Knowing a candidate position on "gay marriage" may be intellectually interesting but is not that relevant. What could a candidate do to further the gay marriage cause at the federal level when it is a state's issue?
well, isn't that the issue? sharpton said last night, possibly the only time in my life I'll ever agree with him, and it makes me feel dirty to even contemplate, that the issue of gay marriage, like other civil rights issues, is too important to be left to the states and needs to be defined at the federal level. shouldn't the debate be "is this a civil rights" issue, and if not, why not? the republicans have a position, not one I agree with, but why is it a "wedge" if they express it?
It is commonly accepted by Christians that the Bible is divinely inspired (ie what the Bible says is what God says). I guess that means that a combination of you and Christianity said God was in favor of slavery.
Well, the Bible didn't just fall out of the sky...thats why it it good to examine some of the history of it and whatnot. But I agree, it inspired, and in a way, is the Word of God.
macbeth -- i guess we're just reading this really differently. but i go back to my point about loving your neighbor...and the fact that Jesus used a Samaritan (one whom Jews looked down upon big time) to drive that point home. i don't think it takes much reading between the lines to see that God isn't cool with slavery...and that the Bible backs that up.
A) You keep coming back to interpretation, which is not a point that can be applied only when it suits you. Either we interpret it as written, or we say the entire matter is one of interpretation. To say that it is only by wrote when it agrees with our current bias takes us back to pre-Guttenberg rationalization. B) I feel that I have a fairly complex understanding of the Bible. Your friend's interpretation of the other hceek is inconsistent with the context in which it was both given and written. It also contradicts Jesus' other admonissions against retaliation and violence. Remember, too, that Jesus was preaching in a time when it was expectd that the messiah would be a temporal leader who would free the Hebrews from bondage to the Romans by military rebellion, thus the choice to preach taking the other cheek was an intentional one, with obvious implecations. And he said it in the context that our salvation would not come in this world, but the next, which would again contradict your friend's interpretation of getting even without active sin. C) Even given your friend's interpretation, I would love to see a deconstruction of the passages on slavery than can be construed as saying that slavery is wrong.
So then you believe that saying that the Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth means that this was also God's take on galactic positioning?
The easy answer is that the majority of Americans are not ready for gay marriages. The gay marriage movement might be better served by picking their fights in liberal states and try to build a beach head of support. Eventually there would be enough critical mass to make it a national issue. Why would the gay marriage movement want to sacrifice candidates that are sympathetic to their cause as a means to a Republican end?
Not only that, but it wasn't compiled until over 300 years after the fact, and done at a very political gathering for which we have plenty of earthly records. And at no point during that gathering was anything like a consensus reached on what texts should and should not be included, it eventually came down to a compromise between religious leaders of different branches of the Church and temporal powers insisting upon certain inclusions/omissions to furhter their own power structure. Additionally, one examination of any of the serious movements of interpretation over the centuries, particularly the ongoing ( and somewhat amusing) battles between a certain Italian Pope and his brilliant, if rebellious Greek interpreter over how to interpret certain passages of the Bible, which eventually became Gospel reveals how much of what we consider The Word was formed by men.
Max...I'm dissapointed. I understand the desire and propensity to assume that was seems obvious to us today, re: the morality of slavery was always thus, but it simply wasn't. What I can't understand is your insistence on reading between the lines ( this after previously admonishing 'interpretations') while sidestepping direct passages. The former is easily prone to interpretation influenced by what we want to see, the latter is literal. Oh, well. As Gandhi said, the mind won't open if the heart is closed.
not sure i understand what you're asking. i have several mutually conflicting thoughts on this issue. i support the aspirations of gays who would like to marry, but feel the issue should be more properly decided on the local level, by state's legisaltures. the defense of marriage act says states do not have to recognize the laws of other states on this issue, but then there's the whole "establishment clause" debate and i'm not sure the DOM can pass constitutional muster. the law has been around since 1996 i think- has it been challenged in federal court? however, i think sharpton has a point, and it's made me rethink my stance, and i think W's right, that "activist" judges should stay out of the issue. ultimately, like abortion, it comes down to whether there is a "right" to marry, or whether it is a privelege or someother definition. for now, i narrowly fall to the latter position, so while I favor gays being able to marry- indeed i encourage them to do so- i don't feel it's an "inalienable right" (at least for homosexuals), and feel that local standards, and those of the denominations into which homosexuals might marry, should prevail. perhaps a right to "civil unions" is the best compromise.
Gay marriage is a wedge issue that the far right are going to use to drive voters away from the Democrats this next election cycle. This is totally correct. You have gay Republicans even pushing it because they want the tax breaks for the uber wealthy that along with making war and money off it are the hallmarks of Bush. I can certainly understand why Jorge and the dittoheads would prefer to talk about gay marriage.
i wonder if Carson from Queer Eye dressed him excerpt only online. full interview in print General’s orders: Exclusive interview Retired four-star general Wesley Clark thinks “don’t ask, don’t tell” needs to go and same-sex unions are here to stay. Can these pro-gay positions win him voters’ support—and the Democratic presidential nomination? By Jon Barrett Excerpted from The Advocate, February 3, 2004 It has been more than 10 years since a Democrat from Little Rock, Ark., first took on the military’s ban on gay service members, winding up with a compromise that was quickly dubbed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Now another Democrat from Little Rock is tackling that compromise, saying it clearly doesn’t work and must be dismantled. As president, Gen. Wesley Clark is prepared to fix what his former commander in chief, Bill Clinton, left broken. In a testament to how much has changed in the decade since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was born, all nine of the Democratic presidential candidates who are currently elbowing their way across the country say the policy is discriminatory. But the 59-year-old Clark, a retired four-star general and former NATO commander, could be the only one with enough brass to make a difference. As Steve Rawls of the military watchdog group Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund explains, “Military leaders will have a lot of sway in convincing Congress to change the policy, and General Clark obviously has a lot of stature within the military community.” But first The General, as his aides all refer to him, must win the nomination. To accomplish that, the campaign has a lot of work to do, admits spokesman Matt Bennett during a break from campaigning in New Hampshire in order to stump in New York City. “We’re running a 12-month campaign in nine months,” Bennett says. Clark spoke to The Advocate the day after Al Gore endorsed the candidacy of former Vermont governor Howard Dean—a move that Clark shrugs off as having more to do with Gore than with Dean—the same day two retired brigadier generals and one rear admiral came out of the closet in The New York Times, a move Clark says deals significant blows to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” When it comes to gay issues, what makes you a better presidential candidate? I’ve been in the armed forces. I’ve been at the very center of the firestorm. I know what it’s like out there. And I’ve had people who have come up to see me about it since I’ve been out [of the service]—gay and lesbian people who need help. What are they saying? They tell me that they want it fixed, and I agree. The armed forces are the last institution in America that discriminates against people. It ought to be the first that doesn’t. They ought to have the right to be who they are. They shouldn’t have to conceal their identities. You know, there are different models [that allow for gay people to serve openly]—the British have a model—and there is no impact on combat readiness. It’s a bogus issue. I know your son was married recently. If your son had been born gay, would you want him to have the same rights that he enjoys today? I would want him to have the right to have a stable relationship. But whether you call it marriage or not is up to the church or the synagogue or the mosque. And it’s up to the state legislatures. I think marriage is a term of art. It’s a term of usage. But the legal side of it is not: It’s not negotiable. But about 40% of U.S. marriages every year happen without any religious participation. I support whatever the state says. If the state of Massachusetts says we’re going to form a civil union but we’re going to call it marriage, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s marriage. So you support Massachusetts’s calling it marriage? Yeah, absolutely. How do you think Congress would react to that? Well, they’ll love it. This is exactly what they’re looking for. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party. It’s an absurd issue, and it’s one of the reasons I’m running. No one can accuse me of being soft on defense, and no one can accuse me of not knowing about what the armed forces are about. And when I say, “It’s OK,” then it’s OK, period. But elections aren’t always about common sense. And I think [Republicans] would love to frighten people. How does the news about Al Gore’s endorsement of the Dean campaign change your strategy? It doesn’t. The way you asked about it is exactly right. It’s not news about the presidential race; it’s just news about Gore. I think that it will create an impressionable momentum for Dean in the elite media. But it doesn’t change the reality.
i saw that cover on my way home last night- he looks like his last posting was to christopher street! this actually makes sense: "I would want him to have the right to have a stable relationship. But whether you call it marriage or not is up to the church or the synagogue or the mosque. And it’s up to the state legislatures. I think marriage is a term of art. It’s a term of usage. But the legal side of it is not: It’s not negotiable. " i wonder who downloaded it to him, since it's way too nuanced for him to have come up with on his own.
Riiight.... Or maybe some people think that they are being discriminated against, and others think that it's an assault on marriage. I have no doubt the Republicans are happy to be making an issue of it. However, it came to the forefront because of the things happening in the courts (Massachusetts).
Uh...do you know anything about the man's education, credentials, etc.? I wondered about this earlier when you said you wondered about his non-military expertise and knowledge, but this sort of confirms what I was thinking. Studies into Jung's explanation for synchronicity reveal that most people see what they expect to see, and miss what they'd rather not know.
A) Obviously, you're misunderstanding me, I'm not trying to say the Bible is simply about interpretation. I don't know where you've gotten that from. I'm saying you are displaying a poor reading of the Bible (and I'm not trying to say mine is right). I know this hurts you to hear, I mean you read it and you certainly believe that you have a "complex understanding" of it, but I'm saying I'm noticing glaring errors in your, well I'll be blunt, simple reading of it. The fact is, both you and I are going to keep having simple readings, given this is not our field of specialty. Its time for both of us to realize that the Bible is not that simple, we need to be well versed in Greek, Hebrew and the like to get a good understanding of it, so let's quit pulling random quotes out of the Bible for making deconstructionist points about modern day society. Quite frankly, you're going from a twhy73 to a twhy62 pretty quickly on the twhy77 rating meter. B)I don't know how you can say that the priest's reading of the text is incoherent with the themes of love and such. Its not really violence when you turn your cheek so that when someone who's brutalizing you will feel a slight bit of pain when they continue to go over the line. Seems like it would be a more loving thing to do that and to try and make the person see the pain he's inflicting reflected back upon himiself. Makes him think what hes doing isn't right and that he should stop. Thats love. Sorry bub but sometimes love hurts. I know you have a fear of suffering, or having to reform to an antiquated system of values which could amend some things in your life that you like to do. Sorry man. Love hurts. But its great. C) Save your Deconstructionist readings for your Deridia class. They'll enjoy it much more than I know I would. No anger. I just expect more from you.
On a lighter note, this is what we can sound like sometimes: Subject: Catholic Elementary School Test The Bible -- Most folks who know the Bible even a little will likely find this hilarious! It comes from a Catholic elementary school test. Kids were asked questions about the old and new testaments. These statements were written by children. They have not been retouched or corrected. (i.e., incorrect spelling has been left in). Wording and spelling are a delight. 1. In the first book of the bible, Guinessis. God got tired of creating the world so he took the sabbath off. 2. Adam and Eve were created from an Apple tree. Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark. Noah built an ark and the animals came on in pears. 3. Lots wife was a pillar of salt during the day, but a ball of fire during the night. 4. The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with unsympathetic Genitals. 5. Sampson was a strongman who let himself be led astray by a Jezebel like Delilah. 6. Samson slayed the Philistines with the axe of the Apostles. 7. Moses led the Jews to the Red sea where they made unleavened bread which is bread without any ingredients. 8. The Egyptians were all drowned in the dessert. Afterwards, Moses went up to Mount Cyanide to get the ten ammendments. 9. The first commandment was when Eve told Adam to eat the apple. 10. The seventh Commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery. 11. Moses died before he ever reached Canada . Then Joshua led the Hebrews in the battle of Geritol. 12. The greates miricle in the bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him. 13. David was a Hebrew king who was skilled at playing the liar. He fought the Finkelsteins, a race of people who lived in bibical times. 14. Solomon, one of Davids sons, had 300 wives and 700 porcupines. 15. When Mary heard she was the mother of Jesus, she sang the Magna Carta. 16. When the three wise guys from the east side arrived, they found Jesus in the manager. 17. Jesus was born because Mary had an immaculate contraption. 18. St. John the blacksmith dumped water on his head. 19. Jesus enunciated the Golden Rule, which says to do unto others before they do one to you. He also explained, a man doth not live by sweat alone. 20. It was a miricle when Jesus rose from the dead and managed to get the tombstone off the entrance. 21. The people who followed the lord were called the 12 decibels. 22. The epistels were the wives of the apostals. 23. One of the oppossums was St. Matthew who was also a taximan. 24. St. Paul cavorted to Christianity, he preached holy acrimony, which is another name for marraige. 25. Christians have only one spouse. This is called monotony.
