<p>So, you would have had a litmus test for voting if someone disagrees with you? How democratic and open minded that?
If people disagree with your position, it’s your job to persuade them to agree with you. Calling them names such as bigot, homophobe and intolerant isn’t surefire way to change people from deeply held beliefs.</p>
<p>But see, the thing was that many people held fast to their religious beliefs in the gay marriage issue and could not think otherwise. The reasons for being for prop 8 were illogical - “My religion tells me its bad,” “I think it’s disgusting,” and don’t even get me started about the “I don’t want my children learning it in schools.” Democracy doesn’t exactly work if churches, such a big and influential force, are spreading fear and propoganda. To be honest, I lost faith in people as the sovereign power in democracies after that election. They seemed to prove themselves unworthy of thinking for themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not just saying that because they weren’t on my side - I actually met a few people who could logically support their stance. But the vast majority was, as I’ve said, illogical.</p>
<p>The name-calling is a last resort, I promise 
Happens on both sides.</p>
<p>Try to step back and see both sides of the argument. What you see as fear and propaganda, they see as right and true. Same holds true for your side. So, taking the position that churches shouldn’t be able to express their values to their congregations scares me more than anything taught by the churches. It smacks a little too close to totalitarian re-education.<br>
So be for Prop. 8, but also stand up for the right of other people to be against it, even if you don’t understand their reasoning. The only way we can remain a free people is when everyone can think and say whatever stupid things they want, which everyone of us does, according to those who disagree with us, no matter the issue.</p>
<p>My biggest objection is specifically to sending people to my door. If you want to advertise on tv, that’s fine- I’ll change the channel. Have services in a building- cool, I won’t be there. But don’t try and corner me in my own house. I don’t want your pamphlets, and if God is omnipotent, he surely doesn’t need some rando tracking me down- he can do it himself.</p>
<p>Yankee Belle, I see your point, but it’s also flawed. In this country, if you’re going to vote against something, you’re supposed to stop and think about it first. “Ok, why am I against this? Is it solely based on my religious beliefs or is there a secular applicable reason to be against this?” If it’s the former, then you really shouldn’t be voting based off of that. If it’s the latter, then go ahead.
This isn’t meant to bash people with religious beliefs, but if you vote against something (like same-sex marriage) solely based on your religion then you ARE forcing your religion onto others because those laws that come into place because of your vote directly affect the lives of millions of other people who may not follow the same belief system as you and don’t want your religious ideology shoved down their throats and have the government back you up on it to. </p>
<p>Religious people have every right to voice their opinion, but if they want to be taken seriously, they’ll have to provide better reasons than simply “the bible says so” because America isn’t a theocracy. </p>
<p>Think about it from a different angle. Would you be ok with it if lets say a bunch of radical muslims somehow got legislation passed that required all women in this country to veil themselves in public? Would you also be ok with it if the only reason they could provide for pushing this agenda was “because the Qu’ran said so?” No, you probably wouldn’t be ok with it. In fact, you’d probably be outraged because someone else’s religion had been imposed through law on millions of Americans (women) who may not hold the same religious beliefs. So, if you followed that analogy, then the same applies for when a christian tries to ban abortion, gay marriage, w/e based solely on his/her religious views. It’s simply not right.</p>
<p>In an ideal world, voters are supposed to think about issues and candidates before they vote, but in the real world, many people vote for things and candidates without thinking. Have you ever seen Leno when he talks to people on the street? Of course he picks the dopiest ones to highlight, but the dopes still get to vote.<br>
Some vote on deeply held religious beliefs, some vote the opposite for what they believe is right. That’s what elections are about.<br>
With the burkas, off course I wouldn’t like it, and I would probably disobey the law, but I don’t want to deny Muslims their vote because I disagree with their religion. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a position and wanting to prohibit the religious or any group the right to vote because of their beliefs. </p>
<p>I think everyone should try to persuade as many voters as they can to vote for what they believe. If an idea or candidate with the voters of that jurisdiction is popular enough, it will win. I not it won’t. And if lose, suck it up. Don’t say people who voted against you should not be able to vote. Religious belief, as well as party loyalty, and even candidate looks are all reasons that people vote for who and what they vote for. Why someone votes the way they do, should never be the government’s business. If some government authority is set up to approve voter’ reasoning, then we are finished as a nation.</p>
<p>Just a question: how come if a mother chooses to abort her unborn child, it is considered legal and moral, but if a person kills a pregnant woman, the person will be charded two counts of murder? Either way, the baby dies, but with two very different consequences for the one responsible for the death.</p>
<p>Just for clarification, when I mentioned taking away religious peoples’ right to vote based on Prop. 8, it was intended as a joke and a release of frustration ;)</p>
<p>You make some good points Yankee Belle. I’ve always been the kind of person to look at both sides. In the majority of these political cases, I admit I usually have no opinion because I’m so aware of each side. However Prop. 8 was the only case where I really could not understand the other side and I knew something had to be wrong. But anyway…</p>
<p>Don’t you think something is flawed if we have people voting based solely on their religious beliefs at the expense of others? Yes, in a democracy the goal is to try and convince people to see your side. But I think this process is seriously distorted when you bring religion into play. Religion defies logic in many cases and is very personal and important to people. Many cannot challenge their own religious beliefs for obvious reasons. This is why I called it brainwashing - it is engrained deep into peoples’ lives and, thus, they are easily swayed/controlled by whatever their churches say.</p>
<p>The only countries more religious than the US are in the Middle East.</p>
<p>Funny how the people Christian conservatives hate the most are the ones with whom they share the greatest religious fervor.</p>
<p>Haha, I love this topic! I’m actually writing a paper about this right now, and since I don’t have time to read through all the posts as I still have about 1,000 words left to write - here’s what I have to say.</p>
<p>Jefferson’s 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom stood as a significant statutory precursor to the religion clauses of First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and he was the first to coin the phrase “wall of separation” in a 1802 letter response to a group of Baptists in Connecticut who, while congratulating Jefferson on his victory in the election of 1800, complained about being subjected to religious prejudice by the Connecticut government.</p>
<p>Jefferson believed that the separation of church and state would actually allow religion to thrive and cultivate pluralistic faiths and diversity in religions in America and he was right - today, America is the most religious Western nation.</p>
<p>Today the advocacy of religious freedom in his statute and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment have been referenced not only by the U.S. Supreme Court in court decisions (such as the 1962 landmark case of Engel v. Vitale) but also mentioned in JFK’s historic 1960 speech that the separation of church and state is “absolute” - a speech that has been generally agreed upon that helped him secure the presidency. </p>
<p>blah blah blah I could write a lot more, but I should get back to my paper 
Continue the discussion!</p>
<p>It could also be interpreted as the rest of the developed world is not religious enough.</p>
<p>“Religion in the United States has a history of diversity, due in large part to the nation’s multicultural demographic makeup.”</p>
<p>I thought diversity is good?</p>
<p>Maybe because people are free to find the religion that works for them, they are more likely to be religious. If you have only one religion to accept or reject, you are less likely to be religious.</p>
<p>I would think that most people who are religious are of the same religion as their parents/whomever raised them. Most religious people didn’t make a decision after they came of age to follow a particular creed. They were exposed to the religion during their formative years.</p>
<p>We should replace Christianity with Buddhism</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this has already been said, but Newsweek just recently published an issue entitled “The Decline and Fall of Christian America”. Interesting, if you ask me…</p>
<p>I didn’t know that there’s such a thing as being “too religious…”</p>
<p>Back to the gay marriage debate, I have an argument against it that does not involve religion. Now, I get that people believe they should not be discriminated against for being different and should be allowed to marry whomever they chose. Great. BUT, then if we allow gay couples to get married, then why can’t a brother and sister, or a father and daughter, or an uncle and niece, or three women and a man, or a dog and a man get married if it will be a lifelong commitment? How do you defend gay marriage but not allow any of these…society–not a religion–defined marriage as a union between a man and woman…if it changes for gays, it would have to change for all beings in both species and number of species in that union…</p>
<p>I am a firm believer that marriage is a crucial part of the fabric of our society…without responsible couples being able to raise a child, our society would fall apart–hence why so many prisoners, gang members, hoodlums of any kind are products of deadbeat dads and the like…</p>
<p>Now, while a gay couple could be upstanding and good parents, can you imagine what the child would go through when kids exclude/make fun of/attack them because they have two moms or two dads? And look at how kids generally need both parents to grow up without any significant problems-they look to them as role models as how to be–if you have two moms and you are a son, how will you know what a father is? Boys generally look up to their fathers, and girls to their mothers…a boy with two moms isn’t going to have the easiest life—it seems selfish for a gay couple to adopt if the child will be ridiculed or worse in school…</p>
<p>I’m just rambling now…feel free to give a counter argument…I’m still undecided myself on the gay marriage issue, but I wanted to “play the devils advocate” above to help me actually take a stance on the issue…any insight to change my mind based off of what I posted is welcome-I can’t stand not being informed and am the most open-minded person you will ever meet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that’s also the reason we can’t allow interracial marriages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s why we don’t allow single parents to raise children.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because children with gay parents are teased, it will remedy the situation if we continue to discriminate against gay people (because everyone knows they’re never excluded/made fun of/attacked, right?)</p>
<p>An interracial marriage is still an unrelated man marrying an unrelated woman…so it fulfills the definition of marriage…</p>
<p>Great. BUT, then if we allow gay couples to get married, then why can’t a brother and sister, or a father and daughter, or an uncle and niece, or three women and a man, or a dog and a man get married if it will be a lifelong commitment?</p>
<p>You didn’t really think this point through did you? There are two things wrong with your incest comparison. First, brother/sister, father/daughter uncle/niece, etc all pose a greater risk of birth defects in children, if they so choose to have any. If anything is dangerous for children, it’s not gay marriage, its incestuous marriage.
Second, by banning incestuous marriages, you’re basically telling people that there are a select few people out there who they can’t marry. By telling gay people they can’t marry, you’re telling them that they can’t marry anyone with whom they are capable of falling in love. If a man falls in love with his daughter, there’s always the possibility of him getting over it and falling in love with another woman. There’s no such thing as a person who’s only capable of being attracted to members of their immediate family and no one else. But if a gay man falls in love with another man, he can’t simply get over it and fall in love with a woman, he’s only capable of falling in love with men. The incestous man still has plenty of options, the gay man has none. </p>
<p>Secondly, how dare you compare gay marriage to interspecies marriage? The fact of the matter is, a dog or a cat or a parakeet is incapable of signing a marriage license, and it’s as simple as that. It can never be consensual. Sure, maybe you could get a dog to consent to have sex with you but there is no fathomable way that a dog in addition to signing the marriage license could fulfill the responsibilities of a spouse. A dog can’t help raise children, can’t make decisions for you if you’re in the hospital, can’t get half your stuff if you divorce, etc. </p>
<p>Furthermore, as for polygamy, polygamy actually predates 2-person marriages. Polygamy is a concept that has been around for thousands of years. So saying that we should stick to “traditional marriage” is a silly argument. Polygamy is even practiced in the Bible and God never bats an eye. Moreover, polygamy is still practiced today in various areas around the world. The father of the current King of Saudi Arabia (aka the founder of the modern state) for example fathered around 60 children by 15-20 wives. No one condemned him for it because in that part of the world it’s accepted. Now, does that mean I condone polygamy and think it would work in this country? No, I don’t. This is because polygamy is the <em>least</em> egalitarian form of marriage out there. Allowing polygamy back into this country would undo the countless efforts of millions of people across generations to achieve equal rights for women. It still works in Saudi Arabia because women are basically property there, barely worth half of a man. Allowing gay marriage would be a step forward in creating an equal world for us all to live in, allowing polygamy would be taking us a step back. And once again, my point about options stands. A person who really wants multiple spouses could really learn to deal with just one. He’ll still be attracted to that one spouse and all will be fine. A polygamous man can still get married and be reasonably satisfied in his marriage (and be sexually attracted to his wife). The only way for a gay person to be happy in his marriage and feel fulfilled (sexually and in other ways) is to marry a person of the same sex. There’s no other outlet for him. Over 80% of marriages between a straight woman and a gay man (or vice versa) end up in divorce and the other 20% usually stay together while allowing an open marriage of sorts. So clearly gay people who try to “get over it” and marry an opposite-sex partner tend to fail.</p>
<p>* Now, while a gay couple could be upstanding and good parents, can you imagine what the child would go through when kids exclude/make fun of/attack them because they have two moms or two dads? *</p>
<p>Would you have said the same thing to interracial couples back in the 1950s south? Would you have told them that they shouldn’t be allowed to raise children because the other kids would exclude/make fun of/attack them simply due to their own racial prejudices? Of course you wouldn’t. So why do you advocate this for gay couples? You do not punish the victim for something that is the fault of the perpetrator. In other words, you don’t blame gay parents for the cruelty of homophobics. The only way to change societal attitudes is to make gay parenting more mainstream and from there people will learn to understand and accept just as now it is perfectly fine to have interracial ancestry and no one blinks an eye (merely 50-60 years since the beginnings of The Civil Rights Movement).</p>
<p>THANK YOU HIPPO! This is exactly the insight I needed! As I stated before, I’ve been on the fence for as long as I can remember about gay marriage simply because I can never seem to be as informed as I would like. I spoke to my dad who is anti-gay marriage and he stated some of the remarks I posted…thank you for all of your counter arguments! I’m definately on your side as it stands now! I’ll have to bring up your points with him later…(Oh and congrats on Stanford, I see! You certainly are intelligent and deserve to go there!)</p>