Glenn Beck is NOT Martin Luther King Jr.

[Nikkol]

Aug 31, 2010 22:56:21 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

I have absolutely no respect for Glenn Beck, so I had no reason whatsoever to attend this rally. I'm actually not a big fan of these types of rally period. People love to march, but rarely do they follow up all of the symbolism with any concrete action.

No (as there are atheists who are theologians), but allow me to go into detail.

Beck attempted to define Obama's religious views (why was that even necessary in the first place?) and then say that they fall outside of the parameters of mainstream Christianity. That is the irnoy of ironies, as Mormonism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three totally separate spirit beings and that Jesus and Satan were brothers, among other things (not to say anything of its well-documented explicit racist teachings by the earliest leaders of the church). On top of this, Beck has no formal religious training and God knows he's not privy to whatever relationship President Obama has with Jesus Christ.

I have no clue what this rally was really all about or what it hoped to PRACTICALLY accomplish. It was called "Restoring Honor," but how exactly has America been dishonored and when? This was nothing more than a bunch of folks still mad that McCain and Palin lost and can't get over that fact. I'd be more inclined to take these Tea Party folks seriously if they didn't hitch their wagon to the Republican Party. And it's too bad, because they could have actually made a real difference on the political landscape via their very real and legitimate concerns about the role of government, deficit spending, etc.

1. I can understand the not marching/going to rallies. Not my cup of tea either. It's just that many times we (general) only go by what ppl publish and unfortunately that can be thwarted based on ones viewpoint.

2. There are "Christian" churches by which they believe that F,S,HG are separate people (terminology is persons) and don't believe that Jesus is God. So, that part doesn't really hold much weight, if you will.

3. Didn't know "religious training" was necessary to talk about religious views

4. And it could be true that he's not privy to whatever relationship President Obama has with Jesus Christ. .....and if that's the case, neither are we privy to that relationship either and to say anything besides that would definitely give the impression that other's are better than Glenn Beck but not based on any substantial evidence.

5. Even if the rally did nothing more than bring ppl together in what would appear to be a peaceable event, allowed different ministers to pray, and help the families of special-operations soldiers killed in battle, that's a good thing.

6. Honestly, I think that ppl try to get too deep into things unnecessarily... it reminds me of the story of the boy who got a telescope for his birthday. He took it apart, looked at all the parts, put it back together, etc. One day his dad asked him if he enjoyed his gift. The boy talked about how he looked at it, polished it and took it apart and was able to put it all together again. The dad asked him what did he think about viewing the stars.....the boy looked up and said that he got so into the parts of the telescope never even looked at them. And this is what I see with this rally....between this one and Sharpton's....let's stop trying to take it apart and get "another meaning" and just take both rally's for what they said. I am tired of everything having to come down to race. Just be a Christian...everything else will fall into place.

[Nikkol]

Sept 1, 2010 0:17:18 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

On top of everything else I mentioned, Glenn Beck says that gay marriage isn't a threat to the country and that government should have nothing to do with it.

So I guess I'm a bit confused here when these religious people say they think the president is a Muslim or don't know what religion he is (even though he's spoken and written extensively about his Christian faith), presumably based on some of his liberal political views, but generally speak well of Beck (and his religious rally), who's 1) a member of a cultict sect and 2) holds views contrary to most social conservatives, and not to mention biblical principles, about gay marriage. Obama, on the other hand, has championed equality for gays but has explicitly said he is not for gay marriage. People really baffle me.

Honestly, it's not a threat to the country...... I mean, what will happen? Most ppl still aren't saved. I'm not going to change what I teach my children......but now if one is about to die, the other person will have a right to be able to be there and have health benefits......is that what we're fighting for now? I kinda see us fighting that issue as when a girl first comes to church and you totally change her outside appearance without any teaching or understanding and there's never a change on the inside.

Things are changing because there's no fear of God and many aren't born again believers. It will always be hard to force ppl who don't hold on to Christian values to understand why those are standards that the general public should have to follow....unless there's a change on the inside.

Side Note: What writings does Obama talk about his Christian faith? I've been trying to google things and haven't really found much. (I may be "googling" wrong.....lol)

[krazeeboi]

Sept 1, 2010 7:05:58 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

1. I can understand the not marching/going to rallies. Not my cup of tea either. It's just that many times we (general) only go by what ppl publish and unfortunately that can be thwarted based on ones viewpoint.

I've reached my own conclusions regarding this rally based on a couple of accounts I've read, including those I've not copied and pasted here.

2. There are "Christian" churches by which they believe that F,S,HG are separate people (terminology is persons) and don't believe that Jesus is God. So, that part doesn't really hold much weight, if you will.

And my point is that those churches are considered to be out of the mainstream of evangelical Christianity, just like Glenn Beck's false Mormon religion. But Glenn Beck is going to try and lecture people about Obama's theological views supposedly being out of the Christian mainstream? It's like David Koresh trying to paint Jim Jones as a religious extremist.

3. Didn't know "religious training" was necessary to talk about religious views

It's more than just "talking" about religious views. Glenn Beck doesn't know the first thing about liberation theology, or probably even mainstream evangelical Christianity since he's a Mormon. He was speaking quite authoritatively about Obama's supposed theological views, and it went beyond mere speculation.

4. And it could be true that he's not privy to whatever relationship President Obama has with Jesus Christ. .....and if that's the case, neither are we privy to that relationship either and to say anything besides that would definitely give the impression that other's are better than Glenn Beck but not based on any substantial evidence.

We DO have substantial evidence: the Bible. Mormonism is a false religion, PERIOD. And liberation theology is not a sect or a denomination; it's just a stream of theological thought that several ministers across many different denominations hold, including several mainstream Christian denominations (Baptist, Methodist, etc.). Just by virture of Beck having aligned himself with Mormonism, we can pretty much say that Beck does not embrace the God or the Christ of the Bible because Mormonism doesn't embrace that God or the real Jesus Christ. I think you should research Mormonism. They are so far off until it's not funny.

5. Even if the rally did nothing more than bring ppl together in what would appear to be a peaceable event, allowed different ministers to pray, and help the families of special-operations soldiers killed in battle, that's a good thing.

The charitable donation was a nice gesture; everything else was just a show without any demonstrable real purpose.

6. Honestly, I think that ppl try to get too deep into things unnecessarily... it reminds me of the story of the boy who got a telescope for his birthday. He took it apart, looked at all the parts, put it back together, etc. One day his dad asked him if he enjoyed his gift. The boy talked about how he looked at it, polished it and took it apart and was able to put it all together again. The dad asked him what did he think about viewing the stars.....the boy looked up and said that he got so into the parts of the telescope never even looked at them. And this is what I see with this rally....between this one and Sharpton's....let's stop trying to take it apart and get "another meaning" and just take both rally's for what they said. I am tired of everything having to come down to race. Just be a Christian...everything else will fall into place.

I wish it could be this easy, but how can it be when the president who's confessed Christianity several times, is said NOT to be one or people say they don't know if he's one or not? The whole rally was really an "us against them" type thing, with the conservatives attempting to hijack religion and paint the other side as irreligious or non-Christian. Very thin veneer there.

[anointedteacher]

palingates.blogspot.com/2010/08/exclusive-pictures-and-report-from.html


Monday, 30 August 2010
Exclusive pictures and report from Glenn Beck's and Sarah Palin's "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington D.C.

Guest post by Kimba

We arrived at the event at around 11:00 a.m. We took the metro there. The trains were packed with people going to the event. When we got off the train, and started our walk towards the Monument, to our right was a large display of the image of Martin Luther King, Jr. There were speakers broadcasting his "I have a dream" speech.

There was plenty of walking room along the path to the Lincoln Memorial. We passed some interesting people along the way, some who did not agree with the Tea Party's political views, or the underlying divisiveness, racism, fear and hatred that seems to define a lot of those in this movement.

One of those was a guy named Gary. He held a sign in protest stating that MLK's dream could work. And he apologized to us that his ancestors were slave owners.

Once we got close to where the crowds were, we got a better look at those who were attending this event. This crowd seemed to be composed of those older people who could easily be frightened by the things that Fox news reports. I could even believe that these same people don't use other sources for their enlightenment, and rather, would trust an organization which manipulates them by using the fear of "brown" people with different beliefs taking over their beloved America.

There were also some young people there, and some families. People who seemed to have never stepped outside their bubble and interacted with people of color. For the record, we saw a few people from India, and a few African Americans there as well.

Apparently, everyone more or less obeyed the request not to bring posters. We didn't see any except for those who were protesting (there were few). Most of the Tea Party members, instead, wore clothing that had the American Flag on it, or made entirely of a replica of the American flag. They also wore hats or head bands with the stars and stripes. Some carried various flags. Some wore tee shirts with slogans on it.

As we got closer, we could here someone from the stage saying "Obama no!" "Obama no!."

There really didn't seem to be a lot going on. People were waiting around. Then someone introduced MLK's niece. The applause was polite, but barely there. She didn't seem to connect with the audience, from what I could see. She sang a christian song, but it apparently wasn't one that the right wingers could relate to. She left the stage and an African American minister spoke. The crowd really could have cared less. People were walking and talking the whole time. The crowd was pretty fluid. My camera has a recorder on it, but there was nothing to record. These folk mostly kept to themselves.

By this time, it was getting past noon, close to 12:30. We wanted to take more photos and wanted to get up on one of the walls to do so. There were many (white) people sitting on the walls snapping away. When we went to an opening, we were told by the gentleman there that the police would come and tell us to get down, so we shouldn't get up there. Now mind you, the Tea Parties were all along the wall everywhere taking all kinds of photos, and there were no cops to be found asking anyone to get down.. I don't think we were wanted, but we told the guy very politely that we would take our chances and we got up there and took photos anyway.

Around 12: 35, there still was not sign of Palin so we decided to leave. A lot of others decided to leave, too.

My whole take was that this was an event where the people who attended were waiting for Palin to speak and made the trip soley for that purpose. Other than that, the crowd was subdued, not a lot of excitement. People did stare at me and my family and other minorities, but it was only because there were so few minorities there.

As I stated earlier, we did not stay around to hear the Queen's screech. Many others left right along with us before she came out. Nothing really happened, it was an unenthusiastic crowd by all accounts, especially when King's niece and the minister were speaking, though that may have changed when Palin came out.

Got quite a few photos of some of the attendees.

Only three incidents stand out in my mind about this event:

1. An elderly couple was in front of us and my daughter and I were discussing how sad it was that Fox news was using fear to exploit a lot of the older people, and how untrustworthy Fox really was. The couple got visibly angry and walked faster to get away from us.

2. The attempt to not allow us to get photographs of the crowds.

3. On my way back to the Metro, an elderly gentleman ask me about my camera and I was polite and friendly and responded back. He then stated that he brought his camcorder so that the media could not get away with under counting the number of people who attended this event.

By the way, I am not good at estimating crowds, but I don't think there was greater that 100,000 who attended, if that much. My daughter puts the estimation at around 50 thousand. You can see in the photos that there were a lot of space between the crowds. Just simply not that big a deal.

My daughter and my friend, who I am visiting, have become more educated by this experience. They were fascinated by what they saw and it just brought an awareness about the Tea Party members that wasn't there previously.

[krazeeboi]

Sept 1, 2010 7:20:25 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

Honestly, it's not a threat to the country...... I mean, what will happen?

Wow Nikkol; I can't believe you're saying this, particularly as an attempt to preserve some sense of Beck's religious legitimacy.

Firstly, religious freedom is at stake. You legalize gay marriage across the board, and any church that deems such as unbiblical will be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status and possibly even of persecution. As a matter of fact, it's already happened.

Secondly, we already see how children born out of welock or to single parents are much more prone to things like violence, dropping out of school, etc., and of course, most of these children are boys who do not have male role models in the home. Children born to a mother and father are best able to demonstrate proper gender roles to their children, and that in turn leads to a more stable society.

In short, this isn't about Christian doctrine per se, but the regular functioning of society. Christian principles and viewpoints are rooted in facts on the ground, not abstract ideals that are followed just because God said so. The reason why the Law governed people's behavior is because it protected the larger society; there was a practical outworking involved.

Most ppl still aren't saved. I'm not going to change what I teach my children

No, but schools will change what children are taught. Even if you put your children in a private school or homeschool them, an entire generation will be taught that a malicious (I'm using that term in the strictest sense of the word) lifestyle is OK, and that will contribute to the breakdown of society. Again, it's about the proper and smooth functioning of society. Here's how one article put it:

What happens now if children grow up in a society that overtly teaches that homosexual partnering is not "just as good as" but actually is marriage?

Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech.

Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models.

Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden).

The propaganda mill will pound our children with homosexual marriage as a role model. We know this will happen because we have seen the fanatical Left do it many times before.

So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen?

......but now if one is about to die, the other person will have a right to be able to be there and have health benefits......is that what we're fighting for now?

That can be done without gay marriage. A lot of hospitals already have that sort of protection in place for gay and unmarried couples, and President Obama also authorized such. Furthermore, such couples can enter into legal contracts and arrangments as well towards that end without legal marriage.

I kinda see us fighting that issue as when a girl first comes to church and you totally change her outside appearance without any teaching or understanding and there's never a change on the inside.

Totally different issue. This issue is about the proper functioning of society. There are certain rules and standards that must be in place to protect society as a whole, regardless of one's religious views. For example, that's why polygamy is illegal.

Things are changing because there's no fear of God and many aren't born again believers. It will always be hard to force ppl who don't hold on to Christian values to understand why those are standards that the general public should have to follow....unless there's a change on the inside.

I agree that our first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God and that the hearts of individuals must be changed (which is another problem I have with the Beck rally; where was the proclamation of the Gospel and the call to salvation?). However, there is truth that is evident to everyone, regardless of religious views. Atheists actually have some of the best arguments regarding morality, because moral standards help to preserve society as a whole.

A relevant excerpt from the article I cited earlier explains it very well:

Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

In fact, it will do harm. Nowhere near as much harm as we have already done through divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. But it's another nail in the coffin. Maybe the last nail, precisely because it is the most obvious and outrageous attack on what is left of marriage in America...

Side Note: What writings does Obama talk about his Christian faith? I've been trying to google things and haven't really found much. (I may be "googling" wrong.....lol)

I'd start with his book, The Audacity of Hope, where he pretty much devotes an entire chapter to it.

And then there are these speeches and interviews:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html

obamaspeeches.com/081-Call-to-Renewal-Keynote-Address-Obama-Speech.htm

www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/

Now understand, I'm not saying that all Christians need to become anti-gay marriage activists. But the issue here isn't making sure that non-Christian society adheres to a Christian standard, but that there are certain social boundaries that must remain intact so as not to contribute to the further breakdown of society, and the government has a very significant stake in this. The fact that Glenn Beck doesn't grasp this really and truly makes me question his motives about "restoring honor" and getting America "back to God"--as if I didn't have enough reason to question them already given his past statements and actions.

[Nikkol]

Backdrop to my whole response:
1) This country isn't a God-fearing country anymore.
2) I'm not and advocate of this cause...but rather wanting to make sure we all see the difficulty in proving it wrong and what the other side will say/has said.

Wow Nikkol; I can't believe you're saying this, particularly as an attempt to preserve some sense of Beck's religious legitimacy.

No, not at all. That issue isn't the threat....it's being part of a godless society. I mean, we can keep cutting off a branch on a tree (no gay marriage) but without dealing with the Main issue, that won't make that much of a difference. Keeping it illegal won't change the fact that it's going on or that ppl will still be in that lifestyle.

Firstly, religious freedom is at stake. You legalize gay marriage across the board, and any church that deems such as unbiblical will be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status and possibly even of persecution. As a matter of fact, it's already happened.

Ppl want churches to lose that status anyways. Granted if they're talking only about the 501c(3) status, that won't hurt every church....only those that get money from the govt. Ppl are being persecuted overseas just because they're a believer. And I am one that feels that it's VERY possible that we may go through persecution of that level as well. If anything, we should prepare for that anyways.

Acts 5:40-41
40 And to him they agreed : and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go . 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

I pray that when/if that happens in my lifetime, I can have the same response.

Secondly, we already see how children born out of welock or to single parents are much more prone to things like violence, dropping out of school, etc., and of course, most of these children are boys who do not have male role models in the home. Children born to a mother and father are best able to demonstrate proper gender roles to their children, and that in turn leads to a more stable society.

I don't have statistics on your first sentence and the way statistics are done nowadays...... And your second sentence....well I know of a few ppl that were brought up with both parents that had children who to many would appear to not have the correct "gender role". (of course the ideal situation would of course be that a husband and wife both raised their children.)

In short, this isn't about Christian doctrine per se, but the regular functioning of society. Christian principles and viewpoints are rooted in facts on the ground, not abstract ideals that are followed just because God said so. The reason why the Law governed people's behavior is because it protected the larger society; there was a practical outworking involved.

And the issue you're going to run into is that if many ppl aren't Christian, it'll be hard from a judicial standpoint to say that certain things should be unacceptable. If you (general) choose to say, "because the Bible says it's wrong", their response, "I don't believe in the Bible". You say, "Children born to a mother and father are best able to demonstrate proper gender roles to their children, and that in turn leads to a more stable society.", their response "Well we have hundreds of examples were we (same gender lovers) have kids that are stable AND I think that your viewpoint of proper gender roles is thwarted. What makes you believe that your viewpoint of gender roles is correct?"....... In other words, judicially, I don't know if the "evidence" would work in your (general) favor on this issue.

Look at it even from church issues. Back in the day, it was known that women didn't wear pants at all...makeup....even head coverings. Nowadays, there are many that believe that they can wear pants, makeup and no head coverings. Or I believe that my skirt/dress should cover my knee and no higher as a way of being modest and will wear stockings/knee highs unless my skirt is to my ankles and I get "persecuted" and told to come out of the old stone age. I'm told society has changed and we can do those things. Now we see more ppl coming to church with shorter and tighter clothes. Modest has now become based on "one's personal belief" ---which is the same way someone can look at your view of gender roles.

No, but schools will change what children are taught. Even if you put your children in a private school or homeschool them, an entire generation will be taught that a malicious (I'm using that term in the strictest sense of the word) lifestyle is OK, and that will contribute to the breakdown of society. Again, it's about the proper and smooth functioning of society. Here's how one article put it:


What happens now if children grow up in a society that overtly teaches that homosexual partnering is not "just as good as" but actually is marriage?

Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech.

Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models.

Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden).

The propaganda mill will pound our children with homosexual marriage as a role model. We know this will happen because we have seen the fanatical Left do it many times before.

So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen?

One scripture:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old , he will not depart from it. Having to teach/train our children is our job. And if this is the ONLY thing that we are concerned about, then I think that as a Christian society, we have lost a lot of things. I teach my kids now that there are no such things as "good witches" and so shows like Harry Potter/Charmed/etc aren't things that we should watch. I teach my kids that some ppl may say words but that they are profane and you shouldn't use them....even if you hear them used by your friends, on tv, and nowadays by some pastors. We teach our kids that we don't go to proms and dance parties, etc when a lot of their time in school, they always hear ppl talking about prom season, wear to get your prom attire, etc. They're trying to teach about birth control or give out birth control in schools which we teach our kids against. So for me, this would just be something else that we'd teach our kids....though honestly, whether it's "marriage" or not. Our kids see these relationships even when walking down the street so some talks should've ALREADY been done.

Additionally, I also am not a believer that just because your kids are in their adolescent period that parents have to have the least influence....

Totally different issue. This issue is about the proper functioning of society. There are certain rules and standards that must be in place to protect society as a whole, regardless of one's religious views. For example, that's why polygamy is illegal.

And all you (general) need is to have a few ppl that are in hetero relationships have kids that are a menace to society and some in homo relationships where they were an asset to society....God forbid that the number of those who are more of a liability come from more hetero relationships.

One could question and say, "how does saying 'no' to this agenda protect society? What about the fact that there are many that commit suicide based on this issue because of tease and ridicule and bashing? Wouldn't saying yes give these ppl (esp young ppl) a chance to live a full life? And esp, in the black community where HIV/AIDS is very high, wouldn't allowing this limit the spread because noone would have to be in hiding?"

Now understand, I'm not saying that all Christians need to become anti-gay marriage activists. But the issue here isn't making sure that non-Christian society adheres to a Christian standard, but that there are certain social boundaries that must remain intact so as not to contribute to the further breakdown of society, and the government has a very significant stake in this. The fact that Glenn Beck doesn't grasp this really and truly makes me question his motives about "restoring honor" and getting America "back to God"--as if I didn't have enough reason to question them already given his past statements and actions.

And at the same time, there are MANY who are saying that Christians are intolerant and unloving and are holding back society.

Question:

1) If we use the word "civil union" vs using "marriage" what do you see will change?
2) If we use neither, what do you see will change?

[krazeeboi]

Sept 2, 2010 8:02:31 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

No, not at all. That issue isn't the threat....it's being part of a godless society. I mean, we can keep cutting off a branch on a tree (no gay marriage) but without dealing with the Main issue, that won't make that much of a difference. Keeping it illegal won't change the fact that it's going on or that ppl will still be in that lifestyle.

We can't keep people from practicing homosexuality (which isn't my argument), but as a society we don't have to place our stamp of approval on it by legalizing gay marriage. We preserve the social order by disapproving of certain actions that keep us in check, so to speak. Again, that's why polygamy is outlawed, adultery is frowned upon (and one can be sued for it in some states), etc.

Ppl want churches to lose that status anyways. Granted if they're talking only about the 501c(3) status, that won't hurt every church....only those that get money from the govt. Ppl are being persecuted overseas just because they're a believer. And I am one that feels that it's VERY possible that we may go through persecution of that level as well. If anything, we should prepare for that anyways.

But that doesn't mean we don't raise our voices in the public square about issues that affect the stability of our society.

I don't have statistics on your first sentence and the way statistics are done nowadays...... And your second sentence....well I know of a few ppl that were brought up with both parents that had children who to many would appear to not have the correct "gender role". (of course the ideal situation would of course be that a husband and wife both raised their children.)

Your last sentence is my point. There will always be anomalies, but they don't negate the rule. And it certainly isn't justification to introduce yet ANOTHER exception to the ideal family structure.

And the issue you're going to run into is that if many ppl aren't Christian, it'll be hard from a judicial standpoint to say that certain things should be unacceptable. If you (general) choose to say, "because the Bible says it's wrong", their response, "I don't believe in the Bible". You say, "Children born to a mother and father are best able to demonstrate proper gender roles to their children, and that in turn leads to a more stable society.", their response "Well we have hundreds of examples were we (same gender lovers) have kids that are stable AND I think that your viewpoint of proper gender roles is thwarted. What makes you believe that your viewpoint of gender roles is correct?"....... In other words, judicially, I don't know if the "evidence" would work in your (general) favor on this issue.

Personally, I'm entirely beyond the whole "Because the Bible says so" reasoning. I think that's a rather lazy way to view things. Faith is grounded in the real world.

In terms of the second part of that statement, judicially you most certainly can make that argument. As a matter of fact, one justice, Justice Sosman in her dissenting remarks to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, already has:

Reduced to its essence, the court's opinion concludes that, because same-sex couples are now raising children, and withholding the benefits of civil marriage from their union makes it harder for them to raise those children, the State must therefore provide the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex couples. Of course, many people are raising children outside the confines of traditional marriage, and, by definition, those children are being deprived of the various benefits that would flow if they were being raised in a household with married parents. That does not mean that the Legislature must accord the full benefits of marital status on every household raising children. … People are of course at liberty to raise their children in various family structures, as long as they are not literally harming their children by doing so. … That does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits. (available from news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf, italics)

Also check out this article which has more quotes for justices arguing against gay marriage from a legal standpoint. It's a really good article and pretty much gets to the heart of what we're discussion here. I strongly encourage you to read it when you get the chance.

Look at it even from church issues. Back in the day, it was known that women didn't wear pants at all...makeup....even head coverings. Nowadays, there are many that believe that they can wear pants, makeup and no head coverings. Or I believe that my skirt/dress should cover my knee and no higher as a way of being modest and will wear stockings/knee highs unless my skirt is to my ankles and I get "persecuted" and told to come out of the old stone age. I'm told society has changed and we can do those things. Now we see more ppl coming to church with shorter and tighter clothes. Modest has now become based on "one's personal belief" ---which is the same way someone can look at your view of gender roles.

That's a bit more subjective, but the same overall argument can actually be made, but I don't want to go down that road here. I think we're already digressing enough as it is, LOL.

One scripture:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old , he will not depart from it. Having to teach/train our children is our job. And if this is the ONLY thing that we are concerned about, then I think that as a Christian society, we have lost a lot of things. I teach my kids now that there are no such things as "good witches" and so shows like Harry Potter/Charmed/etc aren't things that we should watch. I teach my kids that some ppl may say words but that they are profane and you shouldn't use them....even if you hear them used by your friends, on tv, and nowadays by some pastors. We teach our kids that we don't go to proms and dance parties, etc when a lot of their time in school, they always hear ppl talking about prom season, wear to get your prom attire, etc. They're trying to teach about birth control or give out birth control in schools which we teach our kids against. So for me, this would just be something else that we'd teach our kids....though honestly, whether it's "marriage" or not. Our kids see these relationships even when walking down the street so some talks should've ALREADY been done.

Additionally, I also am not a believer that just because your kids are in their adolescent period that parents have to have the least influence....

Nikkol, I think you're seriously underestimating external influences on children, particularly those who are in the adolescence when they are most curious about the world around them. Firstly, they're not in your sight 24/7. Aside from peer influences, you have the media and several other non-verbal cues that are just all around. Unless you choose to be Amish, there's no way you can shield your child from all of that. This is why it's important that society have boundaries and recognize and disapprove of things that contribute to the further breakdown of the society.

As a matter of fact, I think you're probably "overproving" your point here to an extent. At some point, your children will probably ask you why you're teaching them what you're teaching them, and in this post-modern society we live in now, you're going to have to say more than just "because the Bible said so." You're going to have to show them how what you're teaching is based on facts on the ground.

And all you (general) need is to have a few ppl that are in hetero relationships have kids that are a menace to society and some in homo relationships where they were an asset to society....God forbid that the number of those who are more of a liability come from more hetero relationships.

Again, the anomaly doesn't disprove the rule. I know of people who have smoked their who lives and lived until their 90's, and people who tried to live a generally healthy lifestyle who died young. This hardly means I need to run out and buy a pack of Marlboro's, LOL.

One could question and say, "how does saying 'no' to this agenda protect society? What about the fact that there are many that commit suicide based on this issue because of tease and ridicule and bashing? Wouldn't saying yes give these ppl (esp young ppl) a chance to live a full life? And esp, in the black community where HIV/AIDS is very high, wouldn't allowing this limit the spread because noone would have to be in hiding?"

Saying "no" to this agenda protects society primarily because it does not encourage a less-than-ideal family structure that is not the most beneficial to child-rearing. As far as your other questions, I'd just point out that there was no HIV/AIDS when being gay was seen as simply another lifestyle choice. Furthermore, we're not saying that people can't be gay or even that they can't live with their homosexual lover for the rest of their lives; we're just saying that we as a society aren't putting our stamp of approval on that lifestyle.

And at the same time, there are MANY who are saying that Christians are intolerant and unloving and are holding back society.

Those who say that aren't addressing the argument at all. It's a red herring.

Question:

1) If we use the word "civil union" vs using "marriage" what do you see will change?
2) If we use neither, what do you see will change?

I'm not sure what you mean by "we" here. It's pretty much a state-by-state issue and all states aren't going to do this; it's actually unconstitutional in many of them.

[Nikkol]

We can't keep people from practicing homosexuality (which isn't my argument), but as a society we don't have to place our stamp of approval on it by legalizing gay marriage. We preserve the social order by disapproving of certain actions that keep us in check, so to speak. Again, that's why polygamy is outlawed, adultery is frowned upon (and one can be sued for it in some states), etc.

You mean the same "order" that had congress believe that blacks should only be counted as 3/5 a person? The same "order" that meant that women couldn't vote?

But that doesn't mean we don't raise our voices in the public square about issues that affect the stability of our society.

And they could probably prove that the stability of our society is worse based on not legalizing it than legalizing it. One thing that they could/would point out would be that there would possibly be less men (or women) who are gay marrying someone of the opposite sex just because that's what they're "supposed" to do in order to fit in. The amount of hurt/pain that ppl go through in these situations is something I personally wouldn't wish on anyone.

Your last sentence is my point. There will always be anomalies, but they don't negate the rule. And it certainly isn't justification to introduce yet ANOTHER exception to the ideal family structure.

And what's the "rule" and who defines the rule? I would argue that the law against homosexual marriage (and even possibly polygamy) was probably moreso based on Christian moral values....and the further we get away from that, the less likely that Christian values will be able to stick.

Personally, I'm entirely beyond the whole "Because the Bible says so" reasoning. I think that's a rather lazy way to view things. Faith is grounded in the real world.

In terms of the second part of that statement, judicially you most certainly can make that argument. As a matter of fact, one justice, Justice Sosman in her dissenting remarks to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, already has:


Reduced to its essence, the court's opinion concludes that, because same-sex couples are now raising children, and withholding the benefits of civil marriage from their union makes it harder for them to raise those children, the State must therefore provide the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex couples. Of course, many people are raising children outside the confines of traditional marriage, and, by definition, those children are being deprived of the various benefits that would flow if they were being raised in a household with married parents. That does not mean that the Legislature must accord the full benefits of marital status on every household raising children. … People are of course at liberty to raise their children in various family structures, as long as they are not literally harming their children by doing so. … That does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits. (available from news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf, italics)


Also check out this article which has more quotes for justices arguing against gay marriage from a legal standpoint. It's a really good article and pretty much gets to the heart of what we're discussion here. I strongly encourage you to read it when you get the chance.

Looking at the article you sent, there are some issues (I'll just pull out 5):

1)The two types of relationships are simply different in both nature and function. Heterosexual relationships are based on procreation, whereas homosexual relationships are not. Heterosexuals can procreate, thus perpetuating society, but homosexual relationships cannot (at least not naturally).

- Heterosexual relationships are NOT based on procreation anymore. More and more couples are choosing not to have children....having abortions...or are just unable to conceive (whether on the man's or woman's side) and they verify that point by saying:

I have just argued that marriage is something in particular. Homosexual activists argue that marriage is a construct of the State that can be defined in any manner the State chooses. They

[/b]say marriage is about the public union of two people who wish to affirm their love and commitment to one another in a public, official manner. What's interesting is the limitation of this definition. Where does the idea of two come from? Why not three or four? And where do we get the idea that love is the foundation of marriage? Who decided that? Nowhere in the history of the world has love been the basis of marriage. What happened to procreation as the basis of, and reason for marriage? [/blockquote][/i][/b]

Who's the "they"? I would believe that more than 80% of ppl (all ppl not based on sexuality) would say that that was what marriage was about...love..... And if we go historically, ppl married based on class and or course royalty only married royalty, etc. But I don't believe that most ppl will say that procreation is a reason for marriage.

2) It says: While both homosexuals and heterosexuals can make the same personal commitments to each other, they are not entitled to receive the same social privileges because homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships in this defining area. Homosexual relationships only benefit homosexuals, whereas heterosexual relationships benefit society at large because they create and nurture the next generation of society. That is why government has always sought to promote and protect heterosexual relationships of the sexual kind, but not homosexual relationships of the sexual kind.

Less and less children are being born in marriages. Although YEARS ago, this may have held ground, between being unable to bear, choosing to not have kids, or getting pregnant and having abortions, that statement is no longer true.

3)So the argument that homosexuals should qualify for the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples if they can come up with the same "package" the government is interested in protecting fails on the grounds that this "package" can only be obtained in an artificial, unnatural way.

Wow....so that would also mean that hetero couples that have to do things artifically also shouldn't have the same benefits either.....

4)The government does not give legal sanction and benefits to single individuals, non-married heterosexual couples, nor polygamous groups who happen to be raising children, so why must it do so for same-sex couples who obtain and raise children? On what basis is the government justified in giving legal and social benefits/approval for same-sex relationships because they happen to be raising children, while simultaneously denying the same benefits/approval to other non-traditional individuals/groups who are doing the same? What is the basis for such discrimination? The reason is clear: society does not want to give social approval to those alternative relationships because they do not believe they are good for society, nor good for optimal child-rearing.

Well, I believe there are a number of benefits that are being given to single individuals with kids that are the same (and sometimes less). So things like WIC, public assistance, health care, etc.

5) Common sense and experience tells us that moms and dads have unique perspectives to offer a child, both of which are necessary for a healthy and balanced self-being. Based on natural law it should never be the case that homosexuals are raising children, and thus there is no principled reason that the State should endorse that sort of living arrangement by putting the greatest seal of social approval on the adult relationship: marriage.

The issue with that is that in many homosexual relationships, each person does play a "separate" role.

Nikkol, I think you're seriously underestimating external influences on children, particularly those who are in the adolescence when they are most curious about the world around them. Firstly, they're not in your sight 24/7. Aside from peer influences, you have the media and several other non-verbal cues that are just all around. Unless you choose to be Amish, there's no way you can shield your child from all of that. This is why it's important that society have boundaries and recognize and disapprove of things that contribute to the further breakdown of the society.

Of a truth you can only shield them from certain things. Like my kids still hear profanity. My kids are still around ppl that watch sponge bob, etc. The point is not that I'm underestimating. However, I know of many children (not just Amish) that are being taught and staying away from certain things. The fact that school's are teaching about birth control greater than abstinence is just ONE of many things. That's why we have to train our kids.

As a matter of fact, I think you're probably "overproving" your point here to an extent. At some point, your children will probably ask you why you're teaching them what you're teaching them, and in this post-modern society we live in now, you're going to have to say more than just "because the Bible said so." You're going to have to show them how what you're teaching is based on facts on the ground.

It would be a sad day if all kids felt that we needed to show them or prove to them everything that the parents say. Why? Because there are MANY times that God may tell us to do something and that's it. He won't tell you why. But you do it because that's what you're told to do. And with kids it works the same way. My mom STILL tells me things and out of respect I'll do it. It's ALL about one's training.

Again, the anomaly doesn't disprove the rule. I know of people who have smoked their who lives and lived until their 90's, and people who tried to live a generally healthy lifestyle who died young. This hardly means I need to run out and buy a pack of Marlboro's, LOL.

And what is the rule? Yes, ppl have smoked and lived a long time. However, we can prove that nicotine is bad for you and that smoking effects your lungs. What are we proving with the rule regarding homosexual relationships

Saying "no" to this agenda protects society primarily because it does not encourage a less-than-ideal family structure that is not the most beneficial to child-rearing. As far as your other questions, I'd just point out that there was no HIV/AIDS when being gay was seen as simply another lifestyle choice. Furthermore, we're not saying that people can't be gay or even that they can't live with their homosexual lover for the rest of their lives; we're just saying that we as a society aren't putting our stamp of approval on that lifestyle.

Would you also say that children being raised by a single parent is better than homosexual parents?
Does saying "no" stop anything? Will those in those relationships now be less encouraged to be in those relationships or to raise children? And based on statistics that can probably prove that those relationships do fine with raising kids, what then are we (general) standing on to say that it should be illegal?

So we don't put a stamp of approval on that but we will put a stamp of approval on "common law marriage?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "we" here. It's pretty much a state-by-state issue and all states aren't going to do this; it's actually unconstitutional in many of them.

I use "we" to make it general and not put this as one against another.

[Nikkol]

Side Note: My posts do NOT mean that I'm supporting the cause but rather why it will be difficult constitutionally to limit their rights to do so.

[krazeeboi]

Sept 3, 2010 8:55:07 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

You mean the same "order" that had congress believe that blacks should only be counted as 3/5 a person? The same "order" that meant that women couldn't vote?

By "social order" here, I'm speaking of something that could literally put the existence of our civilization itself in danger. Society recognizes marriage because it is the institution that produces the next generation of society and provides the ideal framework for raising them. Two men/two women cannot produce the next generation of society, nor do they provide the ideal framework for raising that next generation.

And they could probably prove that the stability of our society is worse based on not legalizing it than legalizing it. One thing that they could/would point out would be that there would possibly be less men (or women) who are gay marrying someone of the opposite sex just because that's what they're "supposed" to do in order to fit in. The amount of hurt/pain that ppl go through in these situations is something I personally wouldn't wish on anyone.

They don't need marriage to do that. They are free to co-habitate with whomever they desire right now, same sex or opposite sex. The reason they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex they aren't attracted to is for many reasons, but one of them is because of the shame they would experience if their family knew. In this case, they need to seek help and not try to cover it up. And we as the church in particular here need to make sure we're offering viable solutions here. We can raise our voices against legislation, but we still must love and minister to the individual.

Furthermore, it's also possible that an adolescent may go through some sort of stage where he/she might feel a slight attraction towards the same sex but simply passes through it and goes on to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a normal life. If you encourage children to explore and act out those homosexual feelings and desires...well, you can see how that would go.

And what's the "rule" and who defines the rule? I would argue that the law against homosexual marriage (and even possibly polygamy) was probably moreso based on Christian moral values....and the further we get away from that, the less likely that Christian values will be able to stick.

The rule is self-evident and statistics bear this out.

The law against homosexuality is a reflection of reality, which is why it is extremely rare to see such relationships have the approval of society historically, even in other parts of the world. It is well known that in ancient Greco-Roman culture, they had a tradition of older men taking younger adolescent boys as mentees, and that relationship did have a sexual element to it. However, the boy was expected to grow up and get married.

Looking at the article you sent, there are some issues (I'll just pull out 5):

1)The two types of relationships are simply different in both nature and function. Heterosexual relationships are based on procreation, whereas homosexual relationships are not. Heterosexuals can procreate, thus perpetuating society, but homosexual relationships cannot (at least not naturally).

- Heterosexual relationships are NOT based on procreation anymore. More and more couples are choosing not to have children....having abortions...or are just unable to conceive (whether on the man's or woman's side) and they verify that point by saying:

Heterosexual relationships across the board are still indeed based on procreation, even if there are some couples who choose not to procreate. Again, exceptions don't disprove the rule.

I have just argued that marriage is something in particular. Homosexual activists argue that marriage is a construct of the State that can be defined in any manner the State chooses. They

[/b]say marriage is about the public union of two people who wish to affirm their love and commitment to one another in a public, official manner. What's interesting is the limitation of this definition. Where does the idea of two come from? Why not three or four? And where do we get the idea that love is the foundation of marriage? Who decided that? Nowhere in the history of the world has love been the basis of marriage. What happened to procreation as the basis of, and reason for marriage? [/blockquote][/i][/b]

Who's the "they"? I would believe that more than 80% of ppl (all ppl not based on sexuality) would say that that was what marriage was about...love..... And if we go historically, ppl married based on class and or course royalty only married royalty, etc. But I don't believe that most ppl will say that procreation is a reason for marriage.[/quote]

"They" are the homosexual activists arguing for gay marriage. The religious element of marriage includes the concept of love, but the legal element doesn't. Historically marriages were arranged, so you know love had very little to do with it, at least at the outset.

2) It says: While both homosexuals and heterosexuals can make the same personal commitments to each other, they are not entitled to receive the same social privileges because homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships in this defining area. Homosexual relationships only benefit homosexuals, whereas heterosexual relationships benefit society at large because they create and nurture the next generation of society. That is why government has always sought to promote and protect heterosexual relationships of the sexual kind, but not homosexual relationships of the sexual kind.

Less and less children are being born in marriages. Although YEARS ago, this may have held ground, between being unable to bear, choosing to not have kids, or getting pregnant and having abortions, that statement is no longer true.

That still doesn't mean that the government should seek to promote and protect other arrangements that are less than ideal for child-rearing. That's really the heart of the argument here.

3)So the argument that homosexuals should qualify for the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples if they can come up with the same "package" the government is interested in protecting fails on the grounds that this "package" can only be obtained in an artificial, unnatural way.

Wow....so that would also mean that hetero couples that have to do things artifically also shouldn't have the same benefits either.....

No it doesn't mean that. In this case, homosexuals don't have the right equipment to begin with. That's different than having the right equipment, but it being faulty. And again, we go back to the framework that's most ideal for child-rearing, so the heterosexual couple still qualifies for the benefits.

4)The government does not give legal sanction and benefits to single individuals, non-married heterosexual couples, nor polygamous groups who happen to be raising children, so why must it do so for same-sex couples who obtain and raise children? On what basis is the government justified in giving legal and social benefits/approval for same-sex relationships because they happen to be raising children, while simultaneously denying the same benefits/approval to other non-traditional individuals/groups who are doing the same? What is the basis for such discrimination? The reason is clear: society does not want to give social approval to those alternative relationships because they do not believe they are good for society, nor good for optimal child-rearing.

Well, I believe there are a number of benefits that are being given to single individuals with kids that are the same (and sometimes less). So things like WIC, public assistance, health care, etc.

Yeah, but those aren't the core legal benefits of marriage that aid in optimal child-rearing, although they are important. A single individual can also get those without children (except WIC) if they meet certain standards.

5) Common sense and experience tells us that moms and dads have unique perspectives to offer a child, both of which are necessary for a healthy and balanced self-being. Based on natural law it should never be the case that homosexuals are raising children, and thus there is no principled reason that the State should endorse that sort of living arrangement by putting the greatest seal of social approval on the adult relationship: marriage.

The issue with that is that in many homosexual relationships, each person does play a "separate" role.

A woman can never be a man and a man can never be a woman. Point blank.

Of a truth you can only shield them from certain things. Like my kids still hear profanity. My kids are still around ppl that watch sponge bob, etc. The point is not that I'm underestimating. However, I know of many children (not just Amish) that are being taught and staying away from certain things. The fact that school's are teaching about birth control greater than abstinence is just ONE of many things. That's why we have to train our kids.

Yep, and those influences work to a degree unseen while they are still children and often don't manifest until they are adults. To go back to my original point here, this is why attitudes amongst the next generation will really begin shifting and boundaries will simply crumble.

It would be a sad day if all kids felt that we needed to show them or prove to them everything that the parents say. Why? Because there are MANY times that God may tell us to do something and that's it. He won't tell you why. But you do it because that's what you're told to do. And with kids it works the same way. My mom STILL tells me things and out of respect I'll do it. It's ALL about one's training.

Welcome to post-modern society. Even if they don't directly question you, they will wonder upon what basis you told them and if they can't figure it out for themselves, they will simply conclude that your rules were arbitrary. To use your example about women wearing pants, all you see nowadays is the young girls who were raised in these churches that were taught that it's wrong now wearing them. Why? Because they weren't taught the reasons behind the prohibition, and since it's OK in the larger society, they do it.

And what is the rule? Yes, ppl have smoked and lived a long time. However, we can prove that nicotine is bad for you and that smoking effects your lungs. What are we proving with the rule regarding homosexual relationships

The rule is that across the board, children raised in a household with one mother and one father have much better outcomes.

Would you also say that children being raised by a single parent is better than homosexual parents?
Does saying "no" stop anything? Will those in those relationships now be less encouraged to be in those relationships or to raise children?

Theoretically, it's about the same within the context we're talking about.

As to your second and third questions, I say yes. The government would be saying that it's not an ideal structure for child-rearing; thus we aren't obligated to recognize it as such by issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

And based on statistics that can probably prove that those relationships do fine with raising kids, what then are we (general) standing on to say that it should be illegal?

There are no such statistics. Some very interesting statistics are found here.

So we don't put a stamp of approval on that but we will put a stamp of approval on "common law marriage?"

In essence, common-law marriage is the same as regular marriage.





