juansavage1

So, then you wouldn't really face persecution. If you were interviewed by the FBI, you'd say that people have the right to marry people of the same sex (gays always could marry, but they couldn't marry a person of the same sex, like bisexuals have to deny part of their love today), but that you think it's not Christian(?). I'm talking about people who have a different interpretation of marriage and that the public policy should reflect that view.

I actually hate arguing in general and find arguing with most leftists especially exasperating because of their lack of knowledge and emotional thinking, but I'll stick around to be impressed by your intellectualism. I'm sure it's very novel and not at all like the garden variety Colbert audience member.

Thanks for the reply. The issue is not judging gays. Marriage is a public policy and all citizens can lend their opinion on what it should mean and how it should be administered. Think about the question I asked about what marriage is. Why should I accept some other definition that's based upon a perversion of Christian marriage (two people, love, etc) and not be able to advocate for the original? Whether we're a fundamentalist Christian nation has nothing to do with it. If we were a fundamentalist Christian nation, we would be teaching that the earth is 6000 years old. We wouldn't necessarily be teaching slavery, however, as fundamentalists both fought against slavery and justified it with a certain interpretation of the Bible (the slavery in the Bible wasn't what was in the South which was chattel slavery. That's one instance where 3000 years later, something was worse). How? In a fundamentalist nation, all of the judges would have been appointed by fundamentalists and there may have been several amendments requiring certain interpretations of the Bible. If McCain had won and not nominated two liberal activists to the court, this narrow ruling wouldn't have happened.

Most blacks and Hispanics aren't ideological liberals. That is, they don't have Marxist presuppositions on race, sex, and class and don't believe in great societal forces in opposition that will resolve themselves in the future. They vote that way because Democrats told them that white people are bad and because many benefit from government programs and employment. If only white government employees voted, liberals would always win.

You may not have thought this through. Will your church still be able to participate in the public arena, you know to teach (if it has schools), evangelize? Will your kids be bullied into thinking a certain way and maybe even be encouraged to think of you as a bigot (if you follow normative Christian ideas on this subject)? Will you be able to run your business according to your ideals? Certainly, nobody expects Christians to be treated like they were after the French Revolution, in Nazi Germany, communist and Muslim countries today, or by ISIS, but it might be as bad as the homosexuals who said they were persecuted for not being able to join the FBI or marry their boyfriend. If you don't hold traditional views of marriage, then you might not think you'll be persecuted because you don't identify with normative Christianity.

Yet again, I prove something that I said the first day I started posting here after reading the baseball section for a year or two. Leftists have nothing to offer in serious debate. It's name-calling and ignorance up and down. I DARE you X 3 to respond to anything I said.

Should the priests below and Martin Luther King Jr. have stayed out of the segregation debate?

I hate to be condescending, but I feel that I must explain how analogies work: According to the post I quoted, God should judge, not man, which I took to mean that religious people shouldn't bring their morality into public issues and that we should be content to let God make the judgments. I then asked if he thought the same about Christians entering the slavery debate. If he thought that was OK, then his problem is with the issue, not whether religious people should bring their insights into politics. I have isolated his problem. It would be like comparing people who are attracted sexually to the same sex with skin color. Everybody knows that sex and skin color aren't the same thing, but people are trying to say that public preference for heterosexual relationships is the same as Jim Crow laws. Do you see this point? This is an honest question. I would like to know if you think analogizing two different things that share some similarity means saying that they're the same thing.

Do you think people are more racist in the US than in Europe where people throw bananas at black soccer players and Jews are moving away because of the growing hostility towards them?

That's a funny position to take. Should Churches have fought against slavery like they did or should they have just left it up to God to judge slave owners?

For years, the left has been equating disapproval of homosexuality with racial bigotry. Right now, colleges can't receive federal money if they have a disapproved racial policy. People who refuse to participate in something they believe is degrading will be forced to cooperate. Churches who receive grant money or work in fields like adoption will not be able to participate. Schools will teach that sodomy is an equal to the procreative act. That's just the government.

How much of the shrinking of the middle class just the growth of the lower class because of immigration?

Hard like difficult to understand or hard because you don't like them? I did try to cover several things there.

It is funny that people think Europe is less racist than the US.

First, I sincerely don't want to hate or even say that somebody is wrong. I just want to provide a point of view that I think is the best way to run a country. The first thing to realize is that unless it's pure ignorance, like a cargo cult or something, or people proceed from false premises, like Nazis thinking that Germans were on top of evolution and it was inevitable and right to dominate or eliminate inferior people, most have good reasons for believing things. Let's take this issue. People who believe in sexual liberation think they're providing people with more paths to happiness and less judgmentalism that hurts people's feelings. Conservatives think that their way of conducting business would lead to more, longer marriages; more children and children with parents; growth; and an ultimately happier nation. it just so happens that the conservative version is tougher sell at this point in history primarily because the nation is wealthy and people can go on vacation a lot and bone lots of people without consequences. Gay marriage is a stupid societal decision that will lead to confusion, less kids with their mother and father and less kids in general. You can see that in sexual liberal places in the West, there are huge demographic problems partially alleviated with immigration and the loss of a marriage culture. But, Love Wins!

You can generalize about Christians. Generally speaking, Christians prioritize marriage and family as an idea and as important to society. Liberals think of marriage as a social construct and completely optional. Traditional marriage has usually been disparaged by leftists, either as square and unhip or oppressive and undemocratic, especially by feminists. Gay marriage is good. In fact, it's better. Look at how gay marriage has been portrayed in the media compared to strait marriage.

I don't think lesbians base their marriage on sodomy. its not conjugal,but its not sodomy.

Sometimes regional people can afford to be more pure. When he needs money or has to appeal to a broader base, you might see him modulate.

Your statement isn't very bright or accurate, but you inadvertently hit upon an interesting topic. Of course, marriage has remained natural in the vast atheistic communist empires,as it did during the secular fascist governments of Italy and Germany. It was opposite sex even when homosexuality was accepted like in the ancient world. It's opposite sex in Japan and other secular Asian countries. They see/saw the utility of parents and a society geared towards families. Secular people are more easily swayed by fashionable beliefs.When this became cool,nothing else mattered. If you ask these same people if people should marry before having children or if one person or sixteen should raise a child or if married people should swing with others or really anything that's not racism,they'd shrug their shoulders. It's impossible to have a rational moral argument with an atheist,as witnessed by their response to beastiality. Who doesn't think that they just pull that reason out of their ass and if it became cool, their reason wouldn't matter.

Many leftists admire Castro and Hugo Chavez, before Chavez died. Before that, many admired Stalin, Mao, Che, Lenin, etc. All murderers and people who enslaved whole nations (Leftist: Oh, yeah, but all were enslaved equally, regardless of race). Chomsky admired Pol Pot, or at least defended him as he killed a third of his nation.

Yep. And, never a response. Let me give you an insight, conservatives. This, like many other liberal arguments has to do with what's in style. It has zero to do with any principle or logic.

You mean the Elizabeth Warren who pretended to be Indian, flipped houses, voted Republican, and worked for corporations? Yeah, no flips there.

Except that I wasn't talking about that.

I'll look for it later. It was on the military spending thread.

Do you think a textbook or class doesn't list the core assumptions of a particular philosophy and generalize about its adherents' beliefs?Stop fighting and learn.