Religious devotion in the United States

[Lucius]

Sig mig engang, er denne thread ikke blevet bare en lille smule afsporet? I har ikke en chance mod mig i en kamp som denne. :D

[Cantousent]

Anata wa Amerikajin desu ka? Watashi wa terebijion desu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That, I don't understand.

 

 

Let me just make a quick statement:

 

I don't have real animosity towards you guys. The quote from Plato applies to me just as much as it does to anybody in the entire thread.

 

So, I got excited and wasn't particularly nice, but sometimes, as Vixen pointed out, Christians feel like folks are gunning for them, even when it isn't true. Christians probably do whine about things, and I'm there whining with everyone else. ...But don't atheists feel put down sometimes? ...And isn't it sometimes true?

 

We all advocate our positions, although I'm sure we're not so jaded that we state things only because others believe them to be true. So, we've traded a few barbs and Di had to shame us (or at least me) into being civil. That's not so bad. No real harm done, just a couple of message board cowboys busting up the place. A brawl maybe, but not a showdown.

[Reveilled]

Anata wa Amerikajin desu ka? Watashi wa terebijion desu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That, I don't understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's transliterated Japanese.

 

Roughly: "Are you an American Person? I am a Television."

:D

[~Di]

Now, Eldar. You know I love ya! *hugs* We agree more than we disagree... and cowboys DO have their place. Just maybe not here...?

 

Anyway, it's an interesting topic. I'd hate to see it turn into a flamefest and get closed, that's all.

 

:D

[~Di]

It's transliterated Japanese.

 

Roughly: "Are you an American Person?  I am a Television."

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ROFL!!! It could be worse. I could be a USA president informing a cheering German populace that, "I am a jelly donut!" (Edit: Which is exactly what President John Fitzgerald Kennedy did in the late 1960's, while making a speech in Berlin, Germany!... for those who were unaware of this embarassing facet of USA history. )

 

[WITHTEETH]

Atleast they are trying to fit into other cultures!

[Commissar]

Oh, and apparently at some point I proclaimed myself an intellectual liberal elite.  Which I didn't, but I will now.  On the other hand, I've never seen that as anything negative.  It's only the conservative right that manages to make 'intellectual' an insult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, I used to try and argue the point whenever someone referred to me as one of those liberal intellectual elites.  Now I just admit that I can indeed read and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing what you said. What I understand from your post is that you are a liberal intellectual elite because you can read. However, if that weren't your meaning, I'll take it back. At any rate, I'm happy to let folks read our posts and decide.

 

At any rate, we have more in common than you know. After all, I'm a liberal intellectual elite inasmuchas I can read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I'd say it's fair to suggest that you're quoting out of context.

 

And to get a bit back on topic, I'm not really sure where you even needed to bring the American military in. No one, as far as I can tell, has advocated the violent uprising of the non-religious in the States; I sure didn't. I didn't even adocate that religious folks stay out of politics. Though if wishing made it so, of course I'd prefer that people who honestly and fervently believe some guy in outer space is telling them how to live their lives through a two thousand year-old book, written by a wide spectrum of often conflicting authors, the very substance of which has been debated and ruled on over that two millenia by people who didn't, at varying times, know of the existence of dinosaurs, the true shape of the world, or any of the advancements of science as we know it, stayed as far away from drafting legislation that effects me and mine as possible.

 

What's so damned amusing about all of this is that if the argument were turned on its head - if, say, we had a larger population of Muslims (or more accurately, more Muslim representatives in the House and Senate) - and they were the ones floating religious doctrine as law, you'd be on my side of the fence in a heartbeat. You know what kind of reaction it'd create if somebody suggested enforced prayer towards Mecca five times a day in schools? Or how about choice bits of the Koran hanging outside the Supreme Court?

 

The bottom line is, if a legislator floated an idea for new laws based on a religion that wasn't your own, you'd at the very least have to be pried off the ceiling, which is pretty much the same reaction people like me have whenever some blowhard gets up there and starts jabbering about the Ten Commandments or what a great idea working time for prayer - non-denominational, of course - into the school day would be.

[Cantousent]

Really, I don't want prayer in public school. I'm a Catholic, for crying out loud. The last thing I want is sectarian persecution of non-protestants. I think private prayer in school is perfectly legitimate, but it's also impossible for the government to prevent it.

 

Would I be up in arms against the mandating Muslim prayer in school? Of course, Commissar. There's no doubt. ...But I'd also be up in arms against mandated prayer from any religion. I think my posts pretty much paint a consistent picture: I'm for the separation of church and state as long as that doesn't lead to persecution of church by state.

 

As for the military thing, I was irritated at some earlier posts in the thread and that's when I stepped the tempo in my own posts. I wrote my post about civil war before you were hot and heavy in this thread.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

So, I got excited and wasn't particularly nice, but sometimes, as Vixen pointed out, Christians feel like folks are gunning for them, even when it isn't true.  Christians probably do whine about things, and I'm there whining with everyone else.  ...But don't atheists feel put down sometimes?  ...And isn't it sometimes true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it's true, but the sleights on our end are usually more real than perceived. If I was American, President Bush the First's comment about how he didn't think atheists could be "citizens or patriots" would have sent shivers down my spine, and he was the more moderate of him and his son. Then there are the states that forbid atheists and agnostics from holding public office. Linky!

Fundamentalist Christians however have been told by the Bible to be persecuted and spurned for their beliefs, and so even though their religion is the majority in the United States, they not only look for it but revel in it to a degree. No teacher-led prayer in public schools? Persecution! Not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courts? Persecution! Concerned about conservative Christian judges who would roll back gains in gay rights and women's choice? Persecution, not legitimate disagreement over laws!

It's funny though, how not allowing conservative Christians to force their lifestyle on us or our children is persecution. That's the strangest definition of the word I've ever heard.

[Kalfear]

I mean take the whole gay equal rights, marriage issue for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

perhaps the government should just get out of arenas that are not within its mandate to regulate?

 

seriously, why does government have to sanction any marriage? why? in the case of the US, exactly where in the consitution is this a power granted the federal government? btw, in case any of you didn't know, up till bush's repeal of the "marriage penalty," it really was NOT a good idea to be legally married if both spouses worked (well, at least if the 2nd wage was a significant portion of the total income). i got crushed on taxes the first couple years. of course, it does not matter anymore as my wife stays home with the manchkin.

 

the same goes for the whole concept of "equal rights." we all have the same rights in the US, as stated by the consistution. nowhere is there an explicit right to a job, which is the primary focus of equal rights legislation. the government is unnecessarily messing in the lives and functions of private citizens and businesses (even publicly traded companies are "private" in the sense that they are not owned or run by the government). given today's more open society (a good thing IMO), any company that blatantly discriminated would be beat up on the marketplace. that would be their punishment, not government sanctions.

 

taks

 

PS: yes, i realize bush didn't actually do the repealing. congress did. bush just proposed it. either way, it was his baby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I can answer this part anyways.

 

Government is required to be involved because you have one group discriminating against the other and the other group trying to push their own values on the first group. Left to either side of the conflict, no answer will ever be found. Thats why government is required to step in.

 

Also, since "Marriage" (in Canada or the USA) entitles the married couple to provencial/State and federal TAX EXCEPTIONS, you need the government to step in because they are the ones in charge of taxation laws.

 

So I DO think its up to the governments to come up with solutions on this topic because neither side is willing to compromise and the effect of the topic will have an impact on government sanctioned taxation laws and regulations.

 

And yes Taxation is a HUGE part of the whole gay marriage issue.

 

Ill use Canada as a example (honestly just dont know enough to comment fairly or correctly on USA taxation laws).

 

In Canada, "Marriage" entitles the couple to MAJOR tax breaks and additional exceptions mandated by the government. Many of these tax break were put in during the 1970s by Trudeau to promote child birth by married couples. These same tax breaks do NOT apply to common law or civil unions. *side note: This doesnt include adoption, as adoption tax laws are covered under adoption laws, so the fact anyone (gay or straight) can adopt is a non issue in regards to the marriage tax laws issue*

 

In Canada the gay population REFUSED the civil union option that was MASSIVELY (meaning basically common law union preformed by a justice or time spent togather under same roof) supported by a astonishing majority of Canadians because they would not get the tax breaks that hetro sexual couples enjoy. Regardless of them being pysically unable to achieve the literal meaning for the tax break (that being getting pregnant from their spouse).

 

Instead they have pushed for the not widely supported "Marriage" which suggests it must be done by a church representative or justice of the peace.

 

However, the questions come up, outside of the taxation stuff. Do you grant this right and at the same time ignore the right of others to freedom of religion??? Fact is not all churchs support gay marriage and what is being asked for by the homosexual communities in Canada (as verified by Paul Martins latest bill about the subject) is that these people would have no other option but preform the ceremony or be charged for discrimination.

 

*side note: Our government in real danger currently because Martins own party members (who support Gay marriage but with restrictions regarding impact on religions...."They basically saying a preist can refuse to preform ceremony if such union against church beliefs", which BTW I think is totally fair to all sides.

 

One liberal party members has already quit his party and whole government in danger of lossing a "no confidence vote" and being dissolved*

 

If we do that however, where do we stop? Should we force Jehova Witnesses to take blood transfusions regardless of their religion? Should we tell siek women that they are not allowed to cover their faces in public regardless of their religion? List goes on and on, from religion to religion.

 

So yes the government does have to step in and act. A responcible government would hold a referendum on the topic during an election but neither Canada or the US has a responcible government at the moment. Bush says no, Martin says yes, and neither willing to actually listen to THE PEOPLE of the countries they suppose to represent! (sorry mild rant on irresponcible government).

 

Point is, the best solution on gay marriage would be for NO ONES rights to be trampled. But since the religious organizations and the gay communities are not mature enough to comprimise to ensure all parties are met in the middle, we do require our elected officals (IE: Governments) to deal with the arguement.

 

Sad thing is, no matter what the government decides, you just know the losing side will appeal in the courts anyways!

[Atomic Space Vixen]

In Canada the gay population REFUSED the civil union option that was MASSIVELY (meaning basically common law union preformed by a justice or time spent togather under same roof) supported by a astonishing majority of Canadians because they would not get the tax breaks that hetro sexual couples enjoy. Regardless of them being pysically unable to achieve the literal meaning for the tax break (that being getting pregnant from their spouse).

 

Instead they have pushed for the not widely supported "Marriage" which suggests it must be done by a church representative or justice of the peace.

 

However, the questions come up, outside of the taxation stuff. Do you grant this right and at the same time ignore the right of others to freedom of religion??? Fact is not all churchs support gay marriage and what is being asked for by the homosexual communities in Canada (as verified by Paul Martins latest bill about the subject) is that these people would have no other option but preform the ceremony or be charged for discrimination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Different but equal" is not equal. Gays and lesbians have pushed for marriage because marriages are what they want, not civil unions. Who sends out civil union invitations? Nobody. It's "come to our wedding, be part of our marriage!" And yes, it must be performed by a church representative or justice of the peace/marriage commissioner (that's what we have in Alberta). However, it's been very clear from the beginning that nobody is looking to force churches to perform them. There has been controversy over justices of the peace/marriage commissioners being forced to perform ceremonies against their will, but last I heard, that's being reconsidered.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some extremists who would like to force churches to perform the ceremonies, but then, there are some extremists who would like to execute homosexuals. It's hardly being asked for by "homosexual communities in Canada" and Paul Martin is certainly not endorsing such a thing.

Transcript of Martin speech.

To say that gays and lesbians are looking to force churches to perform same-sex weddings is either buying into or adding to the fearmongering being spread by those who would deny tax-paying citizens equal rights.

And nice way to focus on tax breaks, which infertile and elderly couples enjoy, by the way, so bringing up that those are to encourage childbirth is pointless unless you wish to exept any couple unable to bear children. There are a whole bunch of other benefits, like inheritance and next-of-kin rights for seriously ill spouses, or heck, even being able to visit someone in the hospital.

[taks]

Government is required to be involved because you have one group discriminating against the other and the other group trying to push their own values on the first group. Left to either side of the conflict, no answer will ever be found. Thats why government is required to step in.

show me where in the constitution one group trying to push their values on another is the government's mandate.

 

Also, since "Marriage" (in Canada or the USA) entitles the married couple to provencial/State and federal TAX EXCEPTIONS, you need the government to step in because they are the ones in charge of taxation laws.

again, show me where this is even constitutional. i made my point quite clear, the idea of marriage is NOT the government's responsibility. tax breaks for married folks is an unconstitutional reach into our lives by the government.

 

So I DO think its up to the governments to come up with solutions on this topic because neither side is willing to compromise and the effect of the topic will have an impact on government sanctioned taxation laws and regulations.

who cares? if the government got out of it all together, it wouldn't matter.

 

And yes Taxation is a HUGE part of the whole gay marriage issue.

same point i've already made a half dozen times.

 

< snip > Do you grant this right and at the same time ignore the right of others to freedom of religion???

sorry dude, but where, again, in the constitution is the "right" of marriage granted? all people have equal rights, gays, straights, whatevers... marriage is not one of those.

 

So yes the government does have to step in and act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it doesn't. it should be out of the business all together.

 

find the clause in the US constitution that says marriage is a federal mandate. find the clause that says gays, or straights, or some ethnic minority should have their rights spelled out more clearly than the rest of ours.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, contrary to popular belief, there is no "break" with taxes for married couples unless the 2nd wager earner is bringing in significantly less than the 1st. until recently, there was actually a penalty because the charts did not double your exemptions yet the added income put you into a higher tax bracket. now, however, you do get a double exemption, which is the same as if both partners were filing single. the only real drawback for gays that are married is if only one works, in which case he/she cannot claim the other as a dependent.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

It's irony that I've been fighting wiht folks in this thread when I share many of their same ideals. I'm all for gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I don't think we should have civil unions at all. If marriage is the basis of our equality, then we should settle for nothing less than outright marriage. ...But no middle ground of civil unions. Gay and lesbian couples should have the same option as straight couples and all of them should fall under either married or single.

 

I disagree with the idea that any religion should be forced to perform a marriage for anyone not in good standing. To force a religion to perform a ceremony is discrimination in and of itself. I don't think that will be on the table in the United States because it will almost ensure the bill will go down to a crushing (and I mean crushing) defeat. So, if the marriage is performed by willing churches or a justice of the peace, I'm all for homosexual marriages. I simply fail to see why I should judge someone based on his desire to sleep with other consenting males. Not my cup of tea, but not my issue anyhow.

 

I'm completely with taks on the issue of marriage as it concerns the federal government. I don't see why the federal government should be involved at all. Marriage is not a federal issue and I see no end of nightmares for both sides in the long run if the US government steps into the act. It's bad enough that the feds used to punish married couples. I railed against that for years and it was one of my main reasons for arguing that gays should be forced to be married to share the same benefits. Now that the penalty is gone, I still think gays should have the same opportunity, no more, no less.

[Gorth]

Sig mig engang, er denne thread ikke blevet bare en lille smule afsporet? I har ikke en chance mod mig i en kamp som denne.  :D

Var dine ord hedning, man ved aldrig hvem der kigger een over skulderen :D

[Lucius]

Sig mig engang, er denne thread ikke blevet bare en lille smule afsporet? I har ikke en chance mod mig i en kamp som denne.  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Var dine ord hedning, man ved aldrig hvem der kigger een over skulderen :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OMG busted I am, much to learn there still is.

[Kalfear]

Government is required to be involved because you have one group discriminating against the other and the other group trying to push their own values on the first group. Left to either side of the conflict, no answer will ever be found. Thats why government is required to step in.

show me where in the constitution one group trying to push their values on another is the government's mandate.

 

Thats a dumb reply Taks. Civil rights, womens rights, childrens rights, the right of free speach, the right to choose your own religion, freedom of the press, all these issues at one time or anouther were solved and enforced by the governments and are in the constitutions.

 

Gay Marriage is just anouther item in that list and the government is the ONLY body able to pass law regarding it.

 

So who do you suggest tackles this topic? The churchs? Already did, their answer DOES in fact trample gay peoples rights. Maybe the gay community? Well their answer tamples the right of religion. So who do you suggest handles this topic.

 

Im sorry but just because something not SPECIFICALLY listed in the constitution, doesnt mean its not a issue for government. Both sides are indirectly protected by the constitution though. Is the government suppose to just ignore that? No matter how you spin it, the constitution does include these people (gays and religious).

 

By what your saying, one could argue that Blacks civil rights should have been left up to the people to openly inturpret by themselves. Thats a great idea because many racists were doing such a good job of it before the government steped in werent they? (that was sarcasm btw). This is an issue about civil rights and about freedom of religion, plus more. Of course the governments have the right to step in.

 

Also, since "Marriage" (in Canada or the USA) entitles the married couple to provencial/State and federal TAX EXCEPTIONS, you need the government to step in because they are the ones in charge of taxation laws.

again, show me where this is even constitutional. i made my point quite clear, the idea of marriage is NOT the government's responsibility. tax breaks for married folks is an unconstitutional reach into our lives by the government.

 

Well totally agree with you here, Tax breaks (or penalties) just because your married dont make a whole lot of sence to me either. If the government wants to encourage child birth then those tax breaks should appear when a child enters the scene, not before. Regardless if the "parents" hetrosexual or homosexual.

 

However, its short sighted to say the government shouldnt rule because they shouldnt be involved WHEN THEY ALREADY ARE!

 

Yes the government shouldnt be involved, but when they gave tax breaks based on the subject and empowered NONE religious figures to create marriages, they BECAME involved.

 

Your ignoreing the fact the governments have been involved in marriages already so YES, now they have the responcibility to see that involvment to the end.

 

And again, even if you took away the right of non religious figures (judges, boat captains, justices of the peace) to do marriage ceremonies, the government would still have to deal with the civil rights and freedom of religion issues as THOSE ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

 

So I DO think its up to the governments to come up with solutions on this topic because neither side is willing to compromise and the effect of the topic will have an impact on government sanctioned taxation laws and regulations.

who cares? if the government got out of it all together, it wouldn't matter.

 

 

As I said above, government has a responcibility to be involved no matter how its looked at, no matter what side of arguement you on. Long as civil rights and freedom of religion involved government involved.

 

 

And yes Taxation is a HUGE part of the whole gay marriage issue.

same point i've already made a half dozen times.

 

Yup

 

 

< snip > Do you grant this right and at the same time ignore the right of others to freedom of religion???

sorry dude, but where, again, in the constitution is the "right" of marriage granted? all people have equal rights, gays, straights, whatevers... marriage is not one of those.

 

So yes the government does have to step in and act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it doesn't. it should be out of the business all together.

 

find the clause in the US constitution that says marriage is a federal mandate. find the clause that says gays, or straights, or some ethnic minority should have their rights spelled out more clearly than the rest of ours.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Blacks rights, womens rights come to mind immediately. Those two examples of people who had to have their rights spelled out more clearly because others didnt look at them as people prior to that.

 

See I think you entering the issue that gays are treated like everyone else already. And in some areas you would be correct, but in others they definately are not.

 

For example, a justice of the peace has the right/authority to marry people who do not wish to be married by a specific religion. So does a justice of the peace have the right to NOT marry a couple? Personally I dont think he/she does. I think a JoP has to marry ANYONE that comes to them long as they meet the countries laws of marriage (have a licence, are of age, ect). Sexuality should not play a role in the choice.

 

HOWEVER, I do beleive ANY minister, rabbi, preist, shaman, what ever, has the right to REFUSE to marry a couple that do not stand up to the churchs belifs and standards. Its up to the church if they do the ceremony, not the couple getting married.

 

Personally Im all for gay marriage to be honest, just not at the expence of religious freedom and not at the cost of adding untold more couples into a broken and outdated tax shelter. Fix the tax exemption issues (canada) and insane marriage prevliges (for example: a 30%-50% drop in insurence rates the day your married. Like getting married makes someone a better driver??? I been driveing for 24 years now, never had an accident, no tickets, and my insurence is higher then a 20 year old who just got married! Figure that one out! oh and yes, that insurence break is government mandated...like insurence companies ever give a break that not forced on them, lol).

 

Fix those things first then by all means marry away!

 

adding more people to problem/broken systems NEVER turns out good or works.

 

PS: To other poster.

 

Geeee if Martin was that clear as you make him out to be 34 of his party members wouldnt be up in arms about it now would they? Gawd I hate liberal fanbois! Use some common sence man. Blind devotion always leads to problems!

 

Read the freaking bill and NOT Martins press clippings for the facts before you speak. Why take the word of a known criminal and liar over the actual writting on the bill. (for Americans: Sadly Watergate has nothing on our current Canadian Government..sad time for Canadian Politics).

 

And besides, nice of you to bring up Alberta and NOT mention that regardless what the federal government mandates, Ralph Klien has already said clearly and with out any political double talk Martin famos for that he will use the NOT WITHSTANDING clause of the Canadian Constitution to VOID any and all marriage rights for gays in Alberta. So in Alberta its a non issue anyways as Gay marriage, civil union, what ever will not be recognized as legal plain and simple and gay couples will not be able to get married there.

 

As has 2 other provinces in Canada (maritime provinces).

 

Hold a freaking referendum, let CANADIANS themselves decide and be doine with it all is what I say.

 

PPS: Attomic Space Vixen

"Different but equal" is not equal

 

Well there you go, you just said it yourself. You said you dont want this forced on churchs yet you then turn around and say this?

 

TRADITIONAL marriages are preformed IN CHURCHS!!! So you dont want or accept civil union, WHAT DO YOU WANT??????? The churchs dont want you, you dont want JoPs and such, where is the middle ground??????

 

(shakes head) this is why (RESPOINCIBLE ) government is required (which Canada doesnt currently have so this issue will come back regardless what Martin forces on people) to come to the solution.

 

Anyways, Im done with topic,. This thread shows why this topic so hot everywhere. People just look past facts and create fiction to try and validate their own opinion. ASV is such a clear example of "forget logic, give me what I want" its scary to me. Terrifying really.

[Reveilled]

Thats a dumb reply Taks. Civil rights, womens rights, childrens rights, the right of free speach, the right to choose your own religion, freedom of the press, all these issues at one time or anouther were solved and enforced by the governments and are in the constitutions.

 

Gay Marriage is just anouther item in that list and the government is the ONLY body able to pass law regarding it.

 

So who do you suggest tackles this topic? The churchs? Already did, their answer DOES in fact trample gay peoples rights. Maybe the gay community? Well their answer tamples the right of religion. So who do you suggest handles this topic.

 

How? How does it trample gays rights? Gays do not have a right to marry. No one has the right to marry.

 

Im sorry but just because something not SPECIFICALLY listed in the constitution, doesnt mean its not a issue for government. Both sides are indirectly protected by the constitution though. Is the government suppose to just ignore that? No matter how you spin it, the constitution does include these people (gays and religious).

 

The government not doing things that weren't listed in the constitution was the whole point of the constitution, or at least so thought Thomas Jefferson:

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice

to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is

everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy,

and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes

limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with

power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no

further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more

be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains

of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

ME 17:388

The constitution does list both groups, and it also lists the rights which the federal government is to protect. The federal government should protect these rights.

 

By what your saying, one could argue that Blacks civil rights should have been left up to the people to openly inturpret by themselves. Thats a great idea because many racists were doing such a good job of it before the government steped in werent they? (that was sarcasm btw). This is an issue about civil rights and about freedom of religion, plus more. Of course the governments have the right to step in.

 

Blacks at the time of the civil rights movement were being denied rights which they were entitled to, so the government stepped in to protect them. The result here of the government stepping in was that straights were given a privilege they were not entitled to. The solution is not to give gays this privilege, the solution is to remove this privilege from straights.

 

Well totally agree with you here, Tax breaks (or penalties) just because your married dont make a whole lot of sence to me either. If the government wants to encourage child birth then those tax breaks should appear when a child enters the scene, not before. Regardless if the "parents" hetrosexual or homosexual.

 

However, its short sighted to say the government shouldnt rule because they shouldnt be involved WHEN THEY ALREADY ARE!

 

Yes the government shouldnt be involved, but when they gave tax breaks based on the subject and empowered NONE religious figures to create marriages, they BECAME involved.

 

Your ignoreing the fact the governments have been involved in marriages already so YES, now they have the responcibility to see that involvment to the end.

 

And again, even if you took away the right of non religious figures (judges, boat captains, justices of the peace) to do marriage ceremonies, the government would still have  to deal with the civil rights and freedom of religion issues as THOSE ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

 

The government is currently involved. Since the government should not be involved, the solution is for the government to stop being involved. Instead of seeing the involvement through to the end, they should stop, turn around, and go back the way they came. And what civil rights and freedom of religion issues do you speak of, other than this supposed "right" to get married? I don't see a freedom of religion problem. If a church doesn't want to perform homosexual marriages, it shouldn't have to, and anyone who doesn't like it should either pressure the church into changing its position, or they should leave for another church. Visa-versa for people who don't like it if their church does perform these marriages.

 

Blacks rights, womens rights come to mind immediately. Those two examples of people who had to have their rights spelled out more clearly because others didnt look at them as people prior to that.

 

See I think you entering the issue that gays are treated like everyone else already. And in some areas you would be correct, but in others they definately are not.

 

No, gays are not treated equally, straights clearly have special treatment in the marriage issue. The difference is that while you are advocating that everyone gets the special treatment, we are advocating that no-one gets the special treatment, and that being married be no more legally binding than being someone's best friend.

 

For example, a justice of the peace has the right/authority to marry people who do not wish to be married by a specific religion. So does a justice of the peace have the right to NOT marry a couple? Personally I dont think he/she does. I think a JoP has to marry ANYONE that comes to them long as they meet the countries laws of marriage (have a licence, are of age, ect). Sexuality should not play a role in the choice.

 

But a Justice of the Peace should not have the "right" to marry anyone. Anyone at all. Last I checked, JoPs don't do christenings, circumcisions or Bar Mitzvahs, why should they do Weddings?

 

 

HOWEVER, I do beleive ANY minister, rabbi, preist, shaman, what ever, has the right to REFUSE to marry a couple that do not stand up to the churchs belifs and standards. Its up to the church if they do the ceremony, not the couple getting married.

But if the religious leader refuses to marry the two, it does not infringe at all on their civil rights, any more than having Homeless Joe at the bottom of Buchanan Street refuse to perform the ceremony does--or at least it shouldn't--because being married to someone should carry no legal, civil or political meaning whatsoever.

 

Personally Im all for gay marriage to be honest, just not at the expence of religious freedom and not at the cost of adding untold more couples into a broken and outdated tax shelter. Fix the tax exemption issues (canada) and insane marriage prevliges (for example: a 30%-50% drop in insurence rates the day your married. Like getting married makes someone a better driver??? I been driveing for 24 years now, never had an accident, no tickets, and my insurence is higher then a 20 year old who just got married! Figure that one out! oh and yes, that insurence break is government mandated...like insurence companies ever give a break that not forced on them, lol).

 

Fix those things first then by all means marry away!

 

But you see, if you remove all those things from marriage, why have marriage controlled by the State at all?

[cewekeds]

Gay couples and straight people have the same right to marriage. Reason its their religions beleifs. If the goverment decide reward one group the same has to be given to the other.

 

I have no problem with having religions people in office if they can keep most of their beliefs out of the office and there choices they make in office. You don't need to believe in god to know murder is wrong and all life sacred.

If your prolife just say its will be a human life that needs to be protected and a future tax payer. Saying god says its wrong doesn't work for me. I didn't vote for a being to busy to stop by once in awhile whose most followers read from a miss interpretation of the real bible.

One probelm with most religion I've notice they make people unequal in their beliefs. The woman must obey their man, White better then black etc...

What happens it divides people to a point where its difficult to work together.

I think we were pulling away from religion until 9/11. When people are scared they tend find/look for faith.

 

You can have the ten commandments as a display at the courthouse however you need other items which our laws where based on. Though I think its funny "thou shall not kill" then we sentance a men to death while his lawyer was sleeping in court. " Then a man that air on the side of life had signed more excution then any governor since the 70s with very weak cases.

[Darth Flatus]

If the result of religious people in politics is that the main topics of discussion are "christian" family values, abortion and gay rights then forgive my crassness but screw it.

 

It seems like a tactic to avoid important issues: economy, health, education.

[Reveilled]

Gay couples and straight people have the same right to marriage. Reason its their religions beleifs. If the goverment decide reward one group the same has to be given to the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that's not a right to marriage. That's a right to freely practice your religion without government interference. It is unconstitutional for the government to directly interfere in someone's religious beliefs, and this includes giving them benefits for performing a religious ceremony.

 

Saying that the government rewards one group it has to reward the other is thinking about it in the wrong way. If the government decides to reward one group, the law should be struck down, the government removed from power on the grounds that they unable to stay within the bounds of their mandate, and the benefit removed from the group. To compensate for the government taking power for itself for the ends of one group by forcing more power on the government for the ends of another group, will only end with the Government having too much power over all groups.

[cewekeds]

If the goverment see unions to help keep it strong and decides to give breaks to two (and only two) people who form the union then it can takes steps to encourage those unions to happen. If those unions happen in religion content like marriage and the goverment choose to recognize those religion union in the term of marriage. Which they have with laws using marriage as its wording. Then the goverment should recognize all religion beliefs whose word for their union is marriage. Union only recognize two humans joining. Its fair and it doesn't support one group over other. Unlike now saying one groups can have the rights and another group can't.

 

One might argue that the reason the goverment wants unions is to help sustain/increase the population and gay couples can't have babies. Again false because gay woman can have babies just not with their partner. Gay males can also pay a woman to bare their child as well. Also you would have to enforce the law on couples who don't produce or raise children.

 

The goverment chooses not to taxs churches and other groups they believe are good at shaping morales and forming communities to make the country more stable.However these groups suppose to stay neutral politics because of the help they recieves.

[taks]

Thats a dumb reply Taks. Civil rights, womens rights, childrens rights, the right of free speach, the right to choose your own religion, freedom of the press, all these issues at one time or anouther were solved and enforced by the governments and are in the constitutions.

no, it's not. everyone has exactly the same rights. rights don't apply to women, children, blacks, gays, straights or any other specific group differently than they apply to you or i. the government's job is to ensure that those rights are applied equally. no additions need be made, just use what you already have on the books. discrimination in private institutions is not the government's mandate.

 

Gay Marriage is just anouther item in that list and the government is the ONLY body able to pass law regarding it.

it is also not legally allowed to pass a law regarding it. big point here. it's not the government's mandate to regulate who, what, when or where we marry. that's up to individual states at best.

 

remember, the power of the federal government was spelled out very specifially. the intention was for a bunch of little democratic laboratories (the states) in which the people could choose to live. if you don't like the laws in one state or county, move. period. the federal government was intentionally limted in this way.

