Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 04:06pm PT
|
Sorry cragman, I don't buy it. You're kidding yourself.
You can't say you love them and advocate for laws that treat them as second class.
That's not respect. The hate the sin/love the sinner spiel is a delusion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 04:12pm PT
|
it is ignorant and it is flat out wrong
As is polygamy, bestiality, and lustful behavior with knotholes in trees, right?
Nobody is disagreeing with homosexuality qua person. Carson believes that homosexual behavior qua behavior is immoral.
You would disagree, but the nature of such a disagreement does not have you being automatically correct. It is a moral disagreement qua behavior, not qua person.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 05:27pm PT
|
Actually Trump/Cruz/Carson are showing the world how many crazy people there are in the ranks of the Repugnant Party.
The truly crazy thing is that the GOP could put Mr. & Mrs. Potato Head on the ticket, and nearly half the friggin' country will still vote for them.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 05:53pm PT
|
lookin pretty good in comparison
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 07:15pm PT
|
But don't evangelicals care about God and faith? I'm not sure white right-wing Evangelicals in America really do care all that much. For many of them, Christianity is mostly a club they use to beat Godless liberals, the less fortunate, and non-Christians. What the faith seems to affirm for them more than anything else is the sense that humanity is divided into the good and the purely evil, and life's main task is to sort everyone into these two categories, and render appropriate punishments on the latter. This worldview isn't limited to God's judgment in the afterlife -- it extends to life on earth, which is why right-wing Evangelicals despise government efforts to aid anyone other than themselves and their kind (the "deserving").
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 07:21pm PT
|
this thread is about Donald
yet TGT continues to be absolutely fascinated, enthralled with Hillary Clinton
obsessed
is this healthy?
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 07:36pm PT
|
I find the term Christian to be a perjorative....glad it doesn't apply to me.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 07:37pm PT
|
If you hate gays and reject established science, then Carson is your guy.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 07:40pm PT
|
He has proven he can consistently make good judgements in high pressure situations.
How many of the other contenders have been in a situation with stakes as high as holding someones brain in their hands?
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Being In Sierra Happy Of Place
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 07:55pm PT
|
I AM ready for Donald!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 08:05pm PT
|
If you hate gays and reject established science, then Carson is your guy.
that also describes the typical older white male Republican base voter
you know, the type that thinks it makes sense to equate being good at your unrelated day job is the same as showing the depth of issue knowledge to be US President
sorry but Ben Carson is not ready for Prime Time
he should start with a basic civics class and then have Sarah Palin's tutors teach him
slowly and patiently, about just a few things, like Foreign Policy, how government works etc
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 08:33pm PT
|
His supporters show a complete lack of understanding on what the president does. They'd give the highest elected office in the country, maybe the world, to a person with ZERO political experience. That's lunacy. But he's tied with Trump in Iowa...which should tell you all you need to know about Iowa.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 08:34pm PT
|
Cragman's post at the bottom of the previous page is interesting and instructive.
He quotes (in a captioned photo) Republican hopeful Ben Carson responding to a heckler who called him a moron for believing in god with this: "I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right."
Now that's the kind of zinger that we all wish we could come up with when insulted... until we stop for a moment and realize what it implies.
What it implies is that Mr. Carson is denying everything that science has shown us, because it conflicts with his demonstrably wrong religious beliefs.
What happens when he's in the White House and reality conflicts with his religion?
All of the US Presidents since Eisenhower (the only ones I know much about) have been Presidents first and religious people second. Do you really want to give someone who denies evolution control over the red button?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 08:35pm PT
|
good thing no one posting on this thread is dumb enough to think Carson is "ready'
what a relief
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 08:38pm PT
|
He quotes (in a captioned photo) Republican hopeful Ben Carson responding to a heckler who called him a moron for believing in god with this: "I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right."
Now that's the kind of zinger that we all wish we could come up with when insulted... until we stop for a moment and realize what it implies.
It implies that Carson now believes in evolution!
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 09:42pm PT
|
to madbolter1 from a comment of yours a page or so back:
so the issue is behaviour, not the person?
and by behaviour i'm assuming you must be referring to anal sex and fellatio for gay males and either cunnilingus or the use of dildo's with lesbians?
do i have that right? or is there some other behaviour that is common to all homosexual people that i'm not aware of? maybe overly frequent use of jazz hands?
in case i'm correct, do you know if carson takes a stand against those behaviours when perceived hetero's do them? or is it just the people that are homosexual who he has an issue with engaging in certain behaviours?
furthermore, i wonder if you'd know his stance, being the man of science that he is, on the 1 out of every 421 accepted as females competing in the last five olympic games, who were actually genetically male. if they are married to genetic and pheotypical males and deliver fellatio to their husbands is their behaviour moral or immoral? if they have "straight" sex is it moral or immoral?
please advise.
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Being In Sierra Happy Of Place
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 10:25pm PT
|
I can't believe I agree with Norton...
Oh, wait...
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 10:39pm PT
|
jazz hands really piss me off...and the prezident should just stay home and shut the f*#k up or speak up or....pathetic.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
please advise.
From the dripping sarcasm in your post, I don't think you really want to be advised.
Also, far be it from me to speak for Carson on the details of his perspective. Earlier, I was offering a "charitable take" on the subject from the general perspective of some educated Adventists I've talked to. Carson may or may not share their perspectives. At a general level, I would expect that he does.
so the issue is behaviour, not the person?
That depends upon what you mean by "the issue." I would say that "the issue" concerns the morality of behavior, as just "being" qua person is not in itself a morally-defining feature in this context.
and by behaviour i'm assuming you must be referring to anal sex and fellatio for gay males and either cunnilingus or the use of dildo's with lesbians?
Most Adventists, Carson included I would hazard a guess, think that sexuality is only legitimately expressed (in behavior) in the context of a marriage between one man and one woman. Since none of the behaviors you described are in that context, I would guess that Carson would say that such behaviors are morally wrong.
You really don't want me to get into the philosophy of intention, which is how behavior is defined at the level of granularity you are taking a stab at. But I'll nutshell volumes to say that it is not the "same behavior" for a woman to fellate her husband as for a man to fellate another man. If you want to press me on that point as well, then do NOT complain when you get a lengthy post in response.
do i have that right? or is there some other behaviour that is common to all homosexual people that i'm not aware of? maybe overly frequent use of jazz hands?
I'm gonna just let that slide. M-kay?
in case i'm correct, do you know if carson takes a stand against those behaviours when perceived hetero's do them? or is it just the people that are homosexual who he has an issue with engaging in certain behaviours?
Again, I don't know the details of Carson's perspective. And at that level of detail, I don't know what various educated Adventists would think.
Again, trying to give a charitable case for them, I would guess that they would say that anal sex would be wrong in all contexts (as "unnatural" in the rubric of certain Bible verses). But, that's going out on a limb, because many could just as well quote the verse that says "the marriage bed is undefiled." The key point is that they will say that God recognizes morally righteous sexuality as expressed only between a man and woman in the context of marriage. Homosexual behaviors are by definition not an expression of sexuality in that context. And "marriage" as government has now defined it is not "marriage" in the Biblical sense, which is the sense they are concerned with.
furthermore, i wonder if you'd know his stance, being the man of science that he is, on the 1 out of every 421 accepted as females competing in the last five olympic games, who were actually genetically male.
I expect that Carson, being a man of science, would read your example article and say something like this: "It doesn't take a man of science to see that the article does not actually say what you claim it does. Having 'male range' testosterone levels does not even qualify as a necessary, much less sufficient, condition for a person to be 'genetically male,' as you said."
if they are married to genetic and pheotypical males and deliver fellatio to their husbands is their behaviour moral or immoral? if they have "straight" sex is it moral or immoral?
There certainly are some "edge cases," although the numbers are not as high as you suggest. The edge cases are made even "edgier" by the fact that these so-called "phenotypical males" do not come into the world with a penis, but they instead have a vagina. So, I think that since you're pressing the line that there is some substantive "maleness" about these people with a vagina, the scientific burden of proof would be on you to explain what the necessary and sufficient conditions of gender really are.
If you can really make the case that what you have in your thought experiment are one genuine male and one genuine female, and they are married, then I doubt Carson (or most other educated Adventists) are going to nit-pick their behaviors in the marriage bed.
So, what you're left with is the issue of what marriage is. And there government has wildly muddied the waters! It would have been much better for government to have nothing to do with what is a fundamentally religious definition in the United States. The only reason we have the present cultural divide on this issue is that government unilaterally decided to disconnect "marriage" from its traditional religious/moral definition.
In the beginning, government should have defined a "civil union" with all of the governmentally-recognized privileges that married couples enjoy. Any person would have the right to enjoy such privileges in the context of a civil union (including any and all consenting adults, which does imply polygamy and other sorts of "contractual" relationships people might wish to form). Where does government get off defining what sorts of relationships (and contracts) that consenting adults can form among themselves, and then dole out "rights" on the basis of "preferred" unions but not others?!? That government even tried to get its fingers into values, morality, and religion is the really issue here.
So, get the moral implications out of civil unions, and have government doing what it should: recognize all contractual unions between consenting adults as conferring whatever tax advantages, etc. that married couples now enjoy.
Then, "marriage" would be employed only by those caring to put an overtly religious stamp on their relationship.
Non-religious people simply wouldn't care about "getting the label" because it would be functionally irrelevant and would add nothing they would care to add to their legally-recognized union.
Religious people could get "married" according to whatever standard their "holy writs" indicated.
I can't speak for Carson on this point, but I for one have exactly zero problem with civil unions between homosexuals. Government has no business in the morality business! To me, it's sad that government so muddied the waters from the beginning that it didn't recognize the moral/religious basis of "traditional marriage" and thus separate that label from the moral/religious-neutral label of "civil union" and all of its universally-applicable rights and privileges.
Given the last few paragraphs, I myself would like to hear Carson's take on the distinction between civil unions and "traditional marriage" and hear if he would have any problem with full civil rights being recognized for homosexual couples, where by "civil rights" I mean all rights and privileges from the government's perspective, including tax, inheritance, and other advantages presently granted to "families."
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
Short version: Ben's a rightwing freak show.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!