Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[lovemygoofy]

Link sausage
Sausage gravy
Homemade biscuits

Better Rick?

OK, back to the debate

Just wanted to let you all know that I had some fried okra lastnight and thought of ya'll. Couldn't find any hominy though, have to keep looking

 

[jimmiej]

The world is changing very quickly, my friend. For far too many years, the nut fringe has been carrying the discussion. That ended on November 7, 2006. And now we're starting to see issues popup that we thought were dead: eg. universal healthcare.

People are taking a good long look at who's been fighting tooth and nail to fight civil rights for gay people. And they don't like what they see. They look at Deadeye Dick Cheney's family situation and the new grandchild coming along and they wonder why Cheney thinks him and his family are the only ones entitled to privacy.

The American people, above all, believe in fairness. To condemn, to the back of the bus, an entire group of people who pay their taxes and fight and die on the battlefied is an insult to that sense of fairness.

It's a new day.

And here I thought election day was about Iraq!

 

[caitycaity]

And here I thought election day was about Iraq!

i think the point was that now that democrats are the majority in the house/senate we will start seeing more liberal legislation.

 

[LuvDuke]

And here I thought election day was about Iraq!

The election was about lots of different issues and not just Iraq. This election was also about corruption, accountability, and the direction this country was heading. Issues caught up with the GOP and they came out the loser.

 

[jimmiej]

i think the point was that now that democrats are the majority in the house/senate we will start seeing more liberal legislation.

Yeah, I know. I just disagree with the 2nd paragraph. I think that issue is minor (to the voters as a whole) compared to Iraq.

 

[LuvDuke]

i think the point was that now that democrats are the majority in the house/senate we will start seeing more liberal legislation.

Minimum wage increases, healthcare, stem cell research, accountability, and general uneasiness in the direction this country has taken, are NOT liberal issues. They're mainstream issues and that's what the people voted for.

 

[Fitswimmer]

i think the point was that now that democrats are the majority in the house/senate we will start seeing more liberal legislation.

I think we'll see more moderate legislation. The Democrats are still stinging a bit from the whole "values voter" thing in 2004 and they don't want to be portrayed in 2008 as hostile to that values voter. The pendulum isn't going to swing too far left until after 2008, assuming a Democrat wins the WH.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yeah, I know. I just disagree with the 2nd paragraph. I think that issue is minor (to the voters as a whole) compared to Iraq.

The election was a catalyst to opening a whole range of discussions. That was my point.

 

[caitycaity]

Minimum wage increases, healthcare, stem cell research, accountability, and general uneasiness in the direction this country has taken, are NOT liberal issues. They're mainstream issues and that's what the people voted for.

oh jesus. i'm on your side!

you can call them liberal or "mainstream" or whatever. it's a matter of semantics. you don't have to try to spin me.

liberal is nota dirty word unless we treat it that way.

 

[LuvDuke]

I think we'll see more moderate legislation. The Democrats are still stinging a bit from the whole "values voter" thing in 2004 and they don't want to be portrayed in 2008 as hostile to that values voter. The pendulum isn't going to swing too far left until after 2008, assuming a Democrat wins the WH.

A funny thing happens when you claim the moral high ground, eg. values. People expect you to live up to those values and GOP didn't.

Again, raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, stem cell research, abortion privacy, etc. are mainstream issues and not liberal issues.

 

[caitycaity]

I think we'll see more moderate legislation.

more moderate legislation is more liberal legislation compared to what was going on recently.

 

[LuvDuke]

oh jesus. i'm on your side!

you can call them liberal or "mainstream" or whatever. it's a matter of semantics. you don't have to try to spin me.

liberal is nota dirty word unless we treat it that way.

First off, no one is trying to spin you so you can stop rolling your eyes. As my mother used to say, "someday you're going to stay that way".

Second, words are important. For too many years, the far right has been portraying mainstream American ideas as "far left", "too liberal", etc. and the facts are completely different.

Third, I couldn't agree more: Liberal is NOT a dirty word.

 

[Fitswimmer]

more moderate legislation is more liberal legislation compared to what was going on recently.

True, but if you've been watching the Democratic candidates that have already thrown their hats in the ring, you can hear the difference. It's been pretty well documentated how Senator Clinton has begun talking about abortion differently than she did even 4 years ago when running for her first term as a Senator from NY. Her website also highlights her teaching Sunday School-something that wasn't really talked about much a few years ago. Senator Obama is leaning heavily on values-he spent a LOT of time discussing it on Oprah and in his book. Many Democrats feel that they were unfairly characterized as "values challenged" in 2004, so they're making a concerted effort to correct that impression.

Both sides will have struggles during the primaries because the less mainstream folks tend to go out in force for Primaries. The Right will have to pander to their base that is against abortion and gay marriage which means Rudy will be out. The Left will have to deal with the more extreme factions of their party as well, who will probably NOT vote for anyone who supported the President on anything, at any time. That is already giving Senator Clinton problems to deal with.

