Gays getting married

Godfather.

OOOOO just let em do it...it will slow down world population even with adoption and other means of birth. :shock:

Godfather.

dcfaithful

Godfather. wrote:

OOOOO just let em do it...it will slow down world population even with adoption and other means of birth. :shock:

Godfather.

Lone Drawn Meteor

Godfather.

Lone Drawn Meteor wrote:

so is politics and opinions but there seems to be a deep throat life stile for those.

Godfather.

cincybearcat

dcfaithful wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Can we get past this stupid nonsense and focus on things that actually matter.

...
Most of us agree with you... but, many Americans make a big deal out of it and the politicaians cater to them for their votes.

Definitely. Unfortunately, at the root of it all, this shouldn't be a big deal in the first place. So there are homosexuals in this world, big fucking deal.

That was my point.

So many real issues to focus on to worry about 2 guys getting married and spending the rest of their lives together (well 25-50% of the time )

know1

dcfaithful wrote:

know1 wrote:

But that's not religion forcing that on the people. That's the governmental process.

And that's a practice and not a belief.

That is why I feel that the government is failing in it's overall mission, and separation of church and state is being ignored.

But you CAN'T separate church and state if it's a popular vote that is dictating policy. It's impossible.

dcfaithful

cincybearcat wrote:

That was my point.

So many real issues to focus on to worry about 2 guys getting married and spending the rest of their lives together (well 25-50% of the time )

Point taken.

dcfaithful

know1 wrote:

dcfaithful wrote:

know1 wrote:

But that's not religion forcing that on the people. That's the governmental process.

And that's a practice and not a belief.

That is why I feel that the government is failing in it's overall mission, and separation of church and state is being ignored.

But you CAN'T separate church and state if it's a popular vote that is dictating policy. It's impossible.

Yeah, I read you. We should just obsolete our Constitution and Bill of Rights then if the government is only going to defend popular morality. :(

know1

dcfaithful wrote:

know1 wrote:

But you CAN'T separate church and state if it's a popular vote that is dictating policy. It's impossible.

Yeah, I read you. We should just obsolete our Constitution and Bill of Rights then if the government is only going to defend popular morality. :(

No - I'm just saying that not allowing people to vote on issues because of their religion is NOT the same thing as separation of church and state. These laws banning gay marriage were passed on a popular vote.

You're basically saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote (I know you're not really saying that, but by indicating that separation of church and state is being ignored when these laws were voted into existence you kind of are)

dcfaithful

know1 wrote:

dcfaithful wrote:

know1 wrote:

But you CAN'T separate church and state if it's a popular vote that is dictating policy. It's impossible.

Yeah, I read you. We should just obsolete our Constitution and Bill of Rights then if the government is only going to defend popular morality. :(

No - I'm just saying that not allowing people to vote on issues because of their religion is NOT the same thing as separation of church and state. These laws banning gay marriage were passed on a popular vote.

You're basically saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote (I know you're not really saying that, but by indicating that separation of church and state is being ignored when these laws were voted into existence you kind of are)

Yeah I can see my error of debate, but I didn't mean to imply that. Overall I just strongly feel that there shouldn't be laws banning gay marriage, and if there are...they shouldn't be voted on by popular vote, which in turn makes me think that such laws wouldn't exist because the government would have no justification to deny them the marriage rights.

maj4e

The issue with "popular vote" is sometimes a minority (whatever it may be) has to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Ex. slavery, civil rights in the 60's, women's right to vote etc.

know1

dcfaithful wrote:

Yeah I can see my error of debate, but I didn't mean to imply that. Overall I just strongly feel that there shouldn't be laws banning gay marriage, and if there are...they shouldn't be voted on by popular vote, which in turn makes me think that such laws wouldn't exist because the government would have no justification to deny them the marriage rights.

I get you - I was mainly contending the point about separation of church and state.

We don't disagree on the laws about marriage, although when we start limiting what can be a vote by the public I think it's a scary, slippery slope. In some ways, I wish the public could vote on EVERY issue and leave the politicians - who sell their votes for pork and lobbyist money - out of it.

