Religion and Politics

[rowstreeter]

"Most people (67%) say that their religious beliefs play at least an occasional role in helping them decide what to do in their lives. But far fewer (38%) say religion has the same influence on their voting decisions. Overall, 45% say they frequently find themselves using their religious beliefs to help make choices and decisions on a typical day. But just 22% say they frequently rely on their religious beliefs to help them decide how to vote and 16% say they do so occasionally."

Does religion affect our vote? Our politics? Our thinking about candidates?

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=28

Is this a valid topic of a forum?

Some interesting observations

[rowstreeter]

Do you have a problem with those whose votes are influenced by their religion?


Why do you think I have a "problem"?

Are you trying to stack the discussion? I asked a simple series of questions. Care to answer them?

My religion tells me all people are equal, all people have to be judged by the same God, all people need to follow Judaeo Christian principles, which give space for other religions............

My religious beliefs say that all accused of crime submit to the same investigatino, the same punishment. That's a judicial philosophy which morphs into a political philosophy.......based upon equality, and equal justice for all, Dick Cheney to the common street thug.

I am realistic enough to realize that Dick won't be arrested tonight, and that my street pedlar guy will be in prison for a number of years for pushing a little dope. He should spend some time in jail, but so should Cheney, no? After all, Cheney was responsible for more deaths than Osama.

So where did I not eflect facts you cannot dispute?









I also see few people

[Details]

Religion played a major part in passage of Prop 8 ( Gay marriage ban) in CA.
If you have no religion to guide you...how do make moral decisions?As an atheist - I'll answer - rationally. Morals apply quite well without the threat of hellfire to force you to them. There's a reason nearly every religion has come up with pretty much the same set of morals. Don't kill, don't steal, don't hurt others - it all comes down to do unto others, karma, etc. - that's what makes society work.

Gay marriage - hmmm - does it hurt me - nope. Does it hurt other people - nope. Is everyone involved in it (the gay couple) consensual adults? Yep. OK, none of my business, it should be allowed. Or - as a believer might say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

[Lady_Jean_La]

I was listening to a discussion today about this. How established religion more or less accepted slavery and royalty. It was the evangical movement that ended it. Of course, to get votes they had to get converts.

So, throughout histroy religion has changed politics and politics has changed religion. Of course, there is a big difference between joining a church and having the faith to do exactly as the faith demands.

I would say I don't vote because of my religion but I don't vote against my religion. imo

[theal3]

Like some other here, I was taught Religion and Politics don't mix and history shows that, I learned as I advanced in my education. Religion is more for person guidance in day to day life and can be a great social and faith based support system. Govt. is a secular affair for governing society of all religions, cultures, citizens. The Founding Fathers saw that early on and left the Constitution "flexible." So it HAS changed with the times with one thing clear minorities needs can't be surpressed, but must be considered. IMHO

If anything, religion should make one tolerant of minorities in a society. IMHO

[doctor_J]

I think we all know that religion plays a profound part in politics, on every level. That fact constitutes one of the fundamental differences between so-called "liberals" and "conservatives". It is still not uncommon to hear a conservative say something like "This is a Christian nation" or "Our founding fathers intended for God to be the centerpiece of policy making", etc.

If you've never heard comments like that, then there's always "In God we Trust" and "one nation under God" to offer as proof.

Whether this is right or wrong probably depends on whether you are religious, although I am aware of religious people who make a concerted effort to separate the two.

As far as atheists being moral, in my experience, they are just as moral as the fervertly religious. You do not have to believe in God to believe in "good" and to know right from wrong. Even though I didn't approve of the humanists mounting their campaign during the Christmas season, their recent slogan on buses in Washington was pretty good ---" Be good for goodness sake".

I'm not sure if it's ever possible to separate one's devout religious beliefs from political decision making. Maybe someone more devout than I am can better describe how that can be done.

[doctor_J]

Consider the role religion is playing is world politics today. The biggest, most deadly attack on American soil was motivated by religion. Our 2 concurrent wars are against what we consider religious extremists. Even our most violent opposing views on social issues involve religion, like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research.

We usually consider religious extremists to be Muslim, but there are 1000's of years of history to prove that Christian extremism has caused just as much death and destruction, if not more. The old testament God was about as extreme regarding violence, as a deity can get.

[Lynden1000]

"Most people (67%) say that their religious beliefs play at least an occasional role in helping them decide what to do in their lives. But far fewer (38%) say religion has the same influence on their voting decisions. Overall, 45% say they frequently find themselves using their religious beliefs to help make choices and decisions on a typical day. But just 22% say they frequently rely on their religious beliefs to help them decide how to vote and 16% say they do so occasionally."

Does religion affect our vote? Our politics? Our thinking about candidates?

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=28

Is this a valid topic of a forum?

Some interesting observations

As an atheist, religious views don't tend to color my voting choices. however, I work for the Catholic Church and have coworkers whose votes are influenced by their religious beliefs - heavily influenced.

Given their basic worldview, I can certainly understand why they vote the way they do, even though their position differs from mine. And I wouldn't try to persuade them to vote any other way. I think a person should vote his conscience, and very often that means he'll vote for a candidate other than mine.

[Carol25]

Religion played a major part in passage of Prop 8 ( Gay marriage ban) in CA.
If you have no religion to guide you...how do make moral decisions?
You are assuming that athiests or people who do not follow an organized religion cannot make a moral decision. I don't agree with that.

[Carol25]

rowstreeterm, you ask interesting questions. I would answer in perhaps in a negative way. I do not like the marketing of religion in politics at all. I don't think the clergy should get invilved with politics as well. They have their jobs and it isn't politics or to urge their parishoners to vote for anyone but to preach their gospels.

Parties who want to call in certain groups religious people to urge them to vote for their candidates is certainly a turn off and dishonest to me. It seems to me that it would be a deterrant for other beliefs as well!

Certainly our private beliefs enter on our decisions in voting and have a part in that. But it's not up to the clergy or polical parties to make pleas or dictate for our votes in this manner. This is a very private matter not to be intruded upon.

[FurthurBB]

Would it be unfair to wait for Cheney to be charged and then await a verdict before you send him off to prison? IMO Cheney did nothing wrong, he's a true patriot and I thank him for his service to the country.

As far as your questions the answer is yes on all 3. Is it a valid topic, another yes IMO.

IMO Cheney is a horrible person who does not care much for this country at all, other than what he can take from it. IMO

[momof6]

I'am not religious and I do not agree with same sex marriage (prop 8), so it is not just a religious way of thinking. I don't even believe in the bible......but that does not keep me from being a conservative. I have lots and lots of friends that are not religious at all and they are conservative and moral in their lives, which in turn has them voting conservative.

I have strong family values, because that is the way we like to live, I do not like the liberal way of thinking. My kids do not go to church and we do not pray and I have good children that have turned out conservative on their own.

I would like to say, that I do like most religious people and am thankful for all the kind things churches do for people. It is just not for me, so I do not base my political views on religious beliefs.

[momof6]

theal3: You mention how we need to be tolerant of others and how everyone should have equal rights.

Then why do you criticize people that are against gay marriage and abortion? I have my reasons why I'am against them, and it should be my right to be against them, if we all have equal rights to think on our own.

You say people are not tolerant if they see an issue different than you. Tolerance means you are respectful of everyone's opinion, not just liberals.

[LisaM22]

theal3: You mention how we need to be tolerant of others and how everyone should have equal rights.

Then why do you criticize people that are against gay marriage and abortion? I have my reasons why I'am against them, and it should be my right to be against them, if we all have equal rights to think on our own.

You say people are not tolerant if they see an issue different than you. Tolerance means you are respectful of everyone's opinion, not just liberals.

it is sad that you think you have a right to discriminate, people felt just as you do about people because of the color of their skin once (some still do), even had laws that said they could not marry white people - this is why your argument is flawed, you step over the line when you discriminate against others like that, this is EXACTLY why we still need affirmative action, people that think they have a 'right' to discriminate

[LisaM22]

I'am not religious and I do not agree with same sex marriage (prop 8) <snip>

yes there are some like you that do not believe in a god or jesus that feel that way, no one says you have to be a Christian to hate

[momof6]

you proved my point.

Your intolerance of my point of view is showing. Wow you really twisted my words and added alot of hate to them. I did not once say I hated people that did those things. I said I do not agree with them.

You are intolerant of others and you are trying to be the thought police.

[LisaM22]

momof6, you said you do not believe in god, then what reason do you have to not support equal rights for same sex couples, just interested to hear a non-religious reason from a non-believer like yourself

[drgnrtz]

momof6, you said you do not believe in god, then what reason do you have to not support equal rights for same sex couples, just interested to hear a non-religious reason from a non-believer like yourself

very good question, i'd like to hear a solid argument other than religious or prejudice sentiments.

[AnnieBell]

You are assuming that athiests or people who do not follow an organized religion cannot make a moral decision. I don't agree with that.

Lurking around and found this forum. I read suzetta's post and didn't think she was implying athiests had no morals. Just wondering what or how athiests determine what they consider to be moral and ethical, just or unjust unlike the christians who rely on the bible to determine what is moral.

[beattherap]

very good question, i'd like to hear a solid argument other than religious or prejudice sentiments.

i'm sure you won't accept any reason as 'solid'...

many people who oppose ssm support civil unions with the same rights. duties, and obligations as marriage... you might consider that prejudice... i see it as bound to the historical definition...

the ny appeals court wisely said---

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."...

some may oppose ssm because they don't want to mess with a fundamental civil and civic instituton...

imfo.

[LisaM22]

i'm sure you won't accept any reason as 'solid'...

many people who oppose ssm support civil unions with the same rights. duties, and obligations as marriage... you might consider that prejudice... i see it as bound to the historical definition...

the ny appeals court wisely said---

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."...

some may oppose ssm because they don't want to mess with a fundamental civil and civic instituton...

imfo.

interesting piece of trivia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

"The first recorded
use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire"


regardless, many same sex couples in America are already married, thus the definition has already been set, like it or not

[FurthurBB]

Lurking around and found this forum. I read suzetta's post and didn't think she was implying athiests had no morals. Just wondering what or how athiests determine what they consider to be moral and ethical, just or unjust unlike the christians who rely on the bible to determine what is moral.

Actually, we all rely on common sense to determine what is ethical just like the writers of the bible. IMO

[LisaM22]

Case in point?

yep, I have often thought that some people just "use" the bible to justify their hate

[LisaM22]

very good question, i'd like to hear a solid argument other than religious or prejudice sentiments.

doesn't look like she was able to come up with an answer that was not religious or prejudice?

[beattherap]

doesn't look like she was able to come up with an answer that was not religious or prejudice?
she didn't, but i did... doesn't look like drgnrtz was able to come up with an answer to those...

as for your answer... what is it, 5, 6 states ?, recognize ssm... the others don't, the feds don't... in large part because of the united states tradition and history of marriage being woman and man.

imfo.

[Lyvia]

theal3: You mention how we need to be tolerant of others and how everyone should have equal rights.

Then why do you criticize people that are against gay marriage and abortion? I have my reasons why I'am against them, and it should be my right to be against them, if we all have equal rights to think on our own. <snip>

Would you criticize those who were against interracial marriage? Or would you be so "intolerant" as to say it is wrong to deny interracial couples the right to marry? Would you call me intolerant if I said Christians shouldn't be allowed to divorce (Jesus says it's wrong, after all)?

No one is stopping you from being against gay marriage. Don't marry someone of your gender. Teach your kids it's wrong. Avoid having gay friends, if you want. It's when you want to deny others' rights, including freedom of religion (many religions don't find a thing wrong with homosexuality and want to marry gay couples) that you deserve to be criticized and challenged.

It's like divorce. It's legal. Some churches allow it, some don't. You can think it's wrong. You can teach your kids it's wrong. But I doubt you think it should be illegal. Right? Yet the Bible says it's adultery, which is so bad, there's a whole commandment against it. So, that should be illegal if gay marriage is.

Do you think divorce should be legal?

There's a much stronger Biblical case against divorce than there is against gay marriage or even homosexuality in the Bible. Jesus only spoke against divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage. He didn't even allow for it in cases of a physically abusive spouse. So when the Christians against legal gay marriage rise up and pass constitutional amendments against divorce, I'd still think they were wrong for denying others' rights, but at least they wouldn't be hypocritical. When it comes to their own rights, the last thing they want is for the Bible to dictate marriage laws.

[Lyvia]

some may oppose ssm because they don't want to mess with a fundamental civil and civic instituton...

imfo.

Yep, we always hear that same argument when one group doesn't want another to have rights. Whether it's women, slaves, people of color, GLBT...it's always the same argument, always the same slow progression, always the same complaints about those who dare to challenge the status quo, the arguments are the same. Sometimes word for word (read up on all those issues, the rhetoric is the same). And happily, it's always the same result. We're getting there on marriage equality, as long as it seems it's taking, the progress is undeniable.

All over the world, we are making overall gains. There are steps backward, but if you compare how many places gay marriage existed twenty years ago to now, you see we're getting there.

[drgnrtz]

she didn't, but i did... doesn't look like drgnrtz was able to come up with an answer to those...

as for your answer... what is it, 5, 6 states ?, recognize ssm... the others don't, the feds don't... in large part because of the united states tradition and history of marriage being woman and man.

imfo.

looked to me that LisaM22's link covered that.

[Mimi428]

theal3: You mention how we need to be tolerant of others and how everyone should have equal rights.

Then why do you criticize people that are against gay marriage and abortion? I have my reasons why I'am against them, and it should be my right to be against them, if we all have equal rights to think on our own.

You say people are not tolerant if they see an issue different than you. Tolerance means you are respectful of everyone's opinion, not just liberals.

Do you really practice what you say you believe? Are you actually respectful of everyone's opinion?

Your nic indicates you are a "mom of 6". So let's assume the 6 you are a 'mom' to, are human beings to which you have given birth. Now let's just say that I believe that with world overpopulation being what it is, that no one should give birth to more than 2 children & that anyone who has had two children should be sterilized. And if they get pregnant again before they are sterilized, they should be forced to terminate the pregnancy.

How tolerant & respectful can I expect you to be about my own opinion? Will you be tolerant enough that you would not answer or debate my opinion? (something you seem to think theal should be to you, about your opinion).

Will you be respectful of my opinion? Or will you make an effort to counter my opinion & my thoughts with your own different opinion?

What if I want to go beyond having these thoughts & opinions & decide to actively work to pass legislation that would forbid anyone from giving birth to more than 2 children? Can I expect you to just sit on your duff & be quiet, so that no one can claim that you are not respectful or tolerant of my beliefs?

[LisaM22]

she didn't, but i did... doesn't look like drgnrtz was able to come up with an answer to those...

as for your answer... what is it, 5, 6 states ?, recognize ssm... the others don't, the feds don't... in large part because of the united states tradition and history of marriage being woman and man.

imfo.

we had a history of same race marriage once too, had a history of slavery as well, now that many same sex couples in America our legally married it makes no sense to not recognize their legal marriage everywhere like everyone elses (across state line and federally) - jmho

[beattherap]

Yep, we always hear that same argument when one group doesn't want another to have rights. Whether it's women, slaves, people of color, GLBT...it's always the same argument, always the same slow progression, always the same complaints about those who dare to challenge the status quo, the arguments are the same. Sometimes word for word (read up on all those issues, the rhetoric is the same). And happily, it's always the same result. We're getting there on marriage equality, as long as it seems it's taking, the progress is undeniable.

All over the world, we are making overall gains. There are steps backward, but if you compare how many places gay marriage existed twenty years ago to now, you see we're getting there.
subject shifting... the question was to give non-religious and non-prejudice reasons why many people are against gay marriage... i did...

the comparisons of gays today with women, slaves, people of color is hysterical... to the best of my knowledge, gays can vote, inherit property, can't be sold from one owner to another, etc... i know you can give cases of discrimination and hate crimes, but 'marriage' won't stop those...

a majority of the public support equal rights for gays, but not derived from 'marriage'... if the gay community chooses to reject civil unions as the best immediate option to gain the same rights, duties, and obligations as married couples, so be it... congress won't pass a ssm law and most states will continue to reject ssm...

good luck.
imo.

[beattherap]

we had a history of same race marriage once too, had a history of slavery as well, now that many same sex couples in America our legally married it makes no sense to not recognize their legal marriage everywhere like everyone elses (across state line and federally) - jmho
even the obama administration recognized the difference between same race and ssm...

i do agree on repealing doma... if a state recognizes ssm, the feds should too.
imo.

[Lyvia]

<snip>a majority of the public support equal rights for gays, but not derived from 'marriage'... <snip>
But it doesn't matter. The majority once supported slavery. The majority was once against women having the vote, against civil rights for blacks. The majority should never get to vote on rights for a minority. That's why our legislators and judges have had to right the wrongs and end discrimination. "Activist judges" and renegade legislators are the reasons we have equal rights for women and people of color. The same thing is happening with marriage equality, except that voters wrongly have been allowed to on vote on the rights of others.

And I don't see in your posts any reasonable nonreligious reason to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry. I've tried for years to find even one and no one can come up with any.

[LisaM22]

even the obama administration recognized the difference between same race and ssm...

i do agree on repealing doma... if a state recognizes ssm, the feds should too.
imo.

interracial marriage and same sex marriage both had to fight to have the right to marry the one consenting adult they love, something most of us take for granted, they are very much the same fight in that aspect

beattherap said "i do agree on repealing doma... if a state recognizes ssm, the feds should too."

i agree 100%

[beattherap]

But it doesn't matter. The majority once supported slavery. The majority was once against women having the vote, against civil rights for blacks. The majority should never get to vote on rights for a minority. That's why our legislators and judges have had to right the wrongs and end discrimination. "Activist judges" and renegade legislators are the reasons we have equal rights for women and people of color. The same thing is happening with marriage equality, except that voters wrongly have been allowed to on vote on the rights of others.

And I don't see in your posts any reasonable nonreligious reason to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry. I've tried for years to find even one and no one can come up with any.
i know you don't find any nonreligious reason to be reasonable... other people do... as the ny appeals court said---

"In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the question on which these cases turn. If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice -- if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is comparable to the restriction in Loving v Virginia (388 US 1[1967]), a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly "designed to maintain White Supremacy" (id. at 11) -- we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history."

though i might disagree with reasons for opposing ssm, i understand the arguments and find some 'reasonable'... you don't... i believe reasonable people, for nonreligious, