US Politics: Bike tricks

Status
Not open for further replies.
quovadis said:
Conscience or religious belief could be anything really.
Click to expand...
This one is interesting.
just make it easier let's imagine we found a culture that was removing the eyeballs of every third child okay would
you then agree that we had found a culture that was not perfectly maximizing human well-being and she said "it would depend on why they were doing it"
Click to expand...

 
AlmightyBender said:
Let's extrapolate to a more extreme analogy to make it easier to see why this is so wrong...

Would you be ok with a doctor refusing life saving medical treatment to a gay person because of the doctors religious beliefs? Or if they refused to touch a woman on her period as per the bible and thus let her die? Or parents refusing life saving medical treatment for a baby based on religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
That's not the same though because doctors are not servants of God like pastors or priests etc. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage should be between a man and a woman so obviously there will be "servants of God" who take this very seriously.

I'm a Christian but personally I have no problem with same sex marriages or gay people in general but I also respect people who take their own religious beliefs extra seriously and who wouldn't want to do something that goes against it. I completely respect some Christians' beliefs that marriage should only be between a man and a woman even though I do not agree with them. The modern Bible was written or revised in times when only men had real power so I do believe that many texts were lost over time or destroyed if they were about women or other stuff like homosexuality, but I still respect other Christian's who choose to live by today's version of the Bible and those who follow it religiously.

That's why I also totally respect places like Beloftebos.

Doctors are not doing God's work or making vows to God etc like pastors/priests/whatever so yes I def would have problems with them not wanting to touch sick gay people.

Also, do gay people REALLY want to be married by people who hate their sexuality? Rather find another place where everyone is happy imo.
 
wbot said:
That's not the same though because doctors are not servants of God like pastors or priests etc. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage should be between a man and a woman so obviously there will be "servants of God" who take this very seriously.

I'm a Christian but personally I have no problem with same sex marriages or gay people in general but I also respect people who take their own religious beliefs extra seriously and who wouldn't want to do something that goes against it. I completely respect some Christians' beliefs that marriage should only be between a man and a woman even though I do not agree with them. The modern Bible was written or revised in times when only men had real power so I do believe that many texts were lost over time or destroyed if they were about women or other stuff like homosexuality, but I still respect other Christian's who choose to live by today's version of the Bible and those who follow it religiously.

That's why I also totally respect places like Beloftebos.

Doctors are not doing God's work or making vows to God etc like pastors/priests/whatever so yes I def would have problems with them not wanting to touch sick gay people.

Also, do gay people REALLY want to be married by people who hate their sexuality? Rather find another place where everyone is happy imo.
Click to expand...
Ok... then I'm gonna counter with:
* Marriage is not the exclusive domain of religion. It is a legal contract officiated by the state, not by the church
* If a pastor or priest wants to discriminate then they don't deserve to represent the state in an official capacity. They can perform ceremonial duties but they shouldn't be allowed to do the legalities. If they want to do the legalities then they must not be allowed to discriminate.
* The bible also says it isn't a sin to sell your daughter into slavery or for god to murder the entire population of the world, so I'm gonna pass on following the advice contained therein. Lets not turn this into a religious debate I'm just saying why I'm not factoring in what it says into my reasoning.
* You define marriage as doing gods work and I completely disagree with that so the analogy with the doctor still applies for me.
* In terms of finding somebody else to marry them... what if there are no other options in the local area? What if the gay couple are religious and want the priest to officiate? In both cases you either place an undue and unjustified burden on the citizens that are not placed on anybody else. This is not fair or just and goes against the principle of the constitution that all are equal before the law.

How would you feel in the following hypothetical:
* An athiest marriage official who is homophobic for non-religious reasons refuses... is this ok?
* Imagine a world where christians are in the minority in a rural area and everyone within a 1000km radius of their home refuses to marry them because their own beliefs say christians are.. whatever/wrong/evil... is this ok? You want them to travel to great expense where others don't have to?

TL;DR: the point is that a marriage contract has got NOTHING to do with religion. Literally nothing. Everyone and anyone (age appropriate, consenting etc etc...) should by constitutional right be allowed to be married by any and every marriage official that represents the state. IF!!! you want to incorporate religious themes and rituals along with the secular state marriage contract go ahead but you should not be allowed to force the two together. The principle of the matter is very important here.

My own personal beliefs is that I do not respect outdated, barbaric and disgusting beliefs that spread hate and exclusion for things that cause absolutely no harm to anybody. I.e. discriminating based on how people are born is just wrong and I will fight to keep such beliefs out of state policy and laws. You welcome to believe it but don't make it law and don't force it onto others through state policy.

I also don't buy that these people with religious beliefs are being forced to do anything. They chose themselves to become a marriage official. They applied. Thus they should accept the terms of employment. Comes back to the disable firefighter analogy: if you can't perform the job, it is justified to fire you i.e. revoke your ability to officiate marriages.
 
wbot said:
I completely respect some Christians' beliefs that marriage should only be between a man and a woman even though I do not agree with them. The modern Bible was written or revised in times when only men had real power so I do believe that many texts were lost over time or destroyed if they were about women or other stuff like homosexuality, but I still respect other Christian's who choose to live by today's version of the Bible and those who follow it religiously.
Click to expand...
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

There's many more where that came from. If you follow the bible literally you are no better than ISIS.
 
tetrasect said:
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

There's many more where that came from. If you follow the bible literally you are no better than ISIS.
Click to expand...
Lots of people like to point out the barbarity of Sharia law, but the Bible has some really horrible stuff in it. What makes Western Christians better is that they have learned to ignore the more horrible stuff in the bible. The problem is that some Christians just love to hate Gay people. This is why the parts about Gay people in Leviticus are trotted out often but they tend to ignore all the other things in Leviticus that might inconvenience their own lives.
 
Cray said:
Lots of people like to point out the barbarity of Sharia law, but the Bible has some really horrible stuff in it. What makes Western Christians better is that they have learned to ignore the more horrible stuff in the bible. The problem is that some Christians just love to hate Gay people. This is why the parts about Gay people in Leviticus are trotted out often but they tend to ignore all the other things in Leviticus that might inconvenience their own lives.
Click to expand...
Of course. Christians are way better than Christianity doctrine and Muslims are way better than Islamic doctrine and so on..

Everyone cherry picks from their books and conveniently disregards horrendous inhumane teachings as they suddenly have context. Some believe Jesus was a guy who only said love your neighbor and so god is love and all that crap and no one will say 'Isn't there a context to love thy neighbor' - what if neighbor was a murderer and a drug dealer, would you still love them ?

Or maybe, now that I have mentioned above, someone will come up with some verse that gives context. Anything can be twisted to suit any agenda. Genesis predicted big bang, plastic surgery was invented by Hindus, Mohammed came up with germ theory and so on. That is beauty of having volumes of text in religious books.
 
wbot said:
That's not the same though because doctors are not servants of God like pastors or priests etc. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage should be between a man and a woman so obviously there will be "servants of God" who take this very seriously.

I'm a Christian but personally I have no problem with same sex marriages or gay people in general but I also respect people who take their own religious beliefs extra seriously and who wouldn't want to do something that goes against it. I completely respect some Christians' beliefs that marriage should only be between a man and a woman even though I do not agree with them. The modern Bible was written or revised in times when only men had real power so I do believe that many texts were lost over time or destroyed if they were about women or other stuff like homosexuality, but I still respect other Christian's who choose to live by today's version of the Bible and those who follow it religiously.

That's why I also totally respect places like Beloftebos.

Doctors are not doing God's work or making vows to God etc like pastors/priests/whatever so yes I def would have problems with them not wanting to touch sick gay people.

Also, do gay people REALLY want to be married by people who hate their sexuality? Rather find another place where everyone is happy imo.
Click to expand...
I'd say you'd need to view the civil servant not in a religious sense. In other words them validating the certificate carries no religious connotations. Its in essence just a civil union. Where this is perhaps an issue is of they subcontract in someone ordained from outside, in which case the is room for arguing that person should not be forced. This problem is easily avoided though.

This is very different than an actual religious servant from, whatever denomination, that is forced to approve of something in their own house so to speak. To force them would just imply a hollow religious ceremony without any real merit.
 
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hospitalized in Washington, DC after a fall Wednesday night.

His spokesman David Popp told Fox News that McConnell, 81, was attending a private dinner at a hotel and tripped.
Click to expand...
https://postmillennialnews.com/uvO1v5

6f6.jpg
 
For all those that opined the lack of actual debating around issues on these threads, but remain so entrenched in their own self enforced bubbles, I'm curious what your actual critiques of this clip are. I usually don't watch Tucker, but as he is the focus point of this news cycle it is appropriate.


You can listen to it at double speed as everyone speaks slowly, so you don't have an excuse that you don't have the time. As I said I'm interested to hear which parts are factually wrong?
I had to sit through a segment of "The View" discussing this and oh boy it's hard to find anything factual in there. Kinda throws the differences between Fox and MSNBC in stark relief...
I did chuckle at them saying that lying isn't protected by the first amendment or that it should be illegal for those on TV to lie :ROFL:

Either way the clip of Tucker just touches on some of the basics regarding that day. There is so much more regarding that day that can be added to through the whole spiel out of whack.
I'm particularly interested in if the video evidence was withheld from the defense and the judge as he claims. My previous comment about this was more to do with the limited public visibility about what really happened on the day.
Yet we have those saying it should be illegal to air more information?
 
Kieppie said:
Sorry, but that kite ain't gonna fly...

On the flip side, and also more accurately, a few scenes of violence doesn't translate into violence everywhere.
Curious if that guy is even aware on which of the four side the violence occurred :unsure:
Click to expand...
At least he's not excusing it as a confused tourist.
 
Cray said:
Lots of people like to point out the barbarity of Sharia law, but the Bible has some really horrible stuff in it. What makes Western Christians better is that they have learned to ignore the more horrible stuff in the bible.
Click to expand...

Sharia is usually also state law in Islamic countries whereas other countries have separation of church and state (mostly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X