Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Damocles]

Hey Dumo, wasn't it you who argued in another thread, the Unitarian Church and others are perfectly okay with marrying homosexuals? Didn't you make a huge deal about the fact that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality specifically? But here, you want to pretend this is religious "dogma" to object to Gay Marriage.... doesn't comport with rational logic, does it? How can it be fine and dandy with Unitarians and Jesus, yet in conflict of the Christian dogma? How can it be that Christian dogma both prohibits Gay Marriage, and endorses Gay Marriage, or doesn't address Homosexuality as a sin?

See, what you have done, is misused terminology. The Christian DOGMA has nothing to do with opposition to gay marriage. It might INFLUENCE some Christians views, but herein lies the rub.... There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting us from establishing laws based on our religious influences. Not a damn thing! We can't establish a religion... We can't establish dogma, like if Congress wanted to outlaw consumption of pork... but we most certainly CAN AND DO make laws based on our religious influences, values, morals, and viewpoints. We have the guaranteed right to do so, and for you to pretend that is somehow 'denied' to us in return for a mandated judicial ruling, is not much different than what Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Mao, and others have done. Enjoy the company you keep, moron!

Hey, Dixie. I pointed out that Christ not specifically covering that sin didn't change that it would be a sin per the religious dogma. I even used close to exactly those words. The only point was that Christ never specifically mentioned that particular sin, and he didn't. He didn't mention many sins, but those would still be sins according to the dogma. The New Covenant "cleansed" you, so you didn't have to follow silly rules to make sure you were pure enough to enter the Temple... It didn't make any of the sins that were listed in the dogma go away...

And I pointed out that there were already gays married, religiously, even if the government oversteps and attempts to establish your specific dogma in legislation. IMO, those people are just as married as you were before you tore asunder what no man was supposed to tear....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hey, Dixie. I pointed out that Christ not specifically covering that sin didn't change that it would be a sin per the religious dogma. I even used close to exactly those words. The only point was that Christ never specifically mentioned that particular sin, and he didn't. He didn't mention many sins, but those would still be sins according to the dogma. The New Covenant "cleansed" you, so you didn't have to follow silly rules to make sure you were pure enough to enter the Temple... It didn't make any of the sins that were listed in the dogma go away...

And I pointed out that there were already gays married, religiously, even if the government oversteps and attempts to establish your specific dogma in legislation. IMO, those people are just as married as you were before you tore asunder what no man was supposed to tear....

But it's not dogma if we're cleansed and don't have to follow silly rules. If gays were married religiously by a Christian church, it obviously must not be against the dogma of Christianity... doesn't make sense they would be doing something in contradiction to the dogma... Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and dont's. --per Dumo

As for your continued little personal digs, I don't do that to you, and I would appreciate it if you would return the courtesy. It IS against your board rules to post someone's "personal" information here, correct?

 

[Damocles]

But it's not dogma if we're cleansed and don't have to follow silly rules. If gays were married religiously by a Christian church, it obviously must not be against the dogma of Christianity... doesn't make sense they would be doing something in contradiction to the dogma... Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and dont's. --per Dumo

As for your continued little personal digs, I don't do that to you, and I would appreciate it if you would return the courtesy. It IS against your board rules to post someone's "personal" information here, correct?

Dogma is still dogma even if it isn't about washing in the river before returning home, Dix.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dogma is still dogma even if it isn't about washing in the river before returning home, Dix.

Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and don'ts.

Those are YOUR words, Dumo!

Now it seems to me, you've gotten yourself into a bit of a pickle here, on one hand, you want to argue that homosexuality is not a contradiction of Christian dogma, Jesus didn't speak of it in specificity, and certain Christian-based religious denominations DO INDEED marry homosexuals. But on the other hand, you want to argue those who oppose Gay Marriage are forcing their "religious dogma" on you! Can't have it both ways, Dumo!

 

[Damocles]

Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and don'ts.

Those are YOUR words, Dumo!

Now it seems to me, you've gotten yourself into a bit of a pickle here, on one hand, you want to argue that homosexuality is not a contradiction of Christian dogma, Jesus didn't speak of it in specificity, and certain Christian-based religious denominations DO INDEED marry homosexuals. But on the other hand, you want to argue those who oppose Gay Marriage are forcing their "religious dogma" on you! Can't have it both ways, Dumo!

And you deliberately misinterpret it.

The ten commandments is a list of dogma. Even if it doesn't cover whether you are pure enough to enter a temple.

Don't be gay. That is an example of dogma. It still is when it is said as "It is an abomination to participate in gay sex."

Dogma still exists in the religion, regardless of the New Covenant.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you deliberately misinterpret it.

The ten commandments is a list of dogma. Even if it doesn't cover whether you are pure enough to enter a temple.

Don't be gay. That is an example of dogma. It still is when it is said as "It is an abomination to participate in gay sex."

Dogma still exists in the religion, regardless of the New Covenant.

Right, the 10 Commandments are a list of "dogma" as I said correctly earlier. Has any Congressman proposed we pass the 10 Commandments into law as a bill or act that I am not aware of? If not, then what specific "dogma" is being forced upon you by law, Dumo? Please illuminate me?

Here's the deal, people who believe in the Christian dogma, might be opposed to homosexual marriage because of their religious viewpoint and understanding of the dogma, others may be opposed for various other reasons. Opposing Gay Marriage is not equal to an enforcement of religious dogma. You have made it so in your mind, you continue to post as if that is the reality here, but your very own arguments and contradictions have demonstrated how your argument fails.

We have the RIGHT to petition for redress of our grievances. It does not matter if those grievances are fundamentally rooted to what we believe spiritually, or otherwise. There is no caveat to that freedom, it is a liberty enjoyed by all. You and Stringy want to argue that "religious" people aren't entitled to petition for redress because they are "establishing religion" if they do so. They have every Constitutional right that you and Stringy have, to legislate laws based on their viewpoint and morality.

 

[Liberty]

Зачем ты с ним споришь?

 

[Bai Lan]

Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and don'ts. Like don't let gays marry, and don't suffer a witch to live.

I'm wondering why there aren't more witches killed.

The reality is "government should be created to protect the rights of individuals", makes it very subjective. For instance what way does a seat belt law "protect the rights of individuals?" The question itself makes it subjective, not objective. Dogma is always objective.

How does allowing Christians to pretend their dogma is somehow okay to force onto others protect the right of any individual? The role of government should be to protect the right of the individual, not to force them to follow the dogma of a group.

Dogma is subjective. the idea of the legitimacy of statehood is itself, the dogma of a group. fiat money legitimacy is the dogma of a group.

 

[Bai Lan]

"dogma is always objective" = damo's made up bullshit.

1.A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2.An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3.A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

 

[Socrtease]

You are right and I was wrong.

good enuf.

 

[Damocles]

"dogma is always objective" = damo's made up bullshit.

1.A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2.An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3.A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

Desperation makes you argue like Dixie.

There is no "authoritative principle" found in asking the question: "In what way does this protect the rights of the individual?"

The authoritative principle found in lists of "sins" is dogma. Let's say we allow one religion to start making laws that force us all to follow their dogma against the first amendment, then the next religion that gains any political ground can also do that. Imagine as we all have to stop working on Saturday, or have women wear special clothes... It's all okay because they were able to elect people to set them into legislation, right?

I surmise that it is exactly this reason that the first amendment was written, to keep your smelly mitts off of what I believe and to force me to keep my mitts off of what you believe. I can't force you to follow the dogma of my religion, nor can you force others to follow yours.

 

[Damocles]

Зачем ты с ним споришь?

Old habit.

 

[Bai Lan]

Desperation makes you argue like Dixie.

There is no "authoritative principle" found in asking the question: "In what way does this protect the rights of the individual?"

A question is never a set of principles. Granted.

your arrogance make you believe you can get away with your made up bullshit.

A belief in individual rights is also a dogma.

The authoritative principle found in lists of "sins" is dogma. Let's say we allow one religion to start making laws that force us all to follow their dogma against the first amendment, then the next religion that gains any political ground can also do that. Imagine as we all have to stop working on Saturday, or have women wear special clothes... It's all okay because they were able to elect people to set them into legislation, right?

I surmise that it is exactly this reason that the first amendment was written, to keep your smelly mitts off of what I believe and to force me to keep my mitts off of what you believe. I can't force you to follow the dogma of my religion, nor can you force others to follow yours.

Political philosophies are dogmas too, damo. And when the governments back them, they are the authority backing them, making them "authoritative principles", fitting definitions 1 and 2.

And any set of beliefs even not authoritative are dogma, according to 3.

So your little clear cut moronic definitions don't assist in your framing here.

sad little damo. Foolish again.

 

[Damocles]

A question is never a set of principles. Granted.

your arrogance make you believe you can get away with your made up bullshit.

A belief in individual rights is also a dogma.



Political philosophies are dogmas too, damo. And when the governments back them, they are the authority backing them, making them "authoritative principles", fitting definitions 1 and 2.

And any set of beliefs even not authoritative are dogma, according to 3.

So your little clear cut moronic definitions don't assist in your framing here.

sad little damo. Foolish again.

Political philosophies are not religion. It is religious dogma we avoid, that are specifically written into the constitution to avoid. It isn't okay to take your list of religious dogma, attempt to make legislation based on it, then expect others to accept your religious restrictions.

Foolish is the attempt to work around this restriction and pretend that rules like, "Gays can't get married because it's 'wrong'" isn't based on religious dogma.

 

[Bai Lan]

Political philosophies are not religion. It is religious dogma we avoid, that are specifically written into the constitution to avoid.

But we don't avoid all dogma. We do allow dogma to be implemented into law, just maybe not religious dogma. Political dogma? Of course we do. Im sure you concede that. Or you can attempt another word game. do you want to look smart or dumb? your response will tell us.

 

[Damocles]

But we don't avoid all dogma. We do allow dogma to be implemented into law, just maybe not religious dogma. Political dogma? Of course we do. Im sure you concede that. Or you can attempt another word game. do you want to look smart or dumb? your response will tell us.

Again, this discussion is whether we allow religious dogma to be established as legislation. You waste our time with inane blather about "political dogma"...

It is what the discussion has been about for days. You appear to attempt to take posts out of that context to make some inane suggestion about something other than the point of discussion. Religious dogma.

 

[Bai Lan]

Again, this discussion is whether we allow religious dogma to be established as legislation. You waste our time with inane blather about "political dogma"...

It is what the discussion has been about for days. You appear to attempt to take posts out of that context to make some inane suggestion about something other than the point of discussion. Religious dogma.

We put both religious and political dogma into our laws. Check this out.

this violates the separation clause.

Saying our nation is founded on such and such religious laws? unconsitituional revisionist violation of the establishment clause. Right here.

Public Law 102-14, H.J. Res 104

EDUCATION DAY U.S.A
Public Law 102-14, H.J. Res 104
102nd Congress of the United States of America
March 5, 1991
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future; ---wtf ----are you serious

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, "the Rebbe," this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of "education and giving," the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as Education Day U.S.A The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Approved March 20, 1991.
http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=458&Parent=88

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Desperation makes you argue like Dixie.

There is no "authoritative principle" found in asking the question: "In what way does this protect the rights of the individual?"

The authoritative principle found in lists of "sins" is dogma. Let's say we allow one religion to start making laws that force us all to follow their dogma against the first amendment, then the next religion that gains any political ground can also do that. Imagine as we all have to stop working on Saturday, or have women wear special clothes... It's all okay because they were able to elect people to set them into legislation, right?

I surmise that it is exactly this reason that the first amendment was written, to keep your smelly mitts off of what I believe and to force me to keep my mitts off of what you believe. I can't force you to follow the dogma of my religion, nor can you force others to follow yours.

This is what Hillary meant by "willful suspension of disbelief." I've never known anyone so tied to their bigoted beliefs, they refuse to acknowledge their own contradictions! You keep insisting someone's "dogma" is being forced on you through passage of anti-gay marriage legislation, so you would think you could point out where Christian doctrine specifies this "dogma" somewhere... but you argue the exact polar opposite of that! You point out that Unitarian Christians perform gay marriages, and that Jesus never spoke specifically about homosexuality being a sin. IF this were 'dogma' of the religion, that would not be the case, it doesn't comport with logic. How can something be viewed as "acceptable" by Unitarians and Jesus, yet be contradictory to the religious dogma? IT CAN'T BE, that's how!

What you mean to argue is, people who are opposed to gay marriage, base their opinion on their interpretations of religious dogma. This is also not exactly true across the board, people oppose gay marriage for a variety of reasons, and they can certainly be devoid of religious beliefs. I am not religious, I have made the argument against gay marriage several times on the basis of law and the constitution, and my viewpoint opposing gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any religious teaching. But let's assume that we can paint everyone with your bigoted broad brush, and the only reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because of their religious beliefs... where does the Constitution prohibit that? We can't establish a religion, but we most certainly CAN AND DO make law based on our religious viewpoints and moralities. You may not like that, you have the right to voice your opposition to that, and you even have the right to be a political activist against that, but you do NOT have the right to deny people their Constitutional rights on the basis of you disagreeing with what they believe!

 

[Damocles]

We put both religious and political dogma into our laws. Check this out.

this violates the separation clause.

Saying our nation is founded on such and such religious laws? unconsitituional revisionist violation of the establishment clause. Right here.

Yes, if legislation is made to force you to follow that religious dogma it would violate the principles of the constitution. If I say something it is very different than legislating it.

 

[Bai Lan]

Yes, if legislation is made to force you to follow that religious dogma it would violate the principles of the constitution. If I say something it is very different than legislating it.

It says citizens are responsible for transmitting the noahide laws. I bolded it.

what does that mean to you? responisibilities set forth in law. just like a law, damo. When will you stop your campaign of willful stupidity?