Which is exactly what I never said. I believe democracy works best in a religious (pluralistic) society. The Founders thought the same. That isn't support for a state religion.
Yeah, everyone can follow whatever religion they wish, but do you think this nation was founded on Christian principles and should incorporate them into our laws?
I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.
I know what you were referring to. What I was getting at was that you have an issue with that, fine. There's a valid concern there. But if you do indeed think Christian beliefs should help guide our government, then you're advocating at least some mix of church and state.
And I'm simply saying that if that's the case, then don't be surprised when things like Obama getting involved in the religion/contraception issue happen as a result. If church can influence the state, then state can influence the church. Don't like it? Then we should keep the two as separate as possible.
You can be as Christian as you please in your personal life. But your faith should not be the basis for our lawmaking process. Nor should the Muslim faith, or the Jewish faith, or any other faith. And should an atheist run things, they shouldn't make their laws based on the simple fact that they're atheists, either.
"I often have issues with."
Well, you often seem to think that religion is equal to morality. I know you're fine with people following other religions, but I also recall us having discussions where the implication seems to be that we're more moral if we have religion in our lives.
Plus, in part, the "you" was a general "you" as well. It wasn't flat out directed at you specifically.
Oh,oh. Personal attacks, the debate must not be going well for you.
No, it's going fine for me. Come on. Honestly. You can't find better people to support your side than those guys?
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this. In order to get respect one has to earn it. And those people haven't earned it. Quayle felt the need to go after
Murphy freaking Brown, a
fictional character, for promoting the "wrong lifestyle" by having a child out of wedlock. On a
TV show. And Carrie Prejean made herself look like a fool every time she was on TV (the infamous Larry King interview comes to mind).
I'm tired of the anti-gay rights people complaining that their feelings are being hurt when people attack their beliefs on this issue. Really? What about the feelings of gay people, who are being told flat out, via the recent article you shared, that their relationships are "inferior" to straight people's because they don't have all the proper "requirements"? Gay people have been killing themselves because they've been told that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else. If a lesbian's partner is dying in the hospital, she cannot go see her because their relationship is not recognized. I just saw a letter in the recent
USA Today where someone said that it was good that the Boy Scouts were keeping their ban on letting gays in, because if gays were allowed to be part of the scouts that apparently meant that straight kids would have to fear being hit on or sexually harassed by gay people as a result. I don't know about you, but I find all of that pretty freaking offensive.
So I'm not too bothered about claiming people like Quayle and Prejean are less than brilliant. They've yet to prove otherwise.
Besides, I thought relying on celebrities to help one's opinion was generally frowned upon.
Non sequitur. No one says that.
What do you mean, no one says that? You yourself noted that with this from the previous page:
Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers.
They're opposed to divorce and single mother households. Why? Because they think children should grow up in
two parent homes. And I've heard that argument made by many on the anti-gay side for god knows how long now.
Non sequitur. No one says that.
It's not a non-sequiter, it's pretty relevant, actually. The article you linked to stated that marriage was important because of its procreative aspects, right? And that's why gay couples shouldn't get married, because they cannot actively produce children the natural way. Am I correct that that's the argument?
Well, then, the next logical question is that if, in those people's eyes, a big part of marriage is the ability to produce children, why not go ahead and stop people who are infertile or choose not to have kids from marrying as well? You could at least argue for the infertile couple that that was due to circumstances beyond their control, but then again, science has made it possible for people to fix that problem. And even if we excuse the infertile couples because it's not their fault, well, that still leaves the couples who choose to not have kids. They physically can, they just don't want to. So why are they allowed to get married even though they're not actively procreating, but gay couples, who also aren't actively procreating, can't?
Please. I really want you to answer this. I want to know what the exact difference is. If it's not the fact that one couple is gay and another is straight, then what is it?
Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?
I mentioned "two adults" because of the topic at hand-right now, we are talking about gay couples being allowed to marry. But if Muhammed came here with his 3 wives, and they're all of legal age and consenting, no, I'm not going to freak out or deny them the things I'm able to do. I really couldn't care less if polygamy is legal and they all live together. I'm very consistent in my views on this issue-I feel the same way about polygamy that I do about gay marriage or couples living together unmarried or a man and a woman getting married. It should be allowed, and the only requirements I ask for are that, again, everyone, no matter the relationship, must be of legal age and consenting.
I'd also point out that the argument could be made that polygamy is a bit different an issue from gay marriage because you can choose to be polygamous, but you can't choose to be gay, and therefore that's a factor in why the two types of marriages aren't looked at on the same level in terms of legalization by some people. But somehow I feel you're going to disagree with me on that.
I've been nothing short of civil and respectful in this debate. Fully understanding this is an emotional issue, if that can't be reciprocated that tells me it's time to "ignore" the same-sex marriage thread so it can be 100% dissent-free.
Civil, sure, but again, agreeing with articles that state the "superiority" of two gendered households, and how letting same sex couples marry will somehow bring the downfall of society, and supporting denying people the right to get married simply because it doesn't sit well with your personal beliefs, aren't exactly what I'd call respectful beliefs.
And yeah, I'm emotional about this. Recent events further make it clearer just how crazy it is we have debates over stuff like this to begin with. Denying people equal rights makes no sense at all. Again, there's no justifiable reason for it. We have so many bigger issues to worry about in this world. So many. There's enough nastiness in the world as it is, denying gay people rights only adds to it.
Conservatives talk all the time about personal freedom and keeping the government out of our lives and quote our founding documents all over the place. Well, denying people the right/privilege to marry is not allowing them personal freedom. Wanting the government to ban gay marriage is forcing the government into our lives and regulating it. The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pray tell me how denying same sex couples marriage equality gives them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Or ignore this thread if you wish. It'd be a shame if you did, though, because I'd really like to get some answers to these questions.