Ray responds to a comment in a previous post about gay marriage, and the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage in that state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Talk back!
We want to know what you think. Your written responses to Ray's audioblog posts are encouraged. Click on the "Comments" tab in the lower-right-hand corner of every post for a chance share your opinion.
About Me
- Ray Richardson
- I live in Westbrook with my wonderful wife Dee Dee and our four children. We have been residents of Maine for a little over 22 years, moving here from Florida in 1985.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(175)
-
▼
October
(32)
- His Own Words
- Against the Grain
- A Spooky Postscript
- Friday on the Morning Show
- Thursday on the Morning Show
- Go Westbrook!
- Heads Up
- Everyone's Invited
- Wednesday on the Morning Show
- Keep the Pressure On
- Tuesday on the Morning Show
- Monday on the Morning Show
- Eye on Casinos
- Taking on the King
- Glorious Sunday Afternoon
- Concrete Proof
- Ray Gets E-Mail
- Are You On the Team or Not?
- Friday on the Morning Show
- Thursday on the Morning Show
- Wednesday on the Morning Show
- Tuesday on the Morning Show
- Monday on the Morning Show
- Today on the Morning Show
- Thoughts on Gay Marriage
- And the Crowd Goes Wild!
- Snowe and Palin Arrive
- Dispatch from Bangor
- Just an Observation
- Let's Stay Focused
- Think Pink
- Calling Shenanigans
-
▼
October
(32)
33 comments:
Than you for your response, Ray. I'm not sure you addressed any of my arguments, but this is a nice summation of the points you made on your show.
Rigby,
I made this post to sort of bring it to its own spot.
In doing that, I felt that I should re-cap my position from the morning show so that anyone reading this would understand the foundation.
I realize for many people, my position on this and other issues are hard to take. I have a rather simple view of many things because they seem very black and white to me, even if not the rest of the world. Also, contrary to the thoughts of many, I spend a considerable amount of time considering the big issues before I actually come down on the issue and have almost all of my life.
My Father taught me at a very young age that if you could not passionately argue both sides of an issue, then you could never fully be certain the conclusion you have arrived at is correct. Basically, he was saying make sure you have considered all the sides of an issue first.
I just thought I would give you an idea of how I get to where I have gone.
Now to your specific issue.
Believe it or not, I do not personally care if a person is gay or straight. In the scope of my day-to-day life, it does not affect me or my family because whether a person is gay or straight has zero impact on how I interact with them.
With that said, from a political or public policy standpoint, it does affect me. I am not a believer in the idea of hate crimes. I have always said that if you get punched in the nose, the blood is just as red and the pain is just as real regardless of your skin color or your sexual orientation.
As an American, I do not want to see any citizen mistreated or treated un-equally under the law. As an American, I am a great believer that we are all equal and should all be afforded the same rights and opportunities. With that said, as an American, I completely agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The problem for me is, I am not just an American. I am also a Christian. Admittedly a very flawed one, but a Christian nonetheless.
In my world, my belief in God trumps all, including my beliefs an American.
I believe that marriage is an institution created by God that allows one man and one woman to join together through his spirit. My committment and my love for my wife takes a back-seat only to my committment and my love for my God.
My marriage is the most important thing in my life and our committment to each other and our four children is the thing we cherish and defend over every thing else.
Let me be very clear. I do not pretend to understand every word of the Bible and exactly what God means. There are things, however, that are very clear to me.
It is very clear to me that God established marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is a faith-based, faith-created institution that government got involved in because it saw a benefit to society and decided to see if it could help foster it and help the family flourish.
You are not going to like what I say next.
You are correct, people join together without the benefit of faith being involved. In my way of thinking, those unions are civil unions, not marriages because marriage finds its foundation in faith.
A decade ago, I would have absolutely said that being gay is a choice. Now my feet are in clay on that issue and if pushed, I would say that being gay is probably genetic, although I am in no way a scientist.
In other words, I think I probably believe that people are born with a tendancy to be gay. Clearly, people are born different in all sorts of ways and a tendancy to be gay might just be one of them.
With all of that said, here is where I stand.
As an American, I do not want to see anyone mistreated or treated as un-equal under our laws, however, as a Christian, I believe that God has very clearly spoken about the sin of homosexuality.
As a Christian, I simply cannot stand for something that God stands against. While I am clearly not perfect, I do not knowingly and willingly go against what I believe God teaches.
------------------
On another note:
I posed this question several months ago in my newspaper column and in my newsletter.
"Can you be a good Christian and a good American?"
It may seem like an odd question, but it is one I still struggle with.
As a good American who believes in equal treatment and equal opportunity, I do believe under our system of laws that civil unions are inferior to marriages legally. I do believe they do not offer equal protection under the law. That is why I agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling.
As a Christian, I believe that homosexual marriage goes against God's teachings.
My faith trumps all and I stand on the side of my faith ... therefore you can see the struggle of my question.
I hope this offers some insight into my thinking.
The truth is, as an American I am probably what is known as a social libertarian who believes in live and let live.
As a Christian, I am absolutely a conservative thinker who sees everything in black and white, right and wrong.
Ray
You are talking about you the people not we.
Luckily an amendment as you proposed would not likely happen.Thank GOD the majority of Americans don't think the way you do.
If people want their union blessed by their church so be it, but that should only be ceremonial and not have any bearing on status or benefits. The union itself should be a legal contract confirmed by the town clerk or a judge not a rev. or other religious cleric
"Ray said ""A decade ago, I would have absolutely said that being gay is a choice. Now my feet are in clay on that issue and if pushed, I would say that being gay is probably genetic, although I am in no way a scientist".
So God creates gays and does not like them. What gives here. Why would God create a man or woman that he does not like?
Is this one of those tests?.
Well YEAH! A ray of hope (no pun intended)! :)I just don't think you truly understand what you said and wrote.
You want to intermix the bible with the constitution?? This country might be a lot of Christian things, but it is NOT a Christian country. I would defend to the death the right of YOUR church NOT to be forced to marry one single Gay couple. On the other hand, I would also defend to the death the right of another church to marry a Gay couple should they so choose. If they do, it has ZERO effect on you and De De. In YOUR opinions, it does not have to be the same thing as your marriage. So what if it is in their's??
If you try and inject Christian beliefs into the constitution, you will fail. The country is headed in the correct and proper direction. The United States of America should have NO second class citizens. When you deny any citizen the same rights as another, by definition, you make them second class.
Blacks are free, blacks can vote, women can vote, Gays can marry. It is all part of a logical evolution of a free country. A hundred years from now, our grandkids will look back and look at the denial of Gay rights and see it as puzzling as the logic of preventing women's vote in the last century is to us.
THINK, as far fetched as this might be, a hundred years from now, Muslems are the majority religion in this country. Would you want them to be able to change the Constitution to reflect their views? I certainly hope not.
The flaw of a free society is: to be truly free, as despicable as they are, the Nazis have to be allowed to march in Skokie. If not, what happens when the day comes that you are not allowed to march for your cause? Who decides and who sets the parameters?
Now that is an interesting comment.
I don't understand what " I " said and " I " wrote.
And you all wonder why people like me do not respect liberal thinking.
Of course I know what I said and what I wrote and what it means. It is your apparent inability to understand the conflict that occurs when you passionately care about many things.
As a human being, I never want to see another treated un-equally, but the call to faith, the belief in something greater than what we are here, is a higher calling.
I am sure I will read here and elsewhere about my glass house, but that's okay.
Believing in something doesn't mean that a flawed human being is capable of actually living it out, day after day. In case you missed it, we humans are not perfect.
With that said, to stand in support of something God has spoken clearly against is foolishness.
Based on what I have read here, it is not inconceivable that in your world thinking the natural order will be totally obliterated in fifty years. Up will be down, right will be wrong.
It is called the culture of the moment and it means that in that world view, there are no foundational principles that cannot be breeched.
Marriage is not a secular institution and it is naive to suggest such utter non-sense.
Marriage is a faith-based institution that the government has attempted to take-over to satisfy its own selfish interest.
Just because society decides it wants to attempt to change its ideas over time, it does not mean those changes are correct.
I love how the liberals always and I do mean always attempt to equate homosexuals with the oppression American Blacks have endured. It's a joke, but because most of the people who beleve the ideas that I do are silent and afraid to espouse their beliefs, the line of thinking is perpetuated.
Linking the hardships that American Blacks endured to what American Gays have endured means only one thing. Those espousing such ideas have no understanding of history and are simply cause driven regardless of truth.
Gay marriage does not exist and cannot exist. Oh, whimpering politicians who care only about pandering for votes whether giving out government programs or attempting to redefine an institution they have no power over may pass laws, but those laws do not effect the truth.
YOu cannot have a marriage that does not find its foundation in God.
Anything else is merely a contractual agreement sanctioned by the government.
I am sure you all will disagree, however, truth does not need popularity to exist. It simply is.
Next, I am sure you will tell me that the current movement underway to lower the age of consent to 12 and remove legal restriction of adult-child contact will be the norm in 50 years and somehow that will be a positive societal evolution.
By the way, being popular doesn't make it right, it just means its popular.
Russell,
This is not a truly free society. If it were, one's actions would not be restricted.
It is inconsistent to suggest that we allow the Nazi's to march in Illinois and yet force someone to wear a seltbelt under threat of fine in a truly free society.
America is not a truly free society. It is simply the free-est society in comparison to other nations.
Last first, Ted and I, and possibly you, are in 100% agreement on the seatbelt issue. Totally bogus, the state has no dog in that fight EXCEPT: If someone has MaineCare or Dirigo, I think one should be held accountable for actions that contribute to added medical expenses. Helmets, seatbelts, smoking, illegal drugs, irresponsible behavior all should be on the table. If my healthcare pays for my bills directly related to an incident, the state has no interest.
To compare wearing a seatbelt to marching is absurd and has no relevance. Marching is free speech. Seatbelts have nothing to do with free speech. I can still tell the cop to get a life for writing the ticket! :)
Here's the problem: You would like to change the Constitution to reflect your religious views in 2008. By that logic, your hero Mitt Romney's crowd should have changed the Constitution in the 1850's so they all could be Polygamists. Old men marry numerous 12~13 year olds and have a slew of kids with them. (Thanks for mentioning that!) Their rationalization is the same as yours. They feel adequate authority from God as written in the bible.
We didn't have a Constitution in 1692, but in Salem Mass the authorities executed 19 people accused of Witchcraft. The witches were cavorting with the devil and doing his work according to them. The authorities were justified by God and the Bible to hang them. Worry not, I saw a video clip of Sarah P having the Devil and Witchcraft removed from her body. So regretfully and pathetically, it still has some relevance today.
The point is that in the above examples the people of their time felt they were doing the right thing according to God and the Bible, SAME as you today. Time has proved them wrong and time will prove you wrong.
Thankfully, your radical right wing religious views are in the minority in the US and most of the followers are still down South where I don't have to deal with them unless by my choice.
You may be right Russell.
Obviously, wanting to preserve an institution that is sacred and honorable and pre-dates this nation is clearly a radical idea that only people who live in the fringe would appreciate.
Redefining it because the culture of the moment is seeking acceptance is obviously the right path.
You guys keep refering to slavery. I find it amusing.
Slavery is and always has been wrong, regardless of its form, whether the Jews in Egypt or the Blacks in America's South.
There is no definition under which slavery is acceptable.
There is no possible way to justify its existence or redefine the word to have a different meaning.
The equation that is attempted is an insult to Blacks in America who suffered under slave conditions. It does, however, show the desparation at which the homosexual political crowd (different from everyday homosexuals who simply want to live their lives like every other American) will stoop to seek sympathy and impose guilt on those who have guilt in their hearts over how they may have treated gay people in the past.
For some reason, you can seem to understand that marriage is not a government institution. Government did not create marriage.
Government jumped on the bandwagon because government felt it could help stregnthen communities by supporting marriage.
Let's get real here.
The gay agenda crowd (those who claim to speak for gays politically) say that only same-sex marriage will bring about equality.
This is a patently un-true statement, but it certainly plays on ignorance.
The gay agenda crowd seeks for the government to sanction same-sex marriage because in their minds it legitimizes their identities.
One, if you need someone else to legitimize your existence then you will never be legitimate in your own mind. Such a concept cannot come from another, only from one's self.
Two, all the gay agenda crowd needs to do is push the government to create a new concept that allows any two people to form a contractual arrangement that binds them and then affords them all the legal, ethical and tax advantages that marriage does.
The problem with that idea is, it doesn't allow same-sex couples the opportunity to attempt to further undermine religious tradition. By undermining religious tradition, they can eventually obliterate all social-decency lines.
I have absolutely no issue with the government creating a contractual arrangement that allows any two people, brother, sisters, mother-daughter, two friends, a male and a female, two males, two females and so on having an agreement that binds them legally and provides them with legal protection and tax benefits.
The Delaney sisters of Harlem are a good example. They lived to be over 100 years old each and lived most of it together. They should have been afforded all legal protections and tax benefits as two people legally bound to each other.
I think you are wrong about marriage. People in America put up with a lot of stuff we do not agree with.
I do not think that the majority of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage and their is no evidence to prove otherwise.
What that means is this. When the time comes, those Americans will finally stand up for what is right. They will only be pushed just so far.
By the way, long term, the only way to prevent SCOTUS from recognizing same-sex marriage is to amend the Consttution.
Without that change, SCOTUS will eventually find that civil unions, as they are currently constructed without the above changes I suggested, are un-equal under the law.
The seatbelt law is a good example of how we do not live in a free society.
I don't see how you cannot understand that.
Ray said"Next, I am sure you will tell me that the current movement underway to lower the age of consent to 12 and remove legal restriction of adult-child contact will be the norm in 50 years and somehow that will be a positive societal evolution" Once again you go for the absurd.
Ray it's your group that is usually in favor of letting ( if not forcing) that 13 year old pregnant girl marry the father of her child. That makes everything ok in your world
So Ray again, Did God create Gays so they could be shunned?
Since you believe that they may be born gay now.
Remember you said "A decade ago, I would have absolutely said that being gay is a choice. Now my feet are in clay on that issue and if pushed, I would say that being gay is probably genetic, although I am in no way a scientist".
So ray
You said being gay might be genetic.
Please tell us more and why God who is infallible,would create gays. I have not found justification in any church groups platforms for God creating gays
I tried to find where I wrote it because I wanted to make sure that I had written exactly what I meant. As I could not due to time constraints, I will simply lay my position out.
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that people are born with a tendancy to be gay. That does not mean they are gay, but could develop as such.
Look, being gay is not the norm. The norm is straight and what I mean by that is the norm is that an overwhelming majority are straight.
A small percentage are gay, depending on who you believe anywhere from 3 to 10 per cent of our population. Clearly that would not put "being gay" in the norm.
There are many things that occur in nature that are out of the norm, so it would or does not surprise me that one can be born with a gay tendancy.
With that said, I never said God hated gays, nor do I believe such utter non-sense.
God hates sin. Sin is defined as a transgression against God in my personal belief system.
I believe God views all sin as equal.
I do not believe God hates homosexuals, but I do believe homosexual actvity is sinful.
I do not believe God hates me, but I do believe being fat is sinful.
The activity is the sin, not the person.
I personally believe that any homosexual, just like any heterosexual who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal savior goes to heaven and anyone, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, who rejects Jesus does not.
What the "Church" believes and what I believe are very often at odds.
I do not speak for the "Church" and the "Church" does not speak for me.
I will be happy to address this stuff as far as you want to go, but it is from my personal faith perspective, not what the Church says. I cannot nor do I want to speak for the Church.
Ray said"I tried to find where I wrote it because I wanted to make sure that I had written exactly what I meant. As I could not due to time constraints, I will simply lay my position out". Nice try Ray
Here it is Ray
Very hard to find as it was in this same stream up the page a little
You said
"A decade ago, I would have absolutely said that being gay is a choice. Now my feet are in clay on that issue and if pushed, I would say that being gay is probably genetic, although I am in no way a scientist". That is a little different than what you now are saying
"have pretty much come to the conclusion that people are born with a tendancy to be gay. That does not mean they are gay, but could develop as such".
Why would God give someone a gene that would make them gay?
If God created someone gay then having gay sex would not be a sin.
because God made you that way.
Are you changing your previous statement?
So Muslims are not going to heaven?
You betcha !
You are fun Bruce.
Some of us are not actually married to a computer. I scanned this thread and two others, did not see it (my mistake) and gave up.
My position on the gay isssue is clear and well-known. I have not changed it other than suspecting that one may be born with the tendancy.
As I said earlier, I believe being fat is a sin. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't they discovered that being fat is genetic in some way. Again, not a scientist, so I am not sure.
You act like there has never been a person who claims to be gay that has not played it both ways. Come on, at least play along here.
I am not gay. I do not know how it works. I do not know if a gay person only looks at other members of the same sex or can find an attraction in the opposite sex.
We do know there are people who play for both teams, so maybe the line is not clear. Again, not being gay, I do not know.
I do, however, know this. I trust the Bible. I know what I believe the Bible says.
On this issue, it is very clear to me.
By the way, I am not the one imposing my values on others. The system was set-up long before I came on this earth.
It is those who are seeking to change the status quo who are imposing their values on others.
I am certain you will not see it that way, but the fact is, an action must be under-taken for a change to occur. Those seeking the change are the ones imposing their values.
Yes, I will defend this important and sacred insitution to the extent that I can.
I have no interest in being so obtuse about issues that I cannot understand the damage this never-ceasing march the liberals are on to being average and anything goes.
By the way, let me ask you a question that I am certain you will not give a straight answer to.
This is in response to an earlier comment by you.
If I believe that there is life at conception and that this life is an innocent, un-born child, how could you expect me to sit idly by while others would end that innocent child's life?
To further answer you other statement.
I believe very strongly that Jesus Christ died on the cross for ALL of mankind.
I believe he has offered an invitation for any and all to accept. He does not force you to take it, he only asks that you accept this gift of eternal life through him.
Some accept it. Some reject it.
God Almighty gave us free will and with free will comes the ability to do as we wish, including rejecting this invitation.
I believe those who reject Jesus will not enter heaven.
It is not about being Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or whatever. It is about a simple belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the path to salvation.
"born with the tendancy"
Not what you said before. You said it maybe genetic. Genetics are God's work right (right now anyway)
Are you running for public office?
I am on the pc here at work 8-5
After the election you won't hear from me as much.. i feel it is important not to let your statements go unrebutted .
The answer is I would not expect you to sit idly by. I know you are operating within your beliefs.
But this is America
I do not object to your right to push your views. i just want to rebut them
Since I do not believe that life begins at conception, How can you expect me to sit idly by while people try to take away a women's right to make the choice on bringing a fetus to term?
Tendancy is what I meant although I may not have stated it clearly. Again, I am not a scientist, but I have spoken to a number of gay people about this issue, when they knew or at least felt they knew.
Can you have a genetic tendancy? Some say there is a gene that predisposes someone toward alcholism.
I know this is not a popular opinon. I had this very discussion on As Maine Goes and I have stated it in speeches during the Q & A portion when people have asked.
Also, it came up a couple of years ago on the show after I had spoken somewhere as an attendee wanted to ask a question but did not want to do it in person.
I hope you did not take my "live on a computer" as a negative.
I rather like the fact that you challenge me on the issues.
While my answers may not satisfy you, how could they as we differ on our world view, I like the discussion, even when it is sometimes over-the-top.
The truth is, were it not for my faith, I would not care about a lot of these ideas.
It is my faith that tells life begins at conception.
It is my faith that tells me that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
By the way, I have always said that although I disagree, if one does not believe life begins at conception, then intellectually, I can understand why they believe abortion is okay.
OK we have that settled
I believe Powell laid out a very compelling list of reasons why we should also vote for Obama.
As I stated weeks ago
I was a Hillary guy before, but the more I listen to Obama the more I just darn like him. He is the guy I would like to have a glass of wine with.
It is my faith in the worth of my fellow living human beings that drives me. I don't have to have a higher power guiding me.
Although I have health insurance, I want others to have it also
Although I do not have kids, i want other peoples kids to get opportunities for public education.
I guess Ray, I get confused about marriage because the STATE issues the marriage licenses. And you want to prevent the STATE from issuing those licenses to same sex couples. So, what the STATE calls it or what the STATE'S parameters are have nothing to do with true marriage? A heterosexual couple with a marriage license that goes to a JP in Vegas is NOT married. Only if they go to a church before God do you consider them married.
So a gay couple in California gets a marriage license and goes to a JP, they are not married - NO distinction. However if they go to a church that recognizes gay marriage and get married before THAT CHURCHES God, according to you they are not married. SO, if YOUR type of Christian church will not marry the gay couple, then what is the objection to having them get a marriage license? It doesn't matter, they can't get married! NO? Why do YOU, or others who think like you, have to be the one(s) who consider them married or not and why should it matter???
As recently as mid point in the last century, I remember it being a huge sin if anyone ate meat on Fridays. Do you want to know how many of my friends are lining the gates of Hell right now waiting for me because they snuck out to White Tower for a burger on Friday? In Roman days there were a lot of Lions around with bellies full of Christians who had FAITH God would save them.
Abortion and human rights are a lot more relevant today, but you really should think about putting the Bible more in the context of the reality of the 21st Century. Not one person in the Bible, including Jesus could go on the show "Are you as smart as a fifth grader" and equal the kids of today's knowledge of the Sun, Earth, Moon, Planets, Stars and solar system. A person who could, Einstein, said of the Biblical stories, they are "childish fantasy". You and others are willing to try and ruin OTHER people's lives over ideals you have "faith" in but do not "know" for sure are true. PLEASE believe what you want, it is YOUR right! Where you overstep your bounds is when you try and impose those beliefs on others.
Russell,
With all due respect, this is not hard to understand.
First, current law prevents same-sex couples from marrying. I did not establish the law, I simply support it.
Second, marriage pre-dates America. You don't believe America invented the concept of marriage, do you? If so, it did not.
Third, America's government jumped in and attempted to support the concept of traditional marriage because traditional marriage is good for our society. That is why the government conveyed tax benefits and legal protections to married couples.
Fourth, marriage is a religious institution created by God between one man, one woman and God with him as the foundation of that union.
Just because our government decided to get involved and from a secular standpoint, attempt to provide incentives to help make the concept of marriage stronger does not mean that the government gets to decide what constitutes marriage.
You are, apparently from your writings here, a big government solutions person, therefore I can see how you would bow to the government on the issues.
I choose to tolerate my government until such time as I die or I can rally enough people to change it.
I suspect, in this world of government hand-outs which simply buys votes, I will die before the change occurs.
With that said, I will not give up trying.
In a direct answer to your question, which I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on, marriage is not a government created institution.
The government does not get to re-define marriage simply because some in society are gaining political clout and therefore want to impose their values on others.
Keep in mind, when you change the status quo, it is those seeking the change who are imposing their values on others.
Marriage cannot take place unless one man, one woman and God are present.
All other such unions are civil contracts created by government that bind entities together legally.
I am not sure why that is so hard to understand.
"Ray clarified "All other such unions are civil contracts created by government that bind entities together legally.
I am not sure why that is so hard to understand."
That is fine let marriage be a religious term and civil union be the govt term for a legal contract betweeen two people
We just have to make sure that "marriage" does not carry any rights that civil unions do not.
Maybe if we took a less emotional look at the marriage contract, divorces would be a lot less messy.
No one should ever enter any contract without an opt out agreement.
Whatever someone's chuch stance on marriage and divorce should have no bearing on the legal side of the contract.
As we know there are hundreds of different religious sects and al of them have their own nuanced views on holy matrimony. Priests or pastors, mullars etc. should not be allowed to issue legal contracts ( civil unions etc ) Only govt officials. The religious leaders can do the mariage if their clients want it after the legal union.
As for status quo changing. You are right it is someone imposing their values on the status quo.
That is called societal change and it happens.
Otherwise women would not be able to vote now in America. Do you want to go back there Ray.
As I recall ( please correct me if I am wrong) the UC of C was in favor of and actually pushed for the equal rights amendment.
I think the A of G was against it.
I personally would have never support slavery nor would I have ever supported separate but equal policies.
I would have supported women's right to vote.
I believe every American citizen 18 and older should have the right to vote.
I believe every American citizen 18 and older should be able to drink legally, gamble and enjoy all the rights and privileges of being a legal adult in America.
I do not support abortion.
I do not believe the concept of same-sex marriage exists.
I am not personally against gambling, enjoy playing poker, would probably to go Oxford if it is built, but I am completely against the idea of a business having to pay a premium simply to exist in this state.
You see, people can have a variety of ideas on a variety of issues.
Like any person, I support the ideas and laws I agree with and I oppose and seek to overturn the laws and ideas I disagree with.
Societal change and societal progress are not necessarily the same thing.
Separate but equal was clearly societal change, but it was definitely not societal progress, as an example.
I assume the UC of C is the United Church of Christ. I cannot figure out who the A of G is.
Everyone has their own idea of what cconstitutes progress.
A of G I think is Assembly of God
What I find most fascinating about religion is the number of variations there are out there. Especially in the christian community.
And everyone is the right one according to the believer.
You said " personally would have never support slavery nor would I have ever supported separate but equal policies."
But you can't say how what you would have believed in 1860 if your church had been one of the ones that supported the concept of slavery.( had it been around then)We are the products of our environment in most cases.
The group that supported seperate but equal thought it was progress and they thought vehemently that it was the right solution.
People can be very passionate and wrong at the same time.
On another subject Oct 29 we get the travelling circus fedupwithtaxes yes or no show.
I emailed the website and asked how much money the beverage industryhas put into this campaign Since they mention how much the guy fromConn put in
Do you think I will get an answer?
Should be a fun night.
So were you in favor of the failed equal rights amendment?
I did not support the ERA amendment.
My Church, UC of C supports many ideas that I disagree with. Same-sex marriage is just one area we disagree on.
My faith is very personal, meaning what I believe. It does not sit well with many denominations. It is my own personal belief and interaction with God based on what I believe he has revealed to me.
In other words, while I have great respect for churches and the work they do in the communities, I do not follow church teachings necessarily in my personal beliefs.
I say not necessarily because their beliefs seem to ebb and flow with the collection plate and good, ole stubborn me, mine do not change.
I believe the Repeal Boys have collected a little over two million dollars to veto the tax.
Ray said
"It is my faith that tells life begins at conception."
So Ray are you in favor of the Colorado Amendment 48?
Not familar with it, do tell.
Ray it is an amendment that will define a fertilized egg as a person. it has been making the news lately. Google it and tell me what you think.
I figured you would have heard about it
Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person"
2 to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those
3 provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice,
4 and due process of law.
5
What do you think?
I guess if that passes , all preganant women would be required to not engage in any activity that would harm that "person" inside them
From what i understand it does not have a big chance of passing.
Post a Comment