I didn't mind the Bush Proclamation, it just didn't go deep enough into the issues.
quote:To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages.
He did touch on the virtues of a two parent household, though I do believe that many times staying together for the kids just gives the kids a better, more intimate view of a failing marriage.
I'd like to open up a topic about preserving marriage for the sake of preserving the idea of a stable committed union. For some reason, I keep thinking of the importance of Santa Claus as an example of a stranger giving presents. A stable marriage, outside of procreation and child-rearing, seems to carry with it a positive personal and political value, I think that Scopatz would agree and probably have a little more insight than I've offered.
Moose
quote: I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed by any of this, and while there's value in continuing discussion on the topic, I think the major outcome will be hurt feelings. Therefore, I'd rather not continue reading this thread.
Even with all of the equivocations and qualifications in the second paragraph, this is the reason why public discourse is not what it could be, eventually leading to a lower standard of living for nearly every single person on the planet. And I don't think that is a hyperbole. I don't know how we have come to live in a democracy where people can ignore their duty to talk and think about something that matters. And Yes, I do think the tendency of discourse to shy away from religion and politics and the name of manners and hurt feelings has led to incredibly ignorant and vastly more hurtful policies.
If you run away from discourse, and by posting what you posted, encourage others to do the same, you attack one of the few fundamental processes that make living well at all possible.
posted
kat, think of it, if nothing else, as a Socratic imploring. What I was trying to say was that your flippant-sounding "the govt. already does it" line is at least partially wrong, and that there may be unintended consequences as a result. In other words, if you design the marriage class system based on how sex ed usually works, you'll theoretically get wild and nto equivalent systems, and if you therefore try to bring it to a state or national level, you can no longer use sex ed as any sort of analogy.
Not that marriage classes are necesssarily a bad idea, mind you. Just that your reasons aren't decent reasons, and could be used by less scrupulous folk to convince decent people to agree to something that wasn't intended.
See, I'm willing to concede that there are good arguments for multiple sides (I infuriarated my pacifistic girlfriend on many occassions telling her that I thought her reasons for not wanting to go to war seemed untenable to me... Yet, I also wasn't against the war.), but first I want to hear them. But if you never want to concede, then I'll respect that.
posted
There are also folks with no religious persuasion who are against gay marriage.
Narrow-mindedness, like pretension, doesn't hold to purely one group of folks.
Perhaps instead of branding it as "Christians" perhaps simply stating "For" and "Against" would be more accurate.
I've said before and will say it again, my Christian upbringing says it would be a sin for me to stand in the path of my brother or sister's life goals and happiness. We all have our individual paths and I am far from wise enough to pass judgement on anything but the most blantant of things. And even then, I'm stuck with the limited perceptions of a mortal being.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, semantically tear me apart. It seemed to me that you at least implied that since the government does interject a curriculum on occassion, that it would be okay in the case of marriage classes/licenses.
Hmmm, I take back my statement claiming not to be obtuse. I'm beginning to think that I must be.
What you see as being contrary is me willing to compromise. I just need more than a quick off the cuff idea.
posted
There are other religions against gay marriage.
There are a few people against gay marriage that don't have any religion. I'm taking your word on this because I've never met one (David Bowles may be one of these, but I don't believe he's ever given a cement for or against position on the subject).
But then none of those people are getting President Bush to proclaim that their view of marriage is being threatened by me, nor are they lobbying Congress to create a Defense of Marriage Act.
Sopwith, it's important to address the REASONS people are against homosexual equality, not just the fact that they are against it.
Katharina, you may think I speak only to hear my own voice, but you are wrong. I speak so that YOU can hear my voice. So that YOU and "all those people who seek to deny my equality" (DO I REALLY HAVE TO WRITE IT OUT EVERY TIME? SHOULD I JUST KEEP IT CONSTANTLY ON MY CLIPBOARD?) can know that I am a real person and I demand to be treated like a real person. I pay my taxes. I vote. I'm a fine upstanding citizen of the United States of America.
You have no right to tell me who I can or cannot marry. That's my voice. If it offends you that I blame your faith for the absurdity of your claims about homosexuals, so be it.
quote:If you keep hearing from all sides that it isn't working and you are hurting people when you say it, and then continue to say it anyway, you are seriously undercutting your own plea for understanding and charity.
What exactly is this "it" that I've been saying?
I can only say this so many times.
Not all Christians are bad. Not all Christian views are bad.
But the overwhelming majority of people attacking the homosexual community with their propaganda of fear are doing so because they are Christians and they believe it is their duty to do so.
That is the truth. Sugarcoat it if you will.
I am not doing this for "charity", Kat. I don't need you to be my best friend. And for the record, I don't 'keep hearing from all sides' that I'm offending them. I have a multitude of supportive emails from Hatrackers that simply do not wish to get involved in these conversations because they know to what offensive lengths the Christian right is willing to go to continue arguing a perspective that they are required to argue by their leaders and their Bible.
There's nothing offensive about laying the blame for America's current state of inequality at the feet of the philosophies that are the predominant cause of that state.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Interestingly enough, the president's support for the event comes days after RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie called the lgbt community 'intolerant bigots' in the Washington Times.
Ummm, Am I the only one that doesn't really get this statement? I'm sorta confused.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Narrow-mindedness, like pretension, doesn't hold to purely one group of folks.
I give up, Sopwith. Can you find even one example of me saying that narrow-mindedness is limited to Christians alone?
"like pretension"
And out of curiosity, do you feel that personal attacks are somehow more acceptable than blaming Church philosophy for American homosexual oppression?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Attacking someone's religion is a personal attack.
quote:If you keep hearing from all sides that it isn't working and you are hurting people when you say it, and then continue to say it anyway, you are seriously undercutting your own plea for understanding and charity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is this "it" that I've been saying?
The "Christians are my enemy" part.
You then follow it with "Of course I don't mean the Christians that AREN'T my enemy, so when I say Christians, I don't mean you, even if you are Christian, unless you aren't Christian and oppose gay marriage, in which case I do mean you, even though you aren't actually a Christ follower."
It's like deciding to call all Canadians French, whether or not they come from Quebec, and even though many French don't live in Canada.
Seriously, if you keep fighting this particular battle - to lump all your enemies into one easy sobriquet, despite its lack of accuracy - maybe it's because you're wrong about it?
posted
I'm all for a National Marriage Strengthening Week or a National Spouse and Parent Personal Responsibility Week, but, I don't know, the dates and the characterization as a Marriage Defense Week really makes me think that it's supposed to be National Fag Hating Week.
I freely admit that many non-Christians are prejudiced and hateful towards LGBT's and that many Christians are not. However, just like the Inquisition was a Christian problem or the oppression of women was/is a Christian problem or the support of slavery was a Christian problem or the persecution of the Jews was/is a Christian problem, the prejudice and persecution of LGBTs is a Christian problem. It is bound into the implicit structure and the explicit history and culture of the Christian religion and scientific studies have consistently shown that Christians as a group and church-going Christians also show higher levels of prejudice than the average population. To pretend that it merely a individual problem that many many Christians' have is and the very least wrong-headed.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do know that framing in terms of an attack on religion is not persuasive. It means you are asking people to choose between your cause and their religion, and if they don't give up their religion, they are monsters.
Since they don't believe their religion makes them monsters, it means you're lying. This is really, really not persuasive.
Or is that the point? Is the gay movement a cloak for an attack on Christianity? There's a lot of evidence for it. Is that really the tack you want to continue in?
quote: It is bound into the implicit structure and the explicit history and culture of the Christian religion and scientific studies have consistently shown that Christians as a group and church-going Christians also show higher levels of prejudice than the average population.
It all kinda depends on how these studious scientists define prejudice, no? For example, if I take the stance that anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin is a prejudiced bigot then chances are that I will label everyone who says homosexuality is a sin as a bigot.
Also, what does "average population" mean in this context? Isn't the "average population" made up of a whole lotta Christians?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The platform this thread was set up to decry was supported in a poll by 58% of Americans, an easy, comfortable majority.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is it safe to assume that you don't think Christianity is the primary cause of prejudice against homosexuals in the legal sector?
"Is the gay movement a cloak for an attack on Christianity?"
*shakes head*
Katharina, which is more wrong: blaming Christianity in a general sense for the oppression of homosexuals, or calling me a liar to my face?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, you have freely admitted to being a bigot against Christians. You registered the name of Jesus of Nazareth and used it so offensively that all deity usernames were banned. You have been requested by a Christian to stop including her in your list of enemies, and you have returned that if she is Christian, she IS your enemy. There's a lot of evidence for it.
Do I believe it? No. I think you're passionate and it's easier to hit a rumbling elephant than a horde of gnats, so you'd rather lump everyone into the elephant.
---
Does this mean you're going to rip into Kayla for saying I was lying earlier?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's so easy for people who are not Christians to get this idea that we all hate everyone that doesn't measure up to our standard of "sinlessness". If I think homosexuality is a sin, then I MUST be a homophobic bigot. Did it ever occur to you that maybe some Christians kinda wish that the Bible didn't say it's a sin? It's really hard to look at people that you care about and tell them: Sorry, as much as you want it, you can't be allowed to do this thing that would make you happy.
My feelings don't always agree with my commands. But, like a good soldier, I try to follow through with commands anyway, because I believe in my Commander. You think you are asking me to give up my evil, prejudiced views, but I'm just so hateful that I'm holding on to them with everything I have. But, what you're really asking me is to denounce my God and my religion, and really, you be hard-pressed to find someone who would give that up for ANYTHING, no matter how sorry we may feel for someone.
(In this paragraph "you" doesn't refer to any particular poster, but to anyone who may share the views I described.)
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and if someone back in history tried to stop the Inquisition, that would probably have been considered anti-Christian too. Or how about Galileo? He was an anti-Christian because he told the truth. When Christianity unjustly attacks something, be it another religion, science, women, minorities, people who read, immigrants, socialists, etc. and they stand up for themselves, I guess you could see that as anti-Christian. I mean, if you want to consider a Jew who wants to keep his religion and not be tortured to death as being against Christianity, I guess that's your call. Or someone who claims that Easter was taken from a pagan holidy anti-Christian, again, that's your call. Or when historical evidence shows that the anti-homosexual passages in the New Testament were retranslated to be so in the 13th century (a really bad one for the Church not doing bad things) or that Church goers consistently show more prejudiced attitudes towards all sorts of groups than non-Church goers (sorry, I mispoke above when I characterized the control as "average people") as anti-Christian, then go right ahead.
In many cases, you're defining what's anti-Christian, not me, not the gays, not the Jews, not women, not people who tell the truth. I don't have a problem with Christianity, except in that it attacks things that I do value. I have no desire to destroy the religion, but I really do think that there are some changes that need to be made. If the studies started showing different results and Christians were consistently less prejudiced than they are now, I'd be delighted. It's the prejudice and the ignorance that the religion breeds that I don't like, not the religion itself. I would hope that many Christians are themselves horrified when other Christians act poorly and don't give them license to do so because they share a common religion.
As to the definition of prejudice, the study of prejudice has been a long and meticuluous one and, frankly Jacare, I suggest that your criticism of the methods of determining prejudice are laughable to anyone who actually knows the field. I do hope that there are at least some Christians out there who will actually take the time to read the literature on the subject and maybe use the insights provided to work towards a future where all Christians are less prejudiced.
That is not to say that they will want Gays to marry. That's an issue, not a way of thinking. Perhaps they will retain that belief and have good reasons for doing so. All I hope is that they stop engaging in the style of thinking about things that is definied as prejudiced.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's the prejudice and the ignorance that the religion breeds that I don't like, not the religion itself.
Unfortunately, the definition of prejudice that a lot of non-Christians have fits too well into the actual religion. You almost can't have it both ways.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, so help me, every time you beg for respect by appealing to phantom authority with your own brand of empty pomposity, it just gets funnier.
posted
That is an outright lie. And by the way, that's the only reason I didn't complain to Kayla. Because the shoe seemed to fit.
