everyone at the district and state party levels post-primary voting.