Hard nosed, intelligent, political discussion

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

What if the American culture became "gay."

I don't seriously think there is any danger of that. The overwhelming majority of the people are, and always will be attracted to the opposite sex. There are, however, a small minority of people who, for whatever reason, are attracted to people of the same sex.

Is "gay" acceptable?

Acceptable to whom?

Are we as a country willing to let the old ways slip away?

If by "the old ways" you are referring to the outdated moral standards of the early part of the 20th century, I'd say they went out the window with the counterculture of the 60s.

The million dollar question at least in my mind is "is the gay lifestyle" an acceptable life style for the country. Truthfully, I struggle with answering that question and lean toward "no."

What exactly is "the gay lifestyle"? To my knowledge they live the same "lifestyle" as the rest of us. They work, eat, sleep, pay taxes, and serve communities all across this great nation. The ONLY difference is that they are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. As far as whether or not that is acceptable, those who find it unacceptable should not become homosexual. But they have no right, imo, to impose their morality on others who are.

I suspect one fear is that a trend allowing homosexual couples to raise children would potentially promote the lifestyle over a period of time and there is certainly a lot of resistance to our society eventually being gay and without the ability to reproduce.

But that fear is unfounded. There is no evidence that a child being raised by a homosexual couple causes that child to lean toward homosexuality

The fear of homosexuals is nothing more than the christian community attempting to marginalize a segment of society and treat them as second class.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

The dilemma here is where to draw the line in regard to social norms. There are a group that believe that morals as described in the Bible are the norms our society should live with.

The dilemma is that the line keeps changing while laws, by their very nature, are immutable until altered through legislative process.

That the road to change is so slow has frustrated the move towards more human rights throughout the course of our history.

This which we debate now, will find it's way to our laws. But that is little consolation to those who seek rights for themselves in the here and now.

-----------------
A different thought.
I don't really think that the politicians who speak on the basis of moral outrage on this issue are being completely honest with their constituents.
The morality issue plays well to the masses, but it is the ultimate cost to insurance companies and the government that drives the backdoor stalemate.

 

[GAVol]

The morality issue plays well to the masses, but it is the ultimate cost to insurance companies and the government that drives the backdoor stalemate.

Very true . . . A lot of this could be solved if insurance benefits were disassociated from the workplace and people were forced to go out and buy health insurance the same way they buy auto or homeowners insurance.

P.S. . . . I spewed Diet Coke all over my screen when I read "backdoor stalemate".

 

[U-T]

The war in Iraq has been a near disaster in the last year. Not overall but in the last 10-12 months. We are just now starting offenses in areas needed months ago but still do not have the men capable of a complete Iraq over-throw.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

I don't seriously think there is any danger of that. The overwhelming majority of the people are, and always will be attracted to the opposite sex. There are, however, a small minority of people who, for whatever reason, are attracted to people of the same sex.
Acceptable to whom?
If by "the old ways" you are referring to the outdated moral standards of the early part of the 20th century, I'd say they went out the window with the counterculture of the 60s.
What exactly is "the gay lifestyle"? To my knowledge they live the same "lifestyle" as the rest of us. They work, eat, sleep, pay taxes, and serve communities all across this great nation. The ONLY difference is that they are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. As far as whether or not that is acceptable, those who find it unacceptable should not become homosexual. But they have no right, imo, to impose their morality on others who are.
But that fear is unfounded. There is no evidence that a child being raised by a homosexual couple causes that child to lean toward homosexuality

The fear of homosexuals is nothing more than the christian community attempting to marginalize a segment of society and treat them as second class.

Yep, that's why I said for grins and giggles. The points made were points that are common in current culture. You cannot legislate change, it must come naturally which means over time.

Personally I don't agree with the gay lifestyle. I understand there are those that for some reason are attracted to like genders. But all the same gender making out stuff that is creeping into various media can actually have an effect on some. But, not agreeing with the gay lifestyle does not mean bashing or minimizing one's existence.

One cool thing is that this discussion is several threads long and there has yet to be screaming or dissing. That's cool!

 

[Lexvol]

Yep, that's why I said for grins and giggles. The points made were points that are common in current culture. You cannot legislate change, it must come naturally which means over time.

Personally I don't agree with the gay lifestyle. I understand there are those that for some reason are attracted to like genders. But all the same gender making out stuff that is creeping into various media can actually have an effect on some. But, not agreeing with the gay lifestyle does not mean bashing or minimizing one's existence.

One cool thing is that this discussion is several threads long and there has yet to be screaming or dissing. That's cool!

The correction I recommend for you in this statement is that change can and has been legislated. The issue with that is that you cannot legislate morality, or the public's personal opinion of that change. That is what evolves, or occurs over time. The legislation of change is what makes the judiciary so powerful.

 

[jdsa]

Bingo! It's not the "Mega-estate" that is impacted anyway since most of them are well sheltered, it's the estate that is barely over the limit and has not effectively planned that inevitably gets hammered by the tax burden.

To me, this reads more like an argument to raise the raise the minimum taxable amount and/or alter the mechanism of taxation so that trusts are included.

According to the ol' Wikipedia, the current minimum amount taxable by the estate tax is 1.5M (which meets my definition of a large estate by a long stretch), and is subject to a hefty 50% tax (didn't know it was already that steep).

On the count of double taxation, I think that's point-of-view thing. Or to put it another way, I don't see why some people, just by being born to the right parents, should essentially get a free ride in life, or if they do, there should be at least something done to level up the playing field.

(and as an aside I'm ashamed about getting confused about what was meant by entitlements. But I have had this lingering question about the estate tax...)

 

[GAVol]

On the count of double taxation, I think that's point-of-view thing. Or to put it another way, I don't see why some people, just by being born to the right parents, should essentially get a free ride in life, or if they do, there should be at least something done to level up the playing field.

What about giving up half of an estate equates to "leveling the playing field"? Sounds like pure redistribution of wealth to me.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

The correction I recommend for you in this statement is that change can and has been legislated. The issue with that is that you cannot legislate morality, or the public's personal opinion of that change. That is what evolves, or occurs over time. The legislation of change is what makes the judiciary so powerful.

No, you cannot legislate how Americans feel regarding any subject. After racial discrimination laws were passes, the changes didn't necessarily stop. In fact, there are many cases of discrimination that can be found even today. Those laws were passed nearly 150 years ago.

 

[volsgal03]

MY SISTER IS AN ATTORNEY WHO PROBATES WILLS AND ESTATES AND SHE ONCE TOLD ME SHE DOESN'T LIKE IT WHEN CHILDREN FEEL THAT THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE OBLIGATED TO LEAVE THEM AN INHERITENCE.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

The correction I recommend for you in this statement is that change can and has been legislated. The issue with that is that you cannot legislate morality, or the public's personal opinion of that change. That is what evolves, or occurs over time. The legislation of change is what makes the judiciary so powerful.

No, you cannot legislate how Americans feel regarding any subject. After racial discrimination laws were passes, the changes didn't necessarily stop. In fact, there are many cases of discrimination that can be found even today. Those laws were passed nearly 150 years ago.

BTW, the government of the USA is actually "by the people for the people", not "by the dumbasses we continually elect to dictate how we live". Just a thought.

 

[GAVol]

MY SISTER IS AN ATTORNEY WHO PROBATES WILLS AND ESTATES AND SHE ONCE TOLD ME SHE DOESN'T LIKE IT WHEN CHILDREN FEEL THAT THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE OBLIGATED TO LEAVE THEM AN INHERITENCE.

I agree 100%.

I heard a financial planner the other night that said his goal was to build wealth and then retire and spend every last cent of it and ideally the last check he will write will be for his casket and it will hopefully bounce.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

According to the ol' Wikipedia, the current minimum amount taxable by the estate tax is 1.5M (which meets my definition of a large estate by a long stretch), and is subject to a hefty 50% tax (didn't know it was already that steep).

In Tennessee ever "estate" is subject to the inheritance tax. The minimum range is 5.5 percent on an estate worth less than $50,000. It graduates upward based on the value of the estate, like the federal income tax. The 1.5 million threshhold only applies to the federal inheritance tax. I am sure that we all have different ideas of what consitutes a big estate, but $1.5 million really is not that much these days.

 

[GAVol]

In Tennessee ever "estate" is subject to the inheritance tax. The minimum range is 5.5 percent on an estate worth less than $50,000. It graduates upward based on the value of the estate, like the federal income tax. The 1.5 million threshhold only applies to the federal inheritance tax. I am sure that we all have different ideas of what consitutes a big estate, but $1.5 million really is not that much these days.

I don't think it even should matter. I just don't understand the mentality that says someone should be taxed just because they are fortunate enough to be receiving an inheritance. In most cases, the income has already been taxed anyway, so what possible reason is there for the governement to reach out and take another chunk of it just because somebody died?

In my view you can only support this tax if you are into redistribution of wealth or envy. If there's another argument, please somebody make it.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

In my view you can only support this tax if you are into redistribution of wealth or envy. If there's another argument, please somebody make it.

I completely agree with your assessment here GAVol. IMO there are two conflicting ideals at work here, both of which are heavily ingrained in the American psyche.

First, there is a natural tendancy against dynastic privilege in this country. A lot of our ancestors left countries where a person's station in life was governed by the class that they happened to be born into. The founders of our country wanted to get away from that (i.e. all people are created equal). This is reflected in our appreciation for "self-made" people.

The second element is a bit more complicated. Depsite our aversion to dynastic privilege and appreciation for self-made people, our culture is obsessed with "American dynasties". The Bushes, Kennedys, Hiltons, Rockafellers, etc. are all examples. IMO this is an amalgamation of two thoughts: (1) Even though we generally don't like the idea of people getting a free ride off the accomplishments of their forebearers, most of us support the desire of the forebearer to "leave something behind" so his or her children/grandchildren can have an easier lot in life; and (2) There is probably some sense of nostalgia for the "old world". Think of how popular Princess Di was in America. Even though the USA is not a monarchy, we have some weird fascination with royalty in other countries.

Of course, there is a "third rail" that plays a part here. That would be the "benefit culture", or wealth redistributionists if you prefer, who really want a socialist state where each contributes according to his or her abilities and each receives based on his or her need.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Churches in the US have become money raising, social and entertainment centers for it's members. As a result, the Biblically dictated norms or morality if you like, have greatly slipped over the past several decades.

Great topic and civility among the Volnation members, for mere curiosity what is your test for the church you have described above?

I can give a great example of the church you have described above, World Harvest Church and Ministries in Columbus, Ohio.

Would you consider a prominent Southern Baptist Church such as Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee to hold true to the Bible and its teachings?

As a result, the Biblically dictated norms or morality if you like, have greatly slipped over the past several decades. Politicians have found in certain parts of the country that they can obtain votes (thus additional personal power and more $$&#036 to bring Biblical morals into government, at least as a part of their campaigns. Should I continue?

I could not agree with your more. The Church, starting in the late 40's and 50's started drifting away from people of America. The Church did not adapt to a changing culture.

When The Church did not have the community power it once did it moved to try and legislate morality through law. Which is a very bad idea. In my opinion I believe The Church has gotten lazy. ( I am a hard core Christian Republican, probably a closet Libertarian and fairly liberal on social issues.)

If The Church wants to change the United States they can do it without the help of the government.

The last thing we need is a Theocracy.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

The last thing we need is a Theocracy.

I'm guessing you've stopped at the bookstore this week....

American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

Great topic and civility among the Volnation members, for mere curiosity what is your test for the church you have described above?

I can give a great example of the church you have described above, World Harvest Church and Ministries in Columbus, Ohio.

Would you consider a prominent Southern Baptist Church such as Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee to hold true to the Bible and its teachings?

I cannot respond as to Bellvue in Memphis, only what I see around the Birmingham area. I'm not intentionally picking on the Baptists, it's just the most visible group in the local area. Here are some examples.

Many local Baptist Churches have memberships well above the 5000 range. The churches have spent millions on niceties such as gymnasiums, orchestra pits, entertainment, buses, 20'x40' plasma monitors so that the members do not have to look at hymnals for the words to the songs. In fact one local Church had a sign up that advertised a special speaker and I quote "No admission will be charged for the Saturday night service." Charging admission for the rest of them? Since when did Churches begin to charge admission? Since when did those who recieved "the calling" charge for their calling? Local churches now have staffs of nearly 100 employees.

Is this the direction Christ would expect his Churches to take? Whatever happened to saving souls? The local mega-churches are pretty much made up of white middle and upper-middle class members. It appears they do not outreach to AAs, hispanics or any other non-white target demographics. Are these people not worthy of being converted? Is it because many do not have the $ to toss in the plate on Sunday? It appears to me that many of today's Churches have become self serving, not out reaching. I think this is wrong, in fact I believe God would be served better by having 10-500 member churches than 1-5000 member church. JMO and not trying to disrespect anyone's religion.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

"Many local Baptist Churches have memberships well above the 5000 range. The churches have spent millions on niceties such as gymnasiums, orchestra pits, entertainment, buses, 20'x40' plasma monitors so that the members do not have to look at hymnals for the words to the songs..... Is this the direction Christ would expect his Churches to take? "

This phenomenon "megachurches" is fairly new. I'm not sure anyone fully understands it's ramifications on our communities.

This from Scott Thuma, PHD....
"In order to understand fully the dynamics of megachurches, they must be seen as a collective social phenomenon rather than as individual anomalous moments of spectacular growth or uniquely successful spiritual entrepreneurial ventures."

Full Thuma Paper

"Spiritual entrepeneurial ventures" is a phrase that troubles me.
Bham, I think you're concerns are well founded. One thing is certain, that many people have the potential to create one loud and unified voice in a community. What will they wish to do with that voice?

sorry about format, my quote boxes don't seem to be working....

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Would you consider a prominent Southern Baptist Church such as Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee to hold true to the Bible and its teachings?

I'm not the one to whom you were replying OE, but I'll throw my :twocents: in anyway. I think every christian denomination holds true to certain aspects of the bible and it's teachings, but none holds true to all of them. The more liberal denominations have strayed away from some of the fundamental teachings by allowing women and gays in the pulpit, and they generally don't preach against sin anymore, and other things as well. But these are also the denominations which are more likely to care for those less fortunate and generally care about the plight of others, the very things Jesus said would identify his disciples (John 13:34-35).

The evangelical denominations, particularly the SBC, are the ones concerned with the great commission (Matt 28:19-20), and they generally hold to the letter of scripture on matters of sin and what not, but I'm afraid they go way too far with it these days. They tend to rail against certain segments of society. The treatment of gay and lesbian people is one example. Another is the way they stand outside of abortion clinics shouting at the women trying to enter, calling them baby killer and other such hurtful things. The Bible teaches us to strive to live act like Christ, but these Christians remind me more of the Pharisees who drug the woman caught in adultery before Jesus, wanting to stone her (John 8:3-11).

The SBC to me seems to have forsaken the winning of souls. They've decided it's much easier to force feed the gospel down everyone's throats through legislation. I'm a lifelone Southern Baptist, but what I've seen the last several years has really soured my on christianity alltogether. The modern day SBC church, at least the ones I've been associated with, are described in Matthew 23:23-28, which is why I have quit going to church and walked away from the christian faith.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

GREAT RESPONSES!

First answer is no I have not been to a bookstore since my son was born on February 9th. I do not know why bringing up a theocracy would mean I had to get it from someone else; I am just a history fan!

I can sympathize with you about your beliefs. I grew up in an Independent Missionary Baptist Church that made legalism look like fun in the sun with around 50-80 members. The only way the church grew was if another church split.

I finally got away from that church when I was older and I have been Southern Baptist ever since.

There I things I love about the SBC and others that I cannot understand why the SBC tends to do their business.

During the last presidential election we had Sean Hannity, C.J. Watts, Zell Miller and Billy Cunningham and crew in for church and it was more or less a pep rally. I still have issues with the rally. I do not think a church should support one party or the other. Lay out the issues and let the people decide.

The church I am a member of is Genoa Baptist Church in Westerville, Ohio. Genoa Baptist

We generally run two services on Sunday and the total church number is around 1500. On Sunday night we run around 400. The actually sanctuary is also a gym; they call in the WAC, Worship and Activity Center. We have the large monitors and such. I am not quite sure why that is necessarily an evil. The church I grew up in would vehemently preach against churches that were larger than 200. I have never quite figured that one out.

At our church we have small groups and you really get know a lot of people if you become involved with the church. Our church models Rick Warren’s model of his church with membership coming in phases.

Church bickering and fighting tooth and nail to keep the Ten Commandments and such is a mute point when people are losing their lives and going to hell.

Lost souls are the name of the game, not trying to force someone to support your view through legislation.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

Adding to and also debating a little here. Again, just tossing out some thoughts cause Lord knows I'm neither perfect nor qualified to judge.

IMO and JMO, mega-churches are not much different from the large national or regional TV churches, they are "enterprises" and their employees are there for a career. I don't think that's necessary and in fact I believe the money taken in and squandered on the extravagant furnishings including the gym is a waste of the Lord's money. To hear that you bring in members in phases tells me the interest is not in salvation of humans (who's to determine when someone is ready for salvation?), but on keeping cash flow in check.

Just a thought, but how many truly poor people, that desperately need help, would those 20x40 foot plasmas feed? Which would the Lord prefer, the TV or the love, hope and charity that could have been provided with those funds? Actually, the love part doesn't come from the money but only by the wishes and intent of those providing it.

You made on comment that hits the target. Paraphrasing your intent, I believe, if the churches would do their job in this country by converting non-Christians, both parties would likely have candidates of solid character as the majority of those in this country would demand it. I agree, keep Church and State seperate for the good of us all.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Are your assumptions based on my church or your views in general?

If you believe my church does not outreach to the poorest of the poor, the homeless, or the drug uses or drunks, regardless or race, in Columbus, Ohio you are sadley mistaken.

My church is not interested in salvation of lost souls?

How did you reach that conclusion?

Do you know what Rick Warren's model is? The Phases are below

Class 101 - Discovering Church Membership
Class 201 - Discovering Spiritual Maturity
Class 301 - Discovering My Ministry
Class 401 - Discovering My Life Mission

The above equals a cash flow?

Do you attend a small church?

Have you ever attended a large® church?

Is it a waste of money because the gym is used for the Genoa Christian School?

You sound like the pastor at my parent's church. Smaller is better and the church should revert back to the 1850's. *That was his sermon two weeks ago when we took my newborn son to see my parents in Kentucky and somehow he tied in Irritable Bowl Syndrome.

*Perhaps I mistyped when I said membership was in phases? It is nothing like the Mormons or Scientology where you pay for different levels.

GOOD SHOW LETS KEEP TALKING! AWESOME!

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

*Perhaps I mistyped when I said membership was in phases? It is nothing like the Mormons or Scientology where you pay for different levels.

GOOD SHOW LETS KEEP TALKING! AWESOME!

A friend of mine got really into Scientology in the Savannah, GA area. He went in to be hooked up to a lie detector for his "confession" (I'm sure it is called something else) and he admitted to drinking and smoking some marijuana on weekend. They told him he needed to purify his body so he voluntarily entered a sauna-type sweat box and they locked him in for about 12 hours. He had to got to the E.R. and the scientologists billed him for about $8,000 for the purification. Of course, he paid it so he could get back into their good graces and continuing moving up the levels to clear or whatever it is.

I have also heard people who work in surgical units tell me that it is not uncommon for devout Mormon patients to arrive with a magic shirt that they refuse to take off, even for surgery, because it protects them from sin. Apparently, when they have to change magic shirts they put a fresh one on over the dirty one and then remove the dirty one from underneath the fresh one.

I don't mean for any of this to insult anyone's faith. Just relating some stories that I find curious.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Every faith or religious sect can tell some stories. Have you ever typed Scientology in google and you ought to read the negative stuff about it. Some of it is actually quite amusing. Espcially stuff about Xenu.

If you ever want a good read about the early days of the mormon faith, read "The Kingdom Of Mathias".