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.
Using some of the logic that is used against gays having any rights or protections, one could say that religious beliefs should not be protected or recogonized because practicing a religion is a choice. It's nurture, not nature. Nobody is born with any religious belief, it's socialized. Isn't that a key argument against treating gays differently under the law? While I don't believe ones sexual orientation is a choice, the example of religious protection under the law shows us that it doesn't even have to be nature to qualify for the same protection and rights.
Oh...one more thing. Not only do we protect the choice of religious belief, we all subsidize religious institutions through their tax exemptions. Then they politic from the pulpit. Clearly there's no institutional discrimination or bigotry towards religion in this country.
Hmm. Never heard it put this way before. But it makes a lot of sense.
The United States was founded as a Christian nation. The founding documents of this country are loaded with references to Christiantiy and God. But that is not the topic of this thread.
When I keep hearing blind accusations that the only reasonpeople voted to protect the definition of marriage is due to hatred for homosexuals, I see that as a void of reason. Reasonable people could accept the possibility that the other side had a principle involved in a debate, even if they disagreed with the principle. If you oppose the amendment, you will never understand the opposing side by accusing them of hatred without considering whether they might have higher principles involved in their stand.
We, on the pro traditional marriage side have stated numerous times why we oppose redefining marriage. Not out of hatred. So when the accusations continue to fly, then those accusations are blind hatred themselves.
I understand that the other side sees this as a matter of equal rights and love. But let me reiterate a portion of my position:
Traditional marriage is the cornerstone of any foundation. Man + woman + children is necessary for any society to have a future. For the same reasons I do not support divorce of convenience, heterosexual promiscuity, or other unhealthy relationships. Why look at the failed relationships to set the guidelines? Children are impressionable and deserve a whole family, good standards, and a society that is sustainable. In reality, our society has been saying for 50 years that one more exception won't make a difference. A few more traditional values overturned won't cause our society's downfall. But the reality is that our birth rate is now below replacement, children are being raised by television, and our nation is plunged in debt that it will never be able to repay. At what point do you stop and say, "something's gotta change".
For the same reasons I do not support divorce of convenience, heterosexual promiscuity, or other unhealthy relationships.
Clearly these are bigger threats than a tiny majority having civil rights. So, I look forward to your personal crusade to make "divorce of convenience" unconstitutional as well as heterosexual promiscuity. BTW, good luck with that. It will never happen unless America becomes a Christian version of Iran.
For those who are so hellbent on legislating morality, clean up your own house first before looking to do the same to others. I say that because it isn't going to happen. Go ahead and try to make a liar of me. I'll get some popcorn and wait.
America was found on religious freedom, and as much as it might pain some religious folk, this means that you cannot put your beliefs upon others.
You might be surprised to know that many states had laws about the official state religion for many decades after tha constitution was ratified. The modern concept of "separation of church and state" was begun by the Ku Klux Klan. Justice Hugo Black, ex grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote the ruling that created this misinterpretation of Jefferson's letter to Baptists years after the Constitution. Jefferson didn't even write the Constitution either.
So when people quote the modern interpretation of separation of church and state, they are unwittingly espousing KKK doctrine.
If you don't believe me, look it up. Personally, I would rather stay far away from KKK teachings.
You might be surprised to know that many states had laws about the official state religion for many decades after tha constitution was ratified. The modern concept of "separation of church and state" was begun by the Ku Klux Klan. Justice Hugo Black, ex grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote the ruling that created this misinterpretation of Jefferson's letter to Baptists years after the Constitution. Jefferson didn't even write the Constitution either.
So when people quote the modern interpretation of separation of church and state, they are unwittingly espousing KKK doctrine.
If you don't believe me, look it up. Personally, I would rather stay far away from KKK teachings.
...and we had slavery and women didn't have the right to vote. Your point?
Clearly these are bigger threats than a tiny majority having civil rights. So, I look forward to your personal crusade to make "divorce of convenience" unconstitutional as well as heterosexual promiscuity. BTW, good luck with that. It will never happen unless America becomes a Christian version of Iran.
For those who are so hellbent on legislating morality, clean up your own house first before looking to do the same to others. I say that because it isn't going to happen. Go ahead and try to make a liar of me. I'll get some popcorn and wait.
Somewhat inflammatory words you have there. It would not require a totalitarian regime to eliminate no fault divorce. But that wouldn't matter much when people often change partners annually, monthly, or weekly. You are missing the whole point for the sake of trying to one up me. I don't consider it a contest. My point is that all these things are detractions from society's well being, and even closer, from each person being happier. Not happy every moment, but it would bring far more peace to those who seek peace. I gain nothing if another person's life falls apart.
...and we had slavery and women didn't have the right to vote. Your point?
This response lacks logic. Our goal should be to retain the good and eliminate the wrong in society. Every generation has its popular errors. Once it was slavery, then communism, now hostility to families.
The United States was founded as a Christian nation. The founding documents of this country are loaded with references to Christiantiy and God. But that is not the topic of this thread.
Your blinded by your own faith but as you said that's not the topic here. It comes down to religion trying to control the rest of us. 200 years ago marriage had very little to do with love people married for many reasons legal, social, economic, etc. Just because those who believe as you do have to right to tell others how to live. The furture is fine the way it is when it comes to people having children there are more then enough straight couples out there to keep the population moving forward. Or are you worried that if gay people adopt they will turn out to be gay themselves? The earth is overpopulated as it is I think it could use a break if nothing else. It's not out of hate it about the out landish claims some Christians make when this topic comes
VA palmetto, your posts are full of factual errors. In response to a couple of posts you made above:
1) Hugo Black was not a "Grand Wizard". In fact, he had quite a liberal track record during his career, both before and after being the KKK (his membership lasted only a couple of years before he resigned). The Everson v BOE ruling had nothing at all to do with klan doctrine. Black merely wrote the majority opinion, i.e., the confirmation of separation doctrine wasn't his position alone. It was shared by a majority of the court. It's quite laughable for you to say "The modern concept of "separation of church and state" was begun by the Ku Klux Klan." That's simply not true. Not at all.
2) The US was NOT founded as a Christian nation as you say. There are many documents to support this, including the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 (yes, way back then) which specifically states that the US "...is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." Sorry, but again you are very wrong.
3) You have the mistaken impression that suppressing gays will somehow preserve families. First, a newsflash...gay people are GAY. They do not want to marry the opposite sex, and taking away their right to marry who they want doesn't mean they're going to suddenly start marrying the opposite sex and raising a family. Such action does absolutely nothing to "preserve families"; it merely serves to discriminate against a certain type of family (the gay ones). Heterosexual couples will continue to establish families whether or not gays can get married, so your argument in this regard is quite silly. Second, there are many thousands of gay families already in this country. Many have children who are provided a nurturing, loving environment. They're here, and they're not going away. The choice here is not between being raised by a gay couple vs. your vision of an ideal family--these kids are not going to be happier if you take them from their parents and place them in a foster home. Rather, it's a choice of providing partners and children in these families with rights and benefits other Americans enjoy, or allowing them to suffer as second-class citizens simply because they weren't born into your definition of a perfect family.
Given that choice, to me it's quite clear what the right answer is.
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.
The earth is overpopulated as it is I think it could use a break if nothing else. It's not out of hate it about the out landish claims some Christians make when this topic comes
