<p>I agree jaug1</p>
<p>also, the due process clause guarantees equal protection under the law</p>
<p>Oh, I just got that--"flamer," that's actually pretty good. You might be able to compete with me in the flippancy department.</p>
<p>well let's just get one thing straight...Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not condone homosexuality in any sense...but like I said...religion has no part in government. My personal belief through my morals is that homosexual marriage is not right...and there's no way I'd support it if I was a Rep or a Senator...but....I can't argue that it's not within fundamental principles of this nation. Equality of opportunity, Liberty, Individualism(i.e. the choice to be gay or straight) all work towards civil unity...I could use the argument that it's not natural all day, but it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that "if it's not natural, it's not allowed," so my conservative attitude cannot win out using the Constitution as a basis.</p>
<p>While I applaud your defense of the Constitution, nahrafsfa, I think you're embracing a rather narrow interpretation of an entire group of religions, one that many, if not most, would not agree with. I'll admit, it's difficult for me to force myself to care about whether some religion condones a particular thing or not, since I feel like coming to my own conclusions rather than some book's, but I know a lot of religious people, and your viewpoint is quite rare.</p>
<p>nahrafsa I applaud you. If only Focus on the Family shared your views......</p>
<p>"it's still rape, though."
"Its also stil a sin...who the hell would just go up to somebodys house and say hey i want to rape you!... unless it were true evil."</p>
<p>I totally agree. rape is rape, whether it's done by someone gay or straight.
homosexuality, however, does not equal raping people.
that passage is demonstrating the evilness of rape, not homosexuality.</p>
<p>religious viewpoints don't count as valid reasons against gay marriage, sorry.</p>
<p>all politicians are the same. for people to argue over one is pointless and a watse of time. you need to get a hold of yourself and look at the bigger picture. like for example, people are going to make decisions you dont like. regardless of who the president is, the legislatie creates laws, so stop your *****ing about bush making laws. he may influence some, but he sure in the hell doesnt create them. and if your comeback is that its the republicans fault, just because we own you lefties,they were voted by the americna public, so they are in favor. and for thsoe who were going to argue that with that republicans rigged elections, lol, i think its funny youve resorted to conspiracy theories to feel just and good about yourself. sounds like religion.</p>
<p>"republicans rigged elections, lol, i think its funny youve resorted to conspiracy theories to feel just and good about yourself"</p>
<p>rigged elections and the antics make me, a liberal sad at how politics have degenerated into this. Also, I have a visceral disgust for everything coming from Bush and Co.</p>
<p>z2thay, while I do agree that it may sound like religion to bring up rigging elections, it did happen this year. With the DiBold machines that were caught and made national news by adding over 650 votes to Bush in a town where only 400 people lived in Ohio as well as the extremely blatent gerrymandering by giving Oberlin College only 2 actual booths to vote in, it is highly likely that there were more incidents. While I do not know whether it would have been enough to change the course of the election, it is still worth noting.</p>
<p>That being said, I do not feel good about myself having to say that. I feel terrible about this nation that we do such things in order to gain power.</p>
<p>while im conservative im far from narrow-minded and i agree and recognize that **** happens. but i highly doubt this only took place durign this election. it happens every election, epecially if an incumbent is running. its unfortuneatley, part of american politics to take elections a bit too far. its my opinion that we get rid of the modern 2 year campaign and make it like 6 months. no bad talking your opponent and tho limited spending is unconstitutional thanks to buckley v. valeo, highly regulate spending</p>
<p>sempitern555 </p>
<p>like i said all politicians are relativaly the same. rigged elections are far from new. so dont get all ****y.</p>
<p>these two statements dont match
"highly regulate spending"
"while im conservative "</p>
<p>the republicans in the house are trying to lift the limit on corporate contributions so that companies can donate unlimited amounts</p>
<p>Alright, let's just get one thing clear here. We have to make a distinction between religious belief and law. Religious views stem from the faith placed on a a holy text like the bible, while laws stem from the structure outlined in the constitution. Just as it is unfair for Christians to alter their religious beliefs based upon American law, it is unfair for Americans to alter their actions based upon Christian beliefs. It is unfair to defend the condemnation of homosexuality through the bible because not everyone believes in the bible, and the only thing we can go on is something that everyone believes in: the constitution. In which, it clearly states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." All men includes gay men.</p>
<p>I wish all the very religious people would spend more time on the majority of the Bible, which teaches tolerance, charity, and faith, rather than searching out bits and pieces that they can twist into justification for their prejudices. Maybe I'd take religious groups more seriously if I saw them doing more good with their time and money instead of spending it in efforts to force their religious beliefs on society as a whole.
<em>this is directed more at people in my community than any posters on this forum</em></p>
<p>z2thay...ummmm....the President makes much of the law that's enacted on a yearly basis...only a Congressman can submit the bill in the "hopper" for consideration though. But yes...the executive branch is partly dedicated to analyzing and constructing bills...and the President signs bills in to law after they go through Congress, so he does have LOTS of discretion in the lawmaking process.</p>
<p>He doesn't have "LOTS" of discretion. The President only has as much power as the other two branches. He can't make a law by himself. Didn't we learn this in Government 101?</p>
<p>well ofcourse he can't make law himself...but he can formulate bills and then submit them to Congress...the executive branch formulates a large proportion of bills that go through subcommittees</p>
<p>and he does have LOTS of discretion...the veto is a very powerful check...and with executive agencies at his disposal, he has much information at his feet.</p>
<p>Edit: he can impose executive orders that have the force of law...the executive branch decides how the laws are implemented/to what extent they will be enforced...through the rulemaking process the bureacracy actually does make law, using the bill passed by Congress and the President as a brief schematic</p>
<p>Presidents hardly use their veto power.</p>
<p>Ah, now we're into the "let's say Bush isn't responsible" part of the discussion. After browsing all the new posts, I have yet to see one attempt to justify a ban on gay marriage for its own sake. It's always "look at the big picture" or "Bush can't help it" or "the American people want it." No one has given a rational argument against gay marriage--because there is none. Some things are not up to majority rule, like individual rights. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place.</p>
<p>"I love how fundy Christians lift stuff out of the Bible when it suits their agenda"</p>
<p>Like that one guy said...the bible allows slavery and if i really wanted it to suit my agenda i would say "hey I want a slave" because lets face it everyone wants somebody to do stuff for them, if thats what you think.</p>