Flatly, no.
If the networks thought America wanted Christian programming, they would broadcast it 24/7. All they're doing is the same thing every other business is doing: chasing the money.
The suspects you're looking for live closer to home.
Today's Question: Do you support same-sex marriage?
- Thread starter TideFans Reporter
- Start date
Flatly, no.
If the networks thought America wanted Christian programming, they would broadcast it 24/7. All they're doing is the same thing every other business is doing: chasing the money.
The suspects you're looking for live closer to home.
Nice quip, care to expand on that? Aside from the obvious straw man of 'freedom without morals', how exactly are we descending into anarchy by allowing all people the same access to government benefits?
You don't have to agree....It is your right, but that doesn't make your statement accurate.
The Blue States dictate morality through the air waves. The lack of Christian programming is not the problem. The fact that sex, four letter words, drug use, violence, and anti-Christian themes are on 24/7 to the point where my teenage daughters are unable to avoid it is quite sad. Those focused on Breaking down every Social moral code have slowly flocked to our nations media centers....LA, NYC, and DC.
They have outnumbered those with more conservative values, and are slowly wearing away our ability to filter the garbage....because we can't escape it.
And like any good liberals do, even on here, your response is to mock, belittle, and bully those who disagree with you...
There never was Christian Programming....but the networks did worry at one time about offending people and thus controlled what could be aired at certain times children were watching. Now, not only do they not care...now we have shows that promote teen sex, drugs, etc. Which goes back to my statement....
Tv used to reflect public opinion now it creates it.....
And your comment about the money? Some of it may have to do with the money.... But most has to do with creating a culture that tries to say "bullying" is a bigger problem than why we put out kids who have never read the constitution but know every word to most 50 cent songs....and I am guessing you are ok with that.
The Blue States dictate morality through the air waves. The lack of Christian programming is not the problem. The fact that sex, four letter words, drug use, violence, and anti-Christian themes are on 24/7 to the point where my teenage daughters are unable to avoid it is quite sad. Those focused on Breaking down every Social moral code have slowly flocked to our nations media centers....LA, NYC, and DC.
They have outnumbered those with more conservative values, and are slowly wearing away our ability to filter the garbage....because we can't escape it.
And like any good liberals do, even on here, your response is to mock, belittle, and bully those who disagree with you...
There never was Christian Programming....but the networks did worry at one time about offending people and thus controlled what could be aired at certain times children were watching. Now, not only do they not care...now we have shows that promote teen sex, drugs, etc. Which goes back to my statement....
Tv used to reflect public opinion now it creates it.....
And your comment about the money? Some of it may have to do with the money.... But most has to do with creating a culture that tries to say "bullying" is a bigger problem than why we put out kids who have never read the constitution but know every word to most 50 cent songs....and I am guessing you are ok with that.
I'd offer you up Occupy Wall Street -- but that probably won't work for you will it?
First of all - I'll back up a bit. I think personally -- that anyone that desires to marry anyone else is fine doing so. I personally 100% feel that in this cause -- by allowing the Gay Community to marry does nothing to the rest of us -- and if it does -- it's minor.
But, as long as it is not desired by the majority of the residents in and approved in that state -- we should respect that. The argument that the majority could be wrong -- is valid -- but in every past situation -- that was similar (as pointed out by some of you -- slavery, women's rights, civil rights) -- eventually society caught up and change happened.
By forcing an issue that does not represent the majority of our citizens -- and by forcing a decision at the Nat'l Level is having the Government dictate an issue to many this is morally based. So, to many of our citizen Government would be dictating morality by passing a law that it's citizens didn't agree with (and please don't cite polls -- the only poll that matters is the vote of the issue by the people and it fails over and over).....
The thing that many of you need to worry about -- is that there are some bad people in Government on both sides. If you open up the Pandora's Box by forcing issues that the majority disagree with -- can allow them the same power in the future. Maybe in the future they decide we don't need to have guns in the hands of it's citizens. Maybe in the future they decide that eating animals is "morally" wrong -- and that we can't eat meat anymore....the box is then opened and then anything becomes possible.
This is where libertarians and I part company -- they are of the mind that we would be just fine if the Gov't built the roads and had a military -- otherwise leave us alone. The problem is -- is then we get into a battle over the definition of "affecting others" -- and then we have to leave that up to the legal system to define. In a Libertarian Society -- the people incapable of making decisions on their own (whether you like it or not) would struggle and could not survive without Government support. As the morality erodes -- their ability to make moral decisions goes along with it -- and thus Anarchy.
They would either Perish or Take from others -- and there would not be enough Police Presence to prevent it...... Over the past 50 years we've seen 4 generations evolve -- and each generation is less capable than the generation before it.....is there anyway to stop it? Is there any reason to think it will get better?
This has less to do with the topic's subject matter -- and more to do with the fact that as long as most people are opposed to it -- we should allow time for opinions to change before we force an issue down people's throats that don't want it.
Last edited:
Stopping religious jerkitude means more morality, not less.
It is more important for people to treat each other fairly than for them to refrain from whatever petty behavior the fundamentalists think dooms their souls.
Now you are back to square one -- who determines what's fair?
You have to have a basis of fairness in order to know how do gauge it.....
And most people's basis of fairness and justice comes from the Bible....
If you have a better place to find it -- please share....and it has to be based on something more than independent logic -- of each person. There has to be a standard.
That Biblical standard is found in our laws --
When the laws no longer meet the standard -- tradition has led us to change the laws.....
Sort of a pretty good system for the first 235 years --
If you have a system that historically has worked better -- I'd be open to hearing about it.
Last edited:
Yeah because our system of laws has been great so far. It's worked out great for Women, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and Homosexuals over the last 235 years. :roll eyes:
There has been a lot of hatred, bigotry, and social injustices based on your Biblical standard. The Bible is fine, but I'll personally leave the judging up to God.
Okay -- again -- give me a system that has historically worked better than ours? I'm willing to listen to it -- but I can't find one, and I've searched rather diligently.
No government is going to rid their country of hatred, bigotry, and social injustice. It's really not possible..... And it's "OUR" Biblical Standard. It isn't mine -- it belongs to every person that is a citizen of this country.
I'm not preaching here -- I'm saying that our laws are based on Biblical Principles....and you can't leave the judging of living beings to God. You have to have some legal structure in place to protect the innocent from those that aren't.
Do you have a country you would prefer we copy? Which one?
Our laws our based on what now? I'll just leave this here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
This is a lame argument. "It's the best we've got so it has to be right." ?
So a law that prevents same sex marriage protects the innocent how??? I'm pretty sure if 2 dudes or 2 chicks get married it doesn't effect me in any way at all. I'll still be married to my wife.......
Last edited:
Which one of ours? The one where owning black people (who were defined as 3/5 of a white person) was ok? The one where women couldn't vote? The whole point of our system of government is that is can be amended to deal with issues that might have been missed initially, and it's happened 27 times.
Heck, this isn't even a Constitutional issue, so I'm not sure why you're trying to make any argument about where our country comes from, historically. No one is arguing we change the foundational principles the country was founded on, we're simply saying that as of right now, one group of people are given benefits others do not have access to.
That's unfair, now matter what sort of pretzel logic one uses to try to make it seem 'right'.
Again -- what type of government would you prefer?
Laws protect the innocent -- in general -- I already told you that I am fine with same sex marriage -- what I'm not fine with is people that want to change a law without going through the proper methods.....that's all.
WTH does this have to do with a type of government? I never said I prefer another country or type of government. This is about a stupid law that people who are homophobes want passed because same sex marriage makes them feel uncomfortable.
CA - Did you answer the question and I missed it? Do you have a system that's historically worked better? If not - we have the one we have -- and we have to work within it....
Not trying to say everything we've done is "right" as a country - far from it -- so quit trying to put those words in my mouth -- as you know that's not what I was saying. I don't agree that it's not legal -- I think it should be. But again - there is a process to follow. If we don't follow the process we can easily open a Pandora's Box for future changes as well -- some that you might NOT agree with....then what?
When you compare Gay rights to Women's Rights and Civil Rights (both Constitutional Amendments) what other type of conclusion would most people make? It sounds like a Constitutional Challenge to me.....
Not using Pretzel logic - if it's not right -- there are methods to correct that. Right now every attempt at using those methods have failed.....
I'm not sure what is the big issue you are having -- it's currently not legal across the country-- it will continue to be not legal until there is enough favor to reverse it.....doing it before that happens is a bad idea.
Just follow the process -- that's all I'm saying --
People are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment -- because if it's a States Issue and is legal in some states and not others than you have other issues emerge -- like honoring it in other states, etc.
Not trying to say everything we've done is "right" as a country - far from it -- so quit trying to put those words in my mouth -- as you know that's not what I was saying. I don't agree that it's not legal -- I think it should be. But again - there is a process to follow. If we don't follow the process we can easily open a Pandora's Box for future changes as well -- some that you might NOT agree with....then what?
When you compare Gay rights to Women's Rights and Civil Rights (both Constitutional Amendments) what other type of conclusion would most people make? It sounds like a Constitutional Challenge to me.....
Not using Pretzel logic - if it's not right -- there are methods to correct that. Right now every attempt at using those methods have failed.....
I'm not sure what is the big issue you are having -- it's currently not legal across the country-- it will continue to be not legal until there is enough favor to reverse it.....doing it before that happens is a bad idea.
Just follow the process -- that's all I'm saying --
People are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment -- because if it's a States Issue and is legal in some states and not others than you have other issues emerge -- like honoring it in other states, etc.
-- sounds to me like you aren't a fan of our system..... (Government is a System of Laws is it not?)
Doesn't make me uncomfortable at all -- and I'm not a homophobe -- I just want us to use the "system of laws" that we have -- don't like it change the law -- and there is a way to do that.
No. Government is a means of determining the policy. Not the policy itself.
Last edited:
I
Same sex marriage is legal in six states and DC according to an article by the mother of a gay man in the Huntsville Times.
Same sex marriage is legal in six states and DC according to an article by the mother of a gay man in the Huntsville Times.
Setting aside religion for a moment, I want my kids to have a clear understanding of what is aberrant biological behavior.
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Orange Bowl CFP Qtr: #4 Texas Tech v #5 Oregon - Rust vs B1G Pride (ESPN Noon ET)'
- CajunCrimson
Replies: 286 -
Latest threads
-
-
-
ESPN: Source: Brown won't transfer, stays at Louisville
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: UWRF beats North Central for first D-III title
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: QB Sorsby, top player in portal, commits to TTU
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Becht rejoins Campbell, transfers to Penn State
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0