I Voted Democrat

[AllieBaba]

Ok, I have no idea why my little quote box is so screwed up. I accept full responsibility for doing something weird to it....

 

[Coloradomtnman]

#1, I've never said gays can't be married in any church that will marry them, nor have I ever contested their right to attend church. If the church will accept them. But it is not the job of the government to FORCE churches to behave according to the will of a few in government.

And what if the government didn't have anything to do with marriage? What if we all got civil unions and those of us who wished to could have a religious ceremony that married us? I think that's a great idea personally. And I've heard many liberals and conservatives
agree that its a viable alternative to the current system. What do you think?

That said, the state has no business legalizing their unions. The people have voted against it again and again. We are a republic by the people, and we don't want the state to be involved in homosexual marriage. The only reason we have state marriage licenses is for taxation and population purposes, and if you had asked me...I would have objected from the beginning to having the state involved in ANY marriage. But refusing to vote for a state-issued (non-religious) marriage certificate for homosexual marriages is in no way a violation of anyone's freedom of religion. It's not a religious document. It is a violation of our freedom of religion for the government to force any church to change doctrine or practice.

But what if, as a Republic, we vote to oppress a certain type of person? Doesn't that make it wrong even though the majority voted for it? Allowing one group rights that another group doesn't receive despite no wrong-doing, isn't that oppression of that latter group? It seems logical to me. And if homosexuals want to get married, and the law doesn't recognize it, and marriage is a "sacred" ceremony, then how isn't it freedom of religion that is being violated?

#2, Religion has nothing to do with the basic argument that abortion is murder. Murder is not subject to religious interpretation. Murder is murder. Some religions believe in the sacrifice of humans. I guess that means they should be able to practice their religion, because to prevent them is a violation of their freedom of religion. Bullshit. You have your freedoms...until they impede upon the rights of someone else. A baby is someone else. Whatever your religion tells you to do, when it extends to murder, it is subject to the law.

But I think religion DOES have to do with abortion. From the perspective of a person who believes that there is a soul that exists before and after life, and that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully grown adult, abortion is murder. From the point of view of logic, a fully grown adult is self-aware or sentient whereas an unborn fetus isn't. A human is not just a human physically, but also mentally, and that requires self-awareness or sentience. So to have an abortion is simply to remove an unwanted or non-viable cluster of cells from a woman's body. Therefore from my perspective, abortion isn't murder. Now, can these two opinions ever be reconciled? Probably not, but should we pass laws that oppress one of these points of view? No. You have the choice not to have an abortion, and if I were a woman, I'd have the choice to have one. Why not leave it at that?

#3, Jefferson believed, as has been amply proven, that there is no freedom from tyranny without God. Period. He believed, with the Baptists, that the government should not be involved in religion not because he thought people shouldn't be able to refer to their belief system when making political decisions (just the opposite) but because he didn't want the GOVERNMENT to PREVENT people from adhering to their religion, and because he didn't want the GOVERNMENT to PUNISH or DENY people opportunity to advance based upon their openly practiced religion.

I don't know of any proof that there isn't freedom from tyranny without God. Can you give me an example?

I agree with you, the government has absolutely no right and even shouldn't have anything to do with religion.

But, to even that out, religion should have nothing to do with government. It doesn't work but just one way. If it did, we live in a theocracy. Now, I'm not saying that religious people can't hold public office, or even refer to their beliefs or allow their faith to guide them in governing. And I'm not saying that there is any official document or law that states: people shouldn't vote their religious beliefs. What I am saying is that anyone who truly believes in freedom, in freedom that doesn't infringe on the rights of others, American freedom, shouldn't vote to pass laws that restrict the rights and freedoms of others: such as not allowing consenting adults to marry when they are the same gender, but only allowing one type of marriage: that to the opposite gender. If I'm gay, and I believe that my creator has given me the right to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness, but I am not allowed to marry, which doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms, then I do not have the God-given right to liberty, justice, or the pursuit of happiness. I do not have freedom of religion. Now that is truly unAmerican.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Clearly if Gays can Marry, Then you should be able to marry 6 wives.

Yeah...that's logical

actually, it is
the government should get the hell out of all marriage
there should be no difference to government if you are married or not, nor how many you choose to marry
its a religious ceremony and under the first amendment to the constitution the government should not be dictating any of it

I agree that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, however, I don't think its logical that homosexual marriage is the same as polygamy. One is monogamous, and the other isn't. But, if we allow one, you're right, we should allow the other AS LONG AS everyone consents (while not under the influence of drugs or while mentally incapacitated, etc. etc.)

 

[AllieBaba]

You're stating your own opinion as if it's a fact, an accepted stance, and the only belief an "intelligent" person can have.

No, abortion isn't about religion, except to the extent that thou shalt not murder is a biblical precept. Libs keep wanting to alter the meaning of "human" so they can justify the butchery of those who are a burden on society, who think differently than they do, or those they just don't like. Then they claim we are the monsters, because we think all life is precious, and murder is murder, no matter who's getting torn to bits and thrown away.

Essentially what you're saying is that anyone who is in a coma, anyone who suffers from certain mental disorders or disabilities, and babies (and really, when is a baby self-aware? 6 months?) can be destroyed by someone who finds them a burden.

That's murder. You can kibbitz all you like, but that's what it is. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the left justifying population control, eugenics, and ultimately genocide. Poor people and disabled people are bothersome to you, so you think you have the right to eliminate them. And to make it palatable, you tell everyone it's for their own good. That's exactly how Hitler got the Germans to swallow concentration camps and the butchery of Jews (and Gypsies, and Catholics, and Blacks, and Homosexuals).

And I'm a conservative. You'll never get me to acknowledge that the state should take precedence over my religion. The state should have nothing to do with it, and has no place usurping those ceremonies traditionally maintained by churches.

Homosexuals can get married today. There are churches that are happy to marry them. Which means it isn't a religious argument. It's a legal argument. The PEOPLE don't want the states involved in marrying homosexuals. End of story. Though if you all have your way, you'll just kill off all those who don't agree, and bingo bango, you'll have your utopia.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah...that's logical

actually, it is
the government should get the hell out of all marriage
there should be no difference to government if you are married or not, nor how many you choose to marry
its a religious ceremony and under the first amendment to the constitution the government should not be dictating any of it

I agree that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, however, I don't think its logical that homosexual marriage is the same as polygamy. One is monogamous, and the other isn't. But, if we allow one, you're right, we should allow the other AS LONG AS everyone consents (while not under the influence of drugs or while mentally incapacitated, etc. etc.)

the thing that makes it the same is its still the government interfering in a religious matter

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. The argument that is being made is that the GOVERNMENT should be able to FORCE churches to accept homosexuals as members, and marry them.

Which is exactly why we have separation of church and state. To keep the fucking government out of the churches, and allow people to worship as they please without repercussions.

The left fucking hates it, as they hate all freedom.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Exactly. The argument that is being made is that the GOVERNMENT should be able to FORCE churches to accept homosexuals as members, and marry them.

Which is exactly why we have separation of church and state. To keep the fucking government out of the churches, and allow people to worship as they please without repercussions.

The left fucking hates it, as they hate all freedom.

Come now, Allie. What makes you think liberals hate freedom? Do you really believe that?

I'm not arguing that the government should force churches to accept homosexual members, or even marry them, but if those churches wish to continue to have tax exemption, then we shouldn't, in effect, pay for them to discriminate. I think churches should have to pay taxes, and if they don't want homosexual members, or marry homosexuals, then Great! No harm no foul. As long as they are exempt from taxes then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

What about this: If a company discriminates, they can be sued; and if a church discriminates, then they lose tax exemption. If they pay taxes, they can discriminate all they want. Seems like a viable alternative to me? What do you think?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You're stating your own opinion as if it's a fact, an accepted stance, and the only belief an "intelligent" person can have.

No, abortion isn't about religion, except to the extent that thou shalt not murder is a biblical precept. Libs keep wanting to alter the meaning of "human" so they can justify the butchery of those who are a burden on society, who think differently than they do, or those they just don't like. Then they claim we are the monsters, because we think all life is precious, and murder is murder, no matter who's getting torn to bits and thrown away.

Essentially what you're saying is that anyone who is in a coma, anyone who suffers from certain mental disorders or disabilities, and babies (and really, when is a baby self-aware? 6 months?) can be destroyed by someone who finds them a burden.

That's murder. You can kibbitz all you like, but that's what it is. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the left justifying population control, eugenics, and ultimately genocide. Poor people and disabled people are bothersome to you, so you think you have the right to eliminate them. And to make it palatable, you tell everyone it's for their own good. That's exactly how Hitler got the Germans to swallow concentration camps and the butchery of Jews (and Gypsies, and Catholics, and Blacks, and Homosexuals).

And I'm a conservative. You'll never get me to acknowledge that the state should take precedence over my religion. The state should have nothing to do with it, and has no place usurping those ceremonies traditionally maintained by churches.

Homosexuals can get married today. There are churches that are happy to marry them. Which means it isn't a religious argument. It's a legal argument. The PEOPLE don't want the states involved in marrying homosexuals. End of story. Though if you all have your way, you'll just kill off all those who don't agree, and bingo bango, you'll have your utopia.

Wow. You really have a distorted perception of liberals.

I am not stating my opinion as fact. As a matter of fact, I stated it as opinion, one differing from yours. You believe life begins at conception, I don't. You don't have to get an abortion. So don't. How is that genocide?

As a liberal I advocate for the impoverished and for minorities. If they want to get abortions, I don't care. If they don't, I don't care. Who cares? Why do you?

And to what definition of human do you refer? Whose changing it when it isn't official? I'm saying sentience, or, more specifically: human sentience. That means a physical human being who is self aware. People who are comatose were self-aware, and there is a chance they will be again, so I think a reasonable exception can be made not to kill them: unless they requested it in a living will. And for mental disabilities, I think a reasonable exception can be made. How about this: don't kill anyone whose been born unless they requested it? Does that seem reasonable to you?

I don't think anyone thinks conservatives are monsters for believing life is precious. Hypocrites maybe, since conservatives tend to support wars and capital punishment, but not monsters.

Homosexuals can be unofficially married today, but they don't receive the same rights as officially recognized marriages, and therefore do not have the same status as straight Americans.

I you believe that the state should follow Christian dogma, then you wish to live in a theocracy. I want a secular government so that Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, Aetheists, and all others can live together without the problems that Israel faces and worship how they wish.

Liberals want peace, freedom, love between fellow human beings, and responsible environmental stewardship. What is so wrong with that? Didn't Jesus want those same things? We don't want anyone killed, and non-sentient fetuses aren't someone, yet. And if its six months when they become self aware, then we believe they should have the same rights to life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy. Acually, better than the rest of us currently enjoy as there is plenty of room for improvement.

And there are always exceptions to the rule.