Politics

[Anonymous]

What some people can't seem to see is the fact that, because of religious belief, marriage is something that is holy in many eyes. Thus the reasoning behind the lawful union approach. It's just a word, but a word that means everything in the eyes of christians.

I hate to sound cold-hearted but, If homosexuals want to hear marriage, their in the wrong lifestyle.

You don't sound cold-hearted but I"m not sure you've considered the ramifications of your words in the context of modern day America.  I'm athiest, and I will get married.  Why? Well, not because I"m religious that's for sure!  I'll get married because I will be ready for the lifetime commitment, and for all the legal responsibilities and duties and perks that accompany it.

I know plenty of Jews and Catholics and Muslims and Witches who have been married.  And lots of Athiests and even a Satanist.

If you think everyone who gets "married" does so in a religious context - Christian at that - I think you need to get out more.  /shrug

[Anonymous]

I'm with Muse on this one. There are plenty of non-religious people out there who get married for the same reasons religious people do, just as there are many religious people who see marriage as just another term and not something holy.

The argument that sanctioning gay marriages will undermine "traditional" marriages is far too flawed. Marriages between men and women will get along just fine, with children, infidelity and divorce intact. Those opposed to gays marrying ignore that marriage is, in the state's eyes, a civil contract, not a religious one. Let's keep religion out of this.

Marriage is not a rigid, set-in-stone institution. It has changed and evolved over centuries. It's a banquet, an inherited cultural birthright, and there's room at the table for everyone.

[likwidtek]

ROFL..   NNNNNNEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCROOOOOO POOOOOOOOOOOOST

AWAKE!  AAAAAWAAAAKE!!!!

[ZephixLeer (Zephic)]

Wow, I hope that wasn't the last post I made as crimson_optix. I came off like a biggot. Geez.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against anyone of any sexuality and don't have a problem with anyone getting married. I just don't think anyone should be forced to perform said marriage if it is at odds with their own religious beliefs. As long as some law isn't passed that makes it a hate crime to decline to marry someone as a priest of any religion, I'm fine with it.

Why was this necro'd anyway?

[Fuse]

Yotogi thought random political posts didn't belong in a random thread.

[Maglorius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Ge5hB6JLfY

[Ash]

Yotogi thought random political posts didn't belong in a random thread.

There was nothing random about it when the conversation was obviously becoming steered in that direction.

1 post = random
>10 = not so much

[likwidtek]

So.  US citizens, how many of you are going to vote for Obama in 2012 and those who aren't, who do you support?

[Da6onet]

My rules are pretty simple.

note: this assumes that all republicans are always socially conservative and all democrats are always fiscal socialists.

This goes in order of preference.
-If the republican candidate is a smart economist more than he is a social conservative (read good fiscal policy), republican vote +1
-If the democratic candidate is a strong social liberal more than he is a fiscal socialist (read more personal freedoms), democrat vote +1
-If both candidates are centrists or if their complimentary sides are too strong (evangelist republican/marxist democrat), libertarian vote +1

[likwidtek]

I'm talking specifics.  Obama is obviously the Democratic candidate.  If you don't support him which person would you support in the Primaries.

[Fuse]

Tough call. I haven't seen anyone yet who I would back %100. I wish I could get a mesh of a few of them.  I've always liked Pauls feeling on our monetary system, but some of his international policy beliefs make me very nervous. I trust Romney as far as I could throw him. I like Cain, and specifically his logical view of problem solving and history of business success - but I'm unsure if he would be aggressive enough in presidential situations. Bachman is far far smarter than the media and most give her credit for, but I think she's too much a social conservative for me to get behind. I've been far too busy with work and other life items to do my homework on Perry yet to make a decision on him.

With all that said, any of the republican candidates will be better for the economy than our current administration. Though, if Hillary gets into it, that will make for a very unique election.

[likwidtek]

Hillary?

[Paitryn]

I will vote the same as I have voted since I was 18: None of the above.

sorry I refuse to elect anyone I dont believe will fit as president. And I have yet to be able to vote for a president that I could believe in to begin with.

[Enoch]

Wow, I hope that wasn't the last post I made as crimson_optix. I came off like a biggot. Geez.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against anyone of any sexuality and don't have a problem with anyone getting married. I just don't think anyone should be forced to perform said marriage if it is at odds with their own religious beliefs. As long as some law isn't passed that makes it a hate crime to decline to marry someone as a priest of any religion, I'm fine with it.

Why was this necro'd anyway?

The thing is, the issue isn't about religious beliefs. The law doesn't govern those except to say that you can't discriminate because of religion. It's about the legality of marriage. Marriage through the church is much different than through the courts, and judges know not to put their personal beliefs into their work. On that note, what you have nothing against, or me, or anyone needs to be irrelevant to securing equal rights.

[Da6onet]

Marriage through the church is much different than through the courts, and judges know not to put their personal beliefs into their work.

I have never understood this, and I'm married. If the government makes a separation between church and state, what exactly does it mean to be married? The connotation as I understand it when you're filling out taxes, green cards, etc. is that marriage is some kind of special status vs civil union. Of course this is all retarded in my mind. If you want to marry your pet goat I don't really give a crap that you can get healthcare for your goat or file jointly on taxes. The only people that have a problem with gay marriage are people that have a problem with gay people. Anyone who says "I don't have a problem with gays, they just shouldn't be allowed to marry," is a hypocrit. Marriage is a sacred bond between two people (or goat).