Zealous Donkey
-
Content Count
1,219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Zealous Donkey
-
-
I read this three times to be sure, but I agree with all of this except the 'open a church because your a prophet comment'Alright.. I'm going to just end this threads right here.Is Homosexuality really a sin? yes.In order to think it's not, you have to go through some really bizarre mental gymnastics, that have nothing to do with the Bible. The reason you go through the gymnastics is because of the cognitive dissonance between what you believe/want to believe ( IE there's nothing wrong with homosexuality) and what you're "supposed" to believe as a christian (IE Homosexuality is a sin (or at least homosexual sex acts are a sin)). If you'er going to pick and choose what in the bible you want to believe, and what you don't, you have a rather arbitrary foundation for your belief system. Either the bible is the word of god or it's not. Either it's the truth or it's not. The idea that some of it is the truth and some of it can be safely ignored suggest that you, personally, have some magical ability to know what God's will really is. And, i you really believe that, I suggest opening your own church, because you're a prophet, and the world needs to hear from you.If that doesn't appeal to you, if you don't think you have magical power to see what's real and what's bogus in the bible, and believe the bible is truth, you should perhaps consider getting on board with the bible's rather clear cut stance on homosexuality. Or, maybe... just maybe, you should check your starting assumptions, and weigh the wisdom of completely basing your belief system on tales of myths and miracles that were written in the bronze age. -
I agree with you to a point, but the founders did not intend for a Church to be shut out of civil society. They should be allowed to have a voice in the public debate and be allowed to try and influence and make a case for what they see as beneficial for society at large. I am not saying they should be the only voice, only that they should have a voice. There are many on the left, including the president who don't think they should have any voice outside of the Church building on Sunday. They are being told to make a choice between following their religion on running a business. This shouldn't just bother Christians or religious.As far a gay marriage, the Christian church thinks it would weaken the family and thus make things worse for children.I tell you what I don't understand is why all these churches are letting the federal government "define" things for them. I thought churches had the right of separation from the federal government and I don't think I've heard of anybody calling for all churches to marry gays so I'm not sure where that's coming from.also, I'm agreeing with and fully understanding tim's posts in this thread so I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket and attempt to have sex with a woman because apparently all things are possible, cats and dogs living together, etc. -
I don't know if it is uniquely religious or not, but it is a sacrament in the Church, and I couldn't speak for every traditional marriage supporter/gay marriage opponent, but the problem that Catholic Church has is that they see the family as the cornerstone of society. The family has taken a big hit due to abortion, contraception, divorce, sexual revolution, and children(the ones not aborted) are the ones effected most. To change the definition of marriage would be to change what is the cornerstone of society. Man and Women committing to each other and their offspring and growing together in complementary way. Man and Man, Woman and Woman is not the same thing, and men and women aren't equally interchangeable parts. Two things the Church really want to protect is traditional marriage, and they would probably also be against same sex couples adopting children.
-
Why do they need to be married? Why does the definition of marriage have to be changed? The supporters of traditional marriage have been called much worse than prideful and arrogant. I can't honestly say whether or not Cathy would support civil unions so gay couples get equality under the law, but I know a lot of people who support traditional marriage would be fine with gay couples entering a civil union, the problem is in changing the definition of marriage for a lot of people, not all, but a lot.
-
Yes, sorry I guess we needed to narrow the focus. I started in the thread responding to Daniel's rant. Cathy's public comments weren't very inflammatory, in fact gay marriage wasn't even mentioned in the interview. The comments were used by certain politicians to try and keep his business from expanding to their area. I object to mostly to that, and also the role the media played. The media won't be pulling donation lists of Muslim owned businesses. This was a hit job from the beginning, and when it backfired the media tried to ignore it. You may just disagree with his comments, but others went a lot further and equated those who supported chick-fil-a as hating gays, which is what I thought Daniel was trying to do.
-
http://www.nationalr...cers-mark-steynThis says it all.Damn it wakefield where did you go, I have been gone for a while and I want to fight. Start another thread if you are sick of this one. Lets argue about something religious, if not start something in the political forum, lets fight about Obama. Irishguy where are you? Cane?
-
I am saying he is the one being victimized here. Nothing has been done to one gay person because of his personal beliefs on traditional marriage. You play the money donation game all day long. How many businessmen give to muslim groups who call for the death penalty for gays. You won't find these guys harassed by the media or politicans that are persecuting Cathy. What is your point? Why are you in this thread? You think Cathy is terrible because he donates money to groups which the huff post claims does all kinds of bad things? I think it is slander, and it is laying the groundwork to harass business owners who have Christian beliefs. Even if he thinks gay sex should be outlawed, so what, there are those who think our country should be run like Stalin ran the Soviet Union, and there are those who think we should be under sharia law.It's one man's opinions. That's not what propaganda is. And telling me your opinion on it isn't "doing work for me." I can't possibly know your opinions and ideas until you express them.So you're saying he donates money to organizations with whom he doesn't agree or doesn't know what they do? That seems likely.He doesn't have hiring/firing responsibilities at his individual branches. The branch managers do that, and they don't necessarily agree with his moral and political opinions. -
Another thing, why would he hire homosexuals if he thought they were criminals? He doesn't have to share or have knowledge of every belief or position of those to whom he donates money.
