Does anyone else find it ironic that...

[Oreslag]

...the man who is the subject of this article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...women-cant-pay-child-support/?test=latestnews violates no criminal code for having thirty children he cannot support by eleven different women, but would violate criminal code if he married, supported, and led them? Indeed, I find it ridiculous that he's even permitted to petition the court to give him a break on his child support. Examples like this one demonstrate the ineptitude of modern governance.

When I consider the likelihood that taxes collected by the same government are being used to support the eleven mothers as well, thus compelling the rest of us, in effect, to condone behavior we might vehemently oppose as morally repugnant; I'm ashamed to be part of the corrupt governing process (this being a dysfunctional constitutional republic and all). I find it even more foolish that the same society which condones this mess considers it a greater sin for this man's 'civil rights' to be infringed than for him to be incarcerated or become a ward of the state himself. Indeed, were it up to me he would have two choices: (1) incarceration, or (2) state employee doing whatever job he was assigned, like it or not. Unfortunately (2) is not an option, but might serve as a deterrent if the jobs so assigned were sufficiently undesirable and failure to comply resulted in (1) as the alternative.

 

[Andres&Christie]

Couldn't agree more...our civil system here is broken, and cultural norms are just plain WRONG!

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Couldn't agree more...our civil system here is broken, and cultural norms are just plain WRONG!

And yet we constantly seem to have the propaganda shoved down our throats that we must tolerate everyone and everything that is different than us, but when it comes to us and our views, we are told that our way is unacceptable and has no place in our modern ( tolerant ) society...

 

[Isabella]

Couldn't agree more...our civil system here is broken, and cultural norms are just plain WRONG!

And yet we constantly seem to have the propaganda shoved down our throats that we must tolerate everyone and everything that is different than us, but when it comes to us and our views, we are told that our way is unacceptable and has no place in our modern ( tolerant ) society...

Woah wait a sec, you know the people asking you to be tolerant are usually not the same people condemning you!
You may be getting it from both ends but not the same reasons!

B

 

[CecilW]

Woah wait a sec, you know the people asking you to be tolerant are usually not the same people condemning you!
You may be getting it from both ends but not the same reasons!

IMO, Partly true, Bels. Only partly.

Lots of evidence around of the gay community demanding that straights be tolerant of THEIR views, but then turning around and being intolerant towards straights and theirs.

Worse, if it is ok for them to demand that MY kids be taught that homosexuality is ok despite it violating MY moral beliefs and standards, then how could they possibly object to me teaching my own kids what I DO believe. But they do!

 

[Isabella]

Lots of evidence around of the gay community demanding that straights be tolerant of THEIR views, but then turning around and being intolerant towards straights and theirs.

No, you are assuming we are all a homogeneous mass and it is us against them. Well I can assure you that most heterosexuals I personally know do not believe the exact same way as you do on the issue, therefore there is not a straight view, there is just an anti-gay view, which I personally do not have any tolerance for either no more than I have tolerance for racism, sexism anti Semitism or any of disparagement or bigotry against a person based upon who they are.

Worse, if it is ok for them to demand that MY kids be taught that homosexuality is ok despite it violating MY moral beliefs and standards, then how could they possibly object to me teaching my own kids what I DO believe. But they do!

People also feel it is right and good to raise their kids to be Klansmen or little Neo-Nazis, is it bad for people to condemn it? I think society has a moral obligation to stand up to what is just, but people still have the personal right to raise their children with their own values.

At the end of the day, personal beliefs and standards is not enough because individuals can be wrong, like the KKK and we don't all need to be dragged into their moral abyss because it is their 'personal belief and standards' and yes, their children should see the alternative so they do not grow up morally stunted like their parents. Or at least, if they do, they do it with knowledge rather than brainwashed in the ignorance of their parents unchallenged views.

B

 

[Oreslag]

...and this thread seems to be heading in the direction of absolute vs. relative morality; how cool! Unfortunately I'll be on vacation for the next week and won't be able to follow, but I'm hoping for much interesting reading when I return...

