What do you think about dont Ask don't tell latest development?

[Einzige Mk. II]

I'm more than happy to see this policy repealed. The closest phenomenon to which it can be compared, Truman's Executive Order integrating the military, likely resulted in a greater sustained momentum in the direction of freedom than all of the Civil Rights Acts combined. Let us hope that this repeal follows the same course.

[Badger]

Feel the love here!

Its so nice belonging to a pro-gay rights church. Gives Christianity a good name compared to the usual "gays are icky so Jesus must've disapproved too" crowd.

http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/about.html

The other side of the argument, FWIW.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you are correct as far as the current Pope is concerned.  But there is a majority homosexual priesthood moving up in the ranks.  it's only a matter of time before the conservatives die off.

Oh but they are not a reforming faction, nor are they in the ascendancy, the current Pope has been working like the Federalist Society to staff the hierarchy with people who agree with his views and who do not foresee any change on homosexuality. You'll see married priests first. That would relieve pressure on multiple fronts and make it that much easier to keep homosexuality off the reservation.

i don't pretend to keep up on the inner politics of the Catholic church, so I shouldn't have opened the can of worms.  But I do think they have taken out so many pillars of sound doctrine that it will be one of the next things to go.  Even the Catholic layity is embracing it and its just a matter of time before the current leadership dies off.  

[Badger]

you are correct as far as the current Pope is concerned.  But there is a majority homosexual priesthood moving up in the ranks.  it's only a matter of time before the conservatives die off.

Oh but they are not a reforming faction, nor are they in the ascendancy, the current Pope has been working like the Federalist Society to staff the hierarchy with people who agree with his views and who do not foresee any change on homosexuality. You'll see married priests first. That would relieve pressure on multiple fronts and make it that much easier to keep homosexuality off the reservation.

i don't pretend to keep up on the inner politics of the Catholic church, so I shouldn't have opened the can of worms.  But I do think they have taken out so many pillars of sound doctrine that it will be one of the next things to go.  Even the Catholic layity is embracing it and its just a matter of time before the current leadership dies off.  

Dude, Benedict was chosen by a College of Cardinals all but three of which were appointed by John Paul II.

The old guard ain't going anywhere anytime.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Feel the love here!

Its so nice belonging to a pro-gay rights church. Gives Christianity a good name

yeah, because friendship with the world is a central teaching of Christ, right?  

---

compared to the usual "gays are icky so Jesus must've disapproved too" crowd.

again, your side's argument is so weak, you have to misrepresent the argument of the other side.  In all my years on this forum, there has only been a handful of times a pro-gay poster has honestly acknowledged the argument.

[Einzige Mk. II]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

why, are you accepting the fact the scripture argues against homosexuality?

[Einzige Mk. II]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

why, are you accepting the fact the scripture argues against homosexuality?

I don't particularly care, as I don't acknowledge your scriptures as having any moral or metaphysical relevance. What I'm after is an argument that could hold water with me, a firm believer in a godless world.

[Franzl]

Or more importantly, an argument that respects the seperation of church and state.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

why, are you accepting the fact the scripture argues against homosexuality?

I don't particularly care, as I don't acknowledge your scriptures has having any moral or metaphysical relevance. What I'm after is an argument that could hold water with me, a firm believer in a godless world.

I understand logic is not something you promote in your firm belief in a meaningless/godless world, otherwise you would be promoting a firm belief in godlessness.  How does a firm belief in nothing hold water with you, exactly?

[Einzige Mk. II]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

why, are you accepting the fact the scripture argues against homosexuality?

I don't particularly care, as I don't acknowledge your scriptures has having any moral or metaphysical relevance. What I'm after is an argument that could hold water with me, a firm believer in a godless world.

I understand logic is not something you promote in your firm belief in a meaningless/godless world, otherwise you would be promoting a firm belief in godlessness.  How does a firm belief in nothing hold water with you, exactly?

I believe in the chair I sit in. I believe in the keyboard through which I type these words. I believe in freedom and compassion. I do not believe in your God or your moral system. Now, please, give me an argument I can actually chew on.

[anvi]

Hey, Badger, thanks for posting that essay by Walter Wink.  It's pretty interesting.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

why, are you accepting the fact the scripture argues against homosexuality?

I don't particularly care, as I don't acknowledge your scriptures has having any moral or metaphysical relevance. What I'm after is an argument that could hold water with me, a firm believer in a godless world.

I understand logic is not something you promote in your firm belief in a meaningless/godless world, otherwise you would be promoting a firm belief in godlessness.  How does a firm belief in nothing hold water with you, exactly?

I believe in the chair I sit in. I believe in the keyboard through which I type these words. I believe in freedom and compassion. I do not believe in your God or your moral system. Now, please, give me an argument I can actually chew on.

sounds like your "freedom and compassion" and your reliance on temporary things like your chair and keyboard has already caused you to reject God's argument and the only thing your willing to chew on is your own temporary sovereignty which doesn't even have the power to create or sustain your own life much less the universe.

[Einzige Mk. II]

Jmfascist:

I challenge you to present an argument against gay rights which does not invoke the religious or metaphysical teachings of the Christian religion.

why, are you accepting the fact the scripture argues against homosexuality?

I don't particularly care, as I don't acknowledge your scriptures has having any moral or metaphysical relevance. What I'm after is an argument that could hold water with me, a firm believer in a godless world.

I understand logic is not something you promote in your firm belief in a meaningless/godless world, otherwise you would be promoting a firm belief in godlessness.  How does a firm belief in nothing hold water with you, exactly?

I believe in the chair I sit in. I believe in the keyboard through which I type these words. I believe in freedom and compassion. I do not believe in your God or your moral system. Now, please, give me an argument I can actually chew on.

sounds like your "freedom and compassion" and your reliance on temporary things like your chair and keyboard has already caused you to reject God's argument and the only thing your willing to chew on is your own temporary sovereignty which doesn't even have the power to create or sustain your own life much less the universe.

My temporary sovereignty is greater than that the hypothetical universal sovereignty of your deity, for I can act myself and achieve a desired end. I do not require proxies in the form of True Believers to do my dirty work for me.

Now, then: what sort of argument can you formulate against gay rights that is not reliant upon the Christian system of belief?

EDIT: Thank you, incidentally, for reporting my post. Is it because I called you jmfascist? But then, I always have. You're asking me to give up tradition, and you of all people ought to know how painful that is. I suppose I needed someone to announce my presence to the moderators, and it may as well be you.

[fezzyfestoon]

Everything is temporary.  The belief in your own eternity is fantasy.

I wouldn't get too worked up about finding an argument from a religious person about morality that involves any sort of individual thought.  The entire concept of morality with regards to Christianity is a lazy affair.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Or more importantly, an argument that respects the seperation of church and state.

oh, I'm not saying people should be forced to accept Christ, nor do I believe that is even possible.  And I believe people should be able to do anything consensual in their bedrooms.  

But what is mindnumbing is that citizens must condone and certify homosexual practices and that soldiers must be willing to take showers and expose their gentiles in full view of people who have the opposite sexual orientation.  Goes along the lines as 4 year olds being felt up at airports simply because we have to worship political correctness.

Not only are we being forced not to speak out against homosexuality, but we're also being forced to expose ourselves to it.  Not too different than the story of Lot and the homosexual mob, which Christ himself used to characterize the state of the world during the end times.

[Einzige Mk. II]

Or more importantly, an argument that respects the seperation of church and state.

oh, I'm not saying people should be forced to accept Christ, nor do I believe that is even possible.  And I believe people should be able to do anything consensual in their bedrooms.  

But what is mindnumbing is that citizens must condone and certify homosexual practices and that soldiers must be willing to take showers and expose their gentiles in full view of people who have the opposite sexual orientation.  Goes along the lines as 4 year olds being felt up at airports simply because we have to worship political correctness.

Nobody is requiring you to "condone and certify" anything at all, though by placing yourself in the role of the martyr you can likely continue to score political points for some time. To the contrary: you may feel as you wish for however long you wish. But you will not force your views upon others.

And soldiers are big boys. They've been showering and 'exposing' themselves to homosexuals for as long as there has been an institutional militarism. It's just that, before the repeal of DADT, they never knew just who was homosexual and who was not. What would bother you more: exposing yourself to any number of potential homosexuals, or to just a few that you know are gay?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

EDIT: Thank you, incidentally, for reporting my post. Is it because I called you jmfascist? But then, I always have. You're asking me to give up tradition, and you of all people ought to know how painful that is. I suppose I needed someone to announce my presence to the moderators, and it may as well be you.

dude, I didn't report your post (at least not that I know of), and I have yet to report a single post.  that's not my style.  There have been times in the past where I have asked moderators to make sure the discussion remains constructive and honest, but I've never asked for any infractions to be handed out.

[Einzige Mk. II]

EDIT: Thank you, incidentally, for reporting my post. Is it because I called you jmfascist? But then, I always have. You're asking me to give up tradition, and you of all people ought to know how painful that is. I suppose I needed someone to announce my presence to the moderators, and it may as well be you.

dude, I didn't report your post (at least not that I know of), and I have yet to report a single post.  that's not my style.  There have been times in the past where I have asked moderators to make sure the discussion remains constructive and honest, but I've never asked for any infractions to be handed out.

That is the only post since my return that is remotely objectionable. Either you reported it or some guardian angel did so on your behalf. Not that it matters. I'm still waiting for a non-theistic, or at any rate metaphysically-neutral, argument against gay rights which holds water from you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nobody is requiring you to "condone and certify" anything at all

really, they why are homosexuals asking citizens to recognize their marriages?

---

And soldiers are big boys. They've been showering and 'exposing' themselves to homosexuals for as long as there has been an institutional militarism. It's just that, before the repeal of DADT, they never knew just who was homosexual and who was not. What would bother you more: exposing yourself to any number of potential homosexuals, or to just a few that you know are gay?

men are made to be able to kill and go home and hug their kids and be gentlemen and good husbands.  I do not ask soldiers to give up being decent human beings and not care about exposing their gentiles for the pleasurable view of either homosexual men or heterosexual women.

to say a person, soldier or civilian, should throw away common decency in their everyday life, when conditions do not warrant it, is to be completely void of morality.

[Einzige Mk. II]

really, they why are homosexuals asking citizens to recognize their marriages?

They are asking the government to recognize their marriages. You are not the government, no matter how you may wish to be so in your Dominionist fantasies. Not yet, at any rate.

---

men are made to be able to kill and go home and hug their kids and be gentlemen and good husbands.  I do not ask soldiers to give up being decent human beings and not care about exposing their gentiles for the pleasurable view of either homosexual men or heterosexual women.

Then being 'exposed' to homosexuals won't require that they "give up being decent human beings" either, now will it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your 'common decency' is just that: common. In nobler times, the word 'common' had all the negative connotations that the word 'brute' does today. But, alas, we've become thoroughly democratized.

[fezzyfestoon]

Isn't killing one of the very first things Christians aren't supposed to do?  So why do you care so much about gays being gay in the military if the entire point of the military is to break one of the cardinal rules?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That is the only post since my return that is remotely objectionable. Either you reported it or some guardian angel did so on your behalf.

maybe someone just doesn't like you regardless to whom you are posting.

---

Not that it matters. I'm still waiting for a non-theistic, or at any rate metaphysically-neutral, argument against gay rights which holds water from you.

I don't claim to be neutral.  Nor do I hide the fact that I am taking refuge within the word of God.  But I do strive to be honest.  And if someone rejects the bible, I don't insist they make a biblical argument.

[Einzige Mk. II]

I don't claim to be neutral.  Nor do I hide the fact that I am taking refuge within the word of God.  But I do strive to be honest.  And if someone rejects the bible, I don't insist they make a biblical argument.

Very good! We've reached an impasse. That's all it takes to cut through the fat with you types.

[fezzyfestoon]

You do insist that the discussion be bible based.  It's the only way you converse.  You refuse to argue with regard to any other authority.  You refuse to acknowledge any other interpretation of right and wrong or engage in a conversation that respects other beliefs.