I registered the name Jesus of Nazareth and made less than 10 satirical posts with it, none of which were very offensive, all of which were obviously in good humour.
The decision to ban all deity-related screen names was made by Kristine Card, not you, and her reasons for that in her email to me were NOT that I had been SO OFFENSIVE that she couldn't take it anymore. If that was the case I would have been banned from Hatrack altogether, and rightfully so.
Her reasoning had more to do with the potential for abuse that deity screen names represented, and that even though my posts were in good humour she didn't want to take the chance that someone would take it incorrectly.
AFTER WHICH I COMPLETELY AGREED WITH HER AND THEN PUBLICLY APOLOGIZED.
Also I have never said that all Christians are my enemies. Katharina, I used to BE a Christian that didn't believe homosexuality was wrong. OF COURSE I am not against these people. And I say it in nearly every frickin post, yet you continue to label me as an all-Christians basher. Find one example of me saying that all Christians are my enemy. Quote it for me instead of putting words in my mouth and slander in our community.
And I have freely admitted bigotry towards Christianity, but you conveniently leave out the context of that bigotry which was discussed at length in previous threads. Of course, you conveniently leave out a lot of things in favor of character assassination.
Again, there is NOTHING offensive about placing the blame for homosexual oppression at the feet of the philosophies that are the predominate cause of that oppression.
The real difference here is that you don't think it counts as oppression, because you think you're right right right.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Did it ever occur to you that maybe some Christians kinda wish that the Bible didn't say it's a sin?....My feelings don't always agree with my commands. But, like a good soldier, I try to follow through with commands anyway, because I believe in my Commander."
Maureen, you may look at this as a GOOD thing -- but for those of us that DON'T believe in your Commander, we find it troubling and unnerving.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maureen, There are Christians who don't believe that the Bible unequivocally says that homosexuality is a sin. We've had mutiple threads here on it. I think that this is the latest one.
Of course, I, for one, don't believe that being against something necessarily means that you hate it. However, it is extremely clear to me that many Christians are against homosexuals because of hatred. It is also clear to me that many Christians are not against homosexuality for primarily religious reasons.
It's not my place to judge people's beliefs, but the way they go about forming these beliefs is, I feel, open game.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, you've lost it. You're flinging insults and practically jumping up and down in the aisle and howling.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, tone it down, please. Your last few posts have consisted of nothing but personal criticisms of other posters.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, the definition of prejudice that a lot of non-Christians have fits too well into the actual religion. You almost can't have it both ways.
Like I said above, the definitions used in the fields I work in don't rely on beliefs only, but on styles and corresponding elements of belief. Among them is stereotyping, anger, but explicit and latent, in-goup/out-group distinctions, and non-belief centric discrimination.
For example, believing that homosexuality is a sin would not be classified as prejudiced thinking. However, expressing hatred for homosexuals, regarding them as a uniform group with stereotyped characteristics, denying them a job based solely on the fact that they are homosexual, and various other types of attitudes or behaviors would be.
Many people have a stereotype of social scientists as being primarily concerned with advancing their ideology. This is especially true when they feel that groups they belong to are show in a poor light by social science research. I'll admit there are many social scientists that this would be true for, but, I don't believe that it is accurate for the majority of us. The best I can do is to invite you read up on the studies of prejudice and let you make up your own mind on how valid the criticisms are.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Although I do think it's funny. Caleb and Kayla have absolutely no effect on me, but Squicky drives me crazy. It'd be almost complimentary if I wasn't so sincerely annoyed.
But then, wouldn't denying marriage to homosexuals be considered as discrimination or prejudice? Because my interpretaion of the Bible denies them that right. Therefore, if I believe that, and continue to support my religion, I'm being prejudiced by default.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage is NOT a purely religious institution. It is a secular distinction as well. The government and businesses (eg. insurance) treat married couples differently. People whom are agnostic or atheistic, etc. DO get married.
Why should homosexuals be denied something on religious grounds if atheists can do the same thing with no outcry?
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that's a question though. Why do you believe that the Bible gives you the right to deny homosexuals the ability to marry? From a religious perspective it's pretty obvious. It would not be considered a valid marriage. However, marriage, in our culture, is not tied to any specific religion or even religion in general. The only commonality in the relationship is the purely secular benefits that it confers. So, while I understand why you would feel justified in claiming that homosexuals couldn't get married in a religious sense, how does believing it to be a sin impact the secular aspects of the relationship?
Also, I'm actually not aware of scales of prejudice that take anti-homosexual attitudes into account. I'm sure that they exist, but most of the ones that I've seen used were created before it was really much of an issue. Also, and I don't know if this is true or not, I wouldn't be suprised if there is a reluctance to include homosexuality because of the extremely complicated nature of feelings toward it in our country, which would make accurate and reliable test questions hard to construct.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if My religion condones and endourses gay marriages. If the Government makes them illegal, isn't that attacking my religion?
On a less debated topic, if we pass a constitutional amendment attacking my religion (a anti-gay marriage ammendment would attack the religious beliefs of a pro-gay marriage church), could you do anything about it?
If not, could we pass a constitutional ammendment demanding every person be a good Christian? After all, people are saying that this country was founded on Christian ideals, and that the 10 commandments are the basis for our laws. Would not a Christian Ammendment, or one offering tax cuts to Christians and other preferred citizenship upon proof of baptism (unless you are in a quasi-unAmerican Christian Sect such as Catholics, LDS, or those overly liberal Episcopaleans with thier gay bishop), be legal if passed? Finally, we could put all of these good Christian values into law where they apparently belong.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what it comes down to Caleb, is that you're thinking that this is a debate of semantics about Christians and Christians are thinking that the statements are made about all of them.
Please excuse me for using the words I am about to use. I feel it is the only way I can get my point across.
A brick mason I once worked for, after finding some stuff missing from the job site shouted at the top of his lungs, full of rage "Damn Niggers! Why do they gotta steal everything?!?!"
Then he turned and looked at his business partner and two of the mason's helpers. All of whom were African American. Then he said, "Not you guys, I know you didn't steal anything."
You, and others, have used the title Christian much like he used the N-word. Said with spite and hatred. Then you tried, like he did, to exclude a few folks from it that you may have offended.
It doesn't work that way. Not in a civilized society. You have to understand that all of the other folks out there, no matter how much their ideas or creeds are opposite of yours, are your equals. Not superiors or inferiors. Equals. We're all on this spinning ball of clay, water and air together.
No peace can ever happen by targeting any group. You have to work with those willing to extend an olive branch to you and allow them to bring their side to the same table. Just like you have to bring those who are reluctant on your side to the same table.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Myth 3: Bush's religion talk has appealed to his base but has alienated moderate swing voters. Actually, 56 percent of independents think he mentions his religious faith just the right amount compared to 20 percent who say he does it too much, according to a Pew Religion Forum study. Even most Democrats agree. Attacking Bush's religiosity will not be politically fruitful; alternatively, a Democratic candidate unable to discuss his own faith will place himself defiantly outside the mainstream.
quote:liberals who go into paroxysms at the mention of organized religion
Just wanted to point out to Zalmoxis that some of us liberals are involved in organized religions, and are even paying members of religious institutions.
Secondly, I think that allowing gay marriage is going to have little to no effect on society at large, especially not on those who oppose it most, who generally have few interactions with the gay community. What is will do is allow those in long time gay relationships right of survivorship, right to be covered by each other's health insurance, and many of the other rights that we straight couples take for granted, and do not have to fight for.
posted
WOW. What Sopwith said reminds me off all the times my husband got up and walked out on women who were talking about how "Men are pigs" or "That's just the way men are". They would try to tell him "We don't mean you, Jesse. You're a good guy." It made me angry FOR him. The worst part was that, (sheesh, where does this comma go?) one of them was his mom. ERR!
quote:Caleb, you've lost it. You're flinging insults and practically jumping up and down in the aisle and howling.
THAT'S your response? You accused my "homosexual agenda" of being a mask--hinted at, rather--for simply attacking Christianity, as if my ultimate will for equality was really just a game I was playing to rip people away from the Church. Then you accused me of being 'so offensive' in a totally different context that you completely misrepresented, and THEN you again accused me of lumping all Christians together, when IN NEARLY EVERY SINGLE POST OF THIS THREAD I'VE SAID OUT LOUD, OFTEN WITH CAPS LOCK, THAT I AM NOT REFERRING TO ALL CHRISTIANS.
So I defend myself with the truth and you're response is: I'm jumping up and down, howling in the aisles, and flinging insults around.
Just once maybe when you're attacking other people (I certainly know I'm not the only person that gets this treatment from you) you could quote full text related to your complaint and stop slandering other people? This thread was about President Bush's endorsement of this Christian-right (note that this does not include the Christian-left ) agenda to prevent homosexuals from eventually gaining their rights. You have said nothing on that subject, choosing instead to consistently misrepresent my posting style, critique my ability to persuade people when my sentiments are cast in a much different light than they are actually written, and completely ignore any points that anyone not on your side has brought to the discussion.
Surely you recognize that that's hardly the way to behave if you want people to hear your own plea for understanding and charity?
Really, Katharina, I'm disappointed in you. You probably don't even realize how your actions in this thread are all-too-indicative of the very smear campaign for which I am blaming the Christian Right.
How I'm supposed to say that the majority of Christian beliefs about homosexuality are bigotted and wrong without relating that biggotted and wrong position to Christianity itself is beyond me.
How I'm supposed to participate in an intelligent and thoughtful conversation with YOU is also beyond me, since you consistently show disdain for equality, logic, and reason. And yeah, I guess that counts as a character attack, but I've got to draw the line somewhere. You don't answer specific questions, you ignore it when someone proves you wrong, and you generally take every opportunity to belittle people you're talking to. And then every so often you have to accuse me of speaking only because I love the sound of my own voice.
Well get off it.
I have specific reasons for posting as I do. I am interested in seeing America become a better place, where religion is not allowed to ruin other people's lives. In that pursuit I am forced to point out some of the negative aspects of religion, out of necessity.
You can call that offensive or lumping all Christians together, but really what I'm doing is not so different from the actions of Joan of Arc or Martin Luther. I have a bone to pick with the Church (the majority thereof) because I believe it to be grossly out of line with human interests, and my own future is at stake. How about instead of trying to paint me as a lunatic and an insulter, you could respond to my ideas about human interests?
What is your reason for this madness, anyway? Just to hurt people? I thought you said you weren't going to do that anymore because you didn't want to.
I can't wait to see your one-line response complete with smiley face.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I know. In fact, I wish that more members of my own faith would more seriously consider some parts of the the liberal platform [especially conservationism, academic freedom, social justice, universal healthcare (or at least more universal healthcare) and multiculturalism (but true pluralistic multiculturalism -- not the pc, victim identity kind)]. That's why what I said was...
quote:I also can't take seriously those liberals who go into paroxysms at the mention of organized religion.
What I was trying to say is that, I hold out the hope that people with strong beliefs can still interact with each other with civility and respect, and that what I'd like to see the citizens of the U.S. fight for is a situation where the most people possible can have a certain measure of material security and the freedom to express their beliefs and interests. How one does this is still a mystery to me. But I do think that the LDS Church shouldn't ally iteself too closely with conservative Christian evangelical groups.
From an abstract point of view, I don't think that the solution is too toss crosses or crescent moons or five-pointed stars or rainbow flags out of the classroom and the public sphere, but rather to make sure that there are public environments where all those symbols can co-exist.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't know why I continue to hang around you plebes.
EDIT: Kat, when you say, 'You're too good for this,' does that mean that you think my behavior is normally above double-deucing? Or that you accept my joking behavior as being the right way to respond to many of the caustic statements directed at people I normally like?
[ October 10, 2003, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I am? No, I'm not.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) agenda to prevent homosexuals from eventually gaining their rights. You have said nothing on that subject, choosing instead to consistently misrepresent my posting style, critique my ability to persuade people when my sentiments are cast in a much different light than they are actually written, and completely ignore any points that anyone not on your side has brought to the discussion.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
