Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[the rover]

Ah. The California Constitutional issues raised by Prop 8 are explained here:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/...asses_what_now/

Now I understand a lot better.

the truncated title of your link is awesome.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You know what pissed me off most about Prop 8?That I couldn't be vocal about my negativity towards it at work. I wanted to go to each and every one of my co-workers and gets them to explain to me why they'd vote YES on this abomination. But I couldn't... I would have been fired. I'm not saying I *should* be able to do so, but it was very frustrating NOT to be able to voice my opinion on the matter in the place where I spend the majority of my waking hours.

I can understand that. I work in an environment that is very much against Prop 8. But in your company's defense, I think there are plenty of issues that are out of bounds at work. Not saying that's right.

 

[dparker713]

Ah. The California Constitutional issues raised by Prop 8 are explained here:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/...asses_what_now/

Now I understand a lot better.

Interesting read, though I gotta say it seems like a real stretch to call this a revision. It was a one line proposition, declaring this a revision would potentially foreclose amendment as an option, as you cant get much more straightforward than Prop 8. You can debate the merits of changing the way the CA constitution should be altered in the future, but I dont think it's the place of the judiciary to really be the gate keepers in this regard.

 

[NoFBinLA]

You know what pissed me off most about Prop 8?That I couldn't be vocal about my negativity towards it at work. I wanted to go to each and every one of my co-workers and gets them to explain to me why they'd vote YES on this abomination. But I couldn't... I would have been fired. I'm not saying I *should* be able to do so, but it was very frustrating NOT to be able to voice my opinion on the matter in the place where I spend the majority of my waking hours.

I can understand that. I work in an environment that is very much against Prop 8. But in your company's defense, I think there are plenty of issues that are out of bounds at work. Not saying that's right.

I think that you can't have folks in a very close environment get into it over a very heated issue.The election ends - you guys all have to work together.I know it's frustrating - but it's probably better that way.

 

[The Z Machine]

You know what pissed me off most about Prop 8?That I couldn't be vocal about my negativity towards it at work. I wanted to go to each and every one of my co-workers and gets them to explain to me why they'd vote YES on this abomination. But I couldn't... I would have been fired. I'm not saying I *should* be able to do so, but it was very frustrating NOT to be able to voice my opinion on the matter in the place where I spend the majority of my waking hours.

I can understand that. I work in an environment that is very much against Prop 8. But in your company's defense, I think there are plenty of issues that are out of bounds at work. Not saying that's right.

I think that you can't have folks in a very close environment get into it over a very heated issue.The election ends - you guys all have to work together.I know it's frustrating - but it's probably better that way.

I agree... I just wanted to voice my frustration. I brought up the topic with some close colleagues during breaks outside of the office, but they were already against it. It's likely that my advocating for the NO on 8 wouldn't have done much for many people since I do live and work in the Bay Area, the region that's probably the most against Prop. 8.

 

[beavers]

Ah. The California Constitutional issues raised by Prop 8 are explained here:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/...asses_what_now/

Now I understand a lot better.

Good find. Thanks.

… the two cases that I’ve found in other states that dealt with the same question have likewise concluded that an opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: Bess v. Ulmer (Alaska Supreme Court, 1999), and Martinez v. Kulongoski (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2008). Bess, in particular, expressly applied California precedents (though with a minor change that doesn’t seem relevant here), and concluded that the opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: “Few sections of the Constitution are directly affected, and nothing in the proposal will ‘necessarily or inevitably alter the basic governmental framework’ of the Constitution.”

How can these two states be referenced and compared to if gay marriage was never legal there in the first place? Gay marriage was legal in CA.

 

[Dickies]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

 

[beavers]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

 

[Dickies]

You know what pissed me off most about Prop 8?That I couldn't be vocal about my negativity towards it at work. I wanted to go to each and every one of my co-workers and gets them to explain to me why they'd vote YES on this abomination. But I couldn't... I would have been fired. I'm not saying I *should* be able to do so, but it was very frustrating NOT to be able to voice my opinion on the matter in the place where I spend the majority of my waking hours.

I got sent home without pay a few weeks ago for getting a little heated with my co-worker on this issue. For whatever reason, he got to stay, but I got to play disc golf all day so I was the real winner.

 

[Dickies]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

I completely agree. As I have said before... You keep religion out of government, and I will keep government out of religion.

 

[BassNBrew]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

 

[Death Bytes]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

 

[craigboy]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

You're for the unfair treatment of gay people because you feel married people have an unfair advantage over you?

 

[Dickies]

I think we should now vote on a constitutional amendment banning Mormon weddings.

(Yes, I am bigoted against Mormons)

 

[Chaka]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

This is an interesting argument and I agree with the conclusion that it should be an all-or-none proposition. Although I think craigboy hit on the principle flaw in your argument.Perhaps you should write a Proposition for eliminating marriage benefits altogether. I would likely vote for it.

 

[Jayrod]

I think we should now vote on a constitutional amendment banning Mormon weddings.(Yes, I am bigoted against Mormons)

Every single state has already done this, FYI.

 

[Da Guru]

The people of California have spoken. They do not want the gays to marry.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

The people of California have spoken. They do not want the gays to marry.

Where are you getting this from?

 

[BassNBrew]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

You're for the unfair treatment of gay people because you feel married people have an unfair advantage over you?

Yup. Right now I foot the bill for married people. Why would I want to see that population increase at my own expense.

 

[MasterofOrion]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

 

[BassNBrew]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

This is an interesting argument and I agree with the conclusion that it should be an all-or-none proposition. Although I think craigboy hit on the principle flaw in your argument.Perhaps you should write a Proposition for eliminating marriage benefits altogether. I would likely vote for it.

Problem is that most wouldn't as married folk or those wanting to be married exceed the number of single folks.

 

[beavers]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

 

[MasterofOrion]

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

You stated that Christians should not intermix their religion, or person belief, with government. Why not?Do you have personal beliefs that intermix with politics? Doesn't everyone?

Truth is everyone has personal belief system that effects how they vote and govern. What right do you have to say Christians do not have the same right as every other citizen?

 

[Jayrod]

As I've read through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that this proposition would indeed make Jesus weep, but not for the reasons the OP mentions.The fact is there is no legal or otherwise decent arguement that can be made for this proposition outside of religion. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others and disallowing them to marry is a pointless fight that doesn't acheive the desired result. To try and convince a non-Chrsitian to vote for a ban on gay marriage is futile as there is no compelling arguement.There are lots of religious arguements against gay marriage, but those only apply to Christians. The reason Jesus would weep is because of all of the time and effort that is spent trying to tell others that they should obey God, without telling them about God and (even worse) not showing them God. It's like Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 11:46"Jesus replied, 'And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.'"The Pharisees set up ridiculous rules for all of the people to follow, but refused to help people with basic generosity, grace and kindness. Similarly, Christians today are trying to establish a set of rules for non-Christians to follow without even showing them how Jesus can truly make their lives better.Jesus said, "come to me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." It isn't come to me all who are heavy laden and I'll heap some more stuff on your shoulders until you start acting like me.If Christians really want to make a difference in defending their families and making society more wholesome, they need to start with themselves and provide and example of a life that someone would want to follow. Hypocrisy within the church is easily the #1 reason people leave the church and turn away from God. Then they should be there for those in need and present Jesus to them from a place of love rather than rules. Making non-Christians adhere to Christian rules is putting the cart before the horse. Why would a non-Christian obey rules they don't believe in?

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

I think the key in your point lies within your definition of "intermixing".

 

[beavers]

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

You stated that Christians should not intermix their religion, or person belief, with government. Why not?Do you have personal beliefs that intermix with politics? Doesn't everyone?

Truth is everyone has personal belief system that effects how they vote and govern. What right do you have to say Christians do not have the same right as every other citizen?

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

 

[Chaka]

Voting is an action.It's funny because I considered not using the word prejudice in my post.

Sure voting is an action. Unless I voted for this based upon my prejudice it's not bigotry. That's the million dollar question. How many of the people voting voted based upon some level of bigotry? I just don't think you guys give enough credit for people actually understanding the issue and voting rationally, especially given that the same issue passed twice in a row. And, it's in one of the most progressive states in the union. As I've said repeatedly, maybe this is just the will of the people.

It is difficult to imagine that sort of prejudice not being borne out in the act of voting.I have yet to be presented with a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. All we have so far is indifference, which is not an argument in favor, and population growth which is rational but flat out wrong.I will however retract my comment that most of the yes votes were based in bigotry. I still think that many were and many were people that were perhaps on the fence but influenced by misinformation and lies from the Yes on 8 campaign.

My arguement in favor is that I'm against many of the benefits going to married folks that are not available to single people. Allowing gay marriages only increases the unfairness in the existing system. The gov't originally implement many of the current regulations to encourage people to marry and have kids, essentially promoting a lifestyle. I don't think the gov't should be in the business of doing that. Drop the bennies for everyone or give them to everyone and then I can get on board with gay marriage.

This is an interesting argument and I agree with the conclusion that it should be an all-or-none proposition. Although I think craigboy hit on the principle flaw in your argument.Perhaps you should write a Proposition for eliminating marriage benefits altogether. I would likely vote for it.

Problem is that most wouldn't as married folk or those wanting to be married exceed the number of single folks.

True but single people are far more likely to be serial killers.

 

[MasterofOrion]

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

You stated that Christians should not intermix their religion, or person belief, with government. Why not?Do you have personal beliefs that intermix with politics? Doesn't everyone?

Truth is everyone has personal belief system that effects how they vote and govern. What right do you have to say Christians do not have the same right as every other citizen?

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

Using the words theocracy is just demagoguery. Our country allows all people of all faith to vote and govern, if elected, as they see fit. This is a Democracy not a Theocracy. We are no where near a Theocracy.Outlawing same sex marriage isn't taking away rights. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else. Gays can be bonded with using a civil union and receive benefits similar to those who marry.

 

[timschochet]

Using the words theocracy is just demagoguery. Our country allows all people of all faith to vote and govern, if elected, as they see fit. This is a Democracy not a Theocracy. We are no where near a Theocracy.Outlawing same sex marriage isn't taking away rights. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else. Gays can be bonded with using a civil union and receive benefits similar to those who marry.

MasterofOrion, if there was a proposition that made homosexual sex illegal, would you vote for it?

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

You stated that Christians should not intermix their religion, or person belief, with government. Why not?Do you have personal beliefs that intermix with politics? Doesn't everyone?

Truth is everyone has personal belief system that effects how they vote and govern. What right do you have to say Christians do not have the same right as every other citizen?

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

Outlawing same sex marriage isn't taking away rights. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else. Gays can be bonded with using a civil union and receive benefits similar to those who marry.

Yes, yes it is.

 

[beavers]

On the flip side, Christians need educated on the dangers of intermixing religion and government.

What you are suggesting is that Christians can not express their opinion. This is is antithetical to free speech which is essential for a Democracy.Christian are citizens and have every right to express their opinion. You statement is just a tactic by the left to shut up opposing points of views so they can win by default.

Where did I say Christians cannot express their opinion? You definitely pulled that one out of thin air. This has to be a :fish:The problem arises when religion mixes with government.

You stated that Christians should not intermix their religion, or person belief, with government. Why not?Do you have personal beliefs that intermix with politics? Doesn't everyone?

Truth is everyone has personal belief system that effects how they vote and govern. What right do you have to say Christians do not have the same right as every other citizen?

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

Outlawing same sex marriage isn't taking away rights. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else. Gays can be bonded with using a civil union and receive benefits similar to those who marry.

Yes, yes it is.

It most definitely is. Gays / Lesbians had the right to get married in CA. Now they do not have that right. I am still that people still use this argument.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Using the words theocracy is just demagoguery. Our country allows all people of all faith to vote and govern, if elected, as they see fit. This is a Democracy not a Theocracy. We are no where near a Theocracy.Outlawing same sex marriage isn't taking away rights. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else. Gays can be bonded with using a civil union and receive benefits similar to those who marry.

MasterofOrion, if there was a proposition that made homosexual sex illegal, would you vote for it?

No

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Outlawing same sex marriage isn't taking away rights. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else. Gays can be bonded with using a civil union and receive benefits similar to those who marry.

For those arguing against my assertion yesterday that indifference plays a big role in how a bigoted proposition such as this can get most of the voters, the above is what I am talking about. The poster doesn't care enough about the gay population's fate to bother to grasp that by voting for this proposition you are asserting that a certain group of couples aren't worthy of the label "married". Indifference in inexcusable, especially for a Christian who has but one commandment to define how one treats others- "Love thy neighbor". I can't imagine that there is any worst sin and Jesus is weeping! Or maybe herding the sheep and goats down their respective paths. When Jesus appeared at the court house asking for license to marry John, how did you respond?

 

[beavers]

Proposition 8, The Musical starring Jack Black ...

Umm... where were you before Nov 4?

 

[PsychoMan]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we live in a nation that was designed as a great experiment in recognizing the social contract. That is in the US we believe that citizens and anyone else that comes under the authority of the US government and the several states cede certain natural rights to society, to the government in order to protect us. That is there are certain economies of scale when society as a whole offers police protection and national defense rather than leaving this all to the individual. However, when entering this social contract "we the people" assert that there are certain natural rights that the society as a whole, government cannot take from individuals without a very, very good reason. That is there are certain limits placed on government authority. One of the things that is off limits to government, to society, to the tyranny of the majority, to voters, Christian or otherwise is Liberty. And to have liberty under the social contracts demands that you have the free will to choose any option you damn well please unless you are significantly harming others in society or society itself. Without this significant harm there is no legitimate justification for denying the right of individuals to do as they chose, to interact with societies institutions as they chose.Now back on the topic of Gay Marriage, some try to frame the argument on the cost to society of allowing such moral decadence. They point to the break up of the traditional family in Scandinavian countries, the increase violence in the homes of gay couples, and other social ills that they want to use as legitimate reason to keep Gay Marriage illegal. However, all of those arguments are easily refutable. The Scandinavian break up of the traditional family had been going on for forty years prior to the first gay marriage or even civil union. The statistics on what happens inside the homes of Gays today is a silly argument because Gay Marriage or not there are going to be Gay Couples.

So when all you have is a moral objection you do not have a legitimate reason to ask government to enforce your moral code at the expense of the individuals liberty. This has nothing to do with where that source of that morality comes from. This is only an attack on "Christians" because some of them, a small percentage actually look at a world that is evolving towards more individual freedoms and mistakingly believe that this is because those with a different sense of morality are out voting them and/or the political leaders are betraying them. When in reality, when things are working correctly liberty trumps any version of morality under the social contract of our society when no other harm is being done.

 

[The Commish]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

 

[beavers]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

:X I could not have said it any better.

 

[PsychoMan]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

Yeah I wondered about that.

 

[PsychoMan]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I appreciate BFS's words but I do not think "his" response really defends what you said here:

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

"The church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds."Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Are you saying that Christians no one should take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds? I'm not sure I can think of any beliefs that everyone upholds.

Nor is any reasonable person stating that religion should be the sole reason for everyone's political decisions. If everyone voted solely on religious beliefs, sure, you could call it a theocracy, but that's not what's happening. If religion is the sole reason for a particular voter's political decisions, then that is up to that voter and its his right to place his vote how he wishes. But, thankfully, there are plenty of people who do not vote on this basis alone; we're all able to vote based on what we believe is best for our country -that's a great thing about our system.

 

[beavers]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

Yeah I wondered about that.

I try to be consistent with voting, which is minimal government. For example, even though I consider myself socially liberal, I am for the 2nd amendment. Ironically it's the gay marriage opponents,who traditionally are conservatives, claim to be for a "limited government" when in fact, they are really only for limited government when it aligns with their beliefs.

 

[The Commish]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I know "you" couldn't have....that's why I am hoping his initial comment isn't true....No offense, but you've not come remotely close to conveying this same message that "BFS" has.....I am hoping he was just responding to PM not realizing PM's comments were to you and thought they were to him.

 

[beavers]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I appreciate BFS's words but I do not think "his" response really defends what you said here:

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

"The church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds."Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Are you saying that Christians no one should take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds? I'm not sure I can think of any beliefs that everyone upholds.

Nor is any reasonable person stating that religion should be the sole reason for everyone's political decisions. If everyone voted solely on religious beliefs, sure, you could call it a theocracy, but that's not what's happening. If religion is the sole reason for a particular voter's political decisions, then that is up to that voter and its his right to place his vote how he wishes. But, thankfully, there are plenty of people who do not vote on this basis alone; we're all able to vote based on what we believe is best for our country -that's a great thing about our system.

Homosexuals = minority group. The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority. Gay marriage should never be left up to the majority to decide. Our great system is designed to protect minorities and unfortunately with gay marriage, we have witnessed otherwise. Secondly, there is no real reason presented as to why gay marriage should not be legal. The only argument presented against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs of a collective group.

 

[PsychoMan]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I appreciate BFS's words but I do not think "his" response really defends what you said here:

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

"The church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds."Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Are you saying that Christians no one should take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds? I'm not sure I can think of any beliefs that everyone upholds.

Nor is any reasonable person stating that religion should be the sole reason for everyone's political decisions. If everyone voted solely on religious beliefs, sure, you could call it a theocracy, but that's not what's happening. If religion is the sole reason for a particular voter's political decisions, then that is up to that voter and its his right to place his vote how he wishes. But, thankfully, there are plenty of people who do not vote on this basis alone; we're all able to vote based on what we believe is best for our country -that's a great thing about our system.

Homosexuals = minority group. The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority. Gay marriage should never be left up to the majority to decide. Our great system is designed to protect minorities and unfortunately with gay marriage, we have witnessed otherwise. Secondly, there is no real reason presented as to why gay marriage should not be legal. The only argument presented against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs of a collective group.

Your response is specifically why I asked not to discuss the lone issue of gay marriage, but that I wanted to address your generic statements towards Christians and how they should be voting. I think you have good points about gay marriage, and I do not hold a strict conservative viewpoint about it. What I do have a problem with is you telling Christians they can't vote based on their beliefs, but you can.

 

[beavers]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I know "you" couldn't have....that's why I am hoping his initial comment isn't true....No offense, but you've not come remotely close to conveying this same message that "BFS" has.....I am hoping he was just responding to PM not realizing PM's comments were to you and thought they were to him.

Of course I didn't come close to conveying BFS's message since I didn't answer the original question. BFS answered it. No offense, but you obviously don't understand what it means when someone says "I could not have said it any better." Emphasis here Commish ---- could not have said it any better. Or maybe it's reading comprehension.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

Yes it is what I am saying. I'm saying that Christians are not being asked to leave their beliefs at the curb, but that certain beliefs, even if they are in the majority are not legitimate concerns for the government to act upon. That an individuals morality is not something that an individual can cede to the majority opinions and thus morality is not something that our government can legitimately consider all by itself. The fact that our government often does legislate morality and voters demand that they do doesn't change this principle. Nor does my inability to properly express this idea.

 

[beavers]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I appreciate BFS's words but I do not think "his" response really defends what you said here:

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

"The church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds."Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Are you saying that Christians no one should take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds? I'm not sure I can think of any beliefs that everyone upholds.

Nor is any reasonable person stating that religion should be the sole reason for everyone's political decisions. If everyone voted solely on religious beliefs, sure, you could call it a theocracy, but that's not what's happening. If religion is the sole reason for a particular voter's political decisions, then that is up to that voter and its his right to place his vote how he wishes. But, thankfully, there are plenty of people who do not vote on this basis alone; we're all able to vote based on what we believe is best for our country -that's a great thing about our system.

Homosexuals = minority group. The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority. Gay marriage should never be left up to the majority to decide. Our great system is designed to protect minorities and unfortunately with gay marriage, we have witnessed otherwise. Secondly, there is no real reason presented as to why gay marriage should not be legal. The only argument presented against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs of a collective group.

Your response is specifically why I asked not to discuss gay marriage specifically, but that I wanted to address your generic statements towards Christians and how they should be voting. I think you have good points about gay marriage, and I do not hold a strict conservative viewpoint about it. What I do have a problem with is you telling Christians they can't vote based on their beliefs, but you can.

What belief am I voting on? Is the constitution considered a belief?

 

[phthalatemagic]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

 

[beavers]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

 

[PsychoMan]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

I could not have said it any better.

I appreciate BFS's words but I do not think "his" response really defends what you said here:

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

"The church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds."Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Are you saying that Christians no one should take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds? I'm not sure I can think of any beliefs that everyone upholds.

Nor is any reasonable person stating that religion should be the sole reason for everyone's political decisions. If everyone voted solely on religious beliefs, sure, you could call it a theocracy, but that's not what's happening. If religion is the sole reason for a particular voter's political decisions, then that is up to that voter and its his right to place his vote how he wishes. But, thankfully, there are plenty of people who do not vote on this basis alone; we're all able to vote based on what we believe is best for our country -that's a great thing about our system.

Homosexuals = minority group. The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority. Gay marriage should never be left up to the majority to decide. Our great system is designed to protect minorities and unfortunately with gay marriage, we have witnessed otherwise. Secondly, there is no real reason presented as to why gay marriage should not be legal. The only argument presented against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs of a collective group.

Your response is specifically why I asked not to discuss gay marriage specifically, but that I wanted to address your generic statements towards Christians and how they should be voting. I think you have good points about gay marriage, and I do not hold a strict conservative viewpoint about it. What I do have a problem with is you telling Christians they can't vote based on their beliefs, but you can.

What belief am I voting on? Is the constitution considered a belief?

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

 

[The Commish]

Homosexuals = minority group. The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority. Gay marriage should never be left up to the majority to decide. Our great system is designed to protect minorities and unfortunately with gay marriage, we have witnessed otherwise.

Secondly, there is no real reason presented as to why gay marriage should not be legal. The only argument presented against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs of a collective group.

What "system" are you referring to? The one in California? I can't speak to that system, but I can tell you our national system is designed to give every individual a voice (via their vote). We (citizens) speak through our votes. One's vote should not be discounted just beecause of the # of people that agree/disagree with them. While I agree that gay marriage shouldn't be an issue and people are hiding behind huge strawmen (on both sides), this isn't the way to solve the perceived problem.