Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 6 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 39 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Yet another "evangelical Christian" caught in sexual affair
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 12:54PM #51
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

The Internal Psychological Dynamic ( Personality ) Aspect does seem to form one's "Character," which is NEVER simply only a "private" Matter between Consenting Adults ...


May 19, 2010 -- 11:29AM, Wendyness wrote:


Narcissism and cheating go hand in hand.  I believe many of our politicians are narcissistic and/or egocentric.  There have been studies recently done out of Stanford University on how power changes the brain (and not for the better).  Many evangelists enjoy their power.





Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 1:17PM #52
appy20
Posts: 10,165

If Evangelicals would live their values instead of preaching it, then the world would be a better place.  If you are going to preach it and preach it shrilly, yes, it is worse when you get caught doing it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 1:19PM #53
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

"You "fail to see" a lot of things. Perhaps you should get new glasses..."


Oh, I see things just fine, thanks very much. I don't really have a vested in either side of the argument -- but I'm getting weary of the hyperbole coming from both sides.


What you need to come to terms with is that disagreeing with you does not equal "bigotry." And frankly, I don't care a tinker's damn about the personal lives of those you are so desperate to make out as "bigots," any more than I care about the personal lives of gays.


Also, in a moral, philosphical sense, marriage is not, was not and never will be a "right." It is a privledge, duty and honor that society has always drawn lines of exclusion around. "They get it, so we should get it too" is not, was not and never will be a sound argument in that regard.


Under civil, secular law, it can and has been argued that there's room in under the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The courts are sure to rule in favor of it. And, if people at that point want to screech "activist judges..." well, let them screech. It's a free country, but that doesn't mean me, you or anybody has to care about them screeching.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 1:24PM #54
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 19, 2010 -- 12:45PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:24AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I really could not have cared less about his blow job and cigar adventures with Monica Lewisnski, any more than I would have cared about JFK banging Marilyn Monroe, had I been alive at that time.






Ahhh, but would Souder have 'cared' about JFK's banging? Would Rekers have 'cared'? Would 'Reverend' Haggard have 'cared'? Would 'Wide Stance' have 'cared'? These are the moralizing hypocrites that made/make/promote the anti-gay laws, not you.





I don't care a damn whether they do/would have cared. Why should I? Why should you? Why is it even relevant?


Yes, some people on the "anti" side of the gay marriage debate have done stupid things and gotten swept up in scandal. So what? Like I said to another poster already, as much as it might chap your hide, I'm sure plenty of people in that camp are not hypocrites, and live good lives with good marriages. What you gonna do about that? Pick on the way they park their cars?


There are also some gays who live out some negative stereotypes of the gay community. Again, my reaction is, so what? Why should I care? The fact is, I don't. I'm interested in facts and agruments... not personalities, personal failings and personal attacks.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 1:32PM #55
appy20
Posts: 10,165

May 19, 2010 -- 1:21PM, Ken wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 1:17PM, appy20 wrote:


If Evangelicals would live their values instead of preaching it, then the world would be a better place. 



I doubt it. Some of their values are pretty awful.




 LOL  Well, if they kept them to themselves, most of their values would be harmless and a few would be a good thing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 2:59PM #56
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

May 19, 2010 -- 12:47PM, TemplarS wrote:


This whole business of relating an individual's personal sins to his/her public position on a given issue strikes me as a bit ridiculous.  It only occurs in this case because of the wide disagreement over the public position in question (i.e., gay marriage).


To see how ridiculous, consider how this would play out in the case of a non-controversial issue such as child porn. Which would be worse: a legistator who supports decriminalizing possession of child porn, and who then gets arrested for posessing it; or one who opposes decriminalizing possession of child porn, and then gets arrested for the same offense?  Maybe the second guy is more "hypocritical" than the first, but that doesn't make him any less of a scumbag; maybe, in fact, he's more of a scumbag.




I would still see the second guy as a hypocrite.  If you know where someone stands (someone you are electing and can theoretically elect out of office) you can do something about it.  


These guys aren't there because their fathers died and left them their seats; they're there because the majority of their constituents agree with their public positions.  A legislator who says, "You know, child pornography isn't really hurting kids because it really is 18 year olds or older who are recruited, they're just put in kiddie pyjamas, and to make it illegal is a violation of the first amendment," or whatever has made a statement that he is willing to stand behind.  You can decide for yourself as a voter whether you are willing to tolerate that position representing you in Congress.  However, if someone flat out lies about his position, you can't be an informed voter.  You are being misled about their position.


In the case of gay marriage, I absolutely disagree with mytmouse that a certain, otherwise stable  segment of the population isn't entitled to equal protection under family law.  It isn't gay marriage that is causing the demise of heterosexual marriage, it is good old fashioned heterosexual divorce, caused by situations like Souder's infidelity, Ashcroft's closet life, Spitzer's call girl use (while prosecuting prostitutes and pimps in record numbers) and every other moral failing of the species.  

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 3:05PM #57
Do_unto_others
Posts: 11,942

May 19, 2010 -- 1:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


"You "fail to see" a lot of things. Perhaps you should get new glasses..."


Oh, I see things just fine, thanks very much.



 


Apparently not. The rest of what you subsequently typed proves otherwise ...


May 19, 2010 -- 1:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I don't really have a vested in either side of the argument -- but I'm getting weary of the hyperbole coming from both sides.


What you need to come to terms with is that disagreeing with you does not equal "bigotry."



 


And no one has ever said that it did. What DOES constitute bigotry is comparing loving, committed, adult, human, same-sex relationships to incest, necrophilia, beastiality, child-molestation, rape - you know, all the things your side is so fond of comparing gay people and their lives to. What also constitutes bigotry is promoting unjust laws that treat the GLBT segment of the population as 2nd class citizens, not quite worthy of equal treatment under the law. Bigotry induces people to refer to gay people as abnormal and disordered.


Et cetera.


May 19, 2010 -- 1:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Also, in a moral, philosphical sense, marriage is not, was not and never will be a "right."



That's another thing you seem to have missed in my response, which makes me ever surer that you either DO need new glassses or you are very selective in what you type about. I encourage you to actually read what I typed - I agree that it is not a right. Trouble is, it is also not a right for heterosexuals. I speak of freedoms, liberties, not rights.


May 19, 2010 -- 1:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 It is a privledge, duty and honor that society has always drawn lines of exclusion around.



I also addressed that, too. Get your eyes checked, wouldja?


May 19, 2010 -- 1:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

"They get it, so we should get it too" is not, was not and never will be a sound argument in that regard.



Oh, so you don't believe in either the Full Faith & Credit Clause OR the Equal Protections Clause of the U.S. Constitution? That's just crazy talk, imo.


LIke I said before, DO BETTER.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 3:12PM #58
Do_unto_others
Posts: 11,942

May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 12:45PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:24AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I really could not have cared less about his blow job and cigar adventures with Monica Lewisnski, any more than I would have cared about JFK banging Marilyn Monroe, had I been alive at that time.






Ahhh, but would Souder have 'cared' about JFK's banging? Would Rekers have 'cared'? Would 'Reverend' Haggard have 'cared'? Would 'Wide Stance' have 'cared'? These are the moralizing hypocrites that made/make/promote the anti-gay laws, not you.





I don't care a damn whether they do/would have cared. Why should I? Why should you? Why is it even relevant?



Because those are the people directly influencinng lawmakers with their lies about gay people, that's why. Thanx 4 askin'.


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Yes, some people on the "anti" side of the gay marriage debate have done stupid things and gotten swept up in scandal. So what?



 


Because it is their lying, hypocritical voices that influence lawmakers to pass unjust, UN-Constitutional, discriminatory laws, that's 'so what'. Again, thanks for asking.


 


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 Like I said to another poster already, as much as it might chap your hide, I'm sure plenty of people in that camp are not hypocrites, and live good lives with good marriages.



 


Of course, those aren't the people with whom we have the issues, are they?


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There are also some gays who live out some negative stereotypes of the gay community. Again, my reaction is, so what? Why should I care?



If they aren't promoting unjust laws that discriminate against you, you shouldn't care. (Geez you make this so easy.)


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The fact is, I don't. I'm interested in facts and agruments... not personalities, personal failings and personal attacks.



 


Oh right, the "abnormal" (or was it "aberrant"? or "disordered"?) 'debate' - that wasn't a personal attack - just an attack on queers in general.


 


You are so full of bullshit your eyes must be brown.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 11:56AM #59
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

"Character" -- or LACK of it -- on Part of our Social & Political Leaders has Real-World practical CONSEQUENCES ...


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 12:45PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:24AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I really could not have cared less about his blow job and cigar adventures with Monica Lewisnski, any more than I would have cared about JFK banging Marilyn Monroe, had I been alive at that time.






Ahhh, but would Souder have 'cared' about JFK's banging? Would Rekers have 'cared'? Would 'Reverend' Haggard have 'cared'? Would 'Wide Stance' have 'cared'? These are the moralizing hypocrites that made/make/promote the anti-gay laws, not you.





I don't care a damn whether they do/would have cared. Why should I? Why should you? Why is it even relevant?


Yes, some people on the "anti" side of the gay marriage debate have done stupid things and gotten swept up in scandal. So what? Like I said to another poster already, as much as it might chap your hide, I'm sure plenty of people in that camp are not hypocrites, and live good lives with good marriages. What you gonna do about that? Pick on the way they park their cars?


There are also some gays who live out some negative stereotypes of the gay community. Again, my reaction is, so what? Why should I care? The fact is, I don't. I'm interested in facts and agruments... not personalities, personal failings and personal attacks.





Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 12:11PM #60
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 19, 2010 -- 3:12PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 12:45PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:24AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I really could not have cared less about his blow job and cigar adventures with Monica Lewisnski, any more than I would have cared about JFK banging Marilyn Monroe, had I been alive at that time.






Ahhh, but would Souder have 'cared' about JFK's banging? Would Rekers have 'cared'? Would 'Reverend' Haggard have 'cared'? Would 'Wide Stance' have 'cared'? These are the moralizing hypocrites that made/make/promote the anti-gay laws, not you.





I don't care a damn whether they do/would have cared. Why should I? Why should you? Why is it even relevant?



Because those are the people directly influencinng lawmakers with their lies about gay people, that's why. Thanx 4 askin'.


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Yes, some people on the "anti" side of the gay marriage debate have done stupid things and gotten swept up in scandal. So what?



 


Because it is their lying, hypocritical voices that influence lawmakers to pass unjust, UN-Constitutional, discriminatory laws, that's 'so what'. Again, thanks for asking.


 


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 Like I said to another poster already, as much as it might chap your hide, I'm sure plenty of people in that camp are not hypocrites, and live good lives with good marriages.



 


Of course, those aren't the people with whom we have the issues, are they?


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There are also some gays who live out some negative stereotypes of the gay community. Again, my reaction is, so what? Why should I care?



If they aren't promoting unjust laws that discriminate against you, you shouldn't care. (Geez you make this so easy.)


May 19, 2010 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The fact is, I don't. I'm interested in facts and agruments... not personalities, personal failings and personal attacks.



 


Oh right, the "abnormal" (or was it "aberrant"? or "disordered"?) 'debate' - that wasn't a personal attack - just an attack on queers in general.


 


You are so full of bullshit your eyes must be brown.





Obviously, you just like being pissed off and seeing yourself as a victim. Fine, whatever. I don't care, my concience is completely clear on this matter. I've never "attacked" anybody.  And once again (gawd, I get tired of having to repeat this) if you think having a disorder makes a person, as a whole being, disordered, less than or a lesser human and worthy only of contempt, revulsion or patronizing pity, then that is your problem, not mine. I don't harbor such bigotry against people with disorders.


Sooner or later, we will have gay marriage in this country, and most people will get used to it. I'm already quite comfortable with the idea, and it hasn't even happened yet.


Some people are not comfortable with it. Some have very good reasons for not being comfortable with it. Again, I think they are barking up the wrong tree, failing to see the difference between morality and secular law... but again, they can think what they want, just as you can.


Some people have over-reacted to the whole thing and, as you've said, tried to compare gay marriage to sex with animals or whatever else. But, just like gays who display negative sterotypes, they are the minority and do not represent the core of the agurments being presented.


And those people are not on "my side." I don't have a side in all of this. There are points being made by the reasonable voices on either side that I can agree with. And there is hysteria from both sides I don't agree with.


But, again, bottom line is, the courts will rule in favor of gay marriage and it will become a reality.


Meanwhile, maybe you should switch to decaf. Laughing

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 39 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook