quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I agree that the majority of our issues have come from trickle down economics, which turned into bottom line economics under Clinton (a corporate liberal, no doubt).

The new GOP tax scam will deepen the divide, and cause more problems. For the majority of Americans, anyway.



Of course it will, but at what point, does anyone "do" anything about it?

We don't and we won't, and I don't expect to see a Democratic candidate running in 2020 that is NOT a corporate liberal[/u

Truth is not always pretty, but without facing truth, how can we grow?

Counterpunch- The corporate liberal in America

From this article: We must tolerate whatever Democrats do because they are better than Republicans. Even if that means, as it surely has and surely will, for all the identity groups corporate liberals support, a deteriorating quality of life. Lower incomes, higher unemployment. Bigger debts, bullshit jobs. Higher infant mortality, higher heart disease. More inequality, less social support. Less social support, more incarceration. More suicide, more alcoholism, more drug abuse, more debt, more stress, more unhappiness. And, if one is aware enough, the consciousness of having—perhaps unwittingly at the time—for more slaughter of brown people abroad, and the deliberate aggression against nuclear powers that will raise the prospect of nuclear extermination for millions. The Democrats have no such mandate, but the corporate liberal gives them the power to pretend they do. These are the wages of neoliberalism and imperialism, enabled by the logic of the lesser evil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
I don't know what "rights" you are talking about here. It's just nature. That's why up till today, I cannot understand the whole insistent of gay and lesbian marriages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
You're right, it is not up to me to decide for anyone of faith which doctrines and verses they adhere to over others.
But let's use the full quote from Leviticus, shall we?

quote:


"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I present this verse as evidence to the requirement of government to interfere with religious beliefs, and an extreme prejudice against homosexuals indoctrinated through religious organizations worldwide and throughout the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Has anybody explained why American notions about religious freedom defend a christian baker's right not to sell cakes to poofs, but is less inclined to make excuses for a moslem's desires to stone loose women, cut clits off or kill infidels? I'd be very interested to hear how the use of religious freedom as a justification for one but not the other isn't evidence of an ideological bias, mostly because I could use a good laugh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Market will take care of it. If there is a demand for a bakery to custom create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then there is a spot for an entrepreneur.

I'm not sure this is a great argument. The whole "the market will take care of it" thing didn't do so well when it came to discrimination due to color.

quote:

quote:

How is it okay to force someone to do something they oppose on religious grounds? Does consent no longer fucking matter?

Oddly enough, I think there are a lot of people who have tasks as a part of their job that they would prefer not to do. There are people that I deal with at work that I wouldn't be volunteering to associate with if somebody wasn't paying me to do it. I did, however, consent to do the job in exchange for a paycheck. A part of that paycheck does have to do with treating everyone equally.

quote:

quote:

Point taken.
Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't sell a custom decorated cake for a gay wedding to straight couples, either. [8D]

There's the rub, isn't it? As soon as we start having to put a qualifying word before the word "wedding," it shows very specifically that we are categorizing people based on sexual orientation. It becomes a permission to treat people differently based on who they are marrying, rather than the business owner treating all potential customers in the same fashion.
Another question I think we should be asking ourselves would be, is Mr Phillips exercising his religion OR is he attempting, through his business, to impose his religion on other people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
I have never seen (read or heard) the "put to death" part mean anything other than a literal death by stoning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i was specifically referring to the verses in Leviticus, and while "death" can have multiple meanings biblically, "put to death" in the context of Leviticus is pretty clear, a literal death by stoning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

you cant really---its putting words into the scripture that simply are not there. yes "second death" or "spiritual death" or "eternal separation" from god is mentioned repeatedly throughout the bible.

however, that theme is not yet developed by Leviticus, and even if it were, the language and context are wholly and only consistent with death by stoning. theres no question over what the words mean.

what youre wanting to do in a sense is say that people wrote things down other than what god intended for them to write down.

you can indeed carry on the spiritual exposition of what happens, or what might happen to people who are "put to death" for breaking the law, but you cant take away the literal, physical death sentence when you do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

im not in disagreement with anything you said, except for id clarify your paul meeting jesus thoughts with the road to Damascus interaction, in which paul met jesus not in the flesh, but in some spiritual form which proves all the more meaningful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
otherwise, this is worth adding---jesus reaffirms traditional marriage in matthew 19:4-5, referencing and quoting from genesis "that at the beginning the creator 'made them male and female'...'for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

im not in disagreement with anything you said, except for id clarify your paul meeting jesus thoughts with the road to Damascus interaction, in which paul met jesus not in the flesh, but in some spiritual form which proves all the more meaningful.

I was trying to keep it more "fact-based" for the dissenters. Believing Paul "met" Jesus requires not only faith in scripture, but faith in Paul who was human and the only one to make the claim. It couldn't be verified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
that sort of insight, I think, is an interesting and worthwhile consideration for reading all of the bible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
you cant really---its putting words into the scripture that simply are not there. yes "second death" or "spiritual death" or "eternal separation" from god is mentioned repeatedly throughout the bible. however, that theme is not yet developed by Leviticus, and even if it were, the language and context are wholly and only consistent with death by stoning. theres no question over what the words mean.
what youre wanting to do in a sense is say that people wrote things down other than what god intended for them to write down. that's a view, that on the whole isn't accepted by most of the church, and is ultimately dangerous.
you can indeed carry on the spiritual exposition of what happens, or what might happen to people who are "put to death" for breaking the law, but you cant take away the literal, physical death sentence when you do it.