HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Except for the 8 TRILLION with a “T” the bouffanted buffoon spent in deficit spending alone.
Roe gone; is same-sex marriage next?
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Except for the 8 TRILLION with a “T” the bouffanted buffoon spent in deficit spending alone.
Please try again!
itsbob
I bowl overhand
And the inflation that resulted from that spending?? There is more to economics than just deficit spending.
I truly hope you aren't trying to correct Hemihugger. He knows everything, Just ask him.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Kinda reminds ya of Chrissy, don't it?
I think the term at that age might be pederasty? Or korephile?
I think gay marriage has been around long enough, and gays are enough out of the closet that society at large has at minimum a live and let live attitude. And it's more - gay couples have been around and are visible enough, that I think people just shrug. Even when I belonged to a religious cult - and they regarded it as sin - they were still of the attitude that they don't get the GOVERNMENT in on it. I do know of churches whose ideas believe they are charged with changing society - thus, they campaign against gambling and pornography and gay marriage and so on. Most evangelical and other similar churches - their approach is, you can't save souls by changing society - you change PEOPLE. Historically, changing societies has led to much worse results.
I'm not of the opinion that if you believe in a right, you must go look for one out of contorting the Constitution in order to FIND it. If you want a right in the Constitution to be guaranteed - you WRITE it, and pass it.
While in that church, I became VERY aware of the concepts of eisegesis and exegesis - strictly with respect to the Bible, but being the English language, I can only suppose they are used broadly, elsewhere. But for everyone else - exegesis is generally what I and a lot of people think SHOULD be done with the Bible - that is, to take from it what it means. You READ it first, and follow what it means. Eisegesis starts with you wanting to find the answer - and you LOOK for passages that you believe defend the idea. And a lot of people do this - they want to believe that, say, GAMBLING is wrong - so they scour Scripture to find "proof" of it. I remember challenging an evangelist on the concept of cannibalism - and aside the fact of KILLING someone first, he could not find "proof" that you couldn't eat humans that were already dead - until he found evidence in the Law where humans were "unclean" under the Old Testament, where I countered that Jesus - and Paul - declared all foods clean.
I've seen similar "arguments" for TRYING to insert rights where they weren't intended - for example, since Jews may not work on the Sabbatth but are allowed to make fire - rabbinical students once approached a famous physicist to ask if ELECTRICITY could be defined as "fire".
Hence - LOOKING for a right that was never given, hoping there was some "principle" that could be otherwise applied.
So I'm not cool with the idea of re-arguing an Amendment claiming the right is THERE. Even RBG said that she thought the basis for Roe was extremely weak. Then again, she offered alternatives - still doing with the Constitution what rabbinical students struggle to do with the Law.
THIS - exactly. There are many religions that teach that homosexuality is without question, sin. And this HAS been a complaint, from churches, that they would be compelled by the government to perform a ceremony totally against their beliefs.
Whenever people come up with these hair-brained schemes, I always ask - "try it with the Muslims".
Because they'll hand you your ass - and I do mean literally.
I think there's a sentiment that printing money is only a small injury. Kind of like cashing out SOME of your retirement, or doing a small second mortgage. Just a little couldn't harm.
I don't understand or even remotely grasp the precarious nature of the economy - I do know, when you print money, you're reducing the value of every dollar in circulation, to put a little bit in front of you. It would be like shaving a tiny grain of gold off of every gold coin in existence, gaining a pile for yourself, while reducing everyone else's by a fraction. It's a quick fix, and something you really should never RELY on.
There's just a sentiment in Washington that goes "how much can it really HURT, when the "need" for other things is so very - great?".
Just my opinion, but it DOES hurt a lot when the money taken out is spent wastefully, and doesn't help the economy "catch up".
#2 - Wow - does that take me back to the cult days, and you and I have observed, die-hard lefties behave MUCH MORE like a cult than anything else. Left-wing politics has supplanted religion in their lives, but they approach things much as cultists do.
When I was in - sooner or later in our evangelistic efforts, we'd meet someone who was a lot more knowledgable in the Bible or theology - or at least, knew THEIR religion extremely well. This kind of thing even happened - WITHIN the church, where there were disagreements. And without fail, there were a lot - actually, I'd say MOST - who went to someone they regarded as more knowledgable to beg for ANYTHING they could use to counter what they'd heard.
I've grown since then and have learned I'm not even a hundredth as smart as I think I am - but back then, I would take NO ONE'S word at face value. I was never going to go to my religious leader for answers - I was going to look them up myself, if I had to read Augustine or Aquinas or Luther or even go back to Origen or any of the Ante-Nicene Fathers for arguments. A little arrogant, but I rarely regarded any of our leaders as all that smart.
But that's the thing - it meant letting someone else do my thinking for me - and I was never going to do that. Despite what I write here - I take the same approach even to political pundits as well. Easily half the time, someone will say something on a subject I actually agree with - and quietly say to the screen - you damned idiot. You're making the rest of us look bad.
I think people misuse that term. You cannot make LAW if the goal is to make people MORAL. Because law is usually rooted in morality or at least a common understanding of fairness.
Hence - you change what PEOPLE think, not compel them to follow some legislated morality.
An old saying goes - "a man convinced against his will, is of the SAME opinion, still".
In my genealogic research, have found indications that same sex marriages were not specifically illegal in many states until the mid-60's.
My paternal grandfather's 1st cousin Gerald was a homosexual, I have found. My dad's cousin June remembered him to me fondly.
Gerald served in the US Army during the war in Europe. After the war, he and his battle buddy Forrest were wed in the small hill town in western Massachusetts where Forrest was born and raised, Gerald and Forrest are buried side by side in the village's non-denominational cemetery.
My paternal grandfather's 1st cousin Gerald was a homosexual, I have found. My dad's cousin June remembered him to me fondly.
Gerald served in the US Army during the war in Europe. After the war, he and his battle buddy Forrest were wed in the small hill town in western Massachusetts where Forrest was born and raised, Gerald and Forrest are buried side by side in the village's non-denominational cemetery.
Marriage is a civil contract; then couples choose whether to have a religious ceremony or not. No religious figure should ever be forced by government to perform a religious ceremony. That's ridiculous for a number of reasons and certainly unconstitutional, but this is moronic Democrats we're talking about so all reason goes out the window. They have never not wanted to infringe on individual rights.
Any judge who rules against a religious figure refusing to perform any marriage ceremony at all, regardless of sexual or gender makeup, should be immediately removed from the bench and have their law license revoked.
I'm fully expecting some progressive in Colorado to find some some way to sue a church for refusing .... after all they keep going after Masterpiece Bakery
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Now that I know somewhat the identity StMarysShitty00....Gee, I wonder why...
And this is probably where the government really DOES need to be a part of it. I remember when I got married, the minister handed me the marriage license, which - I don't remember - maybe he had already signed it, beforehand? But what makes it government's business are all the legal entanglements - and - well, rights.
I think I asked at the time, does this mean we don't have to go through with the ceremony? Since, at least in the eyes of the state of Maryland, we were already married. I think he dodged the whole "married in the sight of God" part, and went straight to "what will you tell everybody here, then?".
To the second, this is Democrat boilerplate and I just can't fully grasp it. Except maybe through the lens of cultism. And that's the whole inability to allow ANY disagreement. Maybe I don't understand things fully, but to me, if you simply HATE a group of people - but never harm them - you have that right. You have the right to disagree over anything. (Frankly, I think they are disagreeing with me, but there you have it). They won't have it - if you disagree, you're a denier, you're a hater, and action MUST BE TAKEN against you.
Because you're HEATHEN. You're not one with Landru.
That's why it's not enough to live and let live. You have to be punished.
Kinnakeet
Well-Known Member
Just like ending slavery still causes turmoil
That is exactly how I style myself, as I follow a modern reconstruction of the pre-Christian beliefs and practices of my Northwestern European ancestors.
I made a considered decision to leave the Catholic Church and Christianity in the Spring of 1975. I studied various philosophic, spiritual and religious ways of approaching the Holy. I decided on Heathenry in mid 1988.
My Mrs. is basically an agnostic deist, having been raised Greek Orthodox.
When my wife and I wed in June 82, to keep peace with our mothers, did have a non-denominational Christian service. The officiant was a local Congregationalist minister.
The Meeting House where we were wed was built in 1834.
The tavern where we had our reception was built in 1789.
BTW, my Best Man is gay and has been with his life partner almost 43 years. They are actually more conservative than me, and hate all the BLTQXYZ sh!te.