Also, how many politicians consider themselves religious? And they are the the ones creating the laws we don't vote on.

know1

maj4e wrote:

The issue with "popular vote" is sometimes a minority (whatever it may be) has to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Ex. slavery, civil rights in the 60's, women's right to vote etc.

I get that, although I think someone needs to be real careful when they decide the popular vote doesn't count. Whomever has that power is a scary person or entity.

dcfaithful

know1 wrote:

dcfaithful wrote:

Yeah I can see my error of debate, but I didn't mean to imply that. Overall I just strongly feel that there shouldn't be laws banning gay marriage, and if there are...they shouldn't be voted on by popular vote, which in turn makes me think that such laws wouldn't exist because the government would have no justification to deny them the marriage rights.

I get you - I was mainly contending the point about separation of church and state.

We don't disagree on the laws about marriage, although when we start limiting what can be a vote by the public I think it's a scary, slippery slope. In some ways, I wish the public could vote on EVERY issue and leave the politicians - who sell their votes for pork and lobbyist money - out of it.

Also, how many politicians consider themselves religious? And they are the the ones creating the laws we don't vote on.

I can definitely agree with you there. There are certain laws that I too wish were strictly popular or public voting, and some that were politician voted.

That creates another discussion in its own of the character and integrity of our politicians. :roll:

maj4e

know1 wrote:

maj4e wrote:

The issue with "popular vote" is sometimes a minority (whatever it may be) has to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Ex. slavery, civil rights in the 60's, women's right to vote etc.

I get that, although I think someone needs to be real careful when they decide the popular vote doesn't count. Whomever has that power is a scary person or entity.

no doubt

fife

cincybearcat wrote:

Can we get past this stupid nonsense and focus on things that actually matter.

So civil rights are not important. damm wish i knew that

fife

[
Most of us agree with you... but, many Americans make a big deal out of it and the politicaians cater to them for their votes.[/quote]

Definitely. Unfortunately, at the root of it all, this shouldn't be a big deal in the first place. So there are homosexuals in this world, big fucking deal.[/quote]


That was my point.

So many real issues to focus on to worry about 2 guys getting married and spending the rest of their lives together (well 25-50% of the time )[/quote]

sorry cincy please forgot my last post.

murphyJammer

Religion is an ancient crutch that stubbornly hangs on in the modern age. It has always been, and continues to be about nothing more than the few finding a way to control the many. If god exists and wants his will carried out why not speak for himself to all? Instead he chooses someone and convienently speaks to them alone, far from anyone else. If people use man made systems like this to justify your own bigotry, well then shame on them.

dcfaithful

murphyJammer wrote:

Religion is an ancient crutch that stubbornly hangs on in the modern age. It has always been, and continues to be about nothing more than the few finding a way to control the many. If god exists and wants his will carried out why not speak for himself to all? Instead he chooses someone and convienently speaks to them alone, far from anyone else. If people use man made systems like this to justify your own bigotry, well then shame on them.

.....

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

No - I'm just saying that not allowing people to vote on issues because of their religion is NOT the same thing as separation of church and state. These laws banning gay marriage were passed on a popular vote.

You're basically saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote (I know you're not really saying that, but by indicating that separation of church and state is being ignored when these laws were voted into existence you kind of are)

...
The thing that is getting this muddled up is this..
The Laws are created by the Government.
Voting is not a law making process... otherwise, we might still have segregated busses in the Southern States. Just because something is popular (or unpopular) does not make it legal.
Politicians used the voting process to try to wiggle off the hook on Gay Marriage. They were trying to shake their responsibilities and say, 'See... this is what the people want'. Well, just because the people may WANT it... it does not mean they get it. The Laws have to go through a process set forth by our Constitution. Politicians cannot side step their duty in order to wash their hands of the responsibilities WE pay them to do.
...
So... we have a Law Making process... and a Voting process. They are different creatures. We cannot allow the mob to make our Laws. We ALL have to adhere to our Constitution and we ALL have to make sure that our wants do not violate the founding principles.
That is WHY some people will say, 'Well... let's just change the Constitution to fit our wants'. That's not how it works... we cannot violate the Constitutions Rights. Otherwise, it becomes a worthless piece of old paper.