« prev   random   next »

3
1

Why Should I Vote?

By freak80 follow freak80   2012 Aug 7, 12:30am 36,891 views   127 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


Why should I vote?

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

The other party wants me enslaved to a permanent aristocracy.

For me, a vote for either party is a vote to slit my own throat.

How did we get to this point in America?

Maybe Trey Parker and Matt Stone will save us.

#crime

Comments 1 - 40 of 127    Next »    Last »

1   kentm   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 1:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You could vote independent. Or green.

We got this way because we are afraid to vote for a thing we think will loose, thinking that it's wasting the vote, so we vote for the least worst option. And the votes are totally channeled in this direction by the options we're given.

My favorite example is from the Bush v Kerry race, if you remember that one, there was a huge anti-war movement going on in the states at the time, and Bush was being slammed by the left as the incarnation of a demon and Kerry was presented as the only viable alternative to bush, really, and so this huge anti-war movement was channeled into supporting Kerry, who was a pro-war candidate.

Any anti-war voter who really cared deeply about that issue should by rights have voted for Nader in that election, the only candidate who was anti-war. But they don't because of the way the system is set up and channels our votes to one or the other of the two "legitimate" candidates.

I say find a candidate who supports what you want and vote for what You want and make then work for that vote, don't let your vote get channeled and taken for granted.

Some countries have dozens of candidates with varied positions and instant run off elections that result in power sharing governments that seem to work quite well.

You can't ask a question like that unless you're willing to consider the alternatives.

2   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 7, 1:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

kentm says

Or green.

Ha! The greens *are* the hard-left. They'd string me up under the justification of "hate" even faster than the Democrat base would.

3   Randy H   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 2:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It's impossible to "not vote". Failure to vote is still a vote in favor of a failed system. Having said that, perhaps that is your intended vote, in which case, wear it proudly.

4   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2012 Aug 7, 2:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Vote no One", just like Brewster said.

5   StoutFiles   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 2:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Randy H says

Failure to vote is still a vote in favor of a failed system.

Huh? Voting means you support a failed system. Not voting means you don't. If enough people stopped voting for candidates solely based on Team Democrat or Team Republican, then candidates outside of the two-party system might realize they have a chance to win.

I'd prefer candidates not be labeled left or right, liberal or conservative. They are just themselves with views that aren't fixed on what their party wants them to be.

6   CL   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 2:49am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

The other party wants me enslaved to a permanent aristocracy.

False equivalency. The liberals would not imprison you for thinking wrong, in the present or the future.

You're trying to make excuses for why the Democrats are not infinitely better than the Republicans. I suspect you have emotionally difficulty pulling the lever for Ds, for reasons that go beyond the logic you're trying to apply.

freak80 says

The other party wants me enslaved to a permanent aristocracy.

Fear of this real issue should trump fear of ensconced discrimination of the straight, white majority.

7   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2012 Aug 7, 2:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

StoutFiles says

I'd prefer candidates not be labeled left or right, liberal or conservative. They are just themselves with views that aren't fixed on what their party wants them to be.

Word. The Founding Fathers were against political parties, but didn't forbid them and were unable to stop their eventual formation quite early in US history.

Banning political parties would force the public to pay attention to each candidate's ideas, rather than going rah-rah for one "Team" or the other.

It's hard to manufacture consent if every representative truly has their own take and votes their own conscience. With two parties, it's very easy to manufacture consent.

"We can either raise taxes on everybody or cut spending on social programs." Well, why can't we raise taxes on the rich, and cut the Team America World Police Force simultaneously, while lowering taxes on small business/the middle class and leaving social programs alone? Because the debate is only allowed in a very narrow range. Anything outside that range is "Irresponsible, Extreme, Impractical". Decided by whom? Those who manufacture the consent, that's who.

I don't remember voting on whether Georgism was "Irresponsible/Crazy/Extreme" or not, or whether having a military specifically designed to deploy overseas Expeditionary Forces above all else was "Irresponsible given the state of the world/national interest." For that matter, I don't remember voting what constitutes the national interest.

The national interest is what manufactured consent says it is.

Solzhenitsyn make a great spiel about how debate in the West was actually very narrow, based on his experience trying to communicate his Liberal but traditional Orthodox Russian viewpoint. He was invited to either complain about Russian Communism's war on human rights or religion, but never on how his Orthodox Mystic background worked with liberal values - that was outside the boundaries.

8   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2012 Aug 7, 3:01am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

For your reading enjoyment, a snippet from Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech from 1978:


Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people's minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

Although I greatly disagree with Solzhenitsyn on a few things (Atheism for one), he was an interesting figure with a fantastic pulse on human behavior. The whole speech is recommended reading.

You can see why Solzhenitsyn was never allowed to speak on any but a narrow range of subjects; his ideas about too much material well being and alienation are absolute anathema to Consumer Capitalism, for example. Actually reminds me of the Dune novels a bit.

9   kentm   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 4:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

Ha! The greens *are* the hard-left. They'd string me up under the justification of "hate" even faster than the Democrat base would.

You're making this up and are being overly maudlin about it. No one is "stringing anyone up" except in your imagination. Again, consider what are your values, rank them in priority, and vote accordingly to what you think gets your priorities advanced.

If your priority is simply to say that you've voted Conservative then thats what it is. It seems to me from your posts that your main value is conservative cultural control rather than economic security, and so be it. But my advice on this front is to let it go. Gay Marriage is happening, its inevitable, only a matter of time, so you might as well examine the candidates that you feel will give you the most economic security and international stability. If those are your goals.

10   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2012 Aug 7, 4:57am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

kentm says

You're making this up and are being overly maudlin about it.

Verklempt perhaps but not maudlin.

11   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2012 Aug 7, 5:26am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What party is against unlimited Free Trade at any price to the US worker?

Oh, both parties are for unlimited Free Trade (except for a handful of industries that provide little middle class employment like drug manufacturing - not research - and agriculture like sugar and corn). Wow, what a choice I have!

12   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2012 Aug 7, 5:45am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

=========================================================
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ | ROMNEY2012 | ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
=========================================================
.............................VOTE ROMNEY.....VOTE FOR AMERICA!!!....................

★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
==============================
==============================
==============================

=========================================================
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆
=========================================================

13   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 7, 5:59am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Randy H says

It's impossible to "not vote".

Not true. "Not Voting" is the same thing as a "Vote of No Confidence."

14   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 7, 6:00am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thunderlips11 says

What party is against unlimited Free Trade at any price to the US worker?
Oh, both parties are for unlimited Free Trade

Bingo.

15   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 7, 6:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

kentm says

Gay Marriage is happening, its inevitable, only a matter of time, so you might as well examine the candidates that you feel will give you the most economic security and international stability.

That's like saying "A permanent aristocracy is happening, it's inevitable, only a matter of time, so you might as well give up." I'm not going to vote for something I'm against just because someone tells me it's inevitable.

Nobody knows the future.

16   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 6:13am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Please read the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and section 10 of New York's Domestic Relations Law (which defines marriage as a civil contract), and reconsider your statement about marriage. Whatever your religious views might be, they do not excuse denying other Americans the equal protection of the laws. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts, nor can they be made strangers to the laws of their own country.

17   Quigley   ignore (2)   2012 Aug 7, 6:34am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

When marriage was allowed to become a function of the state rather than a strictly religious tradition, it was assumed by all that this would be a partnership between the two with the fundamental core of the definition of marriage held up by the state and thus administered. What the gays are doing by insisting on a redefinition of marriage is to have the state hijack the institution completely and force it into the realm of politics where the fashion of the day is law.
Perhaps religion should never have relinquished its hold on the administration of marriage, but that ship sailed centuries ago. Today the function of religion in marriage is perfunctory in many cases. Two people get married at a time and place of their own choosing, probably by a clergy person who just printed out his/her ordination certificate from the Internet last week.
I fully understand and sympathize with the folks who are upset at the gay marriage agenda and want to hold it to one man and one woman. They've been cheated here, by a government who promised to hold this trust and is now breaking its word.
But I also agree that a redefinition of marriage (to include gay marriage) is inevitable. The religious roots of marriage have lost their grip on anything substantial and have been waving around in air searching for soil that was stolen years ago. As a partnership of church and state, marriage is done.

Here's what I see for the future:
1) gay marriage
2) polygamous marriage (sooner than you think!). This type will be quite popular for people who want to raise a family in tough economic conditions. If you have two men and three women in a marriage, three or four of them can be working and still have plenty of child care available. As well as ... Um, interesting social activity among the five parents.
3) The utter rejection of state sponsored marriage by many religious conservatives of different religions, replaced with church-administrated unions where all conflicts would be mediated by church ministers. This will likely have as many names as there are religions: Catholic marriage, Hindu marriage, Mormon marriage, Sharia marriage.

The gays will get marriage, but it will not be what they want. They want legitimacy, but what they will get is entry into an institution which has lost all integrity. It will be about as meaningful to get a marriage license as it is to sign up for Unemployment.

19   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 6:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says

When marriage was allowed to become a function of the state rather than a strictly religious tradition, it was assumed by all that this would be a partnership between the two with the fundamental core of the definition of marriage held up by the state and thus administered.

You are mistaken about the history of marriage. First of all, it is older than any of the currently popular religions. It included same-sex couples prior to the existence of Islam and Christianity, and in fact John Boswell traced a continuous tradition of same-sex marriages in Christian Europe including benedictions based on Serge and Bacchus. (BTW consider the story of David and Jonathan, as told by Samuel.)

The roots of marriage are probably older than humanity itself, arising from natural law. It has included polygamy for most of human history; Romney comes from a polygamous family, and it remains popular in Islam. I'm not a fan personally, but many of our fellow primates do seem to live that way.

As a legal matter, married couples expect rightly to have the equal protection of the laws. That applies even if one is Catholic and the other Jewish (even though "conservatives" in both religions would prohibit the marriage), even if one or both are male or female, the same or different colors (see Loving v Virginia), etc. Stretching the definition of marriage to include larger numbers of people would raise a number of different issues that can easily be distinguished. Whether polygamy will return to America is entirely independent of whether same-sex couples get the equal protection of the laws.

20   omgbacon   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 6:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

no they don't. they say you're free to hate as long as you don't act on that hatred.

if you act on that hatred they'll put you in jail.

21   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 7:03am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BTW, freak80, in the past you wrote favorably about Chris Hedges, who supports same-sex marriage. In fact, his wedding to Eunice Wong was officiated by a gay minister whose same-sex wedding Hedges had previously attended.

22   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 7, 7:30am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

freak80, in the past you wrote favorably about Chris Hedges, who supports same-sex marriage

I don't remember the name. I'm not saying I didn't write favorably about him, it's just that my memory sucks.

Can you link to it?

At any rate, just because I agree with someone on one issue doesn't I have to agree with them on every issue.

23   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 7, 7:34am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley, that's probably the most intelligent commentary on the whole issue I've seen in a long time.

My two cents: we should just abolish marriage (as a government/legal institution) altogether since it doesn't seem to carry much value anymore anyway. What's the divorce rate? 50%? Heck, even "religious conservatives" get divorced at the same rate as the "secular" folks (or maybe it's even higher).

24   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 8:19am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Chris Hedges link as requested:

http://www.truthdig.com/tag/chris+hedges/

freak80 says

Quigley, that's probably the most intelligent commentary on the whole issue I've seen in a long time.

Beware sophistry, it can seem intelligent especially when it starts with a false premise then reasons to a false conclusion. That is a polite way of saying, "garbage in, garbage out."

Saying that marriage laws should be abolished because gay people would pollute "the institution" is like southern cities that decided to abolish public swimming pools rather than integrate them: legally permissible, morally reprehensible. If you don't like the equal protection of the laws, you should reconsider and ask yourself why. If you don't like the fact that other people have the same right to their own religions (many of which support same-sex marriage) as you have to yours, you should reconsider and ask yourself why. There may be valid reasons to separate government from marriage, for example the benefits attached to marriage discriminate against single people, but if the goal is to retreat into balkanized sects stigmatizing each other then I think you should reconsider and ask yourself whether such mutual stigmatization would confer any real benefit to anyone other than the preachers and pols who gain $$$ and power by keeping people divided against each other.

The founders of our republic, who comprised people of different religions and of none, risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish a new republic with no king and no official religion. Theocrats think that was wrong. I think theocrats are mistaken, but I also think their priorities are misaligned.

25   CL   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 9:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

Not true. "Not Voting" is the same thing as a "Vote of No Confidence."

Except that your "no confidence vote" is easily written off as another fat, lazy American too stupid to inform themselves or wipe the Cheetos off their hands to vote.

Viva la Revolucion!

26   Quigley   ignore (2)   2012 Aug 7, 9:20am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Curious2: it's interesting to me that we are having a discussion about American politics, within the scope of our culture, and to refute my point about the state taking over marriage you bring up ancient history! Like, thousands of years ago! Whats next? A debate about Whether cavemen were possessed of Liberal values? If you're going to argue the point that marriage has always included gays, you should start on the same page as the rest of us.
David and Jonathan? Really? They were friends! Haven't you ever had a same sex friend who you truly admired and appreciated? Trust me, it's very possible to have a friend you love "closer than a brother." There doesn't need to be a sexual component to make such a friendship very close. I am secure enough in myself that I need not be bothered by calls of "fag" or "homo" by small minded people who wish to taunt. If nothing else good comes of this discussion of gay rights, I hope we can at least eliminate those taunts from our lexicon.

27   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 9:28am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

StoutFiles says

If enough people stopped voting for candidates solely based on Team Democrat or Team Republican, then candidates outside of the two-party system might realize they have a chance to win.

I'd prefer candidates not be labeled left or right, liberal or conservative. They are just themselves with views that aren't fixed on what their party wants them to be

Perhaps we should have a lottery for nominees, instead of party primaries. Each person would have the option to buy one lottery ticket for $1. Ten candidates would be selected at random, for three debates. They divide the lottery money equally to spend solely on organizing their campaigns, e.g. putting up a website etc. At the end of each debate, half the candidates are eliminated by popular vote (first debate has 10 candidates, second debate has five candidates, third has two candidates). Probably parties would find a way to game the system though, because the opportunities for patronage have become so enormous, especially in the context of deficit spending. The system would need some basic limits on the prize at stake, like balanced budgets and constitutional rights (including the equal protection of the laws, which some people don't seem to support currently).

28   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 9:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says

we are having a discussion about American politics

We are trying to, but your assertions regarding American history are simply incorrect.

Quigley says

When marriage was allowed to become a function of the state rather than a strictly religious tradition, it was assumed by all that this would be a partnership between the two

Marriage was never, in American history at least, a strictly religious tradition. The founders of the American republic included people of different religions and of none. They wrote specifically that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof. To say that exactly the opposite was "assumed by all" is to ignore what they believed and what they wrote.

And David and Jonathan were not only closer than brothers. According to Samuel, King James translation, David called Jonathan's love "wonderful, passing the love of women." And remember David had 800 wives, the Lance Bass of his day, so he should know. But that's irrelevant to the laws pertaining to marriage, which are part of government and subject to the Constitution, not any sect's holy text.

29   Randy H   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 10:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

Not true. "Not Voting" is the same thing as a "Vote of No Confidence."

I would be interested to hear someone who actually studied Constitutional Law describe for me exactly how a Presidential Election could produce no winner in our current system (assuming we're talking about the electoral process). My understanding is that "no confidence" = "failed system" under the current form of government.

If I'm right, then in reality, as opposed to the idealized fiction you guys like to talk about, when you don't vote you're casting your lot for things continuing to rot.

And for the record, I don't always vote. Sometimes I would rather see a failure and reset than to support the currently diseased system.

30   msilenus   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 10:39am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The American left lacks the balls to lynch anyone. All you're in for is a shaming.

31   xrpb11a   ignore (1)   2012 Aug 7, 10:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Raise the richin's taxes, but give them deductions for investments that are directly related to creating jobs. Investments that are well defined and vetted by both parties....

thunderlips11 says

Well, why can't we raise taxes on the rich, and cut the Team America World Police Force simultaneously, while lowering taxes on small business/the middle class and leaving social programs alone?

32   xrpb11a   ignore (1)   2012 Aug 7, 10:44am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I feel like i'm watching O'Reilly's "word of the day"...

CaptainShuddup says

kentm says

You're making this up and are being overly maudlin about it.

Verklempt perhaps but not maudlin.

33   kentm   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 7, 1:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CaptainShuddup says

=========================================================

★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ | ROMNEY2012 | ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★

=========================================================

.............................VOTE ROMNEY.....VOTE FOR AMERICA!!!....................

Glad to hear you finally say that paying taxes is a great American trait:

Ordinary Americans try the new tax calculator, "We are going to be really screwed under Romney.”

http://freakoutnation.blogspot.ca/

Except of course for those kindly rich folk:

"Romney: ‘Romney hood’ attack is ‘Obamaloney’ - but, An analysis released by the Tax Policy Center determined that Romney’s plan to slash tax rates by 20% would actually mean that 95% of Americans would pay an average of $500 more per year, while millionaires would see a $87,000 cut in their taxes."

http://mobile.rawstory.com/therawstory/#!/entry/romney-romney-hood-attack-is-obamaloney,502160347af68a84dc6e152e

34   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 8, 2:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

But that's irrelevant to the laws pertaining to marriage, which are part of government and subject to the Constitution, not any sect's holy text.

Then why do you keep bringing up "a sect's holy text"?

35   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 8, 2:26am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

According to Samuel, King James translation, David called Jonathan's love "wonderful, passing the love of women."

That doesn't mean they were anally penetrating each other.

Yes, in our culture Love = Sex, but not in all cultures.

36   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 8, 2:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

Then why do you keep bringing up "a sect's holy text"?

It was in reply to Quigley's false assertion that marriage was a "strictly religious tradition" and that the laws pertaining to it were "assumed by all" merely to establish and administer that religious tradition.

freak80 says

in our culture Love = Sex, but not in all cultures.

Speak for yourself. You're the one who started writing about anal penetration. Project much? According to Samuel, Jonathan defied his own father to save David, who was by all accounts gorgeous btw. David could have called Jonathan's love "passing the love of brothers," or "passing the love of friends," but Samuel quotes him specifically saying "passing the love of women." On a related point, since you often quote the Bible, you might read Luke, who quotes Jesus describing the rapture, when believers are supposed to be taken up while unbelievers are left behind: "in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left." Notice he doesn't say, "both shall be condemned." Also you might want to re-read John, "the disciple [singular] whom Jesus loved," i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved in a way that was different from the way he loved the other disciples. (That is why Renaissance artists tended to depict John as more feminine than the other disciples, a detail that was given a different interpretation in The Davinci Code.) The purportedly (not really) "Christian" fear and loathing directed against two men in bed together requires a disingenuously selective reading. Ultimately it says more about the people making that claim than about the Bible or the people who lived at the time it was written, for example it was a useful subterfuge to distract Catholics while the priests molested children (of both sexes).

What really shocks me is that you base your opposition to the Democratic party on the party's support for the equal protection of the laws. You could have mentioned Obamneycare, NAFTA, or any number of other things, but no. For you, apparently, the party's unforgivable sin is supporting equal rights.

37   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 8, 4:33am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Project much?

You're the one that reading homosexuality into the text. Not me. And if you were really "open minded" about homosexuality you would *not* use the above as an insult.

curious2 says

since you often quote the Bible

What are you taking about? Where do I quote the Bible?

curious2 says

who quotes Jesus describing the rapture, when believers are supposed to be taken up while unbelievers are left behind: "in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

The whole "rapture" thing is a recent phenomenon that developed in certain protestant circles. It was never part of classical Christianity. Yes, classical Chrsitianity speaks of a "last judgement" but "The Rapture" is a recent innovation.

curious2 says

Also you might want to re-read John, "the disciple [singular] whom Jesus loved," i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved in a way that was different from the way he loved the other disciples.

And you accuse ME of projection? You automatically assume love = sex. Yes, OUR culture is saturated with that idea, but not all cultures.

curious2 says

(That is why Renaissance artists tended to depict John as more feminine than the other disciples, a detail that was given a different interpretation in The Davinci Code.)

Ah, the Da Vinci Code. There's a reliable source for the intention of Renaissance artists. You know George Washington and the other founders look pretty feminine by today standards to. Hmmmm...

curious2 says

What really shocks me is that you base your opposition to the Democratic party on the party's support for the equal protection of the laws.

I assume you mean "equal protection under the law"? Who *doesn't* support equal protection under the law?

I believe people who engage in homosexual behavior are 5/5th of a person. Really! I just don't think such behavior should be codified into law, that's all.

curious2 says

For you, apparently, the party's unforgivable sin is supporting equal rights.

Again, you're arguing under a false premise. As you said above, "garbage in, garbage out."

No one is against equal rights. Nobody is trying to take away the right to vote, free speech/religion, fair trial, right to bear arms, etc etc based on sexual behaviors.

Marriage is an institution, not a "right."

And yet you accuse Quigley of sophistry.

38   CL   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 8, 5:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

You're the one that reading homosexuality into the text. Not me. And if you were really "open minded" about homosexuality you would *not* use the above as an insult.

He didn't say it as an insult. He just said you were closeted. Hope that helps!

39   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 8, 5:48am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

freak80 says

What are you taking about? Where do I quote the Bible?

Wow, you really do have a faulty memory. Try checking your own comment history for your preferred authors and your favorite (selective) quotations:

http://patrick.net/comments.php?s=ecclesiastes&submit=Search

freak80 says

And you accuse ME of projection?

Yes. See the history above including the example copied immediately below.

freak80 says

in our culture Love = Sex

You said that, I didn't. You accuse me of saying it, when in fact only you said it. You're also the one who started writing about anal penetration.

freak80 says

the Da Vinci Code. There's a reliable source for the intention of Renaissance artists.

No, you're projecting again. I said the Da Vinci Code gave a different interpretation from the Renaissance Artists'. For a source on their intentions, consider for example Charles Nicholl's thoroughly researched biography of Da Vinci, which notes Da Vinci was gay btw.

freak80 says

Marriage is an institution, not a "right."

In law, marriage is a fundamental right. Institutions don't marry, they merge. Of course, with Mitt "corporations-are-people" Romney, the distinction can seem blurry.

freak80 says

I assume you mean "equal protection under the law"?

The Constitution says "equal protection of the laws." It means what it says.

freak80 says

Who *doesn't* support equal protection under the law?

You don't, because you contend that gay couples don't deserve the equal protection of the marriage laws. Also, perpetuating discrimination against gay couples is apparently so important to you that it is your sole proffered basis for condemning the Democratic party.

40   freak80   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 8, 5:57am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Wow, you really do have a faulty memory. Try checking your own comment history for your preferred authors and your favorite (selective) quotations:
http://patrick.net/comments.php?s=ecclesiastes&submit=Search

lol. That quote had *nothing* to do with homosexuality. The quote was in a different thread about a totally different subject.

curious2 says

You don't, because you contend that gay couples don't deserve the equal protection of the marriage laws. Also, perpetuating discrimination against gay couples is apparently so important to you

You just repeated the same stuff I already soundly refuted.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Comments 1 - 40 of 127    Next »    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions