<p>"By allowing others to do this would go against your own religion...dont you see?"</p>
<p>That is correct. Let me clarify my own belief (this is not actually my true belief since I tend to change in opinion on this subject FREQUENTLY) SO LETS CALL THIS THE BELIEF OF RELGION Q- The purpose of spirituality is a gradual separation from materialism, marraige, and an ascendancy into a Yogi who does nothing but devote his life to God and worship.</p>
<p>But my argument is that people should not impose their religious beliefs on people. Thus I should not impose the beliefs of my spiritual theory of choice on society, because if I were to succeed in doing so, then marriage would be illegal. But to do this would be wrong and unconstitutional. Society should allow marriage for those who desire it. And if one is gay or lesbian, that should be allowed also. The individual must have the liberty to chose. People of religion Q should be allowed the same liberty to practice their religion without interference. Same for Religions X, Y, or Z, or any other religions with regards to their members.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that the OWNING part was my ARROGANCE, I apologize for that. </p>
<p>But logically, a free country with our Constitution should not limit marriage. In a free country all should be able to marry the way he/she likes.</p>
<p>Hyper2400, ok, no problema, we all have our pwnzing/owning moments :) , and you do raise a valid point. </p>
<p>primitivefuture, yes I'm conservative, I've never attempted to hide that fact in issues where I feel strongly, there's nothing to "admit." Am I not allowed to take the middle road on an issue? Are you that desperate for confrontation that you're taking shots at the moderates? I think both sides raise valid points, as Hyper has illustrated, and since I have my Libertarian tendencies, I don't like the idea of the government regulating the bedroom. However, I don't like the idea of the issue being forced down our throats in a way the circumvents the voice of the people, and before you can dig up the old chestnut- I do not equate this to the Civil Rights movement. I don't want govt in the bedroom, but when you bring the bedroom to town square in "defiance" of the world, then it is of public consideration. </p>
<p>In an objective vote, I'd be in favor of it most likely, but I won't support movements like in SanFran last year. </p>
<p>It's just not an issue I hang my hat on, as it does not directly impact myself or any immediate family/friends.</p>
<p>I am conservative on most issues, liberal on a few, and on others I'm in the middle of the road. So yes I call myself a conservative, but on this issue I don't take either side. I don't have to vote straight ticket or straight issue. Just because I'm a conservative does not mean I cannot hold moderate positions, plus both my posts have expounded on this fact that I'm pulled in both directions. I'll reiterate what I said in the last post:</p>
<p>In an objective vote (ie. I'm locked in a room and given the question of for or against gay marriage) I would probably vote for it.</p>
<p>I just don't understand how anyone feels he/she has the right to limit who another person can marry. I saw a thing not too long ago that I thought was interesting, listing states that passed no-gay-marriage laws and their divorce rates, as compared with states like massachusettes, which, IIRC, has the lowest divorce rate. Sanctity of marriage my ***.
I live in a very religious community. There is at least one church on EVERY little road, and nearly everyone goes to church at least once a week. Some people use their religion to better themselves, to try to become more tolerant and forgiving, to love others and be kind. Others (most) use their religion to excuse their prejudices and judge others when they really have no way of understanding what someone is going through.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no clue how another person's sexual preference or marriage can affect or violate your religious beliefs. YOU don't like it, YOU believe it is wrong, YOU don't do it and get to go to heaven. I thought each person was judged individually? </p>
<p>On another note: one thing that bothers me about the religious right is that in one breath, they declare that America is a Christian nation and so abortion and gay marriage should be illegal. But--of course, economically, nah, we don't care that Jesus liked to help poor/sick people out. You gotta give privately and voluntarily for it to "count" so we don't need to support welfare programs. There went that Christian nation idea.</p>
<p>Yeah, and if, say, the Catholic church was the nation's only church, everyone would have equal rights to religion. I mean, everybody can go to the Catholic church. It wouldn't be limiting anyone's freedom. So what if they aren't Catholic, they still have the option of going to the Catholic church.</p>
<p>What is simply stunning is that the President of the United States provided the commencement address at a religious college, not a secular one. One of the biggest tenets of our American society is the ability to separate Church (all religions) and State. While I do not agree with Bush's statement that was quoted in the OP's original post, it is tragic that anyone who knows anything about basic American politics can stand for the President speaking at a religious college. If it was a general lecture, I wouldn't have as big of an issue, but it is commencement and that is a big deal.</p>
<p>Getting on to the quote: It is appalling that a President would tell anyone to join a specific religious group in order to perform community service. There is no need for religion of any sort to help a person perform acts fo generosity to the people of Earth. Specifying a religion makes the act even worse because it is emphasizing that this religious group's community service orientations are better than those of other religions.</p>
<p>Equality and justice for all. If all people are equal, a position I believe most of us hold, then how is it correct for any group of people to not allow the rights as the majority? Is that not the definition of discrimination? The fact is that the majority of beliefs that are anti-gay or anti-black or anti-anything have stemmed from religious texts and beliefs. Those beliefs cannot, and I stress cannot, be allowed to permeate our government or any law that is created. Our Constitution states that "all men are created equal" and in that spirit, should we not let everyone in this nation, and world, live in a society of equality?</p>
