• Back at the office or school? Still working from home? Need to vent, or just connect with other planner and built environment types? Come join us!

    Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing or masks required.

What is Bush?

What is Bush?

  • A really cool guy.

    Votes: 9 19.6%
  • A moron, plain and simple.

    Votes: 30 65.2%
  • who is Bush?

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • other- please explain.

    Votes: 6 13.0%

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Well, I have a feeling that I will get flamed and accused of being a member of the amorphous "religious right," but I do not believe that gay "marriage" is a good (or even neutral) thing, and I do not believe that such arrangements should be legitimized by legislation. This is because I don't believe that our culture, in general, has a positive understanding of what marriage is and what it is supposed to be. Most supporters of gay marriage talk about gay partners being denied benefits, etc., but I don't think that marriage is about such things. Marriage is much more than a social construct. Marriage is meant to be a vow, a commitment, and an act of total self-giving that provides a framework for raising children.

Total self-giving in the context of marriage includes openness to bearing and raising children; something that is impossible in gay unions (I know this will result in howls of protest from those who are married and don't intend to have children; but that's a different issue). The fact is, the best and most stable atmosphere for raising children is in a monogamous, committed traditional nuclear family (one male and one female), and numerous studies have shown this (yes, there are exceptions, there always are, but they do not disprove what most people accept as common sense). Raising kids in this atmosphere is good for society. This is why those "religious" people (read: mean folks who want to spoil everybody's fun) have trouble with the idea of gay marriage.

If the above should not be the case, then why have any laws related to marriage at all? Why shouldn't you be able to marry multiple partners? Why can't an adult male marry a 14-year old girl, if she and her parents consent? Heck, there was a story a few months back about a woman in Austria who went down to the courthouse and married herself. Why not? If marriage is just a social construct, shoot, we can make it be anything we want. But I believe that marriage is, and needs to be, much more than that.

That's my take. Please, be nice when flaming me.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
j_deuce said:
It may. It also, however, reflects either an abiding understanding that it doesn't really matter who the president is as long as you vote your conscience OR a lack of acceptance that in swing states a vote for a third party will throw the victory to someone more likely to be the opposite of what you want in office (ie, a Republican).

If true, both of your observations suggest that voters contemplate the importance of their actions and aren't blinded by the (R) or (D) after the name. Either way the number of third party voters if very small. There are "conservative" third parties as well.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
DecaturHawk said:
This is because I don't believe that our culture, in general, has a positive understanding of what marriage is and what it is supposed to be.

Marriage is much more than a social construct.

We don't have a positive idea of what marriage is? THAT IS IGNORANT CRAP!

Marriage and family IS a social construct weather you want to admit it or not. Turn your tv from the 500 club to the TLC, HISTORY Channel, or DISCOVER when they talk about various cultures. The issue is handled in various cultural constructs apart from our own operating successfully through time and space. Which makes that part of your argument invalid.

I will agree, close nit families with a male and female parents are the most likely to give the best long term results. I will go even further. Extended families that live in close contact and location are even better at this.

BUT

Families are the basic building blocks because they most efficiently smooth over issues of difference that arrise in every family. If the family were abolished it would be recreated in nearly the same form with another name. Weather you have parents or "Group Handelrs, State Case Workers, what have you" its the same. Being social and cultural beings, it happens in many forms, not just a single form like your utopian idyllic world.

Why can't a person have multiple wives? Because once again, christian influence in a matter that should be between consenting ADULTS. In effect, you are saying that early christians were wrong, jews were wrong, as are MUSLIMS today. Notice I did not revert to the isolated population on an island.

More "Man on Dog" argument? or 14 year old girls, and arranged marriages? This is why we have age of consents, to stop things that are truly harmful.

This is not a religious state.

If you don't like it, thats ok, but don't try to argue the religious BULLSHIT that the average person just does not get it.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,545
Points
25
DecaturHawk said:
The fact is, the best and most stable atmosphere for raising children is in a monogamous, committed traditional nuclear family (one male and one female), and numerous studies have shown this (yes, there are exceptions, there always are, but they do not disprove what most people accept as common sense). Raising kids in this atmosphere is good for society. This is why those "religious" people (read: mean folks who want to spoil everybody's fun) have trouble with the idea of gay marriage.

Yes, this may be the "ideal" situation for raising kids, however over 40 percent of all marriages end in divorce, so it is hardly the norm. What causes more problems to society; all of these divorced couples with children or married gay couples?