 

[caitycaity]

Second, words are important. For too many years, the far right has been portraying mainstream American ideas as "far left", "too liberal", etc. and the facts are completely different.

yeah, but this doesn't have ANYTHING to do with my statement. whether a policy is currently in the mainstream of public opinion does not impact whether the issue is traditionally a liberal or conservative issue. whether you want to admit it or not, increased social spending is traditionally a liberal issue. that was all i was saying. i was not making any kind of judgment about current levels of public opinion.

furthermore, i agree-words are important. that is exactly why i get upset when people reject the use of the word liberal like you did. by rejecting its use, we continue to reinforce that it is a taboo, "dirty" word. i used it appropriately. i will continue to do so. refusing to use words just gives power to those who are trying to change their meaning.

fitswimmer, i don't disagree with you. i personally do not plan to vote for hillary in the primary.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The thing that scares me is that most of the people who go out to vote in primaries are the people that have shown up on this thread beating people over the heads with their Bibles.
I consider myself a Conservative because I want to keep the government OUT of as much of people's lives as possible. However, that's not the way conservatives are normally defined these days. Conservative has become the term to define the extreme right wing. To me that term has been co-opted as badly as liberal has.

 

[LuvDuke]

yeah, but this doesn't have ANYTHING to do with my statement. whether a policy is currently in the mainstream of public opinion does not impact whether the issue is traditionally a liberal or conservative issue. whether you want to admit it or not, increased social spending is traditionally a liberal issue. that was all i was saying. i was not making any kind of judgment about current levels of public opinion.

furthermore, i agree-words are important. that is exactly why i get upset when people reject the use of the word liberal like you did. by rejecting its use, we continue to reinforce that it is a taboo, "dirty" word. i used it appropriately. i will continue to do so. refusing to use words just gives power to those who are trying to change their meaning.

fitswimmer, i don't disagree with you. i personally do not plan to vote for hillary in the primary.

I think what we have here is your garden variety misunderstanding manifested by 2 people on the same side arguing with each other.

 

[RickinNYC]

Some people refuse to look at the big picture. Right now, it's "just the gays" that are being discriminated against. Who cares? RIght, it's just a small minority of "weirdos" anyway?

But they fail to see that someday the shoe may be on the other foot. This is not some zero sum game about gay marriage. This is about human rights and if they expect people to fight for THEIR human rights, they darn well better stand up and fight for OTHER people's human rights. The self-interest kills me.

Do unto others....indeed

Exactly. I read a poem years ago that was written by a pastor in Nazi occupied Germany and it really left a strong impression, so much so that I remember it more than 20 years later:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[Fitswimmer]

Exactly. I read a poem years ago that was written by a pastor in Nazi occupied Germany and it really left a strong impression, so much so that I remember it more than 20 years later:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

I was thinking of that poem this morning too, Rick. Thanks for posting it.

 

[magicmato]

Did we change the definition of 'slavery' or ‘voting’? Yes, changes happen over time. Perhaps even gay unions are created to give similar benefits; however, we should not change a definition which has remained constant for hundreds of years.

And yet, if you look in the bible, the definition of "marriage" *has* changed. Funny how no one ever mentions that. Yep, we have had "marriage" remain the same for a few hundred years... and? Change happens and this too shall change.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Actually, in both passages, Jesus is speaking to specific people (the first passage is a multitude, but they are still a specific group of people...since Jesus was not speaking the words directly to 21st century Christians). Both texts can be applied to all mankind, however.

With the "judge not" passage, it is really referring to matters of the heart...for example, it is not my place to condemn someone to hell. I can be an example of Christ to people, but I cannot sentence them to hell. For the "judge with a righteous judgement", it is more about not judging people on outside appearances, but rather basing your opinions on what you actually know. For example, meeting someone who dresses like a "thug" doesn't automatically make them a thug. Does that make sense?

With a husband in seminary, I believe that there is only one correct interpretation...that's God's interpretation. And I say that because people take can one verse and decide what it means for whatever reason they wish to bend it for. Problem is that the are not looking at it from the context it is written...or even in the languages they were written in (which in Greek & Hebrew, the way it's written gives a BIG indication of how the verses are to be interpreted...and trust me, we're all about the languages here as DH is studying on them like crazy ) However, I also believe that there are multiple applications for verses, which seems like that's what you mean more than interpretation. To give a simplified explanation...let's say a verse was written in Hebrew to say "sit in the chair." It can only be interpreted as "sit in the chair." But the application might be different. Is it sit in the chair with your legs crossed? Sit in the chair with one leg tucked under? Etc? Well, all of them can be equally fine...after all, you're still sitting in the chair.

But anyway, I think what I just said it really more of a long explanation...but it seems like you and I agree that both texts can be applied in different situations. I just think that both sides of the fence should be careful before throwing around verses. The Bible is not meant as a weapon. It is a Book proclaiming the gift Christ is giving to mankind. It is not a Book meant to be used to force people to God. Yes, I believe Christians should stand up for what they believe in, just like anyone else...but they should also remember that God is not a dictator. He wants people to choose Him, not for them to be forced or threatened into Christianity.

Very well said!