-
The Mayor of Chicago and an alderman have said that Chick-fil-a will be denied permits to expand to Chicago, also San Fransico, and I think Boston. Anyway, have fun reading every quote and policy position on every entity who recieve donations from the places with which you do business. I will pass, and recognize that many people have nuanced positions many of which I probably disagree with(including chick-fil-a), I won't be calling for them to be stripped of their opportunity to participate in civil society.
-
So if all the things you say here are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which I don't concede, you are fine with Chick-fil-a being denied business licenses because of who they donate their money? The Southern Law Poverty Center has their own bias and bigotry and could just as easily be called a hate group. At the very least millions of americans including myself could care less who the Southern Law Poverty Center calls a hate group.As we've learned not long ago, monetary donations=speech. He donates money to groups who fund gay-to-straight conversion therapy. This is hateful, because it's often not the "patient's" choice, but rather he or she is forced into it by his or her parents. He donates money to groups who teach that homosexuality is a mental disease. This is also hateful. He donates money to a group (The Family Research Council) who have stated that homosexuality should be outlawed and should be a criminal offense. The Southern Poverty Law Center designates them as a hate group. -
What hateful thing did Cathy say? This is either fake of LT Varval is as uninformed as Daniel. I thank him for his service, but this is a ridiculous letter.
-
Chick-fil-UH? Really? Silly uninformed rant.He probably hasn't even read the quotes. He obviously doesn't have a good grasp of the facts. It is easy to sympathize with him for being protective of his friends, but it doesn't do any good to put people in the Anti-Gay, or Gay Hate catagory because they don't think politicians should give out permits based on whether or not the applicant shares the same social, religious, political views as the politicians.There are a ton of nuanced views between Gay Hate and Pro-traditional marriage. Also, to say gays are picked on because of religion is not accurate, unless you are talking about Muslims, or that fanatic who protests at military funerals or fundamentalist Christians(most of whom wouldn't advocate picking on homosexuals). Gays are picked on and bullied in schools because they are different, not because the bullies are religious zealots. Fat kids are picked on too, and gluttony is a sin, but religion isn't blamed for fat kids being bullied.Catholic Church prohibits picking on or discriminating against homosexuals. And homosexual attraction is not considered a sin, nor does the Church want homosexual sex to be criminalized. They simply do not want the definition of traditional marriage changed. If Gay folks want to be equal under the law, that is perfectly understandable, but the Church would like to see them go a different route than insist on changing the definition of marriage. The family has already taken a beating thanks to the sexual revolution and thus many more children are raised in broken homes today. This is where the concern of the church is focused, strengthening families.
-
Apparently there is nothing more to be added in defense of Zimmerman. I thought maybe something may surface where Zimmerman saw Martin doing something he shouldn't be doing, like trying to break in to something or caught him on some one's property. But apparently he actually called the police just because the guy was in the neighborhood. Zimmerman himself stated on the police tape that Martin was running. Then he claimed he was later ambushed by Martin. Then he was taking such a brutal ass whipping that he had to kill him. The guys credibility is lacking big time IMO. Of course new info may finally surface, but I don't think so. Zimmerman will probably go with the he was trying to go for my gun defense, and a jury will have to figure out what actually happened. I don't think Zims story is going to hold up to scrutiny.Not to mention that people who just had their head banged against a sidewalk usually don't walk with zero signs of pain. -
This women is a chip off the old block!! Excellent! I wish she was getting more publicity. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/alveda-k...trayvon-martin/Don't be turned off by the title, actually very little in it about Sharpton and Jackson.
-
http://reason.tv/video/show/ilya-somin-on-why-the-individuThey start talking about Gonzales v. Raich about the 6 minute mark. The difference is that they were regulating an activity in Raich, but in this case they are trying to regulate inactivity. I am going the other way, I think it makes it through, Kennedy seemed to have done a 180 by the end. The old boy needs to be put down. 5-4 upholding the mandateAgree and saw this article on what the mechanics of that could be: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/opinion/carr...date/index.htmlI don't understand how Scalia could concur here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.htmlbut vote against the mandate here. -
Bingo, today I saw a guy being interviewed by George Snufleuffugus who was a friend of Zimmerman. He said he isn't even sure Zimmerman was the one who pulled the trigger. (The friend was a black guy)I mean it just seems to me like there's more evidence out there that we're for some reason not hearing. that's my line of thinking here.
It should also be pointed out that Zimmerman may have thought he was someone who ascribed himself to the larger (D) philosophygoons? is this 1924? "yeah see, we gotta goon on the street see... lookin' all zipped up on boppers and jazz see..." -
From a conservative blog site. JustOneMinute"...And on the subject of temperment, let's add that Zimmerman had a domestic violence situation with his spouse ending in mutual restraining orders, and an assault charge on a cop that was dropped after he took what sounds like an anger management class. That was all seven or eight years ago and he is now 28, but who's the hothead?"
