CAST YOUR VOTE ON PALIN
Yeah simplyraw I too feel that there is no good solution to the problem.
for reasons I stated above…. and I didn’t even mean to get into it (again).
Suffice to say (and repeat if need be) that making a law is not a solution. It is not. Education is the solution. One day our society may have evolved to that point, but we obviously have a long way to go I guess….
simplyraw wrote: “Letâ€™s talk hypotheticallyâ€¦.So, Pro-Life becomes lawâ€¦ what about this Mother? She currently has a loving husband and child. But since something has gone wrong during her 5 month pregnancy; she has no choice. I mean she did all the healthy things a Mother should do.
But now..She must die with the child she carries. Because this is Law.”
Even Palin supports abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, but yeah, on to other topics.
Gosh…the first day of autumn….
and look at that…I must have eaten
a bad apple.
Sorry Guys…somethings you just have to get
things off your
chest. I was just trying to make a point.
You can beat a dead horse all you want,
but it is not going to change anything.
Greenghost – I fully agree!
I really respect the information you post. And your
response is correct. Maybe a bad choice on my part.
Not to bring back up, just to respond…
I am was just saying there are other factors
involved. There are always consequences. But if possibly passed,
we could be looking at repeating history. In the since…the
use of coat hangers, having someone kick you in the stomach,
bad doctors performing illegally and unsafely, etc.,etc..
Okay…I am officially off that bus.
Any ideas or food for thought on the other issues???
What about the U.S.A. Titantic that just hit a financial
iceberg. (as of today only allowed to withdrawal maximium
of $200 out of bank account)
Any food for thoughts…42 days until election and counting.
It is becoming very unnerving!!
I voted “No”!!!
My advice is to:
- store at least two months of food.
- store at least two months of water.
- store some matches, lighters, candles, and lanterns.
- get enough cash out of the bank to pay your bills for two months.
- buy some weapons to hunt and/or protect yourself (knife, bow and arrow, gun)
- keep a backpack ready with camping supplies.
- keep your car full of gas at all times.
- learn how to forage for wild edible plants, fish, and hunt.
All the non-mainstream financial experts are saying that we’re looking at a financial disaster to rival the great depression, and I’m more inclined to believe them than the people on CNN, Fox News, etc.
Yeah…possibly returning to the grassroots
whether we like it or not.
Oh, this consumer culture of ours WILL collapse eventually. The question is, will you be ready for it.
Whoa, that post got a lot more attention than I would have guessed :) Although I do not support Palin IN ANY WAY, I did not mean to sound like a crazy person commanding everyone to vote against her. My subject title should have been “Cast Your Vote on Palin.” RawK~ thank you so much for the article. It voiced my thoughts about Palin exactly, except for the part about her being sexy. :)
Doombot, Thank you for creating this thread. I’ve really enjoyed reading the discussions.
PS: If you wish, you can change the title of your thread. Just run your mouse over the title at the top (not sure if you have to be on page 1 or not). Click on “Edit”, make your changes and save.
Kevlar, your list has caused me to reflect a little. I already do several of your 8 points — habits from living in hurricane country and then enduring some pretty harsh winters in New England. Must ponder and make some decisions about two or three of your suggestions. Thanks for the “food for thought.”
Thanks emtdmom! I changed it. Greehghost~ I hear ‘ya completely when it comes to your stance on abortion. I don’t understand why people feel the need to make others conform to their values. Also, I don’t think a law would make it any less of a problem. In fact, I believe a law has the potential to make the problem much worse. Just because I believe that a woman has the right to choose, DOES NOT make me “anti-life.” In fact, if I had an unwanted pregnancy, I would choose NOT have an abortion. I am just thankful I have that choice. For those of you who have a sense of humor about this subject and don’t have an aversion to excessive profanity, here is a link to Bill Hick’s views on “pro-lifers.”
I love Bill Hicks. :-D
Here’s my favorite quote from him:
“Go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here’s American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up! Go back to bed America, here’s American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their f*cking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America – you are free, to do as we tell you! You are free, to do as we tell you!”
I voted “yes”. and I also discussed the abortion topic on another thread. I stand as I stood then. I would and will always die with and for my child. I would never murder my children. No matter if in me or out of me. This is not only my choice, but my Fathers choice. Palin stands on many issues I and every Christian stands for. This is why there is so mu ch controversy about her. We are getting to be a divided Nation. Christian and non Christian. This Nation was established and founded on Christian principles. Now those principles are considered prehistoric by the non Christians. This is a truly sad time.
beany~ may I respectfully question your definition of Christian? I believe there are many Christian individuals that don’t subscribe to one value system. This is what really irks me about the herd mentality of the religious right. The reality of acting in a Christian way, in my opinion, is so subtle and so uniquely individual that it possesses an especially moving power.
