I wanted to respond to this earlier but I forgot. The fact that this thread has 320 posts and 3,720+ views means that people DO want to discuss and debate this. The discussion would die out if there wasn't a demand for it.
Good Lord
- Thread starter Cyclone62
- Start date
I wanted to respond to this earlier but I forgot. The fact that this thread has 320 posts and 3,720+ views means that people DO want to discuss and debate this. The discussion would die out if there wasn't a demand for it.
This thread has been a good read so far, very civil too.
As I was reading through them I was trying guess those who are still in school vs out in the real world trying to earn a living.
"Hey you kids are probably saying to yourselves: I'm gonna go out there and grab the world by the tail! and wrap it around and pull it down and put it in my pocket. Well I'm here to tell you that you're probably going to find out, as you go out there, that you're not going to amount to jack squat!" -Matt Foley, motivational speaker
I don't mind if gay folks have their civil unions. I don't think marriage is an appropriate title to attach, because the primary reason for marriage is to produce and raise children. I love and care for a lot of people, but I'm married to the person I want to have children with. Last I checked, gay couples can't combine their DNA to produce one new person that shares the genes of both people. For this reason alone, I do not agree with the term gay marriage.
Non-Christians are in the minority in this country. Too bad if you don't like it, because it's not changing any time soon. It's a shame that the majority in this country is too often silent when it comes to issues like the pledge, taking the word God off of our money, etc.
I don't know where the tax discussion came from, but thanks chadm for knocking that one out of the park! Don't get sucked into the belief that the wealthy of this country don't do their share - that's the class envy crowd who seem to be mostly Democrats nowadays. Nothing is free. You are entitled to nothing. Work hard. Be responsible.
As I was reading through them I was trying guess those who are still in school vs out in the real world trying to earn a living.
"Hey you kids are probably saying to yourselves: I'm gonna go out there and grab the world by the tail! and wrap it around and pull it down and put it in my pocket. Well I'm here to tell you that you're probably going to find out, as you go out there, that you're not going to amount to jack squat!" -Matt Foley, motivational speaker
I don't mind if gay folks have their civil unions. I don't think marriage is an appropriate title to attach, because the primary reason for marriage is to produce and raise children. I love and care for a lot of people, but I'm married to the person I want to have children with. Last I checked, gay couples can't combine their DNA to produce one new person that shares the genes of both people. For this reason alone, I do not agree with the term gay marriage.
Non-Christians are in the minority in this country. Too bad if you don't like it, because it's not changing any time soon. It's a shame that the majority in this country is too often silent when it comes to issues like the pledge, taking the word God off of our money, etc.
I don't know where the tax discussion came from, but thanks chadm for knocking that one out of the park! Don't get sucked into the belief that the wealthy of this country don't do their share - that's the class envy crowd who seem to be mostly Democrats nowadays. Nothing is free. You are entitled to nothing. Work hard. Be responsible.
You pose some very good points Angie. I agree with your religious freedoms comments. Do I personally think there is a direct correlation between the degeneration of the country and the loss of religious morals? Yes I do but that's just my opinion and it means no more than the next person. What do you think about having "Under God" in the pledge or "In God We Trust" on the money? I'd be interested in your thoughts since you have some very good points.
As for the marriage...I understand that there will be several gay couples that will marry out of love. This % will be small compared to the number of heterosexual marriages. What I'm saying that this is going to open up the doors to ANYONE to marry ANYONE else. In previous posts I've talked about how this would devalue marriage and could (and I think would) lead to more "convienience" marriages for financial gain as the term "marriage" would mean less because literally anyone can marry anyone else.
Great questions!! And ones that make me think, too...
The honest answer on your first question is that I really don't know what I think about it!! I can see (and agree with) both sides of this one. The forefathers wrote the original Constitution referring directly to "God", so I can see keeping that in traditions that we got from them. I can also see the argument that, to allow greater freedoms to all, the First Amendment more specifically afforded the right to ANY religion because it was an improvement on the original Constitution (a document designed by man, and therefore edited by man). It does seem unfair to force a Muslim or Hindu child to pay insincere homage to my God just because they want to pay homage to my country, but the Pledge is a long-standing tradition... As you can see, I waffle pretty hard on this one.
I do understand what you're saying about anyone marrying anyone - I do think that we would still be honor-bound as a nation to keep laws about incest, underage marriage, and other unions that would intrude on the safety of the participants. I know I said it already, but I just personally (and, again, this counts for nothing) don't want to see us go down the slippery slope of not affording the same rights to one entire section of the population just because they're "different".
That's one professor. The vast majority of people don't agree with his view. Don't let the rantings of a few make you paranoid. There have been people making this argument for decades, it's just that a few people in the conservative media decided to make big deal out of these few the last couple years. If anything, by bringing it to light more people like this professor are going to feel comfortable speaking out in public. I don't agree with this professor's opinions, but I'm certainly not concerned he's going to have any effect on the Christmas holiday.
Maybe you didn't read the article itself. They didn't put up Christmas decorations that year. It DID effect the Christmas holiday. Because of the views of a handful of extreme individuals, the majority of people on campus weren't allowed to celebrate like we normally would. I haven't been on campus for the last 2 Christmas seasons so I don't know if there were decorations or not, but that year there weren't any. So yes, it is absolutely effecting us.
As has been said before, Christianity is what the country was founded on, and separation of church and state does not mean that there can't be any religion involved in government, but rather no government interference with religion. If somebody wants to be Muslim, they're free to be Muslim. If Hindu is their thing, let them be Hindu. But the major religion in America is Christianity. If I went to India, I wouldn't be up in arms that everybody talks about Hinduism, and I wouldn't flip out that Ghandi is on the currency there either. That's the major religion of their country, so it's their privilege to celebrate it. In the same way, do you think that we should not have any writing on our currency either since it's written in English and not everybody in America considers themselves "English"? I know a lot of people have compared the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement, and to point out the insanity of that, do you think that black people are offended that we have guys like George Washington and Abe Lincoln on our currency since not everybody in America is white? Just a couple things I was thinking about. Not trying to be a jerk and preach at anybody, but that's how I see it.
I haven't read past this post yet today, but this is exactly what I was saying to begin with Tigershoops31. If a private sector (religion) doesn't want to marry an individual, I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with the government being able to tell individuals that they can't get a state-sanctioned marriage because they believe their lifestyle is one of sin. That is what the homosexuals I know want. If it's in a courtroom, there's just no way the government should be able to deny them that choice.
I did read the article, and I'm not going to let a few angry non-Christians worry me or stop me from celebrating Christmas. They were allowed to have any decorations they wanted on their desks. There are much bigger issues in our society than worrying about.
Re: Good Lord (Deeply Political/Religious Topic)
This has been one of the most interesting conversations I have ever read on a message board. And THE most self-controlled thread I have ever read anywhere. I'm only on page 16, but so far no one has started name calling. These are very touchy topics and the Cyclones are handling them with great respect for each other.
We will all learn the answers to these tough questions some day, however, it will be too late to tell each other, "I told you so" since we will be dead.
Instead of weighing in on some of the evidence I have read in favor of Christianity, I will just say that the evidence in my own life has been remarkable. I am a judgmental person (even before I started going to church) and was a loner and God is showing how to love people. My life has changed for the better and I appreciate it more every day.
Thanks to all for the lively debate.
This has been one of the most interesting conversations I have ever read on a message board. And THE most self-controlled thread I have ever read anywhere. I'm only on page 16, but so far no one has started name calling. These are very touchy topics and the Cyclones are handling them with great respect for each other.
We will all learn the answers to these tough questions some day, however, it will be too late to tell each other, "I told you so" since we will be dead.
Instead of weighing in on some of the evidence I have read in favor of Christianity, I will just say that the evidence in my own life has been remarkable. I am a judgmental person (even before I started going to church) and was a loner and God is showing how to love people. My life has changed for the better and I appreciate it more every day.
Thanks to all for the lively debate.
And you know what? In a way I don't completely disagree here with you. If they would legalize it for a courtroom and call it a union it would be much less problematic/offensive for me. Its not the marital benefits for gays that I care that much about, I just hate to see the term marriage thrown around, because to most people (including myself if you're reading this honey:wink0st
marriage stands for a sacred thing. Now what I will say about it is that if they did go ahead and legalize this and call it a "union" and it wasn't officially a marriage, that 2 brothers or 2 sisters should be able to have a "union", and a man should be able to have a "union" with umpteen women or vice versa. Eventually I think it would have to get thrown out there and debated with the underage thing too, because everything "taboo" would have to be considered if you're leaving religion out of it. Not that I think any of this is right or going along with my beliefs, but I'm not going to get up in somebody's face and call them a sinner if they aren't imposing on me at all. I still would hope and pray that God would eventually show them His love and help them to change, but as I've stated before...it's not my job to change anybody, that's up to the Big Man Upstairs.
Re: Good Lord (Deeply Political/Religious Topic)
After I get to heaven and discover God is a liberal bi-sexual woman I'm planning to come back down to earth and haunt you all! :wink0st:
After I get to heaven and discover God is a liberal bi-sexual woman I'm planning to come back down to earth and haunt you all! :wink0st:
You weren't perchance in the same class I had with him, were you? I took CI/Psych 333 last winter (Fall '05)..... The same time that whole thing went down.... I know at least 2 other people on these boards had him as well, but not in my class.
And you know what? In a way I don't completely disagree here with you. If they would legalize it for a courtroom and call it a union it would be much less problematic/offensive for me. Its not the marital benefits for gays that I care that much about, I just hate to see the term marriage thrown around, because to most people (including myself if you're reading this honey:wink0st
Well, that settles that one then. :
usts off hands:: Now I'm off to convince everyone else that I'm right about physics being flawed......Up, Up, and Away!!
tigershoops31,
I just need to say again that while we may not agree on everything, I consider your posts very respectful, intelligent, reasoned, and considerate. Thank you, and everyone who has been a part of this thread, for keeping things civil. An additional thanks to Cyclone62 for starting this thread, even though it may not have turned out the way that he expected it to.
Oh, and just to keep this relevant, my favorite cartoon has always been Scooby Doo!
I just need to say again that while we may not agree on everything, I consider your posts very respectful, intelligent, reasoned, and considerate. Thank you, and everyone who has been a part of this thread, for keeping things civil. An additional thanks to Cyclone62 for starting this thread, even though it may not have turned out the way that he expected it to.
Oh, and just to keep this relevant, my favorite cartoon has always been Scooby Doo!
Shakes20, in no way, shape or form did I expect this thread to explode like it has. I started the post because I saw a kids cartoon that seemed to be expressing tolerance towards homosexuals. (Not that it's normal or anything like that) And since I never answered, my favorite cartoon has to be SpongeBob SquarePants.
My opinion almost exactly. Well written for a tough subject.And you know what? In a way I don't completely disagree here with you. If they would legalize it for a courtroom and call it a union it would be much less problematic/offensive for me. Its not the marital benefits for gays that I care that much about, I just hate to see the term marriage thrown around, because to most people (including myself if you're reading this honey:wink0st
nopers. was in CI 406, multicultural education. one would think we would talk about all sorts of different things in that class, but instead, we talked about being jewish, being gay, and being blind, which the professor was all of. i guess there are no other forms of diversity that needs to be taught. it was an awful awful class. :sad9cd:
That's all we talked about in Psych 333, educational psychology. Oh, 406 is just as worthless without him teaching it. All we talk about is how African Americans are discriminated against. So far, that's been the focus of CI 204, 333, 406, and English 347. I think I've read Frederick Douglass' autobiography.... 5 times since I came to ISU... I've been here 6 semesters too, almost once/semester I've read that thing. I think I have it memorized...
Just thought I'd drop in and contribute to the largest thread in Cyclone Fanatic history :yes4lo:
