Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Dixie said:
It's interesting, this thread was supposed to be a counseling session between Social Conservatives and Libertarians, to see if we could resolve some our differences. It has turned into a mega-page philosophical debate on theology as it pertains to homosexuals. That's really interesting, given that it's an issue not likely to be determined or settled politically in the next election cycle, if ever. When it comes to smaller government, less intrusive government, lower taxes, conservative economics... what the hell does the theological aspects of homosexuality have to do with it? Are you listening to yourselves? You are at odds over issues that do not really relate to the political landscape in front of us. We don't live in a Theocracy, and we never will! If a Social Conservative is elected, they aren't going to implement Christian Law! If a Libertarian Conservative is elected, they aren't going to ban Religion! It's just a silly divisive discord between the two camps, which doesn't need to be as important as we make it out.


This thread was intended to get you to THINK... to examine your OWN shortcomings (even though Damo doesn't think he has any), and to find ways to understand each other better. Do you think you have done that at all? Or was this just another opportunity to rail against religion and call people names, whom you disagree with? You can't dis-include people from the political process because they happen to base their views on their personal religious faith! That is their right as much as it's your right to base your views on secular beliefs. The Constitution doesn't render their opinions invalid or irrelevant, and it doesn't say they can't have a voice in shaping the laws and legislation of our nation. At some point, we all have to get on the same page with this, and it seems silly and futile to just keep pounding away at some personal idealism, instead of finding common ground.
Click to expand...

:pke:

Well,,,
 
RStringfield said:
You're gay. I think the vagina is beautiful. Strangely, I don't really find a penis unappealing or appealing. Kind of indifferent. Mine looks fine when something other than my hand is wrapped around it. :) The male testicles are definitely ugly.
Click to expand...

I agree with all but the first two sentences. Thanks for understanding, though...
 
RStringfield said:
You're gay. I think the vagina is beautiful. Strangely, I don't really find a penis unappealing or appealing. Kind of indifferent. Mine looks fine when something other than my hand is wrapped around it. :) The male testicles are definitely ugly.
Click to expand...

Which hand?:pke:
 
RStringfield said:
Based on what do you draw this conclusion? Pais is used in several places in reference to adults. I have given other reason to show it was meant to express beloved servant. You do nothing but reassert your claim.

You are completely full of shit. 7:2 and 7:7 agree that there was a special affection for the servant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, he clearly said that there was affection for the servant.

BS! In every translation of the precise and unemotional Luke, 7:2 expresses the centurion's affection for the servant. Which version or translation are you using?
Click to expand...

I already supplied the Greek translation. The term pais itself often infers affection, so what. I have not questioned that the centurion loved his young servant. It has been you using your pro gay websites that has twisted that affection to mean they were homosexuals.

Luke stating that there was affection does not make Luke emotive, it merely emphasises his style of making clear the situation. I have been stating all along that this was a young servant. That after reading Luke 7:2 a young bond servant.

I see now that what has your pecker hard is that the centurian had affection for a member of his household. I got news for ya stringy, slaves and servants no matter their station, were considered members of a household. They were cared for and clothed as a member. Often a servant would serve a master 'til death seperated them, even after being freed. A master was legally obligated to provide well for a slave when servatude ended and so they were freed with a enough money to live well. In fact being a servant or slave was sought after when people had reversals of fortunes and needed to be cared for. It was nothing like Western slavery.

Like I said earlier, you have absolutely no clue about how to read a biblical passage. You have made an effort, but one that was directed by your pro gay agenda not one that sought any kind of truth or understanding.

You have accomplished nothing. Let's see: There was a centurian seeking Christ's healing of a beloved young bond servant. Gee, we could have ended there, except that you trolled your pro gay web sites and came up with a turd; how apropos' .
 
Ice Dancer said:
I already supplied the Greek translation.
Click to expand...

You gave a list of definitions and demanded that it must mean just one of them.

Ice Dancer said:
The term pais itself often infers affection, so what. I have not questioned that the centurion loved his young servant. It has been you using your pro gay websites that has twisted that affection to mean they were homosexuals.
Click to expand...

So, that's what you have been arguing against all along. I have only maintained that the word and the rest of the passage indicate affection for the servant. You have repeatedly disagreed. Now you say, yeah he was affectionate but that does not prove sexual relations. I never argued it did. Only that it proved affection and it is quite possible they were a gay couple.

Ice Dancer said:
Luke stating that there was affection does not make Luke emotive, it merely emphasises his style of making clear the situation. I have been stating all along that this was a young servant. That after reading Luke 7:2 a young bond servant.
Click to expand...

WTF kind of nonsense spin is this? I never made any claim about Luke's style. That was you. I merely pointed out that regardless of what you claim about his style, Luke clearly indicates affection between the master and servant.

Ice Dancer said:
I see now blah blah blah bible slavery was cool blah blah bunch of other irrelevant horseshit...

You have accomplished nothing. Let's see: There was a centurian seeking Christ's healing of a beloved young bond servant. Gee, we could have ended there, except that you trolled your pro gay web sites and came up with a turd; how apropos' .
Click to expand...

And all you have done here is finally agree to the point I made, that the passage showed affection, after denying it for several post.
 
Oh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!!! OK.

Well,,, Being honest,,,,,,,,, "I think the vagina is beautiful."

I have no problem with it.
 
RStringfield said:
There can be no easy alliance so long as social conservatives believe they have a right to protection from offenses against their moral sensibilities.
Click to expand...

First of all, they have the "right" to whatever their opinions are in a FREE society! It's not your place to deny them that right, or tell them they aren't entitled to their opinion. Their moral sensibilities are an important aspect of their life, and thus, tied irrevocably to their very pursuit of happiness. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to allow them the right to express their opinions and have a say in shaping our laws and governance.

You support theocratic and Christian law now. What else is the basis for laws prohibiting gay marriage? What is the legitimate state interest?
Click to expand...

Actually, the vast majority of laws on the books are rooted to some degree in someone's religious morality. It is kind of the whole intent and purpose of laws, to uphold some kind of standard for a civilized society. If we remove all laws based on any moral consideration, we would have complete and utter anarchy. Gay Marriage is opposed by nearly 80% of the people in this country, religious or not! We The People get to decide what we want to make legal and illegal, and it is almost ALWAYS determined on the basis of our morals and our moral standards. You would be hard pressed to show me ANY law that isn't based on someone's idea of what is right or wrong, because that is what 'laws' are. Without them, we have no basis for civilization. This is not to say that we should adopt Biblical Law and become governed by the Old Testament, but surely you can understand there is a happy medium between that and anarchy.

The biggest shortcoming of libertarians is that far too many of them waste their vote on a party that does not share their concerns because the other party might be worse. History shows that even where you claim to agree with us you don't.

Social conservatives don't care about economic liberty either or at least not as much as they care about bashing queers. When in power, they are far more willing to compromise on economics than social issues.
Click to expand...

Here is where I think you veer into dangerous territory, you are painting all social conservatives with the same broad brush, and it is patently unfair to do so. It not only shows an ignorance of mainstream social conservative views, it shows an outright bigoted stubborn belief in something that is just absurd and ridiculous. The biggest problem with Libertarians is, they are stubbornly attached to an idealism they will never realize in a populous society. It'd be great and wonderful if we all woke up in the morning with Libertarian viewpoints, but that isn't going to ever happen. Maybe 5% of the country is hard core Libertarian, the rest are something else, and their ideas and views reflect what they believe in, just like yours. What you have to realize is, you don't get to be the King of America and dictate how your "loyal subjects" (the rest of us) live!
 
RStringfield said:
You gave a list of definitions and demanded that it must mean just one of them.

So, that's what you have been arguing against all along. I have only maintained that the word and the rest of the passage indicate affection for the servant. You have repeatedly disagreed. Now you say, yeah he was affectionate but that does not prove sexual relations. I never argued it did. Only that it proved affection and it is quite possible they were a gay couple.

WTF kind of nonsense spin is this? I never made any claim about Luke's style. That was you. I merely pointed out that regardless of what you claim about his style, Luke clearly indicates affection between the master and servant.

And all you have done here is finally agree to the point I made, that the passage showed affection, after denying it for several post.
Click to expand...

I never denied the passage stated that the centurian loved his servant. Show one post that I did so? You however MOST certainly asserted that this affection was homosexual! THAT assertion and THAT assertion alone is what I have denied the text supports!

Get a grip dork, I did not say that YOU said anything about Lukes style I was emphasising that his clarifying that the servant was young and had been born into slavery would fit with Luke's style of recording facts, without being emotive, since you alluded that the text carried some significant meaning that supported the centurian and the servant were homosexuals.

This entire exchange began, not because the centurian loved his servant, but because you asserted it meant he was gay. You have shown you are ignorant, stubborn, and intellectually dishonest
 
Threedee said:
Except women are generally encouraged to shave there, because otherwise guys wouldn't be able to find what we're looking for.

Actually, a recent issue of Maxim had polling about what modern women would like guys to do with their croatches... I think the plurality was keeping them "well-trimmed," but totally shaved was more popular than not at all. Amazing what you can learn from reading...

:clink:
Click to expand...

The new fad is a travesty. Not only is hair aesthetically pleasing but hair holds pheromones. Trimming I agree with. (Al Pacino was highly sensitive to such in the movie "Scent of a Woman".)

If a guy complains he can't find what he's looking for among those silky strands he doesn't deserve to be there!
 
RStringfield said:
You argued that people are taught sexuality by their cultural environment. That clearly implies that in a different environment you or I might be gay. Now you are trying to backpedal and claim that it was somehow natural for you, but maybe not for me or others. That implies that sexual preference is innate. Though you will claim otherwise, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
It was natural for me because I grew up in a normal environment. If a kid grows up in Bizzaro Land where "normal" is upside-down then he is more likely to accept the Bizzaro normal.
 
apple0154 said:
The new fad is a travesty. Not only is hair aesthetically pleasing but hair holds pheromones. Trimming I agree with. (Al Pacino was highly sensitive to such in the movie "Scent of a Woman".)

If a guy complains he can't find what he's looking for among those silky strands he doesn't deserve to be there!
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. The shaven look is not something I care for at all.

And the razor stubble is brutal.
 
apple0154 said:
The new fad is a travesty. Not only is hair aesthetically pleasing but hair holds pheromones. Trimming I agree with. (Al Pacino was highly sensitive to such in the movie "Scent of a Woman".)

If a guy complains he can't find what he's looking for among those silky strands he doesn't deserve to be there!
Click to expand...

I was just being sarcastic about that last part, but I suspect there's some truth in it. :clink:
 
Threedee said:
I was just being sarcastic about that last part, but I suspect there's some truth in it. :clink:
Click to expand...

Reports I've heard over the years convinces me there's a lot of truth in it.

Even in my day, long before computers, there was the school library. I recall an incident a girlfriend related to me in high school. She had a nun for "Moral and Social Development" class. She asked the nun a question and the nun sarcastically replied, "Why don't you ask your boyfriend. I'm sure he knows." ;)

The first year I had the "sister" for a teacher we didn't get along very well. The following year I had her for math (algebra) and, occasionally, we'd sit on the bench outside the school and have lunch together. (I never knew why she took a liking to me.)

It was a new country school, just built, surrounded by lawns and then corn fields. I never did thank the "sister" for adding to my social life. I'd come to school on my motorcycle (one image) and then lunch with a nun (definite contrast). The gals soaked it up.

And the gal's parents....well, I'd pick up the gal I was dating on a Saturday and we'd go for a ride for a few hours. After all, any young man who occasionally lunches with a nun can certainly be trusted even if he does drive a motorcycle. Riiiiight???? :)
 
apple0154 said:
Reports I've heard over the years convinces me there's a lot of truth in it.

Even in my day, long before computers, there was the school library. I recall an incident a girlfriend related to me in high school. She had a nun for "Moral and Social Development" class. She asked the nun a question and the nun sarcastically replied, "Why don't you ask your boyfriend. I'm sure he knows." ;)

The first year I had the "sister" for a teacher we didn't get along very well. The following year I had her for math (algebra) and, occasionally, we'd sit on the bench outside the school and have lunch together. (I never knew why she took a liking to me.)

It was a new country school, just built, surrounded by lawns and then corn fields. I never did thank the "sister" for adding to my social life. I'd come to school on my motorcycle (one image) and then lunch with a nun (definite contrast). The gals soaked it up.

And the gal's parents....well, I'd pick up the gal I was dating on a Saturday and we'd go for a ride for a few hours. After all, any young man who occasionally lunches with a nun can certainly be trusted even if he does drive a motorcycle. Riiiiight???? :)
Click to expand...

I take it the good schoolboy did a lot more riding than just on his motorcycle. :)

But was there a big push for deforestation back then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top