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

It is a false analogy to make a direct relation between those who are opposed to homosexuality in our society with those who subscribe to the KKK or Neo-Nazism. While there are those who advocate violence in support of their anti-gay stance, there are those who simply align themselves with the fact that there are Scriptures in the Bible says homosexuality is not okay.
Now we can argue points of departure on that note until the theological cows come home, but that is beside the point. In the USA, where people supposedly have the Freedom of Religion, then they have the constitutionally protected right to say that they believe homosexuality is a sin. Thus, it is not appropriate for there to be censorship of those who take their Scripturally-based view as meaningful enough to have a vocalized opinion regarding this topic in society.
There are those who say that homosexuality is a basic human right. They have the right to vocalize their opinion. There are those who want to destroy the covenant of my people by banning Male Circumcision in the USA, and in the expression of their views they demonize the Jews, but they are afforded the right to vocalize their opinion. I should have the right to mine, to teach my children what I believe the Bible says.

( On that rather personal note about the demonizing of the Jews in the USA... it goes beyond simply saying that circumcision is wrong in the view of those who are vocalizing their opinion. In my opinion, their expression steps into the realm of depicting Jewish people as barbaric "Monsters"... hence the term for the Rabbi "Monster Mohel". If you want to see further, go to www.foreskinman.com )

So, if my people and belief can be legally depicted as such in America, then I have the right to say that I will not vote for Gay Marriage, due to the fact that I believe the Almighty has expressed in His Word that it is an unacceptable behavior, much like Adultery or other such sex sins. This doesn't mean that I advocate dragging homosexuals through the streets of the USA, dousing them in gasoline, setting them alight, and then singing a hymn while dancing around the pyre with a Bible in the one hand and a Crucifix in the other, or anything like that.
It just means I have the right to my opinion, and I am tired of people telling me that I am one of the people that the Freedom of Speech doesn't really apply to.

 

[Isabella]

It is a false analogy to make a direct relation between those who are opposed to homosexuality in our society with those who subscribe to the KKK or Neo-Nazism. While there are those who advocate violence in support of their anti-gay stance, there are those who simply align themselves with the fact that there are Scriptures in the Bible says homosexuality is not okay.

It is not false because I am not talking about action, I was talking about belief.
Not every Nazi or Klansman behaves in a violent way, in fact many rabid racists confine themselves to writing literature and meeting with others who share their views, I would even go as so far to say the majority of racists are law abiding citizens.

Therefore my analogy holds.

I have the right to say that I will not vote for Gay Marriage,

What do you care what the State does? Surely we are all against the idea that the State feels it has the right to validate any relationship. You can't claim persecution regarding Polygamy and tell the State to keep out of your personal life, whilst at the same time entreating the State to interfere in to the personal lives of others just because it goes against your personal beliefs, that is blatant shameful hypocrisy!
What sort of man is so lacking in fairness and integrity?

