Just wondering, with future elections what issues do you think are really important?

[hokiefan33]

More detrimental than divorce which gets precious little attention from the political right?

and i'll save you the searching my view on this from an earlier post on this thread

gay marriage - i'd like to see the gov't get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses period.

let the states issue civil union licenses and have churches issue marriage certificates. if a church allows gays to get married great, if not fine. it would also mean that people like Kenny Chesney and Brittany et al wouldn't be married either and therefore their marriages wouldn't impact 'the sanctity of marriage' either. i'd like the discussion to focus on the adverse impact of short lived marriages which i think are far more problematic than whether adam and steve can be 'married' for 20 years or not.

I didn't say it would be "more" detrimental than anything. I think that same-sex marriages, as well as divorces and short-lived marriages, are all detrimental to our society equally.

 

[sodaseller]

To be clear, I haven't "proposed" anything, so let's refrain from sticking words in my mouth, thank you.

And you say "it's not right." Based on what? To say "it's not right", there has to be a standard for right and a standard for wrong. What is your standard? Amazingly enough, I would say that many different people have many different standards. And the "legal" standard, at least for me, is not my highest standard.

You can't reconcile your position with the Establishment clause. The BoR permits the institution of any ism by normal legal implementation save one category - the religious one.

As for right and wrong - the Divine law is my standard

 

[hokiefan33]

You can't reconcile your position with the Establishment clause. The BoR permits the institution of any ism by normal legal implementation save one category - the religious one.

As for right and wrong - the Divine law is my standard

I'm not worried with "reconciling my position" with the Establishment clause, whatever that is. If it agrees, great, if it doesn't, just as good. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans, to me.

But what you and Hokie propose is to ensure that the state does not recognize marriages that run afoul of your belief system...it's not right

So, let's follow this reasoning:

The Divine law is the standard (which it is for me, as well. Let's assume, for now, that we're talking about the same Divine law, though I suspect you interpret it FAR differently than I do)

You say it's not right, according to the standard, to ensure that same-sex marriages aren't state-recognized b/c they don't correspond to my beliefs, which are governed by the Divine law, the very standard you say we're deviating from.

Therefore, we're NOT following the standard (the Divine law) b/c we are trying to ensure that things that run afoul of the standard (same-sex marriages) aren't legally recognized, which is wrong per the standard??

How does that work? I think what might need to be clarified is your position on how the "standard" governs same-sex marriages, and whether they're allowed or not.

 

[reeddi]

I would have to agree with the poster that stated take governement out of marriage period.
Courts and JOPs can issue union certificates and churchs are the only ones that can issue Marriage certificates. Now that will take care of the religious issues with it.
As for the other issues with it - benefits allowance, Tax breaks, medical insurance - those will still be up to the government OR companies to decide what they choose to provide.

I personally do not think any issue involving pushing a person's version of morality on another person is a valid issue for an election. That is my opinion only.

And before anyone starts to judge. I am not gay, I am a christian and married.

I do think that unemployment, energy polcies, education and environmental policies are very important.

I hope this thread will go on with other issues and not slamming each other over gay marriage.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

The fact that I support people's legal right to do something, whether I agree with it or not, doesn't mean that I would never change it, it only means that given the rights as they exist right now, I support their RIGHT, even if I don't support their ACTIONS. There's a difference, and I think you're missing that.

LOL! And I think you're the one who's missing that difference. Yes, you (general you) can support a person's RIGHT to do something, even when you don't support their ACTIONS. That's exactly why I think people should be able to disapprove of same-sex marriage religiously, yet still believe in giving gays and lesbians the same rights that heterosexuals have (as many do). Or at least, not want to amend the constitution to ensure that no court can ever give them those rights.

As to the "why" of the question, we don't have that kind of time, and all it would be is my opinion versus the opinions of many others who disagree, so it doesn't even matter.

It doesn't matter? Sure it does. With so many people "out there" saying that society will suffer if same-sex marriage is legalized, shouldn't we discuss how it will suffer? I don't mean to single you out here, if you don't feel like discussing it, that's fine. But I've been talking about this issue for several years now on different internet discussion boards and, although many people have claimed it will be detrimental to society, I've yet to find one person who can give me an explanation as to why, that isn't based in religion. Is there anyone here who can?

 

[AnaheimGirl]

And before anyone starts to judge. I am not gay, I am a christian and married.

I just have to say that I find it incredibly sad that you felt the need to include this statement in your post. I'm not slamming you for saying it, by any means, I'm slamming the judgemental society in which we live, that made you feel you needed to say it. One doesn't have to be gay, or an atheist, or whatever, to believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals to form equal partnerships under the law, I'm evidence of that as well.

 

[jimmiej]

I think it's hypocritical to admit that another person's marriage is none of anyone else's business, then turn around and vote to regulate another person's marriage. My comments were directed at another poster who specifically said:

Quote:
I don't care what they do in their own home. It's none of my business. But don't ask me to endorse gay marriage with my vote!

You didn't read my quote correctly. I referred only to another person's actions in their own home. While I don't approve of it and believe it is an unhealthy choice, there's not much society (or I) can do to stop someone in the privacy of their own home.

However, it's a much different scenario when it comes to the definition of marriage. Society can decide (at least at this point in time) whether gay marriage is a good thing or not. I get a vote like all other Americans. Because I believe God ordained marriage as one man/one woman, I will vote to keep marriage defined that way.

 

[hokiefan33]

LOL! And I think you're the one who's missing that difference. Yes, you (general you) can support a person's RIGHT to do something, even when you don't support their ACTIONS. That's exactly why I think people should be able to disapprove of same-sex marriage religiously, yet still believe in giving gays and lesbians the same rights that heterosexuals have (as many do). Or at least, not want to amend the constitution to ensure that no court can ever give them those rights.

I'm not missing it, it's my point. How can I be missing my own point, when I'm the one who came up with it? We both agree that you can support a person's right to do something, but not support the underlying action itself. However, the difference between you and I (or at least one of the differences, I'm sure) is that you want it to stop right there, and always let it be like that, with me disagreeing on the action but agreeing on the right. I, on the other hand, IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, would want to remove that ability to do what I believe is Biblically wrong, thus lining up my (and many others) religious beliefs with legal abilities. That's the difference. Is it legislating religion? Probably. Will it ever happen? Couldn't tell you, without a crystal ball. If it doesn't, will I ever change? Nope, I'll always object from a religious standpoint. I'm not on a crusade to change the laws, but if I'm given a vote, I'll use it to voice my opinion. Not sure how else to say it to make it more clear.

It doesn't matter? Sure it does. With so many people "out there" saying that society will suffer if same-sex marriage is legalized, shouldn't we discuss how it will suffer? I don't mean to single you out here, if you don't feel like discussing it, that's fine. But I've been talking about this issue for several years now on different internet discussion boards and, although many people have claimed it will be detrimental to society, I've yet to find one person who can give me an explanation as to why, that isn't based in religion. Is there anyone here who can?

It's not that I don't feel like discussing it, it's just that it is always unproductive. I'm not going to change your mind on it, nor will you change mine, and others will join in on both sides. It's a perpetual stalemate. However, you seem to be searching for an answer that is NOT based in religion, and I don't know that you'll ever get one. I would tend to think that the majority of people who object to same-sex marriages do so due to religious convictions, so to be looking for an explanation that isn't rooted in religion, I'm not sure you'll ever get it. But you can't discount those arguments, just because they are rooted in something that you don't agree with. Remember, all those are are people who are looking at the situation from a different point of view than you are.

 

[hokiefan33]

You didn't read my quote correctly. I referred only to another person's actions in their own home. While I don't approve of it and believe it is an unhealthy choice, there's not much society (or I) can do to stop someone in the privacy of their own home.

However, it's a much different scenario when it comes to the definition of marriage. Society can decide (at least at this point in time) whether gay marriage is a good thing or not. I get a vote like all other Americans. Because I believe God ordained marriage as one man/one woman, I will vote to keep marriage defined that way.

Exactly right.

 

[Puffy2]

Puffy, I respect your right to your opinion. Keep in mind, however, that others have opinions that differ from yours, and it is only your opinion that certain issues "matter" and certain issues "do not." For many other people, the issues that you don't think matter at all are very important to them, and the issues that you think do matter are not at all important to others. It all has to do with what perspective you are viewing these matters from.

"Ban Gay Marriage! Four Legs Good...Two Legs Bad...Four Legs Good...Two Legs Bad...Four Legs Good...Two Legs Bad...."

Ah, the wisdom of George Orwell, Animal Farm.

 

[WIcruizer]

But I've been talking about this issue for several years now on different internet discussion boards and, although many people have claimed it will be detrimental to society, I've yet to find one person who can give me an explanation as to why, that isn't based in religion. Is there anyone here who can?

Anaheim, you and others here appear to be trying to create a debate that doesn't exist. Some of us here do not support gay marriage in any way, shape, or form. Some of us oppose it for religious reasons, some of us for other reasons. I'm sorry if you don't feel someone's reason isn't good enough.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

I'm not missing it, it's my point. How can I be missing my own point, when I'm the one who came up with it?

Actually, I believe it was MuggMan's point, when he originally asked you

how you reconcile your objections with the fact that the first amendment, while protecting your right to believe whatever doctrine you want, specifically prohibits passing laws that establish any type of religious doctrine in this country?

...

But you can't discount those arguments, just because they are rooted in something that you don't agree with.

Where did I say I didn't agree with it? You don't know how religious I am or am not. All I've said is that I don't believe laws that affect everyone should be based on the religion of a certain group (even if that group is in the majority).

Remember, all those are are people who are looking at the situation from a different point of view than you are.

Yes, I understand that, do you? You're the one who wants the country's laws to be based on your personal religious views, not me.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

Anaheim, you and others here appear to be trying to create a debate that doesn't exist. Some of us here do not support gay marriage in any way, shape, or form. Some of us oppose it for religious reasons, some of us for other reasons. I'm sorry if you don't feel someone's reason isn't good enough.

It doesn't exist? You coulda fooled me!

There will always be debate on issues that people feel strongly about. Don't be sorry about it.

 

[WIcruizer]

It doesn't exist? You coulda fooled me!

You're the only one trying to debate. Some of us say we don't agree, we have our reasons, and that's the end of it. But you seem to have a need for exac reasons why we oppose it.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

You're the only one trying to debate. Some of us say we don't agree, we have our reasons, and that's the end of it. But you seem to have a need for exac reasons why we oppose it.

But yet, those people keep responding, so they're not actually ending it, are they? And now you seem to be trying to debate me on whether or not we should be debating it.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Mugg, I was wrong about Gallop's poll for the 2004 election. I remember a mess that followed the election, but it was Zogby. (They changed their prediction after the election.) However, Gallop was way off in the 2000 Presidential election, and if memory serves, they weren't very accurate on the mid term elections.

Thank you for that admission. And with that, we move on.............

 

[sodaseller]

I'm not worried with "reconciling my position" with the Establishment clause, whatever that is. If it agrees, great, if it doesn't, just as good. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans, to me.


So, let's follow this reasoning:

The Divine law is the standard (which it is for me, as well. Let's assume, for now, that we're talking about the same Divine law, though I suspect you interpret it FAR differently than I do)

You say it's not right, according to the standard, to ensure that same-sex marriages aren't state-recognized b/c they don't correspond to my beliefs, which are governed by the Divine law, the very standard you say we're deviating from.

Therefore, we're NOT following the standard (the Divine law) b/c we are trying to ensure that things that run afoul of the standard (same-sex marriages) aren't legally recognized, which is wrong per the standard??

How does that work? I think what might need to be clarified is your position on how the "standard" governs same-sex marriages, and whether they're allowed or not.

I was answering two different questions, but they intersect when it comes to addressing your worldview. If we viewed the Constitution as normative, your views violate that standard. You said you don't care, which I thonk admits more than you realize.

You additionally asked how one discerns right and wrong, beyond the human law. In that, we rely on the Divine. They intersect expressly because humans have recognized that under the doctrines of free will and original sin, we violate the Divine law and advance evil when we attempt to act as His agents and impose His will. We advance evil because we our fallen nature leads us to abuse that power. Your forebears have justified all manners of evil based upon your desired reading of revelation - slavery, violent wars, genocide - all have been justified as merely doing God's will by those that think as you do, as you do now, wielding revelation to deman and debase the other creatures of God. Precisely because there wil alaways be those that think as you do, the Establishment Clause is necessary, to advance and safeguard Revelation and His creatures from those who imagine they are uniquely enlightened with the gnosis that he wishes us to hate in His name

 

[hokiefan33]

I was answering two different questions, but they intersect when it comes to addressing your worldview. If we viewed the Constitution as normative, your views violate that standard. You said you don't care, which I thonk admits more than you realize.

You additionally asked how one discerns right and wrong, beyond the human law. In that, we rely on the Divine. They intersect expressly because humans have recognized that under the doctrines of free will and original sin, we violate the Divine law and advance evil when we attempt to act as His agents and impose His will. We advance evil because we our fallen nature leads us to abuse that power. Your forebears have justified all manners of evil based upon your desired reading of revelation - slavery, violent wars, genocide - all have been justified as merely doing God's will by those that think as you do, as you do now, wielding revelation to deman and debase the other creatures of God. Precisely because there wil alaways be those that think as you do, the Establishment Clause is necessary, to advance and safeguard Revelation and His creatures from those who imagine they are uniquely enlightened with the gnosis that he wishes us to hate in His name

I have no idea at all what you mean, but that's OK, b/c I doubt I would agree with it anyway.

 

[mrsltg]

First and foremost, a candidate who understands and deeply believes, and agrees with, what "Congress Shall Make No Law" means.

I am interested in government returning to an exceptionally limited form. While it might be nice to promise everyone everything it's neither realistic nor legal. Universal healthcare sounds great except when it comes time to pay for it. I will be for the candidate that actually reads the ENTIRE Congressional budget and goes through it with a red pen crossing out everything but what the government is actually responsible for. Once this is done everything else will take care of itself.

Erin

 

[jimmiej]

First and foremost, a candidate who understands and deeply believes, and agrees with, what "Congress Shall Make No Law" means.

I am interested in government returning to an exceptionally limited form. While it might be nice to promise everyone everything it's neither realistic nor legal. Universal healthcare sounds great except when it comes time to pay for it. I will be for the candidate that actually reads the ENTIRE Congressional budget and goes through it with a red pen crossing out everything but what the government is actually responsible for. Once this is done everything else will take care of itself.

Erin

Yeah, like they did on the movie "Dave."