Modified by Nikkol for the link

[Nikkol]

1.Proving (without using religion) that one framework is BETTER than another is going to be hard to prove.

2. You mentioned if they are dealing with being a same-gender lover, they should be "seeking help and not try to cover it up"....but if you were going through this situation and you KNOW how ppl are treated if they are "found out", you REALLY think that it's a safe environment for them to tell that type of information?

3. Don't think that a parent should encourage it. But also don't force them to be with someone of the opposite sex as those were the ones that found themselves sneaking around later on.

4. I do remember reading books when I was younger (maybe even as early as high school) about how the older men would "teach" the younger boys...and yes those boys got married as that was what they had to do...however, I also know that some of those boys (and girls) were still involved in that same behavior...only difference was now they were married.

5. True marriages (back in the day) were arranged...and in other coutries, they still are. However, in the US I would assume that most ppl are marrying because of love.

6. Wouldn't use your statistics because the purpose of their statistics is to prove what they're saying is correct. And because they go based on moreso helping churches, their results would probably be deemed as bias in court.

7.

Yep, and those influences work to a degree unseen while they are still children and often don't manifest until they are adults. To go back to my original point here, this is why attitudes amongst the next generation will really begin shifting and boundaries will simply crumble.

Welcome to post-modern society. Even if they don't directly question you, they will wonder upon what basis you told them and if they can't figure it out for themselves, they will simply conclude that your rules were arbitrary. To use your example about women wearing pants, all you see nowadays is the young girls who were raised in these churches that were taught that it's wrong now wearing them. Why? Because they weren't taught the reasons behind the prohibition, and since it's OK in the larger society, they do it.

I think there's shifting and boundaries crumbling because there's a lack of boundaries and most things tend to be deemed relative or irrelevant. Using my example of pants, in UPC the women and girls only wear skirts. It doesn't matter if larger society does it. In training your kids you train them what to do and what not to do....I've learned (and I teach my kids) that you don't always know the "why" behind things....but like I said it's all about TRAINING...how do you (general) train your kids.

There was a good message about this by a guy called "Hide your children" by Scott Graham......

[anointedteacher]

Sept 1, 2010 6:39:36 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

Aug 31, 2010 22:09:02 GMT -5 anointedteacher said:

Only show how many racist white and uncle tom black in this country... not so pretty to me.. Sad

There were approx. 80,000 not hundreds of thousands

Now THAT statement sounded VERY racist..... and of course, you probably weren't there to actually take a personal poll to prove that statement.

Unlike popular demand, everything is NOT about race all the time. And if the TRUTH be told, race can't stand against the power of God. I'm a Christian first and most of all....not a "black person"/"African American person"/"X" (standing for whatever "new" name those of color want to go by next)

The time you call anything racist is when someone black reveal the truth... I never hear you call a white person racist, but make excuses for them... I wasn't there, but I read some comments of those who were there and when they interview some of the ppl, it were the same tea party ignorance view... hate, fear, missinformed.

I am a black Christian... I was first born black than became a Christian... With Beck and Sarah, yes, it about Race and NOT the power of God.

[And Such Were Some Of You]

Wow...reverse racism.

Imagine that.

[krazeeboi]

Sept 3, 2010 17:52:47 GMT -5 And Such Were Some Of You said:

Wow...reverse racism.

Imagine that.

What's "reverse racism"?

You're really good at making hit and run comments but won't elaborate on them or stick around to defend them.

[krazeeboi]

Sept 3, 2010 14:59:57 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

1.Proving (without using religion) that one framework is BETTER than another is going to be hard to prove.

Not if one's faith is grounded in reality and not disconnected from it.

2. You mentioned if they are dealing with being a same-gender lover, they should be "seeking help and not try to cover it up"....but if you were going through this situation and you KNOW how ppl are treated if they are "found out", you REALLY think that it's a safe environment for them to tell that type of information?

I'm not going to pretend that we in the church in particular (at least in the Black church) have done a good job with that, but help is available for those who seek it. There are support groups and such.

3. Don't think that a parent should encourage it. But also don't force them to be with someone of the opposite sex as those were the ones that found themselves sneaking around later on.

That doesn't always happen (which is why it helps to have a society that actively disapproves and discourages such behavior, along with others that weaken societal structures like adultery, etc.). Also that goes back to my earlier point about getting help for the issue, especially if a parent sees tendencies in their child.

4. I do remember reading books when I was younger (maybe even as early as high school) about how the older men would "teach" the younger boys...and yes those boys got married as that was what they had to do...however, I also know that some of those boys (and girls) were still involved in that same behavior...only difference was now they were married.

That was very rare. Again Nikkol, I acknowledge there are exceptions. There are exceptions to everything. But that doesn't mean you overthrow the norm for the sake of a few exceptions.

5. True marriages (back in the day) were arranged...and in other coutries, they still are. However, in the US I would assume that most ppl are marrying because of love.

You brought up the historic point of view so that's why I mentioned that. It's interesting that you say that today most people are marrying for love, but it seems that back then, a lot more marriages (arranged, "shotgun," etc.) lasted.

6. Wouldn't use your statistics because the purpose of their statistics is to prove what they're saying is correct. And because they go based on moreso helping churches, their results would probably be deemed as bias in court.

The facts are the facts; they aren't opinions. While statistics can be used in a biased manner (if they are cherry-picked), statistics themselves are not biased.

7. I think there's shifting and boundaries crumbling because there's a lack of boundaries and most things tend to be deemed relative or irrelevant.

Right, which is why we're having this discussion right now. You see the legalization of gay marriage as essentially being irrelevant.

Using my example of pants, in UPC the women and girls only wear skirts. It doesn't matter if larger society does it. In training your kids you train them what to do and what not to do....I've learned (and I teach my kids) that you don't always know the "why" behind things....but like I said it's all about TRAINING...how do you (general) train your kids.

When it comes to matters of morality, I think a parent should always be able to explain the "why" behind what they tell their kids. I know there's still this old school "because I say so" mentality that exists among parents, but kids have access to all sorts of information sources these days and are exposed to all sorts of influences, and that has to be taken into account. The UPC actually does a good job of explaining the "why" behind their prohibitions. From what I see, the young people who grew up with these prohibitions hammered into their brains who abandoned them when they grew up did so because the reasoning, even from a biblical perspective, wasn't clearly laid out to them. The rest just disagreed with the reasons behind them.