-
What are the chances they over react and try to charge this guy with 1st or 2nd degree murder. Remember the attempted murder trial of the Rodney King cops.I ask as unbiased observer, if it was my family member killed, I think I would want to see this pushed to the max, and rightly so.Miami is really multi-racial.....I see hispanic and black people in my neighborhood all the time. We have had a good number of break-ins in our garage lately. I live in a big apartment building in an urban area so I guess it's not really the same. But, I'm not sure I agree with the above assessment.And even if I was suspicious of them, I'd do what the 911 person told me to do because that's what why we pay them our tax dollars: to handle these things professionally. I think you really need an overt/obvious reason to charge after someone with a gun.I think the police at first were lazy, then stubborn. Then, when this became a media shitstorm, the police chief and local DA (happily) stepped down and let the governor's task force take over. That task force is convening a grand jury in early April to decide whether to prosecute Zimmerman. The first part is my guess, the second part is reported fact. -
Fair enough, I just saw where you called BG a racist, sexist, and bigot all in one postGood for you for being the bigger man. That looks sarcastic, but isn't. I am a super nice guy. Hell, I'm even nice on these forums...just not the political one.Anyway, what you said is probably true, but I don't think you addressed my point. I provided an example and called it offensive. You said schools should err on the side of not being offensive, which is true, but kind of an irrelevant general statement.So here we are, discussing our discussion. BORING. I'm sure we'll all be happy to move on to the next point.
over in the Exploitation thread, I guess I will hang out over there for a while.
-
Caine why do you think there hasn't been an arrest yet?Did they arrest the shooter(s) or at least attempt to do so? If so, it's not remotely the same thing. -
Your simply lying here to make your self feel superior. You may not call the cops or act on your suspicion in any way at all. But I dare say if you lived in a gated community in which you and/or several of your neighbors had experienced recent break-ins that you would be at least somewhat suspicious of a stranger walking through at night. I will even go as far as to say that seeing a large, young black man wearing a hoodie would make you even more suspicious. Especially if the gated community were overwhelmingly white. I am not picking on you, I believe this applies to almost every human being of any race.I just want to be clear that I do NOT agree with this. -
Your damn right its relevant. If this guy is violent then he may have confronted and attacked zimmerman just for following him or questioning him. From what I have read I agree with what you stated in your earlier post about him being scared, confused, ect. That Zimmerman probably was at fault. But you saying that other stuff isn't relevant when self-defense is being claimed is wrong. Now ideally it wouldn't be reported in the media, but, thats the problem with the way these things always get handled. It is the nature of the beast. When you trial someone through the media, the victim is going to eventually be scrutinized.The media didn't cause any of this! Zimmerman did..the 911 tapes are saying that he followed him and its pretty clear in those tapes its in large part because he was black- how else did he look suspicious? It wasn't stating he was lurking in bushes or peeking in windows it was that he was a black/dressed a certain way. As to the bolded part there are idiots such as Geraldo pointing out the way he was dressed, and you yourself have pointed in this thread to his "history" which again is as relevant to the subject as is how many sexual partners a rape victim has had. -
Usually the way it works is that more conservative leaning reports uncover this new stuff the MSM never even bothered to investigate (because they have their narrative already). Finally they are forced kicking and screaming to finally report these new findings. But Brietbart is dead and I haven't read anything other than sympathetic reports towards Martin in the conservative blogs and news sites. There are those critical of the media, black panthers, Sharpton, Jesse, ect, but not towards Martin. So maybe the msm is actually digging some of this new info up. Irish says he read some of these things in the MSM. The few reports I had read all had a picture of what appeared to be a 13 or 14 year old kid with a story about how he took a break from watching tv to have some skittles and tea. When all of sudden he was attacked and shot by an armed white man. BTW, the race of the perps is never revealed at least in reports in the St. Louis post dispatch. But this guy was immediately called white when he is really Hispanic.ding, ding, ding. Not to mention you can't say the media is biased and is crucifying Zimmerman and then claim that all these new reports about his pot suspension and gold teeth and tattoos came from liberal media biased for Martin. Unless, Zealous is admitting that the mainstream media isn't really that biased after all. -
I think the whole point is the media caused all this. Dude the media is the one saying he followed him just because he was black wearing a hoodie. Anyone unknown walking in a gated community where there have been several recent break ins would be rightly considered suspicious. The bold part is silly. No one is saying he deserved to die, in fact mainly, at least in this thread, people are commenting on how the media is portraying this.First I've seen numberous mention of the size of this kid, second from accounts that are being released today he was suspended for a pot related offence. Are either of these things all that relevant considering the only reason any of this happened is because while armed he followed a kid because he looked suspicious (ie black, in a hoodie)? People saying "if he wasn't dressed that way" or "look at his history" are right in line with questioning a rape victim for what she wore and he sexual history.
2012 Elections
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted