| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ATRE 1507
Top Member
United States
673 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2007 : 1:13:43 PM
|
Look...it doesn't matter your sexualy orientation...
Just stop arguing...becasue if somebody really wants to get nasty...they could probably cosider this sexual harrassment...
And some of the remarks...good god....
SO everybody can keep it to them selves.
and BusDriver44...if you really wanna know if somebody is gay/bi...e-mail , IM or just don't say anything at all.
Arguing over nothing... |
Bus 1507: 2001 AmTran RE
Student
Fairfax County
Area One Transportation |
 |
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 3:09:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
... No, he does not have any rights or freedom towards his preference. He is a sicko. The only rights he should have is to be hung by his toe nails with a bullet shoved down his throat and left to die.
Better yet, by his toes. He is a sexual predator and anyone who advocates for him is just as sick.
There is a fine line between what is right and what is wrong.
Remember who said this? "JK and Peter, why don't you two come back to the future instead of living in the 30's?"
I believe you said that and so much more about acceptance, diversity and compassion and rights and on and on.
And I do believe that i also said this, "I think JK and Peter have won two round tickets to Provincetown, Massachusetts! You'll love it and I bet you'll never want to go back to the MidWest/West."
And someone said this: "There is just no excuse for maltreatment of someone who has a different sexuality than yourself."
Interesting that a person you are calling a, "sicko," merely watched some videos. There's no evidence Charles Rust-Tierney acted out his special interest in a physical way, and he certainly has plenty of friends and colleges, and even his former wife defending him.
Isn't there some sort of right to watch any videos after they have been published? According to the ACLU there should be.
You now suddenly sound like a basher and also just like some of those humans that criticize special interests beyond heterosexual behaviors - you seem suddenly demanding and repressive with no compassion for the diversity of others special preferences that go beyond your own personal diversity.
Interesting.
You realize, of course, this thread is now very near an escalation. People get angry and start working on the proof that they need not change when a so-called rights agenda turns out just another special preference that society overall frowns upon. And when that does not work some begin to lash out.
This thread may well end up deleted yet again, unless some here can find a way to debate this thread's issue without becoming angry. (jk)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1789, spoken by John Adams, former President of the United States of America.
I do remember that I said
1. "JK and Peter, why don't you two come back to the future instead of living in the
30's?"
And
2. "I think JK and Peter have won two round tickets to Provincetown, Massachusetts! You'll love it and I bet you'll never want to go back to the Midwest/West."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JK wrote:
quote:
Interesting that a person you are calling a, "sicko," merely watched some videos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
80-RE4 wrote:
Some videos???
Sorry to ask, but did have too much to drink last night when you wrote your post, I know it was the 3rd of July/4th and many parties were going on, so I will forgive your post.
-& I am trying to keep this on a non-angry level,
but, hello, Charles Rusty whatever his name is watched child pornography (THOSE ARE NOT declared to BE simply WATCHING SOME VIDEOS ). THAT IS ILLEGAL, SEXUAL EXPOITATION, CHILD ABUSE, AND JUST NOT RIGHT.,
Let him watch re-runs of the Mickey Mouse Club, that's fine with me, but to watch children being exploited and abused is just ill and he should be hung.
Now I see where you are taking your argument. Because gay and lesbian want equal rights, you are going to make an argument that other people who want rights no matter what and they are should be granted them (And I know you will quote that part of my writing).
Charles Rust is a sicko and deserves to rot in hell. Yes I said it. And yes I said his type of diversity is not allowed. So what?
You are now comparing two different things. Nice try Jk to prove some kind of invalid point.
Lastly, no matter what I type in here you will find a way to change it and make it fit your illusions about this topic.
Have a simply wonderful day
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/04/2007 3:42:53 PM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 4:55:02 PM
|
Divorce rates ar 74%, maybe the gay people can lower this. Seems like the idea of Marriage is already a mess. Why not revamp the whole thing and allow anyone who is in love to marry?
Marriage should be between any two consenting adults. Even though years ago I remember hearing my family talk about people getting married at 12 and 13. So, why were those people not jailed for having sex with children? I know of one man who was 18 and he married his "sweetheart" who was 15, this was in like 1965! |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
Edited by - SW1976 on 07/04/2007 5:10:09 PM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 4:59:16 PM
|
"Sorry to ask, but did [you] have too much to drink last night when you wrote your post, ..."
Nope, not drinking - just thinking.
I happen to agree with you about child porn, but can't seem to get it across that the ACLU and other collectives adamantly disagrees - claiming that once such materials are published that makes it allowable for viewing, that is the state no longer has jurisdiction over the materials. Again, I disagree with the ACLU's corrupted position, in my opinion.
I do not agree with vigilantism toward child predators, other than instant intervention during an ongoing attempt, which probably is not vigilantism, and do agree with justice served, including the death penalty applied to what for now are still considered horrific acts by the main stream. Obviously, the courts are demonstrating disagreement.
The purpose of my posts, as mentioned, was for discussion by expanding perspectives and to present the dangers involved when special collectives acquire too much power through the courts.
I believe that perspective has been fulfilled adequately and did demonstrate that some of the collective agendas out there are dangerous and are certainly seeking the same sympathy and legitimacy the current permissions have acquired.
Those are real concerns that have worked their way into some of the highest political and court systems in our country.
I don't know what a reckoning would involve, if any, but noticed that the potential is there for an explosion among various groups lashing out at each other.
This thread has remained reasonably civil after the first thread was deleted - an interesting result.
However, there is enough disgust presented, certainly some of my share presented that disgusts me - just as I'm aware of an apparent increasing in filthy behavior of students and also involving bus drivers in stories that I do not post myself, other than on occasion. It is just too nauseating for me and might risk changing the character and intent of this forum if too many such stories were posted.
I am not personally convinced this thread is appropriate in this forum. We can, of course negotiate to delete some of the posts, or let SBF decide to allow the thread to exist for now or to delete it.
Frustrations and opinions to express frustrations have been served well in this thread. SBF deleating the thread at this point would harm no one in my opinion.
I can agree, for example, to all partisipants deleting everything back to 80-RE4's post - Posted - 07/02/2007 : 06:31:40 AM - even agreeing to lock the thread at that point, but that's just my thought at this point.
Sometimes a right here and a freedom there seems necessary to restrict in order to avoid contaminating a great place of assembly.
And so, again, always possible for reasonable people to negotiate removing some of the posts without forcing SBF intervention, if that thought is present, and provided those adults involved in this thread can agree that would be helpful to these forums. (jk) |
Edited by - JK on 07/05/2007 04:39:34 AM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 5:05:52 PM
|
| Funny how some people threaten to force other people. How is this not appropriate? What is appropriate? Only School Bus talk? Then you might have to delete a bunch of threads. |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
Edited by - SW1976 on 07/04/2007 5:12:02 PM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 5:40:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SW1976
Funny how some people threaten to force other people. How is this not appropriate? What is appropriate? Only School Bus talk? Then you might have to delete a bunch of threads.
Myself appreciate the manner in which SBF manages these forums. A thread remains or is deleted without discussion. Excellent manners to deal with some threads. There is always the option for all a thread's participants to negotiate among themselves, but not a requirement.
Makes one wonder how the founders of this country ever came to agreement on any least part of the Constitution. (jk) |
Edited by - JK on 07/04/2007 5:44:59 PM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 5:50:17 PM
|
From what I have read they never came to agreement. It was done by MAJORITY. You are the only person I have seen wanting this deleted. Or your the only person who has said so. Why is it that you want to delete other peoples opinions?
Again I do ask, how is this thread any different from one discussing Song Titles? I think they are both equally relevant to the forum. This is a forum where we can discuss things that matter to us. This happens to matter greatly to me. It has impacted my life and I want it talked about. |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 6:37:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SW1976
Divorce rates ar 74%, maybe the gay people can lower this. Seems like the idea of Marriage is already a mess. Why not revamp the whole thing and allow anyone who is in love to marry?...
Well, okay - would suppose divorce rates might be a legitimate side topic in this thread. Where there has been a long enough period to gather data, such as in Norway and Sweden, the outlook is not so good for same-sex marriages. There's the usual arguing over stats but the results stiil end up discouraging.
Divorce Rate in Same-Sex Partnerships In Sweden
Parenting & Family
Updated: 19 September 2004
A new study published by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy (IMAPP) in May, 2004, sheds light on the high incidence of legal "divorce" among gays who entered into a registered same-sex partnership in Sweden.
The IMAPP report surveys the results of a study published by Gunnar Andersson, earlier this year entitled "Divorce-Risk Patterns In Same-Sex 'Marriages' In Norway And Sweden."
The IMAPP report notes that in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.
The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
According to IMAPP: "Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."
Source: NARTH |
Edited by - JK on 07/04/2007 10:15:29 PM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 7:20:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
"Sorry to ask, but did [you] have too much to drink last night when you wrote your post, ..."
Nope, not drinking - just thinking.
I happen to agree with you about child porn, but can't seem to get it across that the ACLU and other collectives adamantly disagrees - claiming that once such materials are published that makes it allowable for viewing. Again, I disagree with the ACLU's corrupted position, in my opinion.
I do not agree with vigilantism toward child predators, other than instant intervention during an ongoing attempt, which probably is not vigilantism, and do agree with justice served, including the death penalty applied to what for now are still considered horrific acts by the main stream. Obviously, the courts are demonstrating disagreement.
The purpose of my posts, as mentioned, was for discussion by expanding perspectives and to present the dangers involved when special collectives acquire too much power through the courts.
I believe that perspective has been fulfilled adequately and did demonstrate that some of the collective agendas out there are dangerous and are certainly seeking the same sympathy and legitimacy the current permissions have acquired.
Those are real concerns that have worked their way into some of the highest political and court systems in our country.
I don't know what a reckoning would involve, if any, but noticed that the potential is there for an explosion among various groups lashing out at each other.
This thread has remained reasonably civil after the first thread was deleted - an interesting result.
However, there is enough disgust presented, certainly some of my share presented that disgusts me - just as I'm aware of an apparent increasing in filthy behavior of students and also involving bus drivers in stories that I do not post myself, other than on occasion. It is just too nauseating for me and might risk changing the character and intent of this forum if too many are posted.
I am not personally convinced this thread is appropriate in this forum. We can, of course negotiate to delete some of the posts, or let SBF decide to allow the thread to exist for now or to delete it.
Frustrations and opinions to express frustrations have been served well in this thread. SBF deleating the thread at this point would harm no one in my opinion.
I can agree, for example, to all partisipants deleting everything back to 80-RE4's post - Posted - 07/02/2007 : 06:31:40 AM - even agreeing to lock the thread at that point, but that's just my thought at this point.
Sometimes a right here and a freedom there seems necessary to restrict in order to avoid contaminating a great place of assembly.
And so, again, always possible for reasonable people to negotiate removing some of the posts without forcing SBF intervention, if that thought is present, and provided those adults involved in this thread can agree that would be helpful to these forums. (jk)
JK, I also disagree with what the ACLU says about child pornography and I'm horrified that they would ever even try to make it legal. Those members of the aclu who tried to or are trying to make it legal should be ejected from their seats.
As I've said before, I have a very limited background on the Aclu and maybe someday I will study what they stand for.
What I believe in is:
Equal rights for
gay and lesbian people who want to live a productive life,
a hate free society towards gay and lesbian, straight and transgendered law abiding people.
Not special rights but equal rights.
If you feel it's time for this thread to stop, then maybe we should let it sink to the bottom. Just as Massachusetts did, our state can now move on, as gay marriage will stay legal in Massachusetts.
I also have very little respect for "VoteonMarriage.com" they obtained signatures decietfully and I believe a higher power, yes, God (I am Christian, Catholic) dealt with them.
The lawmakers can discuss more important things. It's been legal here in Mass since 2004..
Brief History of Massachusetts Gay Marriage.
[edit] Timeline
May 7, 2002: Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly issues an opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health denying plaintiffs' statutory and constitutional claims for recognition of same-sex marriage. Relying on the history of Massachusetts marriage laws and constitutional provisions, Judge Connolly determined that the marriage statute was not gender-neutral and no fundamental right to same-sex marriage existed. He concluded by saying that the issue should be handled by the legislature.[1]
November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules 4 to 3 in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gives the state legislature 180 days to change the law. The court found that Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry" because of a clause in the state's constitution that forbids "the creation of second-class citizens."[1]
February 4, 2004: The court clarified in a statement to the Massachusetts Senate that it was unacceptable to allow heterosexual couples marriages but homosexual couples only civil unions; they found the distinction unconstitutional discrimination, even if the state rights granted were otherwise identical.[16]
February 11, 2004: A constitutional convention is convened to attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's decision. After six weeks marked by intense debate and tactical voting to prevent a more extreme measure, the state legislature narrowly passes an amendment 105-92 that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. The amendment could have taken effect if it was approved by the legislature in 2005, and by popular vote in 2006.[17]
May 17, 2004: The Supreme Court's ruling went into effect, 180 days after it was issued. The city of Cambridge began processing applications at one minute past midnight, cheered on by a crowd of five thousand gathered outside City Hall. Massachusetts has a three-day waiting period after a marriage application has been issued, but couples can seek a judicial waiver of that requirement.[18]. The first marriage was issued to Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish, of the Boston suburb of Malden — was finalized by 9:15 a.m. on May 17.[19]
September 7, 2005: Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly certified the wording of a referendum to ban gay marriage: "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."
September 14, 2005: The second convention to amend the Commonwealth's Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage (but permit civil unions) was held, which would allow the issue to go to a popular vote in 2006. This time, the amendment was defeated soundly, 157-39, and thus was not put before the voters.[20]
December 7, 2005: VoteOnMarriage.Org submitted 170,000 [u](ADDED BY 80 RE 4 - TRICKED SIGNATURES ) [/u]signatures for the referendum, with 65,825 required. [21] The amendment can now appear on the ballot if 50 legislators approve it in conventions during the current and next legislative sessions. The first convention is scheduled for July 12, 2006.[9]
March 30, 2006: The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 1913 Massachusetts law that prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state. It ruled that same-sex couples domiciled in other states that expressly prohibit same-sex marriage cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, and remanded cases from New York and Rhode Island to the Superior Court to determine whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states.[22]
September 29, 2006: Superior Court Justice Thomas E. Connolly ruled "that same-sex marriage is [...] not prohibited in Rhode Island". In his ruling[23], Justice Connolly wrote:
No evidence was introduced before this Court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage; and, after an exhaustive search, this Court has found no such prohibitory law. (page 8)
December 27, 2006: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously in C. Joseph Doyle & others vs. Secretary of the
Commonwealth & another that Massachusetts legislators have a constitutional obligation to vote on all voter initiatives before them before the end of any joint session. This settles the issue raised by many opponents of the marriage amendment, who have repeatedly stated that Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution does not require a vote by legislators. The SJC also indicated, however, that they have no authority to impose a legal remedy for the plaintiffs. In its opinion, the SJC unanimously agreed:
"The members of the joint session have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007. With respect to legislative action on proposals for constitutional amendments introduced to the General Court by initiative petition, the language of art. 48 is not ambiguous."
"Today's discussion and holding on the meaning of the duty lays any doubt to rest. The members of the General Court are the people's elected representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by other procedural vote of similar consequence), ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them."
January 2, 2007: The proposed amendment received a vote on the last day of the 2006 legislative session. While 132 legislators opposed the amendment, 61 supported it, enough to advance the measure to the next legislative session.
June 14, 2007: The proposed amendment was defeated when it failed to receive enough votes. 151 legislators opposed the amendment and 45 supported it, falling short of the 50 votes required to advance the measure to the November 2008 ballot. 4 legislators were absent or abstained from the vote.[5]
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/04/2007 9:39:38 PM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 10:13:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SW1976
From what I have read they never came to agreement. It was done by MAJORITY. You are the only person I have seen wanting this deleted. Or your the only person who has said so. Why is it that you want to delete other peoples opinions?
The majority, eh? Interesting concept.
Nice try but really don't recall asking for any post deleted in this thread, only agreeing that where all could find agreement to some posts deleted. Myself hadn't decided at what point, just an example.
Obviously, that concept may not fit here. In that case would think it wise to learn from history about any thread here in these forums that gets too out of control. Learning from history can work on the bus, when dealing with people and even here in these forums.
I make no claim of being a Christian or subscribing to any religion, only recognize and acknowledge the values that helped establish this nation's founder's 'grand experiment.' (jk)
If you want to truly understand something, try to change it. ~Kurt Lewin, founder of modern social psychology.
|
Edited by - JK on 07/05/2007 04:30:35 AM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 11:11:17 PM
|
[/quote]
Nice try but really don't recall asking for any post deleted in this thread, only agreeing that where all could find agreement to some posts deleted. Myself hadn't decided at what point, just an example.
[/quote]
In your very own words you said one thing and then said the opposite.
You say you do not recall asking for anything to be deleted. Then you say you thought there could be an agreement and some post deleted.
Which is it? You want something deleted or you don't? |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 04:02:55 AM
|
Well, you might try staying within the context of what I said, if an answer is what you are actually after. Seems not always the case for some.
But for you exclusively, here is an example. I've excluded my self from all related interest threads except this one. Regardless, while intending to post here I posted in another related thread, then deleted that post.
Here is that post:
Equality for everyone? How does that work? (jk)
|
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 04:05:15 AM
|
Ah yes SW1976, welcome to the hair wrenching experience of trying to decifer what JK says and what he actually means. It's become an artform. But Alas, I think I can shed light in your confusion. I believe JK called for this entire thread to be deleted, not an actual single post.
Carry on. |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 05:55:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
... I believe JK called for this entire thread to be deleted, not an actual single post.
Well then, if reading my posts requires some sort of art form then you have miserably failed to interpret the art, since you completely misstated what I posted. My posts concerning the potential for this thread's deletion was an alert - not a call for this thread or any individual or spacific post to be deleted. My guess is that some understand my actual intention in that regard - they read in context of all relating to a single statement, not just one sentence - and some simply are easily confused and inturn spread that confusion, you think?
Myself certainly remain confused about one short sentence: "Equality for everyone." Just how does that work? Who is everyone and how far does giving every person an equal right to their special preference go? How much do I have to assume for that statement to work?
No need to answer - again, simply considering out loud and in this post.
Have a nice day. (jk)
|
Edited by - JK on 07/06/2007 06:08:35 AM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 06:47:08 AM
|
Equality:
Function: noun
Pronunciation: i-'kwä-l&-te
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being equal
Everybody which is an extention of Everyone
Main Entry: ev·ery·body
Function: pronoun
Pronunciation: 'ev-ri-"b&-de, -"bä-
: every person : EVERYONE
Equality for everyone would be Every person given the quality or state of being equal
|
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 06:57:22 AM
|
Equality for Everyone: That statement has already been dissected, discussed and reviewed. Scroll up to find the answer.
Not many understand your ramblings, train of thought or opinions - from what I've gathered from those who respond to your posts. You have a peculiar way of presenting thoughts in a clear and concise way. Just an opinion.
Here's an example: In your previous post, you asked a variety of questions, "Just how does that work? Who is everyone and how far does giving every person an equal right to their special preference go? How much do I have to assume for that statement to work?"
Go to the very next sentence: "No need to answer..."
See the confusion your present? You're only fooling yourself.
|
- Ryan |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:48:26 AM
|
| Don't see any confusion at all in asking those questions and allowing for no answer. No expectation from you and no decision made for you. Have a nice day. (jk) |
Edited by - JK on 07/06/2007 07:51:03 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:28:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
Well, you might try staying within the context of what I said, if an answer is what you are actually after. Seems not always the case for some.
But for you exclusively, here is an example. I've excluded my self from all related interest threads except this one. Regardless, while intending to post here I posted in another related thread, then deleted that post.
Here is that post:
Equality for everyone? How does that work? (jk)
Jk
I understand you might deny that this answer is what you were looking for, but I am 99.99 percent this is the answer you desire from previous posts of yours. Of course, equal rights can't be allocated for EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD.
Equal rights NOT for everyone, equal rights for LAW ABIDING individuals--
<OBVIOUSLY I CAN¡¦T COVER EVERYONE!>
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR? (EQUALITY FOR?)
ľ Law abiding:
ľ Straight adults - yes
ľ Gay adults - yes
ľ Lesbian adults - yes
ľ Transgendered adults - yes
ƒæ Democrats ¡V yes
ƒæ Republicans ¡V yes
ƒæ Grandmas ¡V yes
ƒæ Grandpas ¡V yes
ƒæ Mothers ¡V yes
ƒæ Fathers ¡V yes
ƒæ Teachers ¡V yes
ƒæ School bus drivers ¡V yes
ƒæ Veterinarians ¡V yes
ƒæ Police officers ¡V yes
ƒæ Homeland security ¡V yes
ƒæ Chinese people ¡V yes
ƒæ Black people ¡V yes
ƒæ White people ¡V yes
ƒæ Red people ¡V yes
ƒæ And all other law abiding people ¡V yes
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR? (EQUALITY FOR?)
Murderers ¡V NO
Abductors ¡V NO
People who steal and take advantage of the innocent (elderly, young, disabled or anyone else) NO
Thieves ¡V No
Pedophiles ¡V NO
Child sex lovers ¡V NO
Rapist ¡V NO
Abusers ¡V NO
People with strange sex obsessions with animals ¡V NO
People who steal ¡V no
People who commit gross crimes ¡V NO
Sex predators ¡V no
And anyone who is convicted of an atrocious crime ¡V no
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/06/2007 08:34:47 AM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 12:49:17 PM
|
What I'm seeing is Equal Rights for Some and not for others - not for Everybody or Everyone, as defined by another poster - (Equality for Everyone would be Every person given the quality or state of being equal.)
Even in this country for a time some did not have so-called equal rights - not for Indians, not for women, not for blacks and not for many others included on 80-RE4's 'No' list.
It just depends on ones' personal bias and discriminations and cuerrnt residence to some, of which it appears here that a few seem to propose to have no bias at all (seems Everyones special preference is equally acceptable), and some that have quite a list which can clearly show the fallacy of Everyone considered equal.
The law, of course, can no longer be counted on as a reliable device or source, nor the courts or the State, and not the Constitution. In reality, it is the ACLU that actually comes the closest to supporting literal equal rights, but within their special agendas of course.
I've been provided no options here that are adequate to serve all here, let alone all out there, and am left to agree with a politician and former President of the United States of America's remarks in this matter:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1789, spoken by John Adams, former President of the United States of America.
I would think it true, for the purpose of discussion, where equality was the actual issue that an option exists to flee Eastward back to ones' chosen preference, back across the ocean blue to each their chosen Motherland. 'Go East Young Man' may be a slogan some might consider - Go East across the ocean blue to ones' freedom of choice in their chosen bias.
This, Eastward Ho! adventure of course, would not necessarily apply to the Religious, which the majority came Westward to establish Freedom of Religion, not freedom from religion.
Although this would seem a simple solution to achieve some sort of equality reality, based on residence, doubt there would be much measure of cooperation in this regard, since it has already been agreed that it took a majority vote for all the people in the same room at the time to even agree to sign the Constitution of the United States of America, which then became a document in history that established this sovereign nation.
If majority rule was good enough for individuals to establish the Constitution, which gave majority rule to the people, then someone is welcomed to explain for what reason special collectives are using a despot approach to force their special agendas?
Leads me to disagree with Benito, rest his soul, and to accept that what the people agree to allow ought to be done at the voting booth, as both the equalizer and best equally we could hope to achieve.
I realize that some disagree and can understand their special personal reasoning, but do not accept their attempts to nationalize their special personal reasoning through the courts.
To all a nice day, and here's to a red sky at night and smooth sailing for any thinking of going sailing (jk)
"We must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but sail we must and not drift nor lie at anchor." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, a physician by profession but achieved fame as a writer. His son Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was an American jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932.
"I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving -- we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it -- but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., American jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932
|
Edited by - JK on 07/07/2007 08:08:04 AM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:11:43 PM
|
Quoting 1902-1932....That has been 100 years ago, get over it. Today is 2007. Life goes forward. Stop living in yesterday. That is the problem with this country today. All these OLD congressmen, presidents, etc... Incumbents are the root of all evil!
JK, stop beating ... around the bush and just say what your problem is. |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
Gini
Top Member
USA
1243 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 03:14:17 AM
|
i have been following this thread. i believe a careful reading of the posts show:
1) no one asking for this thread to be deleted, rather a warning that when posters go beyond being passionate about the topic & become upset, & then start posting unacceptable comments, the thread is likely to be yanked.
2) the excersize of following a particular theological position to it's logical conclusion. JK nowhere supported those who are "sick", just showed where the statements of others could be drawn out to. those conclusions are being used by a tiny percent of people most of would label as perverted to fight for their way of thinking to try to change things in their favor.
3) those of us who disagree w/ the majority of posters here are denigrated, accused of having our position due to backwards thinking, implying that we are bigoted, & hateful, having no reason that could be considered acceptable for our position. this in spite of none of us who disagree wanting or calling for any harm to those who disagree w/ us. the only people on this thread who are treated w/ respect are those who claim they believe that all should be treated equaly, but those who disagree are not treated equaly & w/ respect.
i know that the majority of people who don't believe that the homosexual lifestyle is right also believe that no one should be subjected to violence, denied a living or the right to choose how they live. we are just saying it's wrong, because God's word says it's wrong.
i openly admit i am a Christian, & that i do my best to follow Jesus's teaching. yes, i am to love all, but i'm not supposed to deny what God has to say about sin. i don't condem those who sin, but i can't say their actions are right. is it wrong for people to lie, steal, cheat, just as it is wrong to commit sexual sins? of course! no sin pleases God, all sin displeases Him. the Bible teaches that "all have sinned & fallen short of the Glory of the Lord". while there are natural consequences to sins that differ, in God's eyes all sin result in death. that's why God gave us His Son, Jesus, to pay the cost for our sins. sin separates us from God. when we repent, then trust & believe in Jesus, we are reconnected to God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, & the life. no one comes to the Father but through Me". we don't change ourselves before we come to God, we let Him cleanse us.
if i am going to accept any of the Bible as true, i have to accept all of it, whether i agrree w/ all of it or not. if i pick & choose what ever parts i want from it, i lower it's value to that of second rate self-help books. the logical extention of people picking & choosing bits & pieces of different "wisdom" from whatever source they choose, naming themselves as judge as to what is of value & what isn't, leads to relativism. that is what we have today, people have now been raised that "what's right for you might not be right for me, & what's right for me might not be what you want". we see the results everyday in the news, where people don't believe there is a right & wrong that is determined by God. they make up their own rules, or more often than not, have no rules. that allows them to act out any thought that comes up. add the fact that so many only consume the lowest of ideas, &entertainment, then are encouraged to "let it all out", it's no wonder the reports that show up in the news.
i am sure that there many nice, moral, decent people who are gay, same for heteros. i know there is good & bad in all types of sexual orientations. but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible is God's word, & we are to follow it. are there Christians who are hypocrites? of course there are. but there are so many more Christians that try to live as Jesus says, that proclaim that God;s Word is right, & proclaim it w/ love. somewhere along the way the definition of "disagree" has been changed in the popular culture to mean that one who disagrees hates & reviles the people they disagree w/, rather than the true meaning, that one who disagrees doesn't believe the same as the people they disagrees w/. if i say i believe homosexuality is wrong, i'm called a hate-monger, even though i believe all people should be treated w/ respect, & try to live my convictions. i sin, i am human, but i try grow & let the Lord lead me to live in a right way. i am not unusual, the majority of Christians i know are like me. i've known many Pastors, who preach against the homosexual lifestyle, yet treat ALL who come to them w/ respect & love. it is hard to hear someone disagree w/ the way you think w/o becoming emotional & defensive, hearing only "no no, what you do is wrong".
whi;le i know many non-Christians who are decent, loving people, the people who are most hateful towards gays are NOT Christian, or are so only in the cultural sense, & are not foloowers of Christ.
i hope y'all will treat me w/ the same respect i give you, even though i express an opposing viewpoint.
|
1Peter 1:3 |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 05:15:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SW1976
Quoting 1902-1932....That has been 100 years ago, get over it. Today is 2007. Life goes forward. Stop living in yesterday. That is the problem with this country today. All these OLD congressmen, presidents, etc... Incumbents are the root of all evil!
JK, stop beating ... around the bush and just say what your problem is.
Sometimes what has been pointed out before in this thread keeps repeating itself from others, a form of compressed history repeating itself - making what some claim is old history and not useful, to actually be history simply hiding in the time-line awaiting its spot in the current.
How many of these making false claims about the value of history first review the history of this thread before commenting? And how many error in their comments when failing to do so adequately?
Arrogance (like violence) has its own history, by which I'm surprised you used the phrase 'Beating....around the bush' (from boar hunting - avoids approaching anything directly) to serve ones' own arrogance, when 'Rubbed The Wrong Way' (to present insensitively, clumsy word or action - goes back to colonial times) still would have suited your mindset toward those in disagreement with you and without pausing part-way into a saying, thereby attempting to modify its meaning with a smybol representing invisable words "..." in this case and hidden from casual readers.
You seem to me to sound like someone that has an 'Axe to grind' (from Benjamin Franklin, meaning a hidden motive behind their actions), and perhaps may at least be somewhat justified in that regard.
I would think that the ACLU or some other special collective would have approached you by now and offered to 'Pull some strings' (origin in the puppeteers - those behind-the-scenes manipulating things that made the show happen) on your behalf. A rejection of your treatment in your situation at your workplace might especially be justified were you also falsely accused of having an inappropriate interest in children.
Some in your situation might keep in mind that some presentations, when attempting to 'Read between the lines' (Ancient military strategy - writing in code or invisible ink between lines of text), may suggest a level of radical arrogance that hopefully was not occurring on the bus.
Myself would think it possible that such 'Gung Ho' (origin in building the Great Wall in China, their foreman would yell Gung Ho and then they'd all get busy in unison - in WWII became a signal for enthusiastically working together or alone) presentations was not occurring on the bus, since I believe plenty here act out in a way in these forums that is not acted out in the same way in the workplace or on the school bus.
Regardless, and at some risk of being read the 'Riot Act' (origin, 1716, King George I of England, proclamation that if 12 or more people engaged in a demonstration were warned when read this specific Act, then those rioters sent home), or accused of being on a 'Lunatic Fringe' (ancient Rome, a belief that the moon (Luna) influenced sanity), and myself not necessarily wanting to 'Spill the beans' (from ancient Greece, a clumsy voter knocking over the voting jar revealing all the beans - phrase refers to someone who reveals the truth or hidden secrets), in what I present.
Not all would accept my opinion in this regard anyway. And so some might otherwise view some of your displays as a 'Prima Donna' (an old Italian phrase meaning "First Lady" - later to mean any person who is egotistical and wanting special treatment) behavior or other form of arrogance from your mindset and as attempting to 'Pass the Buck' (origin in playing Cards - avoids accepting responsibility).
You could eventually end up marked a 'Character' (origin from the Bible referring to Cain, then Medieval courts - to brand a criminal not given a death sentence with a mark.) and ('Blackballed' (from voting to accept or exclude by dropping a white or black ball into a hat or box), and finally 'Blacklisted' (from British colleges where the deans had black leather bound books with the names of boys who had disciplinary issues and misdeeds), even more so then currently the case.
One can eventually become 'Bushed' (modified phrase from Dutch settlers meant clearing a forest, to then mean exhausted) and forced to 'Throw in the Towel' (old boxing days remains today - forced to give up).
The decision is yours of course. My mention is to consider what sort of future activities would you prefer - that of an employed person that can 'Keep A Stiff Upper Lip' (old British military discipline term, a soldier was ordered to control his mustache's movements and keep a stiff upper lip!) and just trying to get along while attempting to bring change, or that of an agitated and unemployed radical and 'Scapegoat' (Hebrews - laying the sins of the people on the head of a black goat, then setting it free), but serving whom?
For this reason, you might beware of those who may suggest that I 'Don't know beans' (from an old riddle often told in old rural country stores - How many blue beans does it take to make 7 white beans?) even though I am somewhat blacklisted myself in some circles for other reasons.
Ought to be mentioned that such decisions to attempt change for whatever reason when not 'Up to Snuff' (origin ment someone who couldn't tell the difference between pure quality tobacco and the mixture - now refers to someone not able to tell the genuine) can alter calmness in ones' life on 'Cloud Nine' (Holy Trinity since 3 x 3 = 9 & Victorian times, a person dressed to the nines).
It is not often that such adventures present a 'Life of Riley' (from Patrick Rooney in the 1880's an Irish comic/singer created a song about Mr. Reilly and who imagined what his life would be like if he hit it rich in California) outcome without plenty of genuine support from family and friends - not just support from those using you to promote their own 'Axe to grind' or other hidden motives at play.
One ought to always take the time to read the 'Handwriting on the wall' (from the bible - refers to Belshazzar, the successor to King Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel the prophet) and not provoke a storm that begins 'Raining Cats and Dogs' (Relating to Norse Mythology - God of Storms, and also an old belief that witches caused storms).
Again, your 'Decision to make' (origin from Adam & Eve in Paradise Bible story).
Would suppose I could go one and on with phrases that history made my use presented similar to images in picture stories. It is a fact that history often does repeat itself these days in a variety of forms, which can help the aware, as well as remind those that deny the value of knowing ones' history and learning from history, that knowing history remains a valuable lesson these days. Sometimes knowing the origin of something or a history of something itself can be useful in some of the most unexpected ways.
Thanks for the idea. (jk)
|
Edited by - JK on 07/07/2007 11:16:16 AM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 07:21:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gini
i have been following this thread. i believe a careful reading of the posts show: ...
Well done Gini, always a good idea to read the history of a thread before commenting, in my opinion. I would expect you given decent treatment, concerning your beliefs as well.
Myself, nothing near your comfort in God or Christ or in much of anything else, for that mater. I simply avoid - consider this a little left over from my previous post - looking a gift horse in the mouth from our nation's founders.
I speak in favor of the Christian belief because I believe the values presented in the Judaeo-Christian philosophy, if you will, goes well beyond the spiritual to embrace the practical as well. And this country is one of the few nation's, if any other, that attempted a 'grand experiment' with such divine earnest.
That the reality, as I see it, leaves little room to argue what the founders pondered concerning the role of a religious people and their government in this nation.
There is no secret among what myself would consider the aware in respect to what the effect a European mindset can have on this nation, nor what must first happen to help start the decline that in-turn helps this country become insignificant.
Not much rocket science involved in determining that outcome, but I would not be looking for the Thought Police to be banging on the doors of those in disagreement with the Euro-cause these days. A newer and more modern thinking government then our current bureaucracy, one that utterly rewrites history, not just ignores history would need to evolve for that invasive an activity.
By the time such things happen like what happened in Germany, Italy and other nations, if their history is somehow possible and somehow destined to be repeated on this side of the globe, then it is also likely to presume that there will not be much we the people can do about that.
But I personally feel this side of the globe will eventually and simply become insignificant, including involvement in the wars and treasons to sanity that are yet to again come upon those nations on the other side of the globe that some have predicted.
And so I mention on occasion to thank God for our abundance and continued blessings from what is happening in so many other parts of the world. Our evil, so to speak, is not much different than what has existed in all nations.
A religious peoples simple resistance to let go of a thought that we are accountable beyond the grave to some unique force greater than ourselves, and the promise that provides great hope, seems a helpful restraint from the price so many nations have paid and so many will likely continue to suffer upon themselves in that regard.
Enough of that deep thinking form me - time to go eat breakfast with the Mrs.
A very good day to all. (jk)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1789, spoken by John Adams, former President of the United States of America. |
Edited by - JK on 07/07/2007 12:13:49 PM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 2:52:46 PM
|
Well for one thing, Christians don't judge people even if they are sinners. We are all sinners. We can take many things out of the bible and damn people to hell if that is what we want to do. I remember many things that I read in the bible that I see people do everyday and nobody says anything. Should we fire all bus drivers who are single parents that were never married? That was said in the bible. Should we fire anyone who gets a divorce? My point is, if we are going to take one thing from the bible and "enforce" it, then lets enforce it all. I am a Christian and I have no problems with anyone at my church or anything. They know I am homosexual and they are all open enough to admit, God said love everyone no matter their sins!
Gini, none of this has been turned as an attack on you, just stating my opinion. I don't see that I have ever "attacked" anyone in the forum. I just simply state my opinion which I feel is as important as anyones.
I was fired from Henry County Schools for having a ad looking for friends. The ad didn't even say one thing about sex. A simple guy looking for friends. I was there almost six years. I had seen many things happen that were not right. But none of that mattered, because I might be gay. Nobody to this day has even asked if I am indeed gay. That is all okay. But let me tell you, when I have been unemployed for more than a year and every company that interviews me says that they can't hire me because of my work problem in Henry County. I know what is going on and it is time for the good ole boys to go away. A new generation is coming in and it is okay to let people be people and accept them no matter what they do in their own home. I have lost my car, had to move and everything else because of bigots. I am not scared anymore. If it comes down to me having to protect myself, I am okay with that. I refuse to let people run me now. I will stand for my rights as will everyone else in life. My rights are not to be downed for anything I may or may not do in my bedroom. My bedroom is my business and nobody elses.
If a straight person comes to work bragging about what her and her husband done last night, she is patted on the back by everyone and told, Its healthy. If a gay man or woman comes to work and say, wow, I went on a date with a great guy/girl last night, they are downed and then terminated. Where is the right in this? Who decides what is right and wrong when it comes to another persons life? As long as the two people involved are adults and consenting?
As far as the comment about inticing children. If you will look it is mostly older straight men who molest children. Maybe that is something the ACLU needs to pick up. Having older straight men removed from buses because the % goes up when they are on the bus that a child may be molested. But, that wouldn't be fair now would it?
Hope everyone is having a great weekend and as always feel free to contact me via email or IM on AOL at MdntDrmr@aol.com |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 7:19:00 PM
|
How can I write my life story out in a few sentences.... At the age of 4 or 5, I knew I was gay (or that there was something different about me) but look, it turned out that I was "gay". I kept it from many people until about the age of 12, and still kept it from many more people until I came out all the way at 21. Yeah, I had one girl who didn't talk to me for a few weeks because she liked me, but that's life! Anyways, I understand all of this, but I am Catholic, I am Christian, I received First Communion, I was also Confirmed in the 11th grade. Jesus loves me, God loves me, I will always believe that and no one can ever take that away from me. I appreciate everyone's comments towards this, no harm done, but too much reading and my head is starting to spin!
And SW it's too bad you live in such a strange state. Nothing like that in MA.
No one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation (bisexual,gay,straight,lesbian,transgender).
My previous employer and current employer do not tolerate
any type of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Maybe you should consider moving to Massachusetts, CT or RI.
--------------------------------------------------------
i like me for me,
not because i look like tyson bedford,
with the charm of robert redford,
unsing out my ears,
what i see,
are my most rending desisions,
my insecure conditions,
and the tears upon the pillow that i shed.
i don't care about my big screen,
or my collection of dvds,
things like that just never mattered much to me,
plus i don't watch too much tv.
i like me for me,
not because i hang with leonardo,
or that guy who played in fargo,
i think his name was steve.
and i just cant live without me,
and im so glad i found myself once again,
and im so glad i found myself once again,
yeah im so glad i found myself once again.
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/07/2007 7:28:26 PM |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 8:19:41 PM
|
Gini -
I have a tremendous amount of respect for your faith and your beliefs, and would never try to convince you otherwise. You have your faith, its guided you in your life, its been taught to you, and its personal and important to you. So I won't try to talk it down.
But here's my stab at it: The bible and jesus taught us about unconditional love. Love your neighbor, love your enemy. Where as I understand that you said you don't go out of your way to be disrespectful, where is the harm in two people being in love with eachother? Submitting themselves to eachother unconditionally? How is that REALLY sinning or going against Christianity if its a loving, committed relatinoship? I'm sure thats a question many have struggled with. I understand and have read many passages from the bible, and have even heard different interpretations about same scripture.
But Gini, what if you were persecuted, ridiculed, beaten or discriminated against simply because of your faith? How did the Jewish community ever face the Holocaust or get through it? Their faith is something that's natural and special to them - but some other authority made the decision that it was wrong. How would you feel in that situation? How is that any different from the homosexual population? How fair would it be to lose your job over your faith? Have co-workers turn their backs on you?
Unfortunately, I also attribute such harsh reactions from people about homosexuals because of shear ignorance. Most of their only contact with gay people is what is portrayed in the media, and many times its a gross stereotype. Not every gay person dresses in drag, waves peace flags in gay marches, says words like, "fabulous" or is out clubbing contracting AIDS. There have been many important historical figures through the years that have made a difference, affecting our daily lives today: From Leonardo DaVinci, ancient roman emporer Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caracalla, Napoleon, former Santa Cruz mayor John Laird, the first openly gay mayoral candidate to name a few. Even in 1989, Australia and Denmark formerly legalize homosexuality. Many countries follow. Many states here in our country recognize same sex marriage.
Once again, I'm not asking you, Gini, to change your beliefs because of what I've posted, but rather agree that there are people who's faith, beliefs or values concerning homosexuality are just as natural and ordinary to them, as your faith is to you.
In any event, that is my non-judgemental non-argumentative and as rationale as I can be post, which some have asked for. It's about the only post with an opposing view as mine that I've read that was worthy of me taking my time to flip through some books and reference material to be posted.
And a good night to all. |
- Ryan |
Edited by - Lords47 on 07/07/2007 8:23:07 PM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 05:07:50 AM
|
"Jesus loves me, God loves me, I will always believe that and no one can ever take that away from me.
I would expect, according to what I can understand in Christian documentation, that what you say is accurate and without flaw. Regardless, and whatever sin actually is, then that is what is hated. If your certain behavior is sin, then that is no less and no greater a sin than would an attempt by anyone to wish you physical harm, but not actually cause you physical harm. Sin is sin, white lies is sin, misstating is probably a sin, thinking hateful thoughts toward others is probably sin, and so is gossiping and whining and boredom. All those sins are no greater or no less a sin then whatever your sins are, provided I understand that documentation correctly. It would seem then that none are without sin. It would certainly then seem a good thing that sins are forgivable, according to the same documentation. But, again, and provided I understand the documentation correctly, forgiveness (to forget) does not always mean the person is not held accountable, but that an accounting might happen in this life, far later, or perhaps both in this life and far later. Same concerning any rewards for doing something good. I'm not privy to the particulars of that level of decision-making. For a more accurate explanation, ask God, or as reported in context, "Seek God." What I would suspect is that the documentation is accurate and practical, but that achieving that level of accuracy in the documentation is not the point of that documentation. To resist sin is the point of that documentation. Attempting to judge ones own behavior is probably not any more accurate than attempting to judge others. Regardless, there is nothing that I can find, when in context from all that I have read concerning this issue that would exclude Christians from making judgments about practically everything. That saying, "Judge not", is all that some see, sometimes missing even the remainder of that sentence. The entire quote seems to mean something more than not judging but simply means that when judging others there exists a right of receiving a judgment from others. So many seem to hang on that one part of the quote and missing the entire quote: "For the measure by which you judge is the measure by which you will be judged." An accurate judgment from mortals and from either direction is not guaranteed. All of the quote in context and in mondern language might mean, If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Not to judge all sorts of conditions, behaviors and things in life can guarantee a quick death. I'm not going to judge the speed limit or use any device to help me do so, just drive down every road and every street as fast as my car will go, foot to the floor and judge not. Ridiculous. Some seem to miss, "Watch out for false prophets." (jk)
|
Edited by - JK on 07/08/2007 05:46:05 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 06:18:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
"Jesus loves me, God loves me, I will always believe that and no one can ever take that away from me.
I would expect, according to what I can understand in Christian documentation, that what you say is accurate and without flaw. Regardless, and whatever sin actually is, then that is what is hated. If your certain behavior is sin, then that is no less and no greater a sin than would an attempt by anyone to wish you physical harm, but not actually cause you physical harm. Sin is sin, white lies is sin, misstating is probably a sin, thinking hateful thoughts toward others is probably sin, and so is gossiping and whining and boredom. All those sins are no greater or no less a sin then whatever your sins are, provided I understand that documentation correctly. It would seem then that none are without sin. It would certainly then seem a good thing that sins are forgivable, according to the same documentation. But, again, and provided I understand the documentation correctly, forgiveness (to forget) does not always mean the person is not held accountable, but that an accounting might happen in this life, far later, or perhaps both in this life and far later. Same concerning any rewards for doing something good. I'm not privy to the particulars of that level of decision-making. For a more accurate explanation, ask God, or as reported in context, "Seek God." What I would suspect is that the documentation is accurate and practical, but that achieving that level of accuracy in the documentation is not the point of that documentation. To resist sin is the point of that documentation. Attempting to judge ones own behavior is probably not any more accurate than attempting to judge others. Regardless, there is nothing that I can find, when in context from all that I have read concerning this issue that would exclude Christians from making judgments about practically everything. That saying, "Judge not", is all that some see, sometimes missing even the remainder of that sentence. The entire quote seems to mean something more than not judging but simply means that when judging others there exists a right of receiving a judgment from others. So many seem to hang on that one part of the quote and missing the entire quote: "For the measure by which you judge is the measure by which you will be judged." An accurate judgment from mortals and from either direction is not guaranteed. All of the quote in context and in mondern language might mean, If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Not to judge all sorts of conditions, behaviors and things in life can guarantee a quick death. I'm not going to judge the speed limit or use any device to help me do so, just drive down every road and every street as fast as my car will go, foot to the floor and judge not. Ridiculous. Some seem to miss, "Watch out for false prophets." (jk)
I would expect, according to what I can understand in Christian documentation, that what you say is accurate and without flaw.
(True)
quote:
Regardless, and whatever sin actually is, then that is what is hated. If your certain behavior is sin, then that is no less and no greater a sin than would an attempt by anyone to wish you physical harm, but not actually cause you physical harm.
(What do you mean if my behavior is sin?) What exactly do you think of when you think of “Gay”? If it is something that you would find on HBO after hours, then you are certainly misinformed about our lifestyle. Breaking News: Gay people have the same ability as straight people to have stable relationships and be productive in society.
quote:
Sin is sin, white lies is sin, misstating is probably a sin, thinking hateful thoughts toward others is probably sin, and so is gossiping and whining and boredom. All those sins are no greater or no less a sin then whatever your sins are, provided I understand that documentation correctly.
(I believe when judgment day comes, God will be too busy dealing with the real sinners: terrorist, murderers, pedophiles, and so forth)
quote:
It would seem then that none are without sin. It would certainly then seem a good thing that sins are forgivable, according to the same documentation. But, again, and provided I understand the documentation correctly, forgiveness (to forget) does not always mean the person is not held accountable, but that an accounting might happen in this life, far later, or perhaps both in this life and far later.
Forgiveness to forget what?
quote:
Same concerning any rewards for doing something good. I'm not privy to the particulars of that level of decision-making.
(Not privy to what type of decision making?) Reward for doing something good?
quote:
For a more accurate explanation, ask God, or as reported in context, "Seek God." What I would suspect is that the documentation is accurate and practical, but that achieving that level of accuracy in the documentation is not the point of that documentation.
(I found God)
quote:
If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Not to judge all sorts of conditions, behaviors and things in life can guarantee a quick death. I'm not going to judge the speed limit or use any device to help me do so, just drive down every road and every street as fast as my car will go, foot to the floor and judge not. Ridiculous. Some seem to miss, "Watch out for false prophets." (jk)
(Why would you think “not to judge all sorts of conditions, behaviors, and things in life can guarantee a quick death?”) |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 06:22:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
Gini -
I have a tremendous amount of respect for your faith and your beliefs, and would never try to convince you otherwise. You have your faith, its guided you in your life, its been taught to you, and its personal and important to you. So I won't try to talk it down.
But here's my stab at it: The bible and jesus taught us about unconditional love. Love your neighbor, love your enemy. Where as I understand that you said you don't go out of your way to be disrespectful, where is the harm in two people being in love with eachother? Submitting themselves to eachother unconditionally? How is that REALLY sinning or going against Christianity if its a loving, committed relatinoship? I'm sure thats a question many have struggled with. I understand and have read many passages from the bible, and have even heard different interpretations about same scripture.
But Gini, what if you were persecuted, ridiculed, beaten or discriminated against simply because of your faith? How did the Jewish community ever face the Holocaust or get through it? Their faith is something that's natural and special to them - but some other authority made the decision that it was wrong. How would you feel in that situation? How is that any different from the homosexual population? How fair would it be to lose your job over your faith? Have co-workers turn their backs on you?
Unfortunately, I also attribute such harsh reactions from people about homosexuals because of shear ignorance. Most of their only contact with gay people is what is portrayed in the media, and many times its a gross stereotype. Not every gay person dresses in drag, waves peace flags in gay marches, says words like, "fabulous" or is out clubbing contracting AIDS. There have been many important historical figures through the years that have made a difference, affecting our daily lives today: From Leonardo DaVinci, ancient roman emporer Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caracalla, Napoleon, former Santa Cruz mayor John Laird, the first openly gay mayoral candidate to name a few. Even in 1989, Australia and Denmark formerly legalize homosexuality. Many countries follow. Many states here in our country recognize same sex marriage.
Once again, I'm not asking you, Gini, to change your beliefs because of what I've posted, but rather agree that there are people who's faith, beliefs or values concerning homosexuality are just as natural and ordinary to them, as your faith is to you.
In any event, that is my non-judgemental non-argumentative and as rationale as I can be post, which some have asked for. It's about the only post with an opposing view as mine that I've read that was worthy of me taking my time to flip through some books and reference material to be posted.
And a good night to all.
Thank you for shining the light by bringing up this sentence that so many people forget
The bible and jesus taught us about unconditional love.
And to Gini:
I understand what you are saying and I am pretty sure that you would accept someome for their sexuality seeing that you have already said that you have no problem with someone who is gay/lesbian. That is all gay/lesbian people are asking for is respect!
Now it's time for me to go to church with my friend, a straight white female who has it going on, but she's taken for any of you who might be interested. |
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/08/2007 06:30:48 AM |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 06:45:51 AM
|
I can't find much flaw in this post - I believe we have similiar understandings of the scripture.
However, one thing I will comment on is where you say that some conditions or behaviors will guarantee a quick death. By being gay? Please provide more insight for us.
quote:
Originally posted by JK
"Jesus loves me, God loves me, I will always believe that and no one can ever take that away from me.
I would expect, according to what I can understand in Christian documentation, that what you say is accurate and without flaw. Regardless, and whatever sin actually is, then that is what is hated. If your certain behavior is sin, then that is no less and no greater a sin than would an attempt by anyone to wish you physical harm, but not actually cause you physical harm. Sin is sin, white lies is sin, misstating is probably a sin, thinking hateful thoughts toward others is probably sin, and so is gossiping and whining and boredom. All those sins are no greater or no less a sin then whatever your sins are, provided I understand that documentation correctly. It would seem then that none are without sin. It would certainly then seem a good thing that sins are forgivable, according to the same documentation. But, again, and provided I understand the documentation correctly, forgiveness (to forget) does not always mean the person is not held accountable, but that an accounting might happen in this life, far later, or perhaps both in this life and far later. Same concerning any rewards for doing something good. I'm not privy to the particulars of that level of decision-making. For a more accurate explanation, ask God, or as reported in context, "Seek God." What I would suspect is that the documentation is accurate and practical, but that achieving that level of accuracy in the documentation is not the point of that documentation. To resist sin is the point of that documentation. Attempting to judge ones own behavior is probably not any more accurate than attempting to judge others. Regardless, there is nothing that I can find, when in context from all that I have read concerning this issue that would exclude Christians from making judgments about practically everything. That saying, "Judge not", is all that some see, sometimes missing even the remainder of that sentence. The entire quote seems to mean something more than not judging but simply means that when judging others there exists a right of receiving a judgment from others. So many seem to hang on that one part of the quote and missing the entire quote: "For the measure by which you judge is the measure by which you will be judged." An accurate judgment from mortals and from either direction is not guaranteed. All of the quote in context and in mondern language might mean, If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Not to judge all sorts of conditions, behaviors and things in life can guarantee a quick death. I'm not going to judge the speed limit or use any device to help me do so, just drive down every road and every street as fast as my car will go, foot to the floor and judge not. Ridiculous. Some seem to miss, "Watch out for false prophets." (jk)
|
- Ryan |
Edited by - Lords47 on 07/08/2007 06:46:25 AM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 07:35:43 AM
|
| I am not the source, nor pretend to be an accurate source for that mater. I would suggest you go to the source for your answers, as clearly stated in the documentation. And watch out for those false prophets the documentation mentions and whoever they might be. (jk) |
Edited by - JK on 07/08/2007 07:38:41 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 11:15:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
I am not the source, nor pretend to be an accurate source for that mater. I would suggest you go to the source for your answers, as clearly stated in the documentation. And watch out for those false prophets the documentation mentions and whoever they might be. (jk)
Documentation?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Massachusetts
Equality matters to real people like Emily Kay
Emily Kay
Chelmsford, MA
Emily Kay and Anita Saville (married Sept. 25, 2005):
We have always lived our lives as who we are. Yet we had no idea how much the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling would change everything. Since the court deemed us equal citizens and especially since our wedding last September -- being 'out' has taken on a completely new meaning for us.
