Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Why liberal elites promote gay marriage

  1. #11
    tWebber kiwimac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Canterbury, New Zealand
    Faith
    Priest
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    178
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Paprika View Post
    The light that shineth into the darkness.
    Oh no! Jesus dealt far more gently with people (other than the religious conservatives of his day, them he excoriated.)
    "Obama is not a brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You are thinking of Jesus." Episcopal Bishop of Arizona

    I remember WinAce. Gone but not forgotten.

  2. Amen Starlight amen'd this post.
  3. #12
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,528
    Amen (Given)
    18392
    Amen (Received)
    3556
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimac View Post
    Oh no! Jesus dealt far more gently with people (other than the religious conservatives of his day, them he excoriated.)

    You mean like when He called Peter "Satan"? That was far more gentle than "whitewashed tombs", right?

    ETA: Not defending Epo or Parika, but this seems to be very wrong in the description of how Jesus dealt with people. He was harsh with anyone who was against the truth, even those in His own in group.
    Last edited by Cerebrum123; 01-31-2015 at 04:06 PM.

  4. #13
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,946
    Amen (Given)
    1710
    Amen (Received)
    2623
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimac View Post
    Oh no! Jesus dealt far more gently with people (other than the religious conservatives of his day, them he excoriated.)
    Actually the pharisees had replaced the teachings of God (the old) with the "traditions of men" (the new) so it would be more accurate to call them the ruling liberal elites of His day.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  5. Amen Mountain Man amen'd this post.
  6. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Xtian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,165
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimac View Post
    Oh no! Jesus dealt far more gently with people
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus
    And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown."
    Because condemning your own townspeople as unfaithful Jews was 'gentle'.

    (other than the religious conservatives of his day, them he excoriated.)
    Jesus was the true religious conservative, the one who aligned himself perfectly with God's Scripture and Will; the rest are liberals to varying extents.
    Last edited by Paprika; 01-31-2015 at 08:42 PM.

  7. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    disgusted
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,308
    Amen (Given)
    716
    Amen (Received)
    863
    Pharisees were liberals? Tell Seer.

  8. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Xtian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,165
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    582
    Exhibits #1521, #1522 and #1523 of what happens when pman has nothing of substance to say, but can't keep his mouth shut:

    Quote Originally Posted by pancreasman View Post
    Luckily, I don't have to post anything here to refute the OP.
    Quote Originally Posted by pancreasman View Post
    Drone, drone.
    Quote Originally Posted by pancreasman View Post
    Pharisees were liberals? Tell Seer.

  9. Amen Mountain Man amen'd this post.
  10. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    disgusted
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,308
    Amen (Given)
    716
    Amen (Received)
    863
    Nothing substantive. gigo

  11. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Xtian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,165
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by pancreasman View Post
    Nothing substantive. gigo
    This time you have surpassed yourself.

  12. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    disgusted
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,308
    Amen (Given)
    716
    Amen (Received)
    863
    Thank you.

  13. #20
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,752
    Amen (Given)
    2715
    Amen (Received)
    1650
    To answer the OP, not that it deserves it:

    Yes, of course equality is good: In general, it's great for people to have more freedom and for there to be less oppression. It's great to "set the oppressed free" as Jesus put it. I value freedom and I value freedom for others. I think people dominating others and taking away the freedom of others is immoral and evil. So I oppose slavery, and I oppose the subjugation of black people, and I oppose the subjugation of women. A society in which there is freedom for all, where every individual has freedom and none is oppressed by any other, is a better society than one that involves subjugation, oppression, and severe restrictions on freedoms of choice.

    Historically, in many cultures, women were property to be bought and sold by men. Usually uneducated and illiterate, they had little to no freedom in their lives, and were expected to do as men told them. By giving freedom to women, 50% of our population, we have doubled the amount of freedom in our society, and that is a good thing.

    There are, of course, some small-minded men who resent this and crave power over others and the ability to dominate others. They feel that "might makes right" and that just because women are physically weaker, that this should mean that the man is morally right to oppress, dominate, and restrict the freedom of the weaker party. Such men strike me as no better than animals, not rising above very base desires to seize power over others and dominate them. They apparently lack any sense of moral compass or concern for the well-being of others.

    Physical differences in strength shouldn't, of course, be particularly relevant in loving relationships. If you are physically assaulting each other, or using physical force to control the other person's actions, something is going very, very, wrong in your relationship! However, straight relationships do sometimes slip into a pattern of male dominance where the woman agrees to the man's every wish and the man never lets the woman have her way. The historical origins of this culture of behavior probably do lie in the underlying physical strength differences. So in straight relationships it can be necessary for the couple to make a conscious effort from time to time to make sure they are maintaining equality and ensure that the woman's freedom is not being reduced.

    Same-sex relationships have the intrinsic virtue of being more equal (on average) in terms of physical strength, as compared to opposite sex relationships. So they do not have such a big problem with inequality, and so are less likely to need either party to make an active effort to maintain equality. Of course, it might happen that one person has a dominant personality, in which case making an effort would still be necessary. But on the whole, same-sex relationships intrinsically neutralize a background threat to the loss of freedom of one party in the relationship. This makes it easier to maximize the freedom of the two individuals, which in my books is a Good Thing. Greater equality will lead to less oppressive marriages, on average. This is probably a contributing factor to why gay couples are happier on average than straight couples.

    The OP is, of course, in Cuckoo land when it claims that this is why anyone promotes gay marriage. This is an incidental side-benefit of gay marriages that makes them mildly superior to straight marriages in one sense of promoting better relationship dynamics. It is obviously not the motivation of anyone who is campaigning for recognition of same-sex marriages.

    People support gay marriage because of freedom. Again: It's great for people to have more freedom and less oppression. Marriage is one of the most fundamental choices we make in life, and a loving couple having the freedom to marry each other is one of the basic freedoms. Courts have called the freedom to marry "a fundamental right". Preventing gay couples from marrying decreases their freedom for no rational purpose. Restricting freedoms for no purpose is just plain dumb and a sign of a barbaric society... maybe we should just randomly lock people in cages on the side of the road, does that sound good? Maybe we could ban Jews from marrying each other? Banning gay people from marrying each other is an equally ridiculous and arbitrary restriction on freedom. Freedom is one of several goods that us liberals would like to see maximized in society. Therefore we support the legalization of same-sex marriage, because we support freedom.
    Last edited by Starlight; 02-02-2015 at 04:04 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •