Where will the next war front be?

Polygamy and legalization of drugs

Don't see how polygamy can be denied if gay marriage is allowed.
 
Agreed. Not if the determining factor in the definition is "love" or "willing consent."

Also, I don't really see how agreement with SSM doesn't become the "mark of the Beast" (i.e., that which the State requires you to hold if you want to operate a business). The pinky & red equal sign will equal 666 for our country in our lifetime.
 
BedellBrave said:
Agreed. Not if the determining factor in the definition is "love" or "willing consent."

Also, I don't really see how agreement with SSM doesn't become the "mark of the Beast" (i.e., that which the State requires you to hold if you want to operate a business). The pinky & red equal sign will equal 666 for our country in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

I didn't really expect that one from you. :Gasp:
 
Dalyn said:
I didn't really expect that one from you. :Gasp:
Click to expand...

I don't think the mark of the beast is some sort of totally futuristic thing. "Beast" in my understanding just equals a government (especially in so far as it ignores, rejects or consciously goes against biblical teaching) and "mark" equals whatever a government like that would require for operating in its system. Saying "Caesar is Lord" would be such.

And I don't really see how I'm wrong on this count, no matter what we call this sort of requirement to do business.
 
BedellBrave said:
I don't think the mark of the beast is some sort of totally futuristic thing. "Beast" in my understanding just equals a government (especially in so far as it ignores, rejects or consciously goes against biblical teaching) and "mark" equals whatever a government like that would require for operating in its system. Saying "Caesar is Lord" would be such.

And I don't really see how I'm wrong on this count, no matter what we call this sort of requirement to do business.
Click to expand...

I just didn't think you gave the mark of the beast any credence at all. My mistake.
 
No problem. I just don't read Revelation as a Futurist (which is your run of the mill, "Left Behind" yada, yada). Imo, it had to have meaning for its readers in its day (coded apocalyptic-like genre that it is) and, I think, on-going application (the way I'm using it now).
 
Point being - you at least won't be able to be operate a business within the public domain unless you agree with SSM and related issues. Also other public entities will have to agree soon enough.
 
Legalization of marijuana would be my guess, though we should fight harder for privacy (interwebz).
 
BedellBrave said:
Agreed. Not if the determining factor in the definition is "love" or "willing consent."

Also, I don't really see how agreement with SSM doesn't become the "mark of the Beast" (i.e., that which the State requires you to hold if you want to operate a business). The pinky & red equal sign will equal 666 for our country in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

wow
 
Gary82 said:
Legalization of marijuana would be my guess, though we should fight harder for privacy (interwebz).
Click to expand...

It would seem, but I know plenty of my compatriots who don't desire to have a dog in that fight. Now the generation older than me, sure. But let's say 50 and younger, it's not a hill to die on.
 
Progressives, what other fronts do you think need opening in the culture wars against those who hold to orthodox Christianity in this country? To make this country the progressive bastion morally you'd like to see it, what other views need to be defeated in your eyes? Just wondering.

Do you think those who hold to the older sexual-mores (i.e., chastity in singleness, faithfulness in heterosexual marriage) need to be prevented from operating in the public arena while maintaining those convictions - particularly in not participating in those business activities openly related to SSM (cakes, hosting, photography) and other public activities (like t-shirts for Gay Pride stuff)?

Are there other areas you think need addressing?

I personally don't think the marijuana issue is that big of a deal. Nor do i think there is one view on the right regarding immigration. So those don't seem to be issues for me.

Is it polygamy and polyandry?

Set term marriages?

Pushing the current trending mores onto not just public for-profits, but non-profits as well?

Just curious to see where the Progressives on here - Sav, 57, Gary, Julio, JP, Runnin, Z, even gold & yeezus, want this war going next.
 
BedellBrave said:
Progressives, what other fronts do you think need opening in the culture wars against those who hold to orthodox Christianity in this country? To make this country the progressive bastion morally you'd like to see it, what other views need to be defeated in your eyes? Just wondering.

Do you think those who hold to the older sexual-mores (i.e., chastity in singleness, faithfulness in heterosexual marriage) need to be prevented from operating in the public arena while maintaining those convictions - particularly in not participating in those business activities openly related to SSM (cakes, hosting, photography) and other public activities (like t-shirts for Gay Pride stuff)?

Are there other areas you think need addressing?

I personally don't think the marijuana issue is that big of a deal. Nor do i think there is one view on the right regarding immigration. So those don't seem to be issues for me.

Is it polygamy and polyandry?

Set term marriages?

Pushing the current trending mores onto not just public for-profits, but non-profits as well?

Just curious to see where the Progressives on here - Sav, 57, Gary, Julio, JP, Runnin, Z, even gold & yeezus, want this war going next.
Click to expand...

In theory, I'm not against polygamy/polyandry. I don't view marriage as sacred.

The problem with polygamy in practice is that it's been a safe haven for the mistreatment of women. There are issues of abuse, rape, underage marriages, and the placement of women as subservient to men (of course these issues occur in regular marriage, too.) All of these problems have been rationalized by whatever religion these people go by.
 
So you're fine with the legalization of polygamy/polyandry of consenting, legal age adults? Or maybe better put, the marriage of multiple, legal age, consenting partners?

I'd think if gender doesn't matter then neither should number.
 
BedellBrave said:
So you're fine with the legalization of polygamy/polyandry of consenting, legal age adults? Or maybe better put, the marriage of multiple, legal age, consenting partners?

I'd think if gender doesn't matter then neither should number.
Click to expand...

If ones for same sex is against it, they are no better than those who are against same sex. CONSENTING ADULTS is consenting adults, period.
 
I agree AA. Interested to see how the left will possibly spin that consenting adults only means Two consenting adults...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top