Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

[nativeastral]

shouldn't children be told the facts of life in a matter of fact way, since lets face it they see it and know it anyways..repression is bad, expression good..less stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, categorising, demonizing.

we have to work with what we've got and continue humane-izing ourselves

 

[soleil10]

shouldn't children be told the facts of life in a matter of fact way, since lets face it they see it and know it anyways..repression is bad, expression good..less stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, categorising, demonizing. we have to work with what we've got and continue humane-izing ourselves

It has to be age appropriate to begin with....most of it is not.

Also, it should respect parental rights and their values

 

[Marsh]

It is not just a ceremony, it is the cornerstone of our society. As marriage goes , so goes the nation.
This has never be more true

I think you are right here; the family is indeed the building block of the society in which it exists, and changes to the family unit will no doubt have profound effects on that society. I am curious about your use of the term "our society" though. Based on the level of opposition you are receiving from other (I'm assuming) Americans, are you sure that America is your society? And by that, I'm not trying to take a shot at you; what I'm asking is do you really believe that America is a Christian country whose essential Christianness is at stake in this... battle?

I'm not so sure that America is truly a "Christian country" (if such a thing exists anywhere), and even less convinced that their current religious essense will be retained in the next fifty years.

 

[bob x]

You did not read my post correctly.
Once ss nuptial is law, it has to be taught in school.

??? No. Nothing is taught about "nuptials" as it is. This particular lie (again, far from original with you; you are just parroting propaganda which has been in circulation for some time) makes especially little sense since I do not understand what makes anyone believe it.

look at Massachusetts and California for what is coming.

In Massachusetts, same-sex marriage has been in place for quite some time, people are used to it and there haven't been any problems. Agitators of your kind are getting no traction there and there is no chance of any popular movement to overturn same-sex marriage because the dire predictions of how this would destroy everybody else's marriage have proven utterly baseless: the divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (already significantly lower than the average in other states; Alabama and Mississippi are where there are high rates of breakup) has actually gone down a little.

As for California, apparently you haven't read the news for eight months.

 

[soleil10]

No. Nothing is taught about "nuptials" as it is. This particular lie (again, far from original with you; you are just parroting propaganda which has been in circulation for some time) makes especially little sense since I do not understand what makes anyone believe it.

I strongly disagree.

In Massachusetts, same-sex marriage has been in place for quite some time, people are used to it and there haven't been any problems.

I strongly diagree

Agitators of your kind are getting no traction there and there is no chance of any popular movement to overturn same-sex marriage because the dire predictions of how this would destroy everybody else's marriage have proven utterly baseless: the divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (already significantly lower than the average in other states; Alabama and Mississippi are where there are high rates of breakup) has actually gone down a little.

Polls show that many people are opposed to ss Nuptials but Mass has become a one party state in terms of legislature. They have stolen from the voters their basic right to vote on the issue despite the fact enough signature were gathered.

This is A good example of Homofacism in action. Force it down the throat of the people is the modus apparatus, then claim there are no problems. Does not look like a democracy to me !!!

As for California, apparently you haven't read the news for eight months.

The people rose despite 95% of the media again them, a tainted ballot form from Jerry Brown, despite Hollywood, Beverly hills, silicone valley , the politicians and the teachers union's money as well as misleading polls for years.
Like Gavin Newsom says, if you like it or not...... well we do not like it

 

[greymare]

Wow, Soliel, is it fear or hate?
Honestly, what difference would it make to you if same sex couples lived nearby ? If they are loving, up standing members of the community, law abiding etc. You might attempt to get to know them, you might like them. although, I dont know if they would like you, tho.
I know plenty of same sex couples, and single homosexual people. It has NOTHING to do with me, what they do in the privacy of their own homes etc. They arent all raving , smut talking weirdos, you know. They are everyday people. They arent after your children or to ruin your way of life. They just want to have their own lives, loves, privacy. Things we take for granted.
Give me a break, your rantings are bordering on hysteria.

 

[soleil10]

Wow, Soliel, is it fear or hate?
Honestly, what difference would it make to you if same sex couples lived nearby ? If they are loving, up standing members of the community, law abiding etc. You might attempt to get to know them, you might like them. although, I dont know if they would like you, tho.
I know plenty of same sex couples, and single homosexual people. It has NOTHING to do with me, what they do in the privacy of their own homes etc. They arent all raving , smut talking weirdos, you know. They are everyday people. They arent after your children or to ruin your way of life. They just want to have their own lives, loves, privacy. Things we take for granted. Give me a break, your rantings are bordering on hysteria.

Greymare, your comments have nothing to do with my post. I am talking about the right of people in a democracy to vote on the redefinition of marriage, of what it means to them and their family. You are talking about the homosexual lifestyle and .......etc.

I was responding to Bob who said everything is OK, people are in agreement with what is happening.
I am just pointing out that in Mass, the basic human right of vote was taken away from the citizens of that state. The same happened in California and the voters were able to vote again.
The same is happening in Washington DC right now.

Luckily people will have the chance to vote in Maine and may be in Iowa.
In 30 states where people could vote, they rejected marriage being redefined while we can see they are open to civil unions.

What you are writing about is a complete different subject.

 

[bob x]

But soleil, you aren't talking about voting about "their own" families: you are talking about whether people should be allowed to vote about how OTHER PEOPLE live their lives. We are not a country where the majority is allowed to trample on the minority. We are a country where every decision belongs, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, to the people affected; a collective decision is only imposed on everybody when there is need for it. You have no business pushing me around: leave me alone, and I will leave you alone.

 

[soleil10]

But soleil, you aren't talking about voting about "their own" families: you are talking about whether people should be allowed to vote about how OTHER PEOPLE live their lives. We are not a country where the majority is allowed to trample on the minority. We are a country where every decision belongs, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, to the people affected; a collective decision is only imposed on everybody when there is need for it. You have no business pushing me around: leave me alone, and I will leave you alone.

The redefinition of marriage involves almost every one.
It has consequences on the whole society. Someone would have to live under a stone not to see that.
As I said before, it redefines the concept of parents, husband and wife, mother and father, the concept of family, gender etc.
It is a huge change. Other types of sexual orientation can make the same claim to redefine marriage to be three, or more. Once you change it based on the concept that it is just about people loving each other, then you open the pandora's box. They have the right to change it too.
Using another name for what you want is the best solution.
Changing the definition of marriage for other people is not equality, it is superiority.
It is not about leaving other people alone as you say you want

 

[citizenzen]

I was just in Los Angeles for a memorial service and had a chance to be reunited with family and friends. One of which was a gay man, who along with his partner are raising 11 and 12 year old boys who otherwise might not know what it's like to be raised in a loving home.

I couldn't express enough my desire to see this unit recognized as a legitimate family, to see the partners married, to see the stigma of homosexuality come to the ignominious end that it deserves.

When talking with my 12 year-old niece, I was pleased to see that there wasn't a trace of bias against homosexuals. The younger generations will hopefully continue the progress currently being made to extend all civil rights to gays.

Soleil, the tide is turning against you. It is only a matter of time.

They're here. They're queer. Get used to it.

 

[soleil10]

U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Oppose Hate-Crimes Bill

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has gotten a thumbs-down from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in the form of a letter to Senate leaders saying the proposed legislation "will do little good and a great deal of harm."

"We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties," the commissioners wrote. "There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights."

The commission, not known for being on the side of social conservatives on policy issues, has an ally in Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. He pointed out that hate-crimes legislation fundamentally changes the idea of equal justice under law to arbitrary justice based on the race, religion or sexual orientation of the victim or the criminal.

"It really forces our courts and our judges to begin to anticipate what people were thinking when they committed a crime, rather than whether they committed the crime or not."

But he said the worst part of the hate-crimes bill is it could restrict free speech, "because if a pastor stands up and preaches that the Word of God says that homosexuality is wrong, that pastor could be accused of hate speech and could even be accused or charged with inducing someone to commit a crime against a homosexual."
From citizen link

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Let me show you how to do this Solly.

U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Oppose Hate-Crimes Bill


The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has gotten a thumbs-down from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in the form of a letter to Senate leaders saying the proposed legislation "will do little good and a great deal of harm."

"We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties," the commissioners wrote. "There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights."

The commission, not known for being on the side of social conservatives on policy issues, has an ally in Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. He pointed out that hate-crimes legislation fundamentally changes the idea of equal justice under law to arbitrary justice based on the race, religion or sexual orientation of the victim or the criminal.

"It really forces our courts and our judges to begin to anticipate what people were thinking when they committed a crime, rather than whether they committed the crime or not."

But he said the worst part of the hate-crimes bill is it could restrict free speech, "because if a pastor stands up and preaches that the Word of God says that homosexuality is wrong, that pastor could be accused of hate speech and could even be accused or charged with inducing someone to commit a crime against a homosexual."

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, agreed.

"This particular hate-crimes bill would be the first time the federal government disapproves of a valid, sincerely held religious belief held by a majority of Americans," he explained. "And that's very troubling for free speech and free exercise of religion."

But Stanley said it's not a foregone conclusion.

"The only real chance in stopping the hate-crimes bill is to stop it in the Senate, and to stop it before the Senate votes on it," he said. "President Obama has made it very clear that should it pass the Senate he's going to sign it into law."

-- Roger Greer

CitizenLink: U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Oppose Hate-Crimes Bill

See, you hashed up what Mr. Greer wrote and presented it as your own intellectual product.

One other thing in the interest of truth. This I lifted directly from the linked page:

© 2009 Focus on the Family Action, Inc. CitizenLink is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family Action, Inc. "Focus on the Family" is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family, a California non profit religious corporation...

It's interesting that this blurb doesn't tell us who on the Civil Rights Commission opposes the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It has good ole Jim DeMint from South Carolina opining the standard line about poor preachers not being able to exercise their right to hate speech, that's no big surprise. Is DeMint on the Commission? I can't tell from the article.

Chris

 

[citizenzen]

Let me show you how to do this Solly.

Thank you Chris for following up on Soleil's post. It clearly demonstrates the importance of intellectual honesty and investigation.

One might give Soleil the benefit of doubt that it was an honest mistake, if only this hadn't already happened numerous times in this thread alone.

Soleil weakens his credibility and his argument by his habit of twisting facts and quotes. You'd think by now he'd realize that we're not about to let hlm get away with that.

 

[soleil10]

Let me show you how to do this Solly.
See, you hashed up what Mr. Greer wrote and presented it as your own intellectual product.

China, open your eyes and see that I wrote "From Citizen Link" right under my post before you make a false accusation. I did not make it as fancy as you did but it is right there.

Here is the official letter from the commission that is on National review. I am glad that the U.S. Commission on Civil rights is not drinking the poison from this hate crime law.

The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:

June 16, 2009

The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr., President, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Richard Durbin, Majority Whip, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Jon Kyl, Minority Whip, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Russell Feingold, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

The Honorable Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

Re: S. 909

Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:

We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)

We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.

While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only to “hate crimes,” the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient if he acts “because of” someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider:

*Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually always chosen “because of” their gender.

*A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they are chosen “because of” their gender or disability.

While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not his intention to cover all rape with MSHCPA,some DOJ officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover, both the objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level of a “hate crime” in the minds of ordinary Americans are covered by MSHCPA, then prosecutors will have “two bites at the apple” for a very large number of crimes.

DOJ officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade ago involving an attack on a black man by three white hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however, they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why interfere with their judgment?

We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of MSHCPA and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with your questions or comments.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The redefinition of marriage involves almost every one.
It has consequences on the whole society.

I think the consequences might be desirable. I gather from your argument by implication that you think otherwise and expect us to accept your implicit imagery as realistic.

 

[soleil10]

I think the consequences might be desirable. I gather from your argument by implication that you think otherwise and expect us to accept your implicit imagery as realistic.

My point here is that, redefining marriage has major consequences on everyone's family and it should not be decided by a handful of judges or just politicians especially when they suppress the voice of voters who have the right to a referendum and gather the signatures required.

This country country should not be run like Iran by some Ayatollahs

Netti, I have no illusion that I am the underdog in this section of the forum.

If someone is going to redefine my marriage because they cant even create something of their own, I will certainly do what I can to stop them.

Like Bob says, leave me a lone

 

[Netti-Netti]

My point here is that it has major consequences on everyone's family and it should not be decided by a an handful of judges or just politicians especially want voters have the right to a referendum and gather the signatures required.

This country country should not be run like Iran with a few Ayatollahs

As long as voters get to vote and those votes mean something the imagery of ideological fascism you're conjuring up here will remain strangely out of place.

 

[soleil10]

Thank you Chris for following up on Soleil's post. It clearly demonstrates the importance of intellectual honesty and investigation.
One might give Soleil the benefit of doubt that it was an honest mistake, if only this hadn't already happened numerous times in this thread alone.
Soleil weakens his credibility and his argument by his habit of twisting facts and quotes. You'd think by now he'd realize that we're not about to let hlm get away with that.

What facts and quotes did I twist ?

I already responded to Chris that I wrote the origin of the source at the end of my post.
I hope you will check it for yourself.

The real important fact here is that the U.S. Commission on Civil rights agrees with me that this hate crime bill is not good. They must be liars who are parroting propaganda with murderous thoughts as Bob described me. Or may be I have a point here ?

Now senator Reid is going to sneak it as an amendment to another bill to avoid a debate.

It seems this country is run by Ayatollahs in suits.

If you study what happened with the terror during the French revolution, this bill will end up hurting the people who created it once they are recognized at the perpetrators of hate crimes under this new law.

It is a really bad shortsighted move

 

[soleil10]

As long as voters get to vote and those votes mean something the imagery of ideological fascism you're conjuring up here will remain strangely out of place.

I totally agree with you.

Then why are they denied to vote on this issue in Washington DC, in New Jersey in New York, in New Hampshire and in Connecticut like in Mass and may be in Iowa ?

 

[Netti-Netti]

I totally agree with you.

Then why are they denied to vote on this issue in Washington DC, in New Jersey in New York, in New Hampshire and in Connecticut like in Mass and may be in Iowa ?

How have they been denied an opportunity to vote?