Nothing else in your post has relevance to what I wrote.
B

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

I have the right to vote if things come up, and can do whatever I like with that vote. Just because I am pro PM doesn't mean I am obligated to not have an opinion against homosexuality. So the state doesn't recognize gay marriage, neither do I, but that hasn't stopped homosexual individuals from having relationships. The state probably will recognize homosexual marriage long before it recognizes polygamy, but that won't change the fact that I support polygamy, and do not support homosexuality. It is my right to align myself with the Bible on both topics, and to express my Biblical view at the voting station as someone who has a valid and legal right to vote according to my views.
Now when I was inducted as a Law Enforcement Officer in AZ, I remember being told that Adultery was actually still on the books as a crime. So, if it ever came up on the agenda to do away with that "archaic" backwards law, and legalize adultery, I would vote against such an idea. Now, one might say, "But adults should have the right to do what they want with those they love..."
Well, people do still commit adultery, or legally divorce their spouse so they can pursue the relationship with the new love interest, or whatever.... Even so, I will never vote for the legalization of adultery, nor will I abstain from such a vote, because I do believe that living more along Biblical lines is good for a society as a whole as well as for family groups and individuals.
As to your analogy, it is still flawed due to the fact that the Bible neither teaches that there is anything inherently sinful about being black, or Jewish, but does speak against homosexuality, much as other sins. I will never vote for the legalization of anything the Bible calls a sin. That is my right. I do not eat pork, but you don't see me holding kkk-ish hate group meetings where we polemically attack bacon-lovers, nor do I sit around spreading hate against those who practice homosexuality, though I do not see any wrong with being able to actually stand by what the Bible says, vote along those lines, teach my children what it says, and vocally express those things. Or is it better to censor those parts of the Bible which society doesn't like, so I can better fit in with 'everyone else'? That ship sailed long ago.
There is a big difference between being hateful about people and standing against what the Bible calls sin in society.
As far as caring about what the state does. I do. I hope that one day the state will recognize Biblical Polygamy legally. This is important. Considering the legal drama the Brown family has faced should make it obvious that what the state recognizes or doesn't recognize has an impact on people's lives. Well, it could be argued that they never should have made themselves public. Okay, so better to live in fear that one of their gazillion kids would accidentally say something to the wrong person that would get them all arrested, split up, etc...
I am not saying that I condemn anyone here for marrying an additional spouse without the official recognition of the state, btw, ( nor am I specifically advocating that anyone do anything that could get them arrested ), but it would be easier if it didn't have the possibility of landing people in hot legal water, no? So, yes, I do care what the state does.

 

[Isabella]

As to your analogy, it is still flawed due to the fact that the Bible neither teaches .

I don't think you understand my point fully, what it says in the Bible is irrelevant since it is still a belief that not everyone shares.
No matter how much you believe it is valid that does not mean everyone need follow the tenets of your beliefs.

B

 

[FollowingHim]

Here's how I approach this general issue Bels, for what it's worth. I consider myself a "morally conservative social libertarian" - a combination of seemingly contradictory terms that works for me!

In other words, as a moral conservative, I have a conservative approach to what is right and wrong, based on scripture. I think it is right to marry, train my children to follow God, and teach Christianity to others / evangelise - and it's wrong to practice homosexuality for instance among other things.

On the other hand, I am a social libertarian, so I don't believe it is the government's job to define any of this. The government has no business saying what you can do in the bedroom, who you can marry, or what you can teach your children. Christianity MUST be free choice, not forced in any way, nor opposed in any way by the government.

So I wouldn't support a law that explicitly allowed homosexual marriage while banning polygamy, because that would involve the government promoting something unGodly, while banning something Godly. It would involve the government redefining marriage, something which is none of their business. I would however support a law removing all government definitions of what marriage means, as that gets the government out of the equation entirely and puts marriage back with the individual. And I am reasonably comfortable with the current situation in most countries, where you can have as many wives as you like, or a homosexual relationship, completely legally, and the government doesn't step in and stop you - it just doesn't let you call it "marriage", but we can put up with that. Plenty of homosexuals already do!

 

[Isabella]

I think that is fine Samuel, I understand your stance.

Thank you for explaining your point.

Bels

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

I don't think you understand my point fully, what it says in the Bible is irrelevant since it is still a belief that not everyone shares.
No matter how much you believe it is valid that does not mean everyone need follow the tenets of your beliefs.

B

Well, that's okay, Bels, I don't think you understand my point fully either, especially since you almost made my point in your last sentence here. My point is that I find it unreasonable that I must be subjected to other people's beliefs, opinions, religions, political stances, etc. while at the same time being expected to be silent about my own. I understand that other people will have other ways of looking at things, and will support those things. Those who believe in abortion will vote for it, those who are against it will vote against it. Those who are for shariah law being considered when dealing with matters involving Muslims in America will vote for it, and others will vote against it. There will always be people with opposing views.
So, basically I am saying that I am tired of so many people in the USA expecting me to be quiet about my opposing opinion. I am tired of them expecting that everyone need follow the tenets of their beliefs.
If you want to compare my saying that I simply try to align myself with the Bible in how I conduct my private and my public life ( which includes how I vote in a governmental system which is supposed to be representative of the people ) with groups like the KKK, and Neo-Nazis, well that's your right, and my point is that I have the right to disagree, and enjoy healthy debate on these topics, much like you and I have been doing right here.