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.
As for gay marriage, I take issue with the statement, "trying to force these views on the American people", in that, the way I see it, it is gay marriage proponents who are trying to force their views on everyone else since until the "gay rights" movement rose up (starting in the 1980's or so) there was no question in anyone's mind that marriage was between one man and one woman (excepting polygamous societies.)
And in the 1960s, 80% of Americans believed marriage was between 1 white man and 1 white woman. Society changes. There is absolutely no non-flawed, logical reason to maintain the archaic model of "one man, one woman". Marriage has changed meaning many times throughout history, and it's historically a non-religious institution.
Quote:
The idea that so many on the Left have, that the entire right wing is filled with "religious nuts" who are trying to "force their views on everyone else", is simply not true.
The rise of the "religious right" came about in response to the rise of the "secular left", not the other way around.
As one of the oldies here on CD, I have lived through it all.
We still have the largest population of Christian extremists on the planet thanks to the Fundamentalist movement of the 19th/20th Century.
The wingnut religious faction is part of the Republican coalition, but I don't think all of the candidates, or even most of them, are religious crackpots. The problem is though that all of them have to pretend to take these people seriously. Of the current crop, here are candidates I don't think are particularly religious... or I should say, don't let their religion overrun their reason: Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul.
Here are the ones who do: Santorum, Bachmann, Cain (possibly with all of his anti-Muslim and Mormom talk), probably Perry -- either he's sincere or he's the biggest panderer to the wingnut crowd.
A vote for a Republican is a vote for legislated morality though -- it's part of the package. If they didn't bundle that in, the only folks they'd have are the corporate masters, and that wouldn't get them across the finish line in most elections.
Then, is a vote for a Democrat a vote for NO morality in legislation?
Recognizing the sanctity of life is a foundation of this nation's founding.
Really??? Please demonstrate where in the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, or any of the founding father's writings which supports this assertion.
The FF were deeply concerned with the intrusion of the tyranny of government into people's lives and business. While at the time they didn't have an expressed freedom of privacy, we see instances like in the 4th amendments where they imposed limits on where the government could violate the property (and by extension, privacy) of citizens:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The U.S. Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Then, is a vote for a Democrat a vote for NO morality in legislation?
Pretty much -- don't you think? The Democrats have a pretty laissez-faire approach to morality. You can be moral if you choose, but you don't have the right to impose your brand of morality on your neighbor. If you don't like porn, abortion, gay marriage, etc. -- great! Don't engage in them. You don't get to tell your neighbor not to engage in them though.
I cringe a little when these things come up, but they must come up as people come into play that are a bit over the top.
I'd say Ron Paul, Hunstman, probably Romney. Nobody mentions him, but I think he's not one of the whacks.
I enjoy people that just respect others, and let their own way of life form others opinions of them. Actions always mean more than words, and one or two contentious issues don't make anybody sacrosanct. There are many people that use the abortion issue in particular to show how religious they are. But when you stand back and see how they treat others, especially the poor, the elderly, children, are they in sync with any form of religion or faith you know of?
Some of the more rabid well-known politicians of today, would be better off never mentioning God in any form, lest they denigrate the sanctity of any religion any more than they have already. Anyone that's grown up in a Christian family, regardless of how "devout" they may be, couldn't possibly believe that any of the politicians running today are followers of Christ, or any other god for that matter. But that's my opinion.
I cringe a little when these things come up, but they must come up as people come into play that are a bit over the top.
I'd say Ron Paul, Hunstman, probably Romney. Nobody mentions him, but I think he's not one of the whacks.
I enjoy people that just respect others, and let their own way of life form others opinions of them. Actions always mean more than words, and one or two contentious issues don't make anybody sacrosanct. There are many people that use the abortion issue in particular to show how religious they are. But when you stand back and see how they treat others, especially the poor, the elderly, children, are they in sync with any form of religion or faith you know of?
Some of the more rabid well-known politicians of today, would be better off never mentioning God in any form, lest they denigrate the sanctity of any religion any more than they have already. Anyone that's grown up in a Christian family, regardless of how "devout" they may be, couldn't possibly believe that any of the politicians running today are followers of Christ, or any other god for that matter. But that's my opinion.
I don't know of any religion that says to pass off caring for the poor, elderly, and children to the government. It is your resposibility to care for others and your family.
Pretty much -- don't you think? The Democrats have a pretty laissez-faire approach to morality. You can be moral if you choose, but you don't have the right to impose your brand of morality on your neighbor. If you don't like porn, abortion, gay marriage, etc. -- great! Don't engage in them. You don't get to tell your neighbor not to engage in them though.
If we are to take "morality" out of government, perhaps we should do away with laws against stealing, assault, rape, embezzlement, arson, perjury, etc. as these are all immoral actions, too.
Then let's do away with laws against stealing, assault, rape, embezzlement, arson, perjury, etc. as these are all immoral actions, too.
Nice try, but those are all crimes, which harm others. You can't see the difference between consensual gay sex and rape? When will you rightie authoritarians learn???
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.