The definition for Christian is, “Christ like”. Palin is Christ like.
beany, you have lost all credibility. she is nothing like christ.
watch this and tell me again how christ like she is…
she saves babies, but wants to bomb Russia and kill innocent civilians….what a christian!
Some people just do not get Separation of Church and State.
They do not understand it and never will.
They will always be ‘holier than thou’ and force their religiously based views on everyone else….
Hey! Wow, this thread has grown. ha.
Okay, I’d like to address a few things. Firstly, I think we’ve gone over abortion alot and it’s pretty much settled, no one likes to kill things but in certain situations there are rough decisions that must be made. I personally haven’t decided how I feel on some of those things and I’m not going to pretend I could understand how a raped girl feels. It must be torture to go through.
Secondly, I’d like to bring up another issue of difference. Gay marriage. As an American I think freedom is extremely important. Everyone should have equal rights. My question is(and I really am asking this so don’t be offended I just would like to know) since marriage is a biblical institution and is strictly defined in our constitution as between a man and a woman why would two men or two woman want to abide by it since they disagree with biblical principles? It doesn’t make any sense to me because they openly bash other religious statutes and they’re lifestyle itself is a protest to those principles. I think they should have the right to make a special commitment like marriage with eachother but isn’t that what a civil union is?
I hope I’m not offending anyone. I have been confused about this for a while.
troublesjustabubble:), you said “It doesnâ€™t make any sense to me because they openly bash other religious statutes and theyâ€™re lifestyle itself is a protest to those principles. I think they should have the right to make a special commitment like marriage with eachother but isnâ€™t that what a civil union is? I hope Iâ€™m not offending anyone. I have been confused about this for a while.”
Okay, I don’t feel you’re offending anyone. I do think, however, you’re being naive. Since you’ve stated a gay marriage is just a “protest”, then I don’t see the point of defending or explaining any union in a gay relationship.
As far as the Bible’s demands of what constitutes a “marriage”, well, haha, who cares? I mean, really, the Bibles demands executions, war and hatred, too. It okay’s slavery and abuse of women. Christians run around claiming everyone else is unclean and will burn in Hell, infants included. I personally don’t give a darn about what a pack of war-mongering, mysogynistic(my spelling sucks!), evil men scribbled down seventeen hundred years ago.
Ooops, I also forgot to add: I don’t think you are a bit confused, either. I think you just wanted to vent a bit against gays. You really have to get over the fear of the unknown, especially when fear is designed to turn you against others.
alrighty, I can see that you’re more the riling up type. I think this is what cheetah means by not getting a straight answer.
What I’m saying is, why would a gay couple want to be defined by a biblical principle? Especially if the bible is what you say it is written by “a pack of war-mongering, mysogynistic, evil men”. That’s what doesn’t make sense to me.
I choose not to address the rest of your post. It’s offensive and uneducated.
Marriage may be a biblical institution for Christians and that is totally fine and dandy. But the lawful state of marriage can mean many things to many different religions, cultures, etc.
I’m a woman who is married by law to a man (11 years now). I’m not a Christian or member of any religion. My marriage to me personally has nothing to do with the Bible or any other religious book or doctrine…..For me my marriage symbolizes that my husband and I love each other and want to spend the rest of our lives together. And by being lawfully married, there are many legal protections and tax benefits. If my husband passed away I would be entitled to his assets, life insurance, etc (so I wouldn’t loose our house). Vice versa for my husband.
So why should it matter that two men or two woman also want to declare their love and be married in the same manner as my husband and myself? By being married, same sex couples would be entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple: health care, tax benefits, etc. Luckily in Vermont we have Civil Unions so a gay couple is protected and treated almost as equally as a ‘married couple’. However, if my friend Alana’s partner died right now, half of their house would go to her partner’s family first before Alana. That doesn’t seem to be fair to me. Under a legal marriage, that wouldn’t happen. Moreover, Alana and her partner can’t file a ‘Married filing jointly’ tax return under a Civil Union to enjoy the same tax benefits as my husband and myself. To me that is completely unfair!!! (Alana and her partner Kim are hard workers, they love each other, they are good kind people, they rescue stray animals and have been together longer than my husband and myself)
I believe in separation of church and state and feel the Govt should not be regulating the laws on who can marry and who is not allowed to marry. Forty some years ago a black person was not allowed to marry a white person and I think we know what party was against those equal rights….
Bottom line, equal rights for everyone no matter what race, religion, culture or sexual orientation.
“Offensive and uneducated”? Don’t make me laugh. Look, if you want to let everyone know of your hatreds, you ARE going to get answers that don’t please you.
Without meaning to harm REAL Christians I know, you belong to a religious organization that has caused more evil, torture, war and destruction that any major religion on the face of the earth. Don’t talk to me about being “offensive and uneducated”.
troublesjustabubble – I’m not a Christian and don’t follow the bible (although I’ve read much of it and respect it as well as Christianity)
So even though I’m married to a man, do you feel my marriage is legitimate inspite of not being a Christian? Just wondering. I’m not going to get into too much of a debate since I have a ton of work to do. I always respect everyone’s opinion, however.
But living in Vermont, I strongly feel everyone is entitled to marry who they choose, whether boy/girl, girl/girl, or boy/boy…..personally I think it’s so sad that a same sex couple cannot lawfully get married and enjoy the same human and civil rights as heterosexual couples. No one could ever sway my opinion on this!
Thank you Joyce. That is a very good explanation. I understand that very well. I do agree that we should have equal rights but in the constitution it does say that marriage is between a man and a woman. These are modern times. Shouldn’t there be an institution set up for same sex couples where they can not only express commitment to eachother as well as receive the benefits such as tax breaks etc.? Or am I totally wrong on that? Definition wise marriage is not that but I do think they should receive that in this country. I may be totally off though.
Tom-Again, I’m not looking for blatant insults so don’t expect me to respond to them. You choose to see me as an evil person who tortures people and that’s your right.
Troublesjustabubble, I don’t know how much I can add to what has been said, but I want to second Joyce’s statements about marriage being a civil institution – not just religious. If the Church does not want to accept gay marriage, than the Church can choose not to perform or bless them. But with a ban against gay marriage, you are denying gay people equal protection and due process under our civil – non-Christian – laws. And I think you are wrong about the Constitution – but maybe I’m wrong. I think the Constitution is silent on the issue of gay marriage, which is why President Bush wanted to add the Amendment forbidding it. (Again – maybe I’m wrong here?) Though, for argument’s sake, if we take the traditional Biblical view of marriage, it is for a man and woman to enter into for the purpose of having children. That raises all kinds of questions. If a woman is infertile or a man sterile, can they not marry? If they plan to not have children, can they not join in love in front of the state and their loved ones? If they are beyond the age of childbirth, can two widowers not make their union ‘holy?’ As a Jew, is my marriage different than yours? Do you think that gay people do not love each other the same way that straight people do? That some gay people do not grow up dreaming of a wedding and marriage the same way you might have? More argumentatively, in your statement about gay people going against the Bible because they’re gay, does that mean that Masturbators should also not be allowed to marry? Or those who have not honored thy fathers? Or those that have coveted their neighbor’s wife?
I guess my biggest question for opponents of gay marriage is ‘What are you afraid of?’ Does your marriage mean less because Tom and Chuck next door tied the knot? Is the ages-old institution of marriage going to collapse because Sally has two mommies? Is marriage truly so vulnerable that it needs to be protected from highly stylish interlopers?
I think it is terribly dangerous whenever we start characterizing an entire group of people as Other. Jews as Other, Blacks as Other, Gays as Other, Poor as Other, Rich as Other, Raw Vegan as Other – and decide that the Other deserves or needs different – whether it be lesser or not, just different – rights and privileges as we do. If marriage is good enough for you, how can you, as a Christian, deny another the same joy just because they were born differently from you? How can you tell the legal parents of a child – who happen to be gay – that their child cannot be brought up in a home with married parents?
A ban against gay marriage is a combination of two separate animals – a ban against homosexual love (which has been around since the beginning of time and is not going anywhere – it has been evident in every single society of people everywhere and at anytime – even in cultures where gay people face death for being open) and a ban against equal rights for people born differently from the majority. I think that both of those are extremely Un-Christian principles, as I understand Christianity.
tjb... I truly don’t wish to sound mean, but you may have a gentle Hallmark cards version of the Bible.
There are plenty of women in the 21st century who do view the bible as incredibly misogynistic, violent, and chock full of hypocrisy.
That is one of the reasons why it is so very very distressing to hear about it constantly (and I donâ€™t mean here on GR, I mean in everyday life.)
If people follow the bible that is fine in their private life. That is their choice
But Religion has no place in politics. None.
First Amendment people.
Please remember it.
Joyce-I honestly hadn’t thought about whether marriage is legitimate between non Christians. Quite frankly, now that I’ve thought about it, I think it definitely is legitimate because I’m not talking biblically here. I’m talking quite literally and constitutionally and all beliefs are included in the institution of marriage. It seems sort of unAmerican to say that it doesn’t include same sex marriages but it’s not defined too. However, that being said I will say that to me it doesn’t really matter whether or not the president is for or against it since the states can choose individually.
Dagny-Biblically marriage is not only for having children. It’s a commitment of faithfulness between a man and a woman. There are several instances in the bible of barren women married legitimately. Christian beliefs cross all race and status barriers and so does the institution of marriage. Now marriage is not just a biblical institution but also a part of our law which people can choose or not choose to take advantage of. I disagree with how our system is set up in that a single mom doesn’t get tax breaks but people who are married are. I don’t understand why they are trying to force people to get married simply for tax breaks.
Does that sort of explain my view? I don’t have a problem with anyone expressing themselves in any way. My argument is strictly political. I simply am saying that gay marriage is an oxymoron according to it’s definition in this country. Should we change the definition? I would prefer that we didn’t since as a Christian who would like to follow biblical principles I would like to protect the sanctity of marriage. But maybe there should be an institution set up for things like this where it’s a similar meaning but more broad. What do you think?
It is nice to see the discussions reaching
a level of realization…that there are no “black or white”
What you are proposing is a system of Separate, But Equal. As a country, we decided long ago that separate is just not equal – everyone here gets to drink from the same water fountain and go to the same schools.
Also, I did some very quick research, and it turns out that the Constitution is silent on marriage. No where does it say that marriage is between and a man and a woman.
So, you no longer have a valid political argument that our founding fathers wanted to restrict marriage to straight people or breeders.
And again, I ask you how gay marriage threatens the “sanctity” of your or other straight people’s marriage. Is your marriage so very weak and vulnerable that it means less if gay people also have the right to do it?
You were born straight. I’m guessing – could be way off – that you were born into some kind of Christian family. Do you really think that you just happened to be born ‘right’ in all of these ways? That others who are different from you shouldn’t be afforded the exact same rights and opportunties – to not have their government controlled by someone else’s religion – to not have marriage denied to them because they are somehow – for no justifiable reason – considered to be outside the class lucky enough to partake?
It is not okay to hide behind well-intentions when you are denying other Americans the same rights that you enjoy. It is not harmless. It is persecution and needs to be stamped out.
And if we are going to follow the Bible on marriage, there is going to be a lot of eye gouging and hand severing:
Matthew chapter 5
27 “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye – even if it is your good eye – causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand – even if it is your stronger hand – causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
I’m probably going to regret jumping in here – I don’t have a lot of time to post or follow long threads, but ….
About marriage, there’s the religious view(s) of it. But marriage is also a civic issue with civic rights, liabilities and benefits. It would be great if those aspects could be kept separate. (Separation of church and state is one of the foundations of our country, yes?)
I’m a single straight person. No desire to get married, and I live alone. There are a lot of civic and financial benefits to marriage that should be available to those who are not in standard marriages. For instance, gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital when visits are restricted to families only. Inheritance, pensions, shared health insurance – the list is huge.
It might be practical to have two kinds of marriage – civil/legal and religious. Then the religious folks can discriminate all they like but the civil and legal systems can be for ‘all teh people’ as intended. What do you think?
The sanctity of marriage to me is the biblical form of it. My marriage is in no way weak but it would become something very different than what I believe and practice if the definition of it were changed.
I’m not looking for equal yet separate. According to my beliefs as a Christian (where the institution of marriage originated) marriage is between a man and a woman.
Now for Matthew. Here’s a bit of context. God gave Moses and the Jews the law in the Old Testament and in the New Testament Jesus comes to fulfill the law. The law was put in place to show the Jews that they were sinners and needed God’s forgiveness. Jesus came and made the laws far more hard to follow as it states above “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman and lusts in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart” so that everyone (Jews and Gentiles) would know that no one was perfect. Jesus then led a completely sinless life as a human with all the human temptations so that we could be saved from the wrath of God and be in His grace.
I know I’m human and not perfect. I know I sin. That’s why I love my Savior. When I sin I know I can humble myself and ask for forgiveness.
I agree that the government shouldn’t push religion on people and that’s my entire point. Why would you want to be married if it’s a religious institution? Especially a Christian one as you seem to hate the idea of Christianity. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Edit-I just saw your post greenie. We should separate church and state and that’s why marriage shouldn’t even be a part of our government. It forces people like you and any same sex couples into something they don’t believe in. Tax breaks for married couples are ridiculous. As I mentioned before, single moms shouldn’t be getting the hardest taxation. It’s silly!