Debates and Discussions

Man and a dog.
Girl and two trees.
College roommates.
42 year old man with nine year old boy.
Two guys.
Two girls.

What marriage is:
According to Scripture, one man, one woman, united.
According to Webster, one man, one woman, united.

Words mean things, and the word "Marriage" has always meant, and still means, "The union of a man and a woman." No civil or political action can change the meaning of the term.

Ellen was never married to her partner. She may have gone through a ceremony and had the California Supreme Court say it was a marriage, but that does not change the fact that no relationship between two women (or two men, for that matter) can properly be understood to be a marriage. The whole "gay marriage" debate basically revolves around the desire of some to legitimize and justify what has always been generally understood to be deviant behavior.

Now, before you call me a hate filled bigot, (too late, you say? How hatefully bigoted of you!) consider this...

Those on one side of the issue claim to merely "want the same rights" that the other side has. In actuality, what they are demanding is that the structure and limits of that particular relationship which has always been understood to be called "marriage" be torn down so that the word really means nothing at all. After all, if marriage does not mean "one man, one woman, united," then what else can it mean? Why should the limits to the definition include only two consenting adult humans? Why must the line be drawn at two, or consenting, or adults, or even human? Why can a cowboy not marry his horse? Why a son not his mother? Why should there be any limits at all placed on what is legitimately recognized as marriage?

Yes, I know, it's the old "slippery slope" argument. But when you're standing at the top of a wet hill, shouldn't you call the slick incline by its real name?

From the Brazos Progressives News Blog: BVCAW: Antiwar Protest, September 20

BVCAW members and friends will gather on September 20th to demand congressional action to end this disastrous war and to bring our troops home now.

Which is that? Retreat, or Surrender? Or is it both?

Speakers at 5:45 PM will be followed at 6:00 PM by a solemn reading of the names of Americans and Iraqis who have died as a result of the war and the American occupation.

No mention of those that have died at the hands of Islamist radicals. I wonder how many of those "Iraqis who have died as a result of the war" are head-chopping, child murdering terrorists? Can anyone say "Zarqawi"? How about "Uday Hussein"?

The folks at BVCAW have every right to be blithering idiots. Their dangerous message of surrender should, however, be responsibly answered. Anyone interested in countering this noise, please let me know. Here are some of the signs I'd make for such an encounter;

Last year I posted about the militant atheistic attack against Christianity (as well as the logical inconsistency of their militancy.) At long last, a flaming atheist has decided to respond. Out of Christian charity, I will promote this dialog to a full fledged post rather than leaving it buried in the comments...

The commenter that identifies him/herself as "speaker of the truth" says;

really well im an Atheist and i am sure that you bible banging Christians will all aggree that any religon needs to be treated as equal and just because when we say something that was PROVEN like the Big Bang you plug your ears and walk away does NOT make you right

you are just talking trash about us calling us "downright militant" when in truth every war EVER had some form of religon behind it and never was that religon Atheism. look at the "Holy" crusades how many people where killed alot how many didnt even draw a weapon almost every one you caring and loving Christians killed millions of people that didnt do a thing and all this was in the name of your god(your god the holy one thats pure good)killed millions of people please feel free to tell me how the creator of everything is pure good when he made evil(and if satin made evil then did god make satin if not then whos to say satin didnt make the world and if he did the you worshipe pure evil but if god did make satin then why did he make him and why not destroy him)

Speaker, it is very difficult for me to refute your argument, because frankly, it is very hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. See, at this point of human evolutionary development, mankind has supposedly mastered the skill of communicating abstract concepts using written language, thereby achieving mastery over the other primates. Unfortunately, your lack of punctuation, proper spelling, and other norms of higher communication demonstrate de-evolutionary progress on your part, placing your communications skills at slightly higher than that of a lemur. While you may be able to use a keyboard, evolution has not taught you how to reason and relate rationally. Be that as it may, I will attempt to pick apart your statement and derive meaning from it.

PROB'ABLY, adv.
Likely; in likelihood; with the appearance of truth or reality; as, the story is probably true; the account is probably correct.

Distinguish between what may possibly, and what will probably be done.

Please note the spelling of this word. P - R - O - B - A - B - L - Y

It is not spelled P R O L L Y.

Come on, folks, can't we have a little respect for the English language? Good grief! In the interest of preserving that noble tounge, I am forming the following group;

Persistantly
Ranting
Organization
Bent
Against
Bastardized
Language
Yuckiness

The group will otherwise be known as the "Prolly Police", complete with its own blogroll. A cool "Prolly Free Zone" logo banner will follow. To join the Prolly Police, just certify in the comments that your site does not and will not engage in the use of the non-word "prolly" as a substitute for the proper english word "probably". Upon completion of a thorough background check (including a search for prior uses of the offending word in both posts and comments), membership will be granted at the "Patrol Officer" level. To advance through the ranks of the Prolly Police (Patrol, Deputy, Inspector, Chief), you must be willing to engage and confront the abusive contortion of our fair language wherever it raises its vile head. Here's half a million places to start.

Who will join me in this fight for the preservation of that great gift which has been bestowed upon us in the form of this fine and noble language?

Neil the Bugblaster shows once again what happens when you attempt to engage a raving atheist in a civilized discussion on the merits of christianity. The atheist typically can't stay on topic, refuses to give simple answers to simple questions, and invariably resorts to name calling and foul language. Oh, I almost forgot the obligatory "you christians are crazy" line.

Do they learn this debate style in college?

Hear ye, hear ye!

Let all men know that from this day forth it shall be proclaimed throughout the land that the honorable and faithful defender of the faith known as Frank Turk is not a heretical lunatic. Whereas the degree to which Frank Turk is an emotionally stable person can not be fully known, it can and shall be proclaimed with confidence that his doctrine is generally sound and biblically based.

OK, so iTurk believes in Santa. Not just the historical figure known as the beloved Saint Nicholas, but the fat guy in the red suit. He even claims that Santa ate his cookies. That’s fine, being delusional won’t keep you out of heaven. It’s a bit over the top when you slam your fellow believers in Christ, though. And Frank slammed hard. Those Christians that don’t “celebrate Santa” have been called jerks, dour, joyless, unimaginative, robots, and two-dimensional. Don’t ya feel the love, people!

Well, I bit, and bit hard. Got to admit I wasn’t anticipating a 6300 word screed in return, but I guess I asked for it. (Yeah, I think the “bring it on” reference to Coca-Cola did it.) Anyhow, here’s a response to a few of his points, followed by where I think we can find agreement, a discussion of what I believe is the main thrust of his argument that needs addressing, and concluding with his analogies and his mojo.

If you’ve no interest in this strange discussion of the existence of Santa, then please don’t waste your time in the extended entry. If you’re a glutton for punishment, then c’mon!

Thousands of years ago, vast herds of deer roamed the hills of central and southern Europe. As bands of nomadic hunters spread across the continent, they became dependent upon these animals for their sustenance. As these bands of nomads became more settled, and established villages and towns, veneration of the deer increased. Legends were formed, and worship of the great deer god Venille became abundant.

One village, on the northern coast of the Adriatic Sea, engaged in full fledge Ven worship, with special ceremonies and sacrifices performed annually. Every year, around the month of November, the men of the village would leave their families and enter the woods. They would be gone for weeks at a time, making sacrifices to the deer god. In return for these sacrifices, Venille would slay her own offspring to provide the things the men needed to care for their families. These gracious gifts that came from Venille through the sacrificial death of her offspring were known as Veni-son.

For a fresh perspective on what is REALLY important, look at what's going on over at Lakeshore Baptist.

This whole iTurk/Frank Monk thing has really been a drag. It's distracted me from my more important obsession, getting my toilet photos up. Now that I've got that out of the way, I'll blog the Brewhawhaw Bruhouhou Broohehe FRACAS.

iTurk continues relentlessly pursuing... something. It seems his goal at this point is to help iGuy become a better blogger. Whatever. The manner in which he is seeking to accomplish this noble goal has raised rousing criticism (and support), and there seems no end in sight to the continued hammering of iTurk's point.

Is iMonk not a credible person with regards to the gospel? I'm not credible enough to address that point, so I'll not speak to that. Is iTurk a credible person to be demanding credibility within the blogging community? Once again, I'm incredible.

Is iMonk not emotionally stable? (Am I?)
Does iTurk have an unhealthy fixation with the target of his obsession? (Do I?)
Are logs getting in the way of specks? Let he that is without credibility issues cast the first stone!

Chris preached Sunday about bitterness. We are to strive for peace, and not let a root of bitterness defile us. He said that in order to keep anger and bitterness from taking root, we must maintain an attitude of thankfulness, based upon the blessings and promises of God. Here's what I'm thankful for out of this mess...

Marla (Always Thirsty) and
Ellen (MzEllen & Co.) and
Bill (Out of the Bloo) and
Grant (R Teacher and the Soggy Craft Kids) and
Carla (Reflections of the Times) and
De at Thinklings and
Brad, the Broken Messenger and
Matt (Still Reforming) and
Adrian and
C.T. the Puritan ALERT! Possible EUP, parody, and/or troll. Approach with discernment.

Yeah, some names are missing... It's not like I'm writing the Lamb's Book of Life here, y'know?

***UPDATE***
Yeah, Ok... PyroPhil too.

Courtesy of Brazos County, here's a sample ballot for the upcoming Texas Constitutional Amendment election. For what it's worth, here's my take-

Prop. 1 - Railroad relocation fund
Against - Don’t we just need another huge government program to sink countless billions of dollars into over the next hundred years?

Prop. 2 - Marriage defined as marriage
For - Really, is this that complicated a matter?

Prop. 3 - Certain financial games don’t constitute debt
Against - My nerves tingle anytime the government is involved in economic development.