 

to say that "oh well, since these screwed up "rights" are already in place, we must then pass even more restrictions in order to deal with them" is actually the short-sighted viewpoint. we keep using this excuse as the federal government slowly takes more and more power from the people. at some point, we'll have nothing left.

 

So who do you suggest tackles this topic? The churchs? Already did, their answer DOES in fact trample gay peoples rights. Maybe the gay community? Well their answer tamples the right of religion. So who do you suggest handles this topic.

nobody. rights are rights. they are clearly spelled out in the bill of rights. gays don't need extra rights just because they're gay. they can worship as they choose, own a gun if they choose,

 

religion is a right that applies to everyone, equally. not just gays or blacks or whomever.

 

Im sorry but just because something not SPECIFICALLY listed in the constitution, doesnt mean its not a issue for government.

yes, actually, it does. this was intentional to keep the federal government from growing too large. too bad the idea failed.

 

oh, and with regards to black civil rights, that was again the federal government allowing something that was unconstitutional. black people already had the rights, the government just failed to enforce those rights.

 

taks

[metadigital]

The irony, right?  The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade?  To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion of other factors.  The real question is, why?  Why is the ACLU willing to defend political organizations who have an anti-democratic stance while attacking religious organizations?  If a religious sect created a political party, would the ACLU defend its right to march in parade?  If not, why not?  After all, neo-Nazis are far more dangerous than religious organizations.  ...Or, rather, the driving force behind neo-Nazi thinking is far more dangerous than religious thought.  After all, religious persons have been in political power since the foundation of the country and the democracy has not only thrived, but also become more accessible to a larger portion of the population.

 

It always saddens me when folks complain about religion and politics as if someone who is a devout adherent to a religion should be forced to deny his faith upon running or winning office.  How silly.  This is the United States of America.  If the people are willing to vote for religious people, then it is religious people we shall have.

 

What's worse is that folks will present such a hostile view of religion in general that they alienate religious folks who would otherwise support many of their proposals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because the ACLU has the established policy of trying to ensure American civil liberties, nothing more. They believe in the neo-nazis' right to say what they want to say in a public forum. You think they like them? Please.

 

Why do they go after the church? Funny you should ask. You see, churches in this country enjoy tax-exempt status, providing they abide by a few rules. One of those rules is keeping its religious collective nose out of politics. That's why you saw the ACLU going nuts this last presidential election, as well as anyone else who thought those good old-fashioned Southern churches were kind of crossing a line when stating that a vote for Kerry was a vote for the devil.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The tenet of freedom of expression is a necessary evil. The whole principle is that, on balance, the arguments will prove themselves: the Nazis will be proved bigots, the liberals proved tolerant. Pick your society. A liberal democracy is always in danger of being disolved by the disparate parts within it.

 

Secondly, I agree with the Commissar. The whole "separation of Church and State" is not really about keeping religious people out of politics; it is more about keeping religious organisations from boosting candidates into office with their support.

[Reveilled]

If the goverment see unions to help keep it strong and decides to give breaks to two (and only two) people who form the union then it can takes steps to encourage those unions to happen. If those unions happen in religion content like marriage and the goverment choose to recognize those religion union in the term of marriage. Which they have with laws using marriage as its wording. Then the goverment should recognize all religion beliefs whose word for their union is marriage. Union only recognize two humans joining. Its fair and it doesn't support one group over other. Unlike now saying one groups can have the rights and another group can't.

 

But when we've already decided the level of strength we wish the government to have in the form of a constitution, should we let it attempt to strengthen itself? And considering the institution of marriage got along just fine before the government began interfering in it, on what basis does the government decide that it has to encourage it? Further, on what basis do you or the government decide that the union of two people is the only proper form of marriage? That strikes me as just as arbitrarily unfair to polygamists as a male-female only rule is to homosexuals.

 

One might argue that the reason the goverment wants unions is to help sustain/increase the population and gay couples can't have babies. Again false because gay woman can have babies just not with their partner. Gay males can also pay a woman to bare their child as well.  Also you would have to enforce the law on couples who don't produce or raise children.

 

Further to that argument is the fact that you don't need to be married to have children, or to live with someone else in a life-long loving relationship.

 

The goverment chooses not to taxs churches and other groups they believe are good at shaping morales and forming communities to make the country more stable.However these groups suppose to stay neutral politics because of the help they recieves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am also opposed to this. Shaping morals and forming communities is the business of the communities in question and the individuals that are a part of them. Unless said communities are in some way violating the rights of their members or of others outside the community, the Government has no business interfering with them, and any organisations they set up that are religious in nature should be taxed in the same way that a secular organisation does.