joemturner

I am a walking party.

My favorite roller coaster ride was the old Cyclone at Coney Island. Tonight has been almost as fun, though.

I would simply contend that supporting and defending traditional marriage is not the same as casting eternal judgment on anyone for their sin, be they homosexual or heterosexual in either their inclinations or their behavior. (Two separate things, I might add.) Also, defending the proposition that "X is wrong and should be avoided or limited or at least not sanctioned" isn't at all the same as saying "I never do anything wrong." Likewise, saying "A is right" is not the same as saying "I never fail to do A." It's a shaky argument to put the ability to determine and act on evaluations of

More ad hominem, and more avoiding the question. Have you nothing to bring to the discussion except that? How about content? I respect the libertarian argument. It is what caused me to believe that a state-sanctioned domestic partnership of some kind would be a worthwhile debate to have. I don't think it should be called "marriage," out of respect for centuries of human tradition. At the same time, I am not blind to reality. I do think many of the legal pieces of such partnerships can already be created in contracts and through various legal means. I would personally be w

It was a simple question. What's the problem? Besides an inability to recognize a facetious remark... I posted what I respected in the some of the arguments I hear from the redefinition crowd. That was in direct response to an accusation that I was incapable of considering alternate points of view. I think the real problem is that some people just hate it when I blow their preconceptions. Darn it, he's not as one-dimensional as we thought. Harrumph! So... off to the ad hominems they go... ignoring the question along the way! Tra la la. Quite a ride tonight!

I find it interesting that nobody responded to what I thought was a very open-minded and non-judgemental request in an earlier post. Is there nobody here besides myself who finds anything worthwhile in any of the arguments of the other side? Have I become the only person on pcom willing to examine multiple points of view fairly? If nobody on the marriage-redefinition side is willing to suggest that they see any value at all in any arguments of the traditional-marriage supporters, then how is that less closed-minded than the other side? It seems to me that both sides are approaching

What, me complain? Perish the thought! I'm just enjoying the ride!

I read the OP. I don't think everyone did, though. And the discussion has taken such a political and theological turn... well... having been on the receiving end of a topic being moved for less obvious reasons than this... I'm just curious why the "mods" have decided to leave it in the cafe. Ah well. No worries on my part - no skin off my back. I just enjoy watching the operation of the site. It's highly entertaining at times. Good luck on your paper!

Fully agreed.

Funny, MCMM -- I think this whole thread belonged in the religious or political forum from the beginning. I did try to report the thread to the "mods" -- whoever they may be. If this discussion belongs in the Cafe, then there is no reason to have political or religious forums on the board. Just my opinion. Your opinion -- and the opinion of the "mod" involved - may vary, of course. It almost seems like somebody somewhere might have another reason for keeping a controversial topic going in a forum visible to the search engines rather than going into the political or religious foru

It's clear from this thread that Glenn Richardson isn't the only person around Paulding County who could benefit from some counseling. Beyond actual disagreement or disapproval of someone politically, there seems to be a lot of really seething hatred and glee in the misfortune of others showing in this thread. Yow! It's almost like some folks are ready to smear his blood on their faces and start dancing around a bonfire. If there is evidence to charge him with a crime, he should be tried. No question about it. I'm all for cleaning house - especially in the wake of a scandal - but I

Depends. What is "it?" This topic should be in the religion forum. Even those who support the redefinition of marriage are asking for the supporters of traditional marriage to produce Bible verses.

Have to agree with the dead horse argument. That is all.

I think the point is - it's nice that you got refinanced, but nobody was under the obligation to do that for you or even to work with you on it. You signed on the line and said that in 3 years, you'd be happy to take whatever they gave you under whatever terms you signed up for. That's why they make you sign all those papers at closing. When someone takes an ARM, they knowingly gamble on the market and on their future situation. That's why it's cheaper... it's putting off the pain and taking the chance that things will be better later. They're going to move anyway, or they'll have a

Easy, tiger. I didn't say you shrugged it off. I didn't assume that at all. Please re-read what I wrote. I can't help but wonder if you are making some assumptions whenever you see my initials. I already showed you that I actually do consider arguments outside my own opinion... contrary to your previous supposition. Interestingly, your response citing slavery is a well-trod objection to the type of argument I made and, unsurprisingly, has a classical answer. I'll leave it to you to read it if you are really interested. I won't assume that you are or that you are not. Totally up to

It sounds like this topic may be trending toward theological questions. If so, it should get moved to the proper forum as I know most in the Cafe aren't enthused with religious or political discussion, and this is BOTH. (It was probably inevitable when the post was introduced...)

Without knowing all the facts, it certainly sounds fishy. If the debt was legal, they should have to repay it even if some of the terms are modified. The idea that a judge can come in wipe out your accounts payable... well, how would you feel if someone owed you money and the judge said, "Ah, nevermind." But if it's a big bad bank... oh, well, let the fat cats have it. Who cares what's right? Make that bank pay for the sins of the industry! :blechh:

Fair enough. I note that "validity" is merely a matter of whether the argument convinces you or not. I alluded to one type of argument in my post above... there are others (samples easily searched), many of which contain varying degrees of some prevailing themes. One point that many libertarians of conservative-tilt find worthy of attention, even if not completely compelling by itself, is simply the plain magnitude of human history and the overwhelming stability of the institution of marriage and its male-female definition. Conservatives - even with libertarian blood in their veins -

Because MCMM seems interested to know what I think about other arguments and whether I'm capable of paying attention, I felt it might be helpful to point out: From those supporting marriage redefinition, I find the argument from libertarianism the most compelling. I am generally a limited government kind of guy and this argument resonates most with me, even though it does not ultimately persuade me. I do believe an argument can be made that longterm monogamous male/female relationships have a unique value and benefit to society that is not present in other groupings and therefore dese

I'm back from working for a while. Just checking in. All I'm saying is that it's a strawman just to say that to object to redefinition of traditional marriage is inherently based on some evil, obsessive fantasy. That's it. Does anyone here really think that's the ONLY reason people object? Personally, I think it's just as lazy to suggest that's the only reason people object as it is lazy to debate this question with any form of "Adam and Steve." I know there are various points of view on the topic, and I've discussed it with friends on all sides of the question. I understand man

P.S. I also think there are plenty of homosexual Christians, just as there are plenty of gossiping Christians, etc. I can't think of a Christian who doesn't have a sin problem. I can't think of a pagan who doesn't have one, either. The question of whether Christians sin is a big fat non-starter. That doesn't mean we chuck out the whole concepts of sin and righteousness, though. Ahh, never mind. This topic was doomed from the beginning. I have bills to pay - y'all have a nice bicker and include me out.

It's a strawman to suggest that the root cause of objection to the redefinition of traditional marriage is some evil, obsessive fantasy. I'm sure pulling that non-argument out as an epithet allows some folks to feel smug and morally superior, though... which is, interestingly enough, what they seem to abhor and criticize so much in others. Perhaps those stone-throwers, so humorously blind to the fact that they are fantasizing about what they think others are fantasizing about, might also enjoy a chill pill.

Thanks everyone! We'll do another round of stuff before Christmas. If you have a specific order and a date when you need it, go ahead and let us know by PM. Thanks.

This board needs an "ignore topic" function.

Yes, Snapfish is (or was) an HP service for photo sharing/storage. We did a calendar at Kinko's one year and it was a big hit with the grandmothers!