Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. People in elected office should strive to be religious neutral, not favoring any one religion over another. A witch or Santeria practitioner or a Hindu or a Christian should not be given religious preference as laws are being made.
You are being far too simplistic. How many religious topics come up in politics? None. Oh, there's abortion. There's stem cell research. There's same sex marriage. Religious people oppose those things but those things are not by themselves religious.
A religious person can't remove religion from their worldview. And politicians use their worldview to guide their decision making. They have a moral compass to look to. And religion probably had a very big hand in creating that moral compass.
So, if the only people who should be in politics are the people who can remove religion from their worldview, people who are necessarily "lukewarm" in their religion - and as such are arguably not very religious, then really only atheists (and people who are poor examples of that religion) can be politicians. That means religions can't have their interests protected. That means if a law is proposed to tax churches, the religion can't defend itself. If a law is proposed saying churches can't be built within 2 miles of a public school, the churches won't be able to prevent the law from being enacted. The religious politicians will have to keep their mouths shut.
You can't keep religion out of politics any more than you can keep science and statistics out of politics. Religious organizations deserve representation just as much as any private citizen or organization.
Last edited by TheViking85; 10-23-2011 at 10:59 AM..
Same sex marriage is two people deciding to form a stable permanent bond with each other. It is the foundation for the family. There have been studies of same sex relationship adoptions and the children do just fine. There are no major drawbacks to the arrangement and it is giving equal rights, which should already belong, to adult members of society.
Don't get me started... those studies are flawed. There has not been one good study done on the long term impact of same sex adoption*. They resort to ridiculous tactics like comparing upper middle class gay couples with lower class single parents. How can anyone accept studies that are so obviously flawed?
Here's some news for you...
Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids
If this is true (and it is) then this proves conclusively that environment has a hand in homosexuality.
Is it good for the kid if he is convinced to adopt the homosexual lifestyle by his parents? Absolutely not. Homosexuality is harmful to the individual...
...and in turn to society. And what about the grandkids? I'm not as concerned about the children of same sex marriage as much as I am concerned about the grandkids.
*(Same sex marriage and adoption is too new to study the long term impact. Long term as in 2 generations. And how can you ethically study this anyway? Yes, you can look at statistics, but homosexuals want to study on society!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...by legalizing same sex marriage. It is SO wrong to change society to see if the effects of that change are benign or harmful. Alfred Kinsey did this with the sexual revolution and we are living in the most morally reprehensible period of time since the fall of the Roman Empire. Crime is out of control. Teens are getting pregnant at high rates. STDs are rampant.)
Last edited by TheViking85; 10-23-2011 at 11:02 AM..
Reason: Cut out the hyperbole and refrain from using colored fonts to drive your point home.
So where do we draw the line? When it is okay for the government to tell us what we can or cannot do? Is it at the top where we can do what we want, the middle where sometimes we can sometimes we can't, or the end where we can't do anything unless Uncle Sam says so?
When do we say stop and actually stand up for our rights?
I say everyone can do whatever they want to do as long as the rest of us don't have to bail you or your family out from the situation you created.
When americans can be self-sufficient, they can do whatever they want.
Everyone wants rights...no one wants responsibility.
Moderator cut: Off Topic
Last edited by TheViking85; 10-24-2011 at 08:39 AM..
. But that doesn't mean we should legalize same sex marriage just to hope it's not harmful. It's not ethical to change society to prove that same sex marriage is benign. What if it's not benign? This is especially important when we are dealing with a group of people who are known to be sexually promiscuous, more diseased, and to die sooner than the rest of humanity.
.
Moderator cut: Personal AttacksCan you show me the study demonstrating that lesbians are more diseased and die sooner than the rest of humanity? Heterosexual men have been documented throughout all of history to be more promiscuous than women and THEY die sooner, too...we should just ban all of them.
And your argument is completely invalidated by the fact that whether or not you allow gay marriage, there will be gay families with gay parents and their children. So you're not stopping anything with your paranoid denial of other people's rights.
Last edited by TheViking85; 10-24-2011 at 08:41 AM..
Can you show me the study demonstrating that lesbians are more diseased and die sooner than the rest of humanity? Heterosexual men have been documented throughout all of history to be more promiscuous than women and THEY die sooner, too...we should just ban all of them.
They are at least more depressed. I found this within 60 seconds of googling.
Quote:
And your argument is completely invalidated by the fact that whether or not you allow gay marriage, there will be gay families with gay parents and their children. So you're not stopping anything with your paranoid denial of other people's rights.
No it's not. So what if people do it. People speed. Should we just remove the speed limit? If we allow same sex marriage we are sending a message that says that homosexuality is perfectly okay for everyone.
Moderator cut: Orphaned
Last edited by TheViking85; 10-24-2011 at 08:43 AM..
For reasons that are not yet well understood, studies show that lesbians weigh more than their heterosexual counterparts, smoke more, drink more, abuse drugs more often, and have more fat around their midsections, putting them at a higher risk of heart disease, said Dr. Katherine O'Hanlan, a Bay Area gynecologic cancer surgeon and healthy policy advocate.
"The health profile of lesbians is significantly more unhealthy," she said. "Lesbians have a higher concentration of risk factors for cancer, heart disease and stroke than heterosexual women."
Of course this article does resort to the "social stigma" scapegoat defense. A convenient but not convincing defense.
So let's look at the opposite side of the spectrum. Heterosexual women.
Semen contains hormones including testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, and some of these are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and are known to elevate mood.
Possible effects of semen exposure are:
Increased affection and feelings of closeness
Reduction in pain
Less depression and better mood
Increased sex drive (semen contains testosterone, and it’s been shown that the majority it is absorbed by the vagina)
Stronger orgasm (if he climaxes first)
Better sleep
Less sever PMS
It’s also very likely that semen has pregnancy protecting qualities, meaning sex during pregnancy could reduce miscarriages and pre-term labour.
Seems heterosexual sex is good for women. Makes them less depressed. Who woulda thought? Think the lack of semen has nothing to do with lesbians beind depressed more often than heterosexual women?
Do you know what the legalization and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution, gay marriage, and suicide all have in common? They are all things that we should be able to do so long as it does not infringe upon another's rights or involve the underage. That means I should be able to smoke a doobie until I pass out, or have sex with a consenting adult for money, or marry someone of the same sex, or kill myself as long it doesn't infringe upon another's unalienable's. No one (especially the government) should have a say in what I choose to do in my free time as long as it's not infringing on someone else's rights.
There is a reason why we have seperation of church and state. It is so one religious body cannot force their morals and beliefs on a group of others through the laws of the government. Yet, in each one of these cases, that is what we have. We have laws restricting drug use based on rhetoric and morals; same for prostitution. We have laws that restrict a certain group of people from having the benefit of marriage because they want to marry someone of the same sex. We have laws that say if you try to kill yourself and live, you'll be prosecuted for trying to take your own life and spend the rest of it in a mental ward!
Personally, I'm indifferent to gay marriage, I think drugs have very negative effects of the human body and shouldnt' be used, prostitution is morally wrong, and someone shouldn't commit suicide. But, it is that person's right on whether they want to marry someone of the same sex, whether they want to destroy their body with drugs, or have sex for money, or take their lives because life itself just became too much; it is their right given in this country to pursue happiness in the way they see fit so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.
What this all boils down to is we have morals in government when it shouldn't be so. Government is supposed to be an entity of neutrality and is supposed to have no moral leaning whatsoever. Government is not supposed to restrict ones rights because some may see it as 'immoral' or 'bad' but let that person pursue happiness in his or her own way. Only when someone's right's infringes upon another's for instance in the case of rape or murder, then government rightly so can step in. I don't see how drug use, suicide, gay marriage, and prostitution infringe upon someone else's rights.
So where do we draw the line? When it is okay for the government to tell us what we can or cannot do? Is it at the top where we can do what we want, the middle where sometimes we can sometimes we can't, or the end where we can't do anything unless Uncle Sam says so?
When do we say stop and actually stand up for our rights?
Good question and that question in some ways provides the answer. The line should be when a behavior interferes with somebody elses right.
Examples: Prostitution, how does a business transaction like that affect YOU? How different is it from I going to a store and buy milk and bread?
I paid for something and in this case the customer pays the prostitute for a service. He or she goes home afterwards, the prostitute does the same. Both got something they both needed, one money and the other the pleasure he or she wanted.
It is a decision made buy two adults.
Drugs? Are you against drinking alcohol? I would hope not. Where do we draw the line on this one? When the safety for the community comes into play. That is why we have laws against drunk driving. We are not saying people cannot drink but if you drink and drive we will punish you for being a hazard to the community.
When you are at home having dinner, does it affect if someone is having sex in the house next door to you? Are you bothered by the couple for having sex in their house. If not, what difference does it make whether it is between two men or two women? Sex is sex whether it is between to men or a man and a woman.
The government is designed to protect the people and we have a legal system to protect you and to decide what to do when somebody does something wrong against you.
In the case of prostitution and drugs in consenting adults there is no perpetrator between them. The perpetrator is the government interfering in the private affairs between adults. Take care.
Good question and that question in some ways provides the answer. The line should be when a behavior interferes with somebody elses right.
Examples: Prostitution, how does a business transaction like that affect YOU? How different is it from I going to a store and buy milk and bread?
I paid for something and in this case the customer pays the prostitute for a service. He or she goes home afterwards, the prostitute does the same. Both got something they both needed, one money and the other the pleasure he or she wanted.
It is a decision made buy two adults.
Drugs? Are you against drinking alcohol? I would hope not. Where do we draw the line on this one? When the safety for the community comes into play. That is why we have laws against drunk driving. We are not saying people cannot drink but if you drink and drive we will punish you for being a hazard to the community.
When you are at home having dinner, does it affect if someone is having sex in the house next door to you? Are you bothered by the couple for having sex in their house. If not, what difference does it make whether it is between two men or two women? Sex is sex whether it is between to men or a man and a woman.
The government is designed to protect the people and we have a legal system to protect you and to decide what to do when somebody does something wrong against you.
In the case of prostitution and drugs in consenting adults there is no perpetrator between them. The perpetrator is the government interfering in the private affairs between adults. Take care.
Just like the OP, you are ignoring the fact that no man is an island. Prostitution does affect me. It breeds crime. It increases the likelihood of pregnancy to a woman who is probably ill-equipped to raise the child, if her pimp lets her keep it. Drugs. Millions or even billions of tax dollars and healthcare dollars (which are paid out of my premiums) are spent on drug treatment, prevention, education, fighting drug crime, etc. And again, drugs breed crime. Anything dealing with vice will breed crime. And that does affect all of us.
Just like the OP, you are ignoring the fact that no man is an island. Prostitution does affect me. It breeds crime. It increases the likelihood of pregnancy to a woman who is probably ill-equipped to raise the child, if her pimp lets her keep it. Drugs. Millions or even billions of tax dollars and healthcare dollars (which are paid out of my premiums) are spent on drug treatment, prevention, education, fighting drug crime, etc. And again, drugs breed crime. Anything dealing with vice will breed crime. And that does affect all of us.
So many of us have a drink now and then and I don't think that increases crime. Legalized drugs should be handled in the same manner.
Abortion actually prevents crime because studies have shown that children from single parent households do commit more crimes.
There have been great cultures in the past that managed to function very nicely with totally legal and even sometimes encouraged homosexual relationships.
Concerning US Presidents and religion, yeah the person should strive to be religion neutral in his or her decisions. The President represents the common good - meaning ALL of us, not just those of his religious segment. Nobody wants a bigoted cultist fanatic as the leader of the free world. The Old Test. is full of people owning slaves and having multiple wives. Do we want someone in office who advocates for those things? Same with other liberties for the individual.
I am sure, when the time came, people who had slaves and multiple wives were also crying about their right to property was being taken away by the government.
Times change, and they are on the whole changing in ways that increase our liberties. Abolition, women voting, women and blacks having a better stab at education and employment. There are no longer societal pressures to move to the burbs, have the house with the picket fence and 1.2 kids with the dog and smile at the neighbors when sometimes all hell was breaking loose when the door was shut.
People are much freer these days to make their own choices in life, thank goodness. And it is becoming more so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