<p>I mean, to me, it seems like simple logic. I welcome all opinions contrary to mine because I believe political discussion is extremely important in society and it keeps us from falling into a lull. </p>
<p>Thank you to the OP for providing a launching point to go off of and allow for insightful discussion. I hope that this thread, unlike many others, does not comment or argue on one-line positions and posts of a select few, but rather on the merits of outlined arguments that may take on different meanings.</p>
<p>here goes primitive with his lil cheerleading for the liberals and putting down conservatives :)...does this make anyone else laugh?</p>
<p>let homosexuals do what they want....why do they need to extend it to legality?...there's no need for them to get married and what not...there's no basic familial structure that they need to maintain (considering they can't exactly reproduce...biologically unnatural...there's a reason for those different sexual organs you know)....let em get the financial benefits by proof of long term residence with eachother....i.e. civil unions....i dont' support homosexuality, but ppl will do what they want to do and i can't stop them...there's no reason to endow them with any form of sanctity</p>
<p>"why do they need to extend it to legality"</p>
<p>because of bigots like you</p>
<p>"there's no need for them to get married and what not...there's no basic familial structure that they need"</p>
<p>try telling that to couples who have been together for 40 years and have adopted</p>
<p>"considering they can't exactly reproduce...biologically unnatural...there's a reason for those different sexual organs you know"</p>
<p>so, I guess any form of contraception aid is amoral. Ok, then if you end up being impotent I guess you wouldnt be allowed to adopt the, would you.</p>
<p>"let em get the financial benefits by proof of long term residence with eachother"</p>
<p>why not?</p>
<p>"there's no reason to endow them with any form of sanctity"</p>
<p>right on, lets just round them up and send them to an island somewhere right. While at that, lets create extermination camps for them because they are undesirable. Guess who did that .... the NAZis</p>
<p>I am sick and tired of people using religion to promote hate and posture themselves as morally superior to other people. The bible has 1 vers concerning homosexuality and 18000+ concerning the poor. Whats the real emphasis there?</p>
<p>and the bible isnt infallible. It allows slavery and dosent allow meat on sunday or the use of pigskin, so I guess football is an affront to chistrianity now, right?</p>
<p>ummmmmm i have a best friend that's gay...we've actually been close for about 7 years now.....now...did you read the post correctly?...i said LET THEM get the financial benefits by proof of long term residence with eachother...i.e. civil unions..notice i said...let them do what they do..but they don't need to extend it legally...who cares about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism whatever!...I'm not concerned about the religous nature of such a relationship, i'm concerned about the natural basis....there's a thick line between conception aid and homosexuality....they're not all fruits like apples and oranges...they're like apples and deer meat!....in pertinence to humanity...homosexuality is actually deterimental....think about this hypothetical situation....what if everyone was a homosexual?...EVERYONE...how long would humanity last in such a situation..i'm not going to argue that homosexuality is a threat to the survival to humanity...by no means is it so widespread that it's actually inhibiting reproduction...it's the biological principal behind it....you can look at impotence as an illness...you can look at conception aid as a form of medication for such an illness (atleast something that calms the effects)...how can you relate this to homosexuality?....like i said...extension of financial benefits..o.k.....extension of maritial sanctitiy is pushing it...there are reasons we have our reproductive organs, and it's not so we can fool around of ppl with the same ones....i don't think of sex as a pasttime activity...it's there for one reason and one reason only....it's not supposed to be fun...yes, it is a form of expressing love towards your significant other...but not in a way that you're willing to use your sexual organs to give him/her pleasure....i'ts the trust you put in to eachother...you feel this person is responsible and trustworthy enough to carry your potential offspring....</p>
<p>actually, it is, and it is supposed to be fun. Evolution designed the brain to release endorphins so that we would be disposed to do this and therefore have greater opportunity to pass on genes. I agree with the fact that because of birth control the point is moot, but that is how we are designed.</p>
<p>well it'd stop rapid growth...but it'd inhibit growth indefinately......what if it carried on for a long period of time?</p>
<p>And in vitro fertilization...it's meant to be a supplement for infertility....not a justification for homosexuality...</p>
<p>sempitern, it's nothing against homosexuals...i stated my views on sex, and that's basically why i don't support homosexuality...i don't see sex a game you can play with just any old person just because it feels good...you have sex for a reason, and homosexuals don't have that incentive...homosexual relations make sex out to be a leisurely activity for the sole purpose of pleasure...as does prostitution and ppl that like to sleep around...i'm sure you can understand where i'm getting at, because of my views on sex.....i can see why you'd go for gay marriage...civil rights issues, equality of opportunity (for financial benefits, and maritial status), security for relationships....but you must understand that i have deep seeded beliefs on the sex issue...</p>
<p>and children may not be a horizon for you....many ppl consider sex as an "activity" rather than something so much more.....the family i've been raised in, the ppl i've been around have influenced me so much that i just can't think of it like that</p>