I just think that two married gay people is also good for society. It promotes stability. Why should an estimated 10 percent of Americans be shut out of the benefits of marriage? Why do people get so worked up about something that has absolutly no impact on themselves. I am a straight male and I do not feel threatened, shocked, outraged, or offended by gay marriage and I think that allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do. If you disagree with gay marriage, that is fine, but your beliefs should not impact the lives of two people that are in a committed relationship that has no bearing on your life whatsoever.

People need to get beyond the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" mentality and think rationally about this.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
I think, after hearing the Pope ask all Caltholic politicians to vote against same sex marriage, it pissed me off even more. I wrote a paper on this in college, and it pisses me off the think religious @$$holes get to decide what happens in government, what happened to the separation of church and state? Beyond that, if the Catholics are going to state the reason behind marriage is procreation then they should never ever in a million years allow two barren people to marry, or never allow people to marry in their church that do not wish to have children. They say "by an act of God" two barren people could have children- well, honestly, who is the Pope to second-guess God and say that perhaps by an act of God or a miracle a same sex couple could not get pregnant? Marriage is a commitment, no one should be allowed or even feel right in telling someone else they cannot love another human or make a commitment to another person. Where is the love?

I do appreciate the tax cuts, I'm getting $30 more on paycheck which is helping balance out the state budget screw ups that are requiring me to contribute more to my retirement because they can't match contirbutions anymore. I also like that they finally got rid of the marriage penatly, like I should have to pay them- they don't have to put up with the person for the rest of their lives, why don't they pay me for doing so (not that James has to be "put up with", but hey, we all have our days). :)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Whoa, Duke. I don't disagree with you at all, but the tone was a little harsh.

By your standards/logic, DecaturHawk, if we were really "serious" about marriage, we would basically outlaw divorce. It is a 'sacred covenant" and all that. (According to the Bible, divorce and remarriage is adultry-so lets start casting the stones) But, I don't see too many people "on the right" (outside the more doctrinaire Catholics) advocating that-instead let's pick on them wierdo queers.

Also, many advocates would say it "is about such things." Rights and assumptions and priveleges that straight couples take for granted (the right to see a loved one in a hospital, health coverage, insurance, etc). These things ARE important, and can't be dismissed. And, I don't think you can so blithely state that straight couples who don't have kids are "a different issue." Is it a matter of children-or isn't it. You can't have it both ways.

The sacred aspect of religion is a religious bond-and it should be handled by the church. And, some churches will be willing to marry "sacredly" gay couples-that's the church's decision. Civil Union is a good compromise if you are worried about terminology and confusing the two apsects.
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,846
Points
24
Habanero said:
...perhaps by an act of God or a miracle a same sex couple could not get pregnant?

If that happened, it would make a helavu great thread ;)
 

j_deuce

Cyburbian
Messages
49
Points
2
Budgie said:
If true, both of your observations suggest that voters contemplate the importance of their actions and aren't blinded by the (R) or (D) after the name. Either way the number of third party voters if very small. There are "conservative" third parties as well.

Well, I should qualify my remarks by saying that voters who are "blinded by the (R) or (D) after the name" probably shouldn't vote. Yes, I know there are "conservative" third parties, too, but I think that they generally are less likely to actually garner votes than "liberal" third parties, and no, I can't back that up.

Regardless of third-party participation, I just don't think a Democrat can win against Bush next election. Of course, my vote hardly counts, given that I live in Massachusetts.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
j_deuce said:
Of course, my vote hardly counts, given that I live in Massachusetts.

I lived in Austin during the Bush election, since obviously he was going to get the electoral votes we tried to get a ton of people to vote for Nader, just to try for the 5%. Didn't happen-humph.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
j_deuce said:
Well, I should qualify my remarks by saying that voters who are "blinded by the (R) or (D) after the name" probably shouldn't vote. Yes, I know there are "conservative" third parties, too, but I think that they generally are less likely to actually garner votes than "liberal" third parties, and no, I can't back that up.

Regardless of third-party participation, I just don't think a Democrat can win against Bush next election. Of course, my vote hardly counts, given that I live in Massachusetts.

As a typically republican voter, I chose instead to vote for Ralph Nader last time. I found neither of the two major parties' candidates at all appealing, or in other words, equally bad. Although I knew Nader could not possibly win, I chose to vote for him to signal that I thought the country was moving too far to the right.


Now for the "gay marriage debate" - There are two different things being proposed here. One is gay marriage as an equal to traditional marriage. The second is a legal recognition of the partnership status of gays, that conveys with it an entitlement to certain legal rights.

I would personally object to the first, as I see marriage as often having a religious overtone. For most of our history, it was religion that conveyed the status of marriage, not the state.