Family members and friends couldn't be happier for us. Indeed, but for relatives insisting upon a 'real' wedding, a justice of the peace would have married us on May 17. But then we would have missed our mothers, sisters, brothers, cousins, nephews, nieces, and fabulous friends dancing and reveling at our nuptials.
Straight neighbors with whom we had shared little more than 'Good morning,' have rejoiced in our happiness; one neighbor wept and hugged Anita upon learning about our wedding plans. Our doctors (our primary care doc married his long-time partner last May), acupuncturist, hair cutter, and virtually everyone with whom we have shared our good fortune from the woman behind the counter at the local Lil Peach, to the pro at our favorite golf course -- has been supportive, loving, and joyous.
We know we have much work to do to ensure that we keep our rights. But since we discuss equal marriage rights with almost everyone we meet (including out-of-staters, who we hope take home with them their positive experiences with us), our relatively large opinion sample encourages us that equal marriage rights are here to stay.
|
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 6:03:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
Documentation?
Yes, documentation - what I referred to in the post concerning that and not being the author or an authority concerning that documentation, but simply expressing an opinion concerning that documentation. And remember to watch out for false prophets, whoever they might be (jk)
|
Edited by - JK on 07/08/2007 6:58:09 PM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 7:27:04 PM
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by JK
[quote]Originally posted by 80-RE4
Documentation?
Yes, documentation - what I referred to in the post concerning that and not being the author or an authority concerning that documentation, but simply expressing an opinion concerning that documentation. And remember to watch out for false prophets, whoever they might be (jk)
Just something I found online.
"The Spiritual Path of a Homosexual Individual
God does not make mistakes. God made you. You're not a mistake. Even if you were born homosexual, you're still not a mistake. You are a unique individual. You have the responsibility to make choices and to live by the truth you find along the way. God made you gay for a special reason. A reason which society does not and can not understand. A reason which you do not even fully understand. On the spiritual path of a homosexual individual, our own self-acceptance is vital. Define yourself by more than sexuality. There is much more to your existence than who you desire to have sex with - you are much more than simply 'a gay person'. Break out of the stereotypes you grew up with your entire life, break out of the stereotypes you now find from your own gay peers. Break out and become an individual- define yourself on your own terms.
Humanity has sometimes distorted understanding of biblical law and tends to administer it selectively, with limited perspective. Homosexual behavior discussed in the Christian bible is not indicative of a healthy, positive and mature relationship between two people of the same sex. Sexual perversion is not representative of gay people any more than it is representative of straight people. Seek to free your mind from the spiritual judgments a hypocritical society seeks to place upon you. Had God hated homosexuals so badly, it would have been one of the Ten Commandments and not simply a handful of mutterings spoken religious leaders almost 2000 years ago. In fact, Jesus Christ never spoke out against homosexuality - further, when questioned about why some men don't marry, Jesus answered some just do not, 'let those who can accept this understanding to do so'. (See the Religion section - "Quotes"). Religion actually has no right to judge you to hellfire and damnation - realize such judgmental movements are more a social trend than God's law.
The negative descriptions of homosexuality in the bible, however, are not a far cry from some of the horrid stereotypes which have come alive in dark corners of a closeted gay society. Sadly there are found perverse, lust-filled whores whom gather in drunken debauchery to share in drug abuse and meaningless sex with as many partners as time will allow. This behavior does not constitute a healthy or positive approach towards sexuality. Yet, this behavior is not limited to gay people by a long shot. The heterosexual majority also indulges in various types of blatant perversion, and for them to complain such things are mostly found in gay communities is ridiculous. The pot calling the kettle black is a fear reaction and nothing more.
The answers about the spiritual path awaiting you as a gay person lay in the simplicity of your own awareness and willingness to embrace truth openly. Being aware is a matter of perception. Seek to perceive not only those things you wish to be true or desire to find, but open yourself up to other possibilities which exist all around you. The path of a truth seeker is also such we should not cloud our discernment by seeing truth only in those things we desire to be true. In other words, have the humble nature to deal with both, the good and the not so good, in regards to truth. In reality, there is no "bad' truth, per se, there are just things which are difficult for us to accept and we tend to call those things 'bad'. Do not confuse this understanding with the clear differences between good and evil - because evil is clearly bad news. In regards to the perception of truth, the only obligation you have towards seeking truth besides accepting the good and the not so good, is to search thoroughly until you can see honestly your conclusions of truth regarding any matter are righteous.
We must never fear to admit when we're wrong, or that we need more time to reflect upon any given subject before we completely make decisions as to our beliefs - it is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength, to admit when we are wrong or to admit we may not be as informed as we would like on any given subject. Selfishly pursuing our own desires with disregard to truth can lead to self-deception. In turn, self-deception will likely lead towards self-destruction. Being true to thy self is not simply an excuse to indulge in our own desires, rather it also means embracing personal responsibility in trying to develop our bodies, minds and especially our souls into what we could become. The key to avoid self-deception is found in seeking always, at every moment, to be open. Personal integrity is paramount to this goal.
Self-deception, as with any form of deception, is a darkness which clouds the soul. Being an open book to both our strengths and weaknesses provides us the opportunity for growth and the ability to truly help others by our own example. If we exist 'closed' there is no opportunity to be 'filled'. In other words, when we are 'open' we are not only existing in a healthy spiritual state, but we are open for God to fill with his Love and special brand of personal guidance. In this, we will loose irrational fears. Deception means we're trying to hide something because we're either ashamed of ourselves or desire to wrongly take advantage of another individual. It's the integrity of existing open and truthfully which begins the process required to set our souls free."
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/08/2007 7:29:48 PM |
|
|
|
Kodie
Top Member
United States
1992 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 01:02:32 AM
|
| Ok I am not going to read that whole last post, but I got to thinking today.... I am going to get a bit religious. Do any of you honestly think that just because you are gay, bi or whatever that you will be considered a sinner? I mean he created us at least I believe that and he made us how we are and what we are, so why should we be considered sinners. My greatest fear imaginable is to be hated by the person that created me "god" and to be sent to hell at death for being bi or gay or whatever. Even if you admit your sins does not mean that your not gay or bi. I would like to conduct a survey about this sort of thing. At the end of every post under this topic just put yes or no. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
bi or gay