Prop. 4 - Denying bail to bail violators.
For - I think Dawg would be proud of this one.

Prop. 5 - Get the state out of the interest rate business
For - Less government intervention in the private sector is generally better.

Prop. 6 - More people on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Against - What, they don’t have enough people already? Deal with it!

Prop. 7 - Reverse mortgage line-of-credit
For - Folks ought to be able to spend their equity as they see fit.

Prop. 8 - Clear some land titles.
For - It’s silly that this should be a constitutional amendment, but whatever. Get this mess cleaned up so folks can get on with their lives.

Prop. 9 - Six year terms for RMA boards.
Whatever - They’re already doing it, so why not make it formal?

Texas Tommy has his recommendations.
Charles Kuffner makes his recommendations.
Porkus Maximus has been gathering articles and editorials related to the ammendments, primarily looking at numbers 1 and 9.

Prop 2 Stuff

Texans for Marriage

Republicans are for... Democrats against.

Various editorial boards are lined up against Prop 2. Not much of a surprise, really, seeing as most editorial boards are arrogant, obnoxious, and somewhat pompous. Case in point, the Eagle is against.

Opponents of Proposition 2 have formed a Coalition of Losers. For the record, Prop 2 is NOT anti-gay.

***UPDATE***
Shaine Mata thinks the opposition is wasting their time in trying to get the Gen XYZ crowd to turnout, and has this to say regarding the arguments against Prop 2:

Horsefeathers

Ernie has rounded up several news posts Prop 2.
Chad Hart has gathered some interesting quotesregarding Prop 2. I think the Perry and Cornyn quotes are priceless;
Perry

"If there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live."

Cornyn

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . ."

Tarrant County Young Republicans are for.
Texas Songbird is for.

Mike Williams is getting married- Congratulations! While he is busy with things more important than blogging, he has taken to reposting previously visited issues. When he first posted about Abortion,Rape and Incest a year ago, the comments of my response post got hijacked by a beligerant atheist.

Anyhow, seeing as Mike is revisiting the issue, I will pose the question once more- How ought a christian view abortion?

Here's a couple of interesting links related to the subject:
Martin Labar has some thoughts on when life begins.
JivinJ discusses the Debate Tactics of pro-abortionists.
Nick Cannon presents a very personal and extremely moving view of abortion- from the perspective of a survivor.
La Shawn Barber posts about pre-natal pain.

The text of my original post is in the extended entry:

From the Dallas Morning News:

Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are "resolve" and "sacrifice," especially as they relate to war.

Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word – "insurgent" – on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as "insurgents."

The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.

They drove that point home with chilling clarity Wednesday in a poor Shiite neighborhood. As children crowded around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and toys in a gesture of good will, a bomb-laden SUV rolled up and exploded.

These children were not collateral damage. They were targets.

The SUV driver was no insurgent. He was a terrorist.

People who set off bombs on London trains are not insurgents. We would never think of calling them anything other than what they are – terrorists.

Train bombers in Madrid? Terrorists.

Chechen rebels who take over a Russian school and execute children? Terrorists.

Teenagers who strap bombs to their chests and detonate them in an Israeli cafe? Terrorists.

IRA killers? Basque separatist killers? Hotel bombers in Bali? Terrorists all.

Words have meanings. Whether too timid, sensitive or "open-minded," we've resisted drawing a direct line between homicidal bombers everywhere else in the world and the ones who blow up Iraqi civilians or behead aid workers.

No more. To call them "insurgents" insults every legitimate insurgency in modern history. They are terrorists.

Like I said. (HT LGF).

I'm still gonna fisk you.

GTL is really dissapointed with the direction our county is heading. Who isn't? Anyhow, here's a breakdown of his rant, my comments follow in italics:

I love you, man!
I mean that, too. Not in candy pants funny guy sort of way, but for real! Granted, I can't stand your ideas. I think you are wrong about 93.6% of the time. I believe your political philosophy is detrimental to the future of this great nation. But none of that means that I don't love you.

I really enjoyed fisking your "What makes a liberal" post. I've visited your site a couple of times since then, and even managed to get a comment or two in. Even though we disagree, I don't really understand how it is you have the impression that I "hate" you.

See, that's the same type of rhetoric the left has been throwing at the right for years. Those of us that had sincere disagreements with Bill Clinton were labelled "Clinton Haters." Those of us that believed the words in the constituiton had a particular meaning, and that he had violated his oath of office were said to be driven by "hate."

Now those on the left are quick to call us conservatives Nazis, or RepubliKKKans. They openly refer to the President of the United States as a monkey, or as Hitler, and they actively seek this nation's harm on the basis that he is the sitting president. There is a whole lot of hate coming out of the left. Perhaps that is why they are so quick to put it onto us. I'm trying to remember what that psychological term is when you see your own sickness in someone else... transference?

Thanks for the link. I appreciate your service to our country, and I appreciate your enthusiasm for your ideas. Perhaps someday I can convince you to rethink some of them... but not because I hate you.