The second seems to me to be a legitimate role for the state. The question is which rights would this status grant?
 

j_deuce

Cyburbian
Messages
49
Points
2
Third Parties: I would vote for third-party candidates if I agreed with their views. Being the centrist that I am, though, I generally don't.

Gay marriage: I agree with Stumpf. Personally, I don't think God should've ever gotten involved in the marriage business, but who am I to question? I think we should leave civil unions (for gays and straights) to civil authorities and marriage to the religious. One's tax or benefits status should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,266
Points
25
The second seems to me to be a legitimate role for the state. The question is which rights would this status grant?

All of the same ones as marriage and we call it a civil union, after all religious people with a common interest in preserving the traditional marriage do vote in this country. So gay people forget about the government saying you're in a marriage and get used to hearing civil union.

What happens in the Mass. courts on the gay marriage issue will set the precedent for the rest of the country.

One's tax or benefits status should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

AMEN
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Habanero said:
I lived in Austin during the Bush election, since obviously he was going to get the electoral votes we tried to get a ton of people to vote for Nader, just to try for the 5%. Didn't happen-humph.

I was with you and Michael. There is clearly a disproportinate number of Nader voters in this particular chat. Coincidence?
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
BKM said:
Whoa, Duke. I don't disagree with you at all, but the tone was a little harsh.

Yup, it was harsh.

Why the religious types can't come out and say they want a lower second class of citizenship created is beyond me. This lower class should not have to pay ANY taxes, because if you are not capable of taking part fully in the benifits of society, you should not be liable for the duties.

Yup, I was harsh, there was a complete lack of regard for history, reality, and social justice. I found that hard to bypass.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
campaigne reform!

I do have a solution to the money problems in campaigns!

All candidates MUST write their OWN speaches! Failure to write you own speaches results in expulsion from the election campaign. No gohst writers, none from professional speach writers, no Spokes people.

Do you think bushes campaigne speaches would have been different? I do.

I am sure that Gore would have put everybody to sleep,
No amount of money would have helped bush, who without practice, can't speak more than 4 words at a crack (start counting the words between pauses, see if I am wrong)

Had McCain ran, I am sure he could have held his own thought process together.

Keyes too

I am sure that Gore would have put everybody to sleep

and on...... But at least you would have heard thier views straight from the horses mouth. That would have been worth having

No amount of money on attack adds could save a puppet with bad language skills, and a candidate with a real message & approach could still have a chance if the substance was there. Money is only one factor, not the only factor.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Maybe I'm just different, but I don't vote based on pretty speechifyin'. I vote based on who I think can get the results I want, period. If that means an individual man or woman who has all the brains and skills, great, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll take a mute who is confident enough to hire people brighter than himself or herself in specific areas, over a smooth talking asshat any day.

Campaign speeches have little to do with demonstrating ability or competency, IMHO.
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Originally posted by Duke of Dystopia
We don't have a positive idea of what marriage is? THAT IS IGNORANT CRAP!

Marriage and family IS a social construct weather you want to admit it or not. Turn your tv from the 500 club to the TLC, HISTORY Channel, or DISCOVER when they talk about various cultures.

If you don't like it, thats ok, but don't try to argue the religious BULLSHIT that the average person just does not get it.
Sigh...

I expected people on this board to diagree with me, but I guess some people couldn't resist the opportunity for an ad hominem attack. Obviously, folks like me are ignorant, don't watch the right cable shows, and basically just spread BULLSHIT. By the way, I've never watched the 500 Club.

I'm not getting into it with the Duke. I have learned by experience that he expects to have the last word, and nothing I say will change his mind anyway.

Originally posted by BKM
By your standards/logic, DecaturHawk, if we were really "serious" about marriage, we would basically outlaw divorce. It is a 'sacred covenant" and all that. (According to the Bible, divorce and remarriage is adultry-so lets start casting the stones) But, I don't see too many people "on the right" (outside the more doctrinaire Catholics) advocating that-instead let's pick on them wierdo queers.
BKM, I appreciate your calling the Duke to task for his tone. However, you appear to impute motives to me that I do not have. I don't advocate picking on "wierdo (sic) queers." As to outlawing divorce, I didn't advocate that either, and fail to see the connection. For anyone who takes marriage seriously as it is meant to be taken, divorce is rarely an option, whether the law allows it or not. Yes, there are situations where divorce is necessary, but both the Bible and those "more doctrinaire Catholics" (yikes, more scary right-wing religious people) allow for divorce in those situations.

Originally posted by BKM
Also, many advocates would say it "is about such things." Rights and assumptions and priveleges that straight couples take for granted (the right to see a loved one in a hospital, health coverage, insurance, etc). These things ARE important, and can't be dismissed. And, I don't think you can so blithely state that straight couples who don't have kids are "a different issue." Is it a matter of children-or isn't it. You can't have it both ways.
I didn't say that these are not issues that can be discussed. I just said that they are not the things that make up marriage. My wife did not marry me so that she could get health insurance. While there may certainly be an honest debate about these things, to cast marriage simply as a means to obtain certain benefits is not what I believe marriage is and should be about. As to the childless marriages, it is a different issue, because people make these decisions for different reasons, many of which are well beyond the scope of this debate.

Originally posted by Repo Man
Yes, this may be the "ideal" situation for raising kids, however over 40 percent of all marriages end in divorce, so it is hardly the norm. What causes more problems to society; all of these divorced couples with children or married gay couples?
Why does it have to be either/or? In my opinion, both have their problems.

Originally posted by Repo Man
People need to get beyond the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" mentality and think rationally about this.
I agree. I have never like that stupid "Adam and Steve" line. I just don't agree that the only "rational" conclusion is to support gay marriage.

Originally posted by Habanero
I think, after hearing the Pope ask all Caltholic politicians to vote against same sex marriage, it pissed me off even more. I wrote a paper on this in college, and it pisses me off the think religious @$$holes get to decide what happens in government, what happened to the separation of church and state? Beyond that, if the Catholics are going to state the reason behind marriage is procreation then they should never ever in a million years allow two barren people to marry, or never allow people to marry in their church that do not wish to have children. They say "by an act of God" two barren people could have children- well, honestly, who is the Pope to second-guess God and say that perhaps by an act of God or a miracle a same sex couple could not get pregnant? Marriage is a commitment, no one should be allowed or even feel right in telling someone else they cannot love another human or make a commitment to another person. Where is the love?

Don't "religious a$$holes" get to exercise their First Amendment rights to say what they think about moral issues? It is not an issue of separation of church and state for the Pope to say that if you are a Catholic, you ought to act like one. Habanero badly misstates Catholic teaching about marriage and procreation, but she is hardly alone in her misunderstanding. I'm not going to go into it here, as it goes far beyond the topic as well as the intention of the Cyburbia forums, but suffice it to say that if anyone is actually willing to check it out for themselves, they might be surprised to find that these teachings are really life affirming and nonjudgmental.

Oh, well. I knew that my post would draw fire. I don't mind being the lone traditionalist on this topic. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I appreciate the opportunity to make an argument. Peace.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
El Feo said:
I'll take a mute who is confident enough to hire people brighter than himself or herself in specific areas, over a smooth talking asshat any day.

Campaign speeches have little to do with demonstrating ability or competency, IMHO.

Agreed, but to strive for the presidency, you would have to have some kind of track record of success to back up your speach abilitiys. The presidency being a "bully pulpit" job more than pure power position, the theory follows:

The abiltiy to communicate your ideas effectivly translates to your ability to perform.

SO

if you have a track record of success and you can communicate, you have probably figured out how be effective at getting things done by the time you reach late 40's to 60's.

And if nothing else, I have put a plan in the hat for a fix rather than just bitching :)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
if you have a track record of success and you can communicate, you have probably figured out how be effective at getting things done by the time you reach late 40's to 60's.

Then how did we end up with the current resident? :)
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
DecaturHawk said:

Don't "religious a$$holes" get to exercise their First Amendment rights to say what they think about moral issues? It is not an issue of separation of church and state for the Pope to say that if you are a Catholic, you ought to act like one. Habanero badly misstates Catholic teaching about marriage and procreation, but she is hardly alone in her misunderstanding. I'm not going to go into it here, as it goes far beyond the topic as well as the intention of the Cyburbia forums, but suffice it to say that if anyone is actually willing to check out it out for themselves, they might be surprised to find that these teachings are really life affirming and nonjudgmental.

How is loving another human a moral issue? Would it be immoral of me to love another woman? NO.

If in "badly misstating" you mean repeating what I read from a few different books on the subject and the idea of marriage being for procreation being taken from a quote from a Cardinal, then yes, badly missstating. Life affirming and nonjudgemental in the sense that a priest can rape children and another can get sloshed and run a man down and not be punished for it, well, if that's your definition. How can you say this religion isn't judgemental when a woman can walk into a Planned Parenthood to get birthcontrol pills and she has protestors from the Catholic Church yelling at her that she's killing a child? How is that not judging someone just based on where they are?
 
Last edited:

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
DecaturHawk said:
Sigh...

I expected people on this board to diagree with me, but I guess some people couldn't resist the opportunity for an ad hominem attack.

I'm not getting into it with the Duke. I have learned by experience that he expects to have the last word, and nothing I say will change his mind anyway.

A) Its not the belief that is the problem. Believe whatever you want. You DO have that right as well as to SAY what you want. If you are going to put it out there based upon something, realize that people are going to question it. In the case of religion its a matter of faith, and faith is EASY to attack. Its like saying "I have faith in my fellow man", but do I lock my door at night?

B) Did you really expect people to just leave that one alone?

C) Never been a wall flower, love trading ideas with people, and I have nothing better to do than answere back :)
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
BKM said:
Then how did we end up with the current resident? :)

EXCUSE 1
He has handlers that helped him speak and write speaches

EXCUSE 2
That is why I want to make the campaign speach reform mentioned in my previous post. I am sure my party (by default) would have picked a better person if that had been the case.

EXCUSE 3
I am one of those that helped put him there because I didn't think he could be any worse than GORE :(
I didn't realize He and Chaney were out to destroy ALL civil liberties with:

Patriot ACT I

& after the next homeland terrorist strike

Patriot ACT II
where I will no longer have rights to citizenship, free speach, right to legal defense, or any other freedom we now hold dear :(


I APOLOGIZE
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nccb.htm

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (United States) issued a statement on 1996-JUL-24. The NCCB's Committee on Marriage and Family Chairman, Most Reverend Joseph L. Charron, CPPS, and its Committee on Domestic Policy Chairman, Most Reverend William S. Skylstad, USCC issued a statement on Same-Sex Marriage.

They state that the "Roman Catholic Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman...we believe the natural institution of marriage has been blessed and elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. " It is certainly their right to define marriage in their own specific terms. Unfortunately, they are not acknowledging their own church history. Yale History professor John Boswell (3) has shown how the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had same-sex marriage ceremonies up to modern times.

The question of same-sex marriages has both legal and religious aspects. In 1996, some faith groups within Judaism and Christianity accept and promote same-sex marriages; most do not. But the question being debated is whether the state, a secular body, should extend the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to persons of all sexual orientations. Because of the concept of separation between church and state, the definition of marriage by one specific denomination should not be of concern here. The Roman Catholic church will be able to ignore the validity of future same-sex marriages, just as they currently refuse to recognize second marriages which have been entered into without a church annulment. The church will also be able to refuse to marry gays and lesbians, just as they once refused to marry persons of different faiths.

They state that "...marriage exists for the mutual love and support of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children. These two purposes, the unitive and the procreative, are equal and inseparable." It is not clear, but they might be implying that gay and lesbian marriages will remain childless. There are a number of errors here:

some adults are infertile, and thus some heterosexual couples cannot procreate
some heterosexual couples enter marriage with the intention of not having children
essentially all married couples in North America use birth control to separate the unitive from the procreative aspect of marriage
many lesbian couples in committed relationships have children through artificial insemination and raise them together
a lower percentage of gay couples in committed relationships adopt children and raise them together

They refer to heterosexual married couples as "Living a Christian sacramental marriage [which] becomes their fundamental way of attaining salvation." By denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, it would seem that the Church is making it very difficult for them to obtain salvation and thus avoid the eternal fires of Hell. It would appear that the Church is assigning a sub-human classification to homosexuals; this seems fundamentally immoral, unchristian and unbiblical.

They conclude: "No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential which the marital relationship expresses." This is an interesting conclusion, but appears to be unrelated to the rest of their statement. It would seem that a gay or lesbian married couple could experience at least as fulfilling a marriage as an infertile couple, or as two spouses in a step-family.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,986
Points
31
j_deuce said:
Evil duplicity? What about lying to the public about his reasons for going to war in Iraq?


Sheesh...Liberals pick one: He is either a diabloical genius that fooled the American public or he is a moron. You can't have it both ways.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
Repo Man said:
A moron that surrounds himself with diabloical geniuses? :)

Not all all Repo - A wildy popular moron that surrounds himself with generally acceptable diabolical geniuses.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
Duke Of Dystopia said:
The abiltiy to communicate your ideas effectivly translates to your ability to perform...

Does the same go for writing? Are spelling and grammatical errors indicative of a person's ability to reason?

Examples:

All candidates MUST write their OWN speaches! (1error)

No gohst writers, none from professional speach writers, no Spokes people. (5 errors)

Do you think bushes campaigne speaches would have been different? (4 errors)

Agreed, but to strive for the presidency, you would have to have some kind of track record of success to back up your speach abilitiys. (2 errors)

Let's hope for your sake that your theories are wrong. I'm not trying to pick on you, Duke. You are from Chicago, and should remember that one of the greatest mayors ever to live (despite being a Democrat) was the late Richard J. Daley. He was also notoriously inarticulate.
 

plankton

Cyburbian
Messages
750
Points
21
I'm just glad that the Bush Administration has restored integrity to the White House. And not cowtowed to the special interests, or left any children behind, and protected the rights of all americans, including seniors and the poor, and balanced a budget without running deficits, and created jobs, and fostered positive relations with countires abroad.... Oh, yea, and most of all for providing the message to all past cocaine users and drunken drivers that that's not enough to stop you from being
(s)elected as president. of this great country.

Great job Mr. President. Four more years! Yeesh.
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Habanero said:
How is loving another human a moral issue? Would it be immoral of me to love another woman? NO.
I never said it was.

If in "badly misstating" you mean repeating what I read from a few different books on the subject and the idea of marriage being for procreation being taken from a quote from a Cardinal, then yes, badly missstating.
Apparently, one of the books you read was NOT the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Life affirming and nonjudgemental in the sense that a priest can rape children and another can get sloshed and run a man down and not be punished for it, well, if that's your definition.
It's not my definition, and it's a far stretch to take anything I have said in my posts and conclude that it is. You will find in any group of people some who are evil, stupid or uncaring. Condemning the entire Church for the sins of some of its members is like saying that all Democrats are adulterers because Clinton was one.

How can you say this religion isn't judgemental when I woman can walk into a Planned Parenthood to get birthcontrol pills and she has protestors from the Catholic Church yelling at her that she's killing a child? How is that not judging someone just based on where they are?
It shouldn't be hard to figure out why the Catholic Church has a problem with Planned Parenthood. Those individuals may have misjudged the woman in question, but again, that doesn't ipso facto make "this religion" judgmental.

While previewing this reply, I just saw your post stating, thankfully mostly accurately, the position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. You go into a lot of areas that frankly, require faithful assent based on an understanding of what the Catholic Faith is, how it came about, and how the Church is inspired and interacts with the world at large. I appreciate this much more honest approach, as opposed to your first post. I could try to explain the theology surrounding the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage, and I could try to point out in detail what the Church has to say about barren couples (no, they are not prohibited from marrying) and homosexuality. However, I am afraid that to get too deep into these issues goes well beyond the original topic of this thread and beyond the sensible limits regarding religious discussions on this forum.

Originally posted by The Duke of Dystopia
A) Its not the belief that is the problem. Believe whatever you want. You DO have that right as well as to SAY what you want. If you are going to put it out there based upon something, realize that people are going to question it. In the case of religion its a matter of faith, and faith is EASY to attack. Its like saying "I have faith in my fellow man", but do I lock my door at night?

B) Did you really expect people to just leave that one alone?

C) Never been a wall flower, love trading ideas with people, and I have nothing better to do than answere back

A) Well, that's a much more civilized way to say, "I disagree with you." I don't mind being questioned, it's the being called an ignorant bullshitter that I have a problem with.

B) Nope.

C) In this respect, at least, we are alike. Trading ideas is great, trading insults is uncivilized. Let's not go to war, OK?
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Michael Stumpf said:
Does the same go for writing? Are spelling and grammatical errors indicative of a person's ability to reason?

I hope not, If true, I'm doomed! :)

I did leave that possibility of being inarticulate and still successful open in a previous post :)

Picing our leaders in any era of human history has been notoriously difficult :)
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
DecaturHawk said:
I never said it was.

No, but you said "Don't "religious a$$holes" get to exercise their First Amendment rights to say what they think about moral issues? ". I see same sex marriages being a union between two people that love each other just as much as a hetrosexual couple, is a hetrosexual marriage not a moral issue then also?
DecaturHawk said:

Apparently, one of the books you read was NOT the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You don't know me, do not assume what I have and have not read, I simply do not believe what I read is not the "truth, way, and light" as some people do.

DecaturHawk said:

It's not my definition, and it's a far stretch to take anything I have said in my posts and conclude that it is. You will find in any group of people some who are evil, stupid or uncaring. Condemning the entire Church for the sins of some of its members is like saying that all Democrats are adulterers because Clinton was one.
Although Clinton was outed for getting head under his desk, Catholics simply pass little boys around and cover up for it.

DecaturHawk said:

It shouldn't be hard to figure out why the Catholic Church has a problem with Planned Parenthood. Those individuals may have misjudged the woman in question, but again, that doesn't ipso facto make "this religion" judgmental.
Ah, yes because no Catholic has ever had sex before marriage and has never used birth control they shun anyone who walks into a Planned Parenthood. Personally, I would sooner have an abortion than let my children grow up molested by a priest they trusted. I believe organized religion is judgemental.
DecaturHawk said:

While previewing this reply, I just saw your post stating, thankfully mostly accurately, the position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. You go into a lot of areas that frankly, require faithful assent based on an understanding of what the Catholic Faith is, how it came about, and how the Church is inspired and interacts with the world at large. I appreciate this much more honest approach, as opposed to your first post. I could try to explain the theology surrounding the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage, and I could try to point out in detail what the Church has to say about barren couples (no, they are not prohibited from marrying) and homosexuality. However, I am afraid that to get too deep into these issues goes well beyond the original topic of this thread and beyond the sensible limits regarding religious discussions on this forum..
My first post was how I felt about what I have read and wrote a paper about, simply posting that so you could see the flaws in the statement was for your benefit, not mine. Also for your benefit, stating an opinion is not being dishonest.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
DecaturHawk said:
C) In this respect, at least, we are alike. Trading ideas is great, trading insults is uncivilized. Let's not go to war, OK?

OK

But I feel insulted when people use faith for the basis of denying inclusion of other people in a societies duties and benifits.

By using faith, you stifle debate. You cant argue faith with logic because faith by its definition is an unreasoning belief in something with little or no proof. For instance, I can believe there is a devine existence. I can't know "for sure" if "IT":

really exists / looks like me / thinks a certain way / really is or is not homophobic / says it is OK to kill those who don't believe in him the way I do etc...

I will agree there are absolutes in life, and morality, and good and evil. Don't try to argue them on any given faith as the argument should be based on some semblence of fact (as shifty as that can be).
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
Wow this thread is all over the place! Nice work Jessie J! BTW, love your films too.

Gotta ring in on the marriage thing - I agree with Stumpf and a few others but I'll elaborate a bit. Marriage to me is a religious institution acknowledged by goverment and awarded through socially engineered federal programs (tax cuts for kids, etc). *Never mind the marraige penalty for the moment* However, the government will convey those same benies and penalties through civil unions (courthouse weedings for straights). Again, not acknowledging same sex civil unions is government meddling through social engineering. I have no problem with the government hanging their hat on marraige as a religious institution as a reason for banning same sex marraige. Just stop court house weddings for staight couples then too.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Even father afield we go. . .

Chet's idea is the Israeli system, I understand. Only Orthodox rabbis can preform weddings, which do not exist separate from religion.

Not sure I like the idea, given the host of toher legal rights and responsibilities.

Frankly, as "profound" as ruminations on human marriage and love are, I remain convinced that the rise in homosexuality is partly nature's reaction (or god's) to the fact that we are simply TOO SUCCESSFUL at procreating.

Not that I have any deep dislike of children at all (more indifference), but in a world of 300-million SUV-commuting, 3000 square foot house living, beef-everyday Americans, is the command to reproduce so necessary, so overwhelming, that we make children the be all and end all of a lifetime? Again, children are wonderful, but I have a problem with the dehumanizing of those who, for whatever reasons no matter how "selfish," don't have children. There is a lot of that "tone" in Catholic moral thinking. Is fear of a world with 18 billion people really part of the "culture of death"?
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
Re: Even father afield we go. . .

BKM said:
Chet's idea is the Israeli system, I understand. Only Orthodox rabbis can preform weddings, which do not exist separate from religion.

OH SHAT! IM A JEW!

BKM said:
I remain convinced that the rise in homosexuality is partly nature's reaction (or god's) to the fact that we are simply TOO SUCCESSFUL at procreating

Wait? Homos are on the rise? We should crush them like the Jews in 1939 before they become pervasive in our culture. (RELAX IT IS SARCASM)
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Habanero, before I respond to your post, let me first say that I apologize for accusing you of dishonesty. What I should have said was that your second post was free of invective, which I did appreciate. You are right, stating an opinion is not dishonest, and I was wrong to have made the statement that I did.
Habanero said:
No, but you said "Don't "religious a$$holes" get to exercise their First Amendment rights to say what they think about moral issues? ". I see same sex marriages being a union between two people that love each other just as much as a hetrosexual couple, is a hetrosexual marriage not a moral issue then also?
You bet it is, but again, it involves issues that go beyond this thread or the purpose of this forum. This isn't the place to argue the issue.

You don't know me, do not assume what I have and have not read, I simply do not believe what I read is not the "truth, way, and light" as some people do.
True enough, but since what you stated as "Catholic teaching" is in fact NOT Catholic teaching, you didn't get what you said from the Catechism. As to your "truth, way and light" comment, are you assuming something about me?

Although Clinton was outed for getting head under his desk, Catholics simply pass little boys around and cover up for it.
Again, you appear very willing to condemn all Catholics for the sins of the few. Can you name one faithful Catholic who has stood up and defended the actions of the miscreant priests and bishops? I can't, and I don't. As to Clinton being outed but the bishops getting away with it, you can't be serious. Haven't you read the papers for the last two years? The media have had a field day "outing" accused priests and irresponsible bishops.

Ah, yes because no Catholic has ever had sex before marriage and has never used birth control they shun anyone who walks into a Planned Parenthood. Personally, I would sooner have an abortion than let my children grow up molested by a priest they trusted. I believe organized religion is judgemental.
Another sweeping generalization. There are a lot of bad things I don't want to happen to my children (abortion being one of them). The number of priests that have been accused (accused, not convicted) is less than 2 percent of the total active priests in this country. When it comes to anyone you trust your kid with (priest/minister/babysitter/teacher/coach, etc.) you have to be vigilant. Again, just because there are some bad folks out there doesn't mean you can judge everyone the same.

You don't wish to be judged by organized religion, and I don't blame you (who likes to be judged?). But I think it's reasonable to conclude that you have passed judgment on Catholics by your generalizations.

My first post was how I felt about what I have read and wrote a paper about, simply posting that so you could see the flaws in the statement was for your benefit, not mine. Also for your benefit, stating an opinion is not being dishonest.
Fair enough. See my apology above.

Habanero, I think I get your opinion on this, and I hope you know mine. I'm done responding on this issue (from everyone), and will try very hard to resist being baited into another response.
 

Jessie-J

Cyburbian
Messages
384
Points
12
Habanero said:
I lived in Austin during the Bush election, since obviously he was going to get the electoral votes we tried to get a ton of people to vote for Nader, just to try for the 5%. Didn't happen-humph.

I too lived in Austin during that time. Funny how in Travis county, Bush didn't come close to winning by popular vote.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
Jessie-J said:
I too lived in Austin during that time. Funny how in Travis county, Bush didn't come close to winning by popular vote.
Too liberal perhaps? :)

Hawk, basically, I don't care if I do judge a religion, but I do not do so hiding cowardly behind religious beliefs. I'll not feel guilty, I'm not catholic and not obligated to feel so. You cannot debate religious beliefs without first being open minded and able to take a step back from your religion to see the beliefs of others. I detest organized religion, it brainwashes people in my opinion.


Oh, question, when did I ever state it was a "Catholic teaching"?
 
Last edited:

Jen

Cyburbian
Messages
1,702
Points
26
I like Bush too, and I wouldn't recommend marriage to anybody.

I think GW was roped into running for prez, it is not an office I feel he really aspired too. It was a duty that went w/ the territory, he knew of the ropes and could be handled. He's not diabolical and he's not a moron, thank god he's not quite Quayle.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
Jen said:
I like Bush too, and I wouldn't recommend marriage to anybody.

I think GW was roped into running for prez, it is not an office I feel he really aspired too. It was a duty that went w/ the territory, he knew of the ropes and could be handled. He's not diabolical and he's not a moron, thank god he's not quite Quayle.

Gotta disagree. Jeb was the Bush boy being groomed for the presidency. Doubya jumped first.
 

prudence

Cyburbian
Messages
685
Points
20
Jessie-J said:
I personally am not a fan of this guy at all, and I feel like every thing he's doing is dumber and dumber.

"Dumber" is NOT a word. The correct use is more and more dumb.

Not every title used in a movie is correct syntax. If you are going to criticize the intelligence and decision making of others, be certain your own house is in order.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,832
Points
25
Habanero said:
Too liberal perhaps? :)

Hawk, basically, I don't care if I do judge a religion, but I do not do so hiding cowardly behind religious beliefs. I'll not feel guilty, I'm not catholic and not obligated to feel so. You cannot debate religious beliefs without first being open minded and able to take a step back from your religion to see the beliefs of others. I detest organized religion, it brainwashes people in my opinion.


It might not be what you meant but. . . standing behind religious beliefs which are not held by the majority of society is not "cowardly."
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
Re: Re: What is Bush?

prudence said:
"If you are going to criticize the intelligence and decision making of others, be certain your own house is in order.

I aint got to do anything you says.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,832
Points
25
Rense

Budgie said:

God knows the British never thought they were better than anyone else.

How quickly do critics think it should take to completely overhaul a fascist government into a democracy representing several ethnic groups while restoring infrastructure and fighting off guerillas? This isn't an episode of Law and Order - things take some time. As for the WMD's Saddam had a good 12 years to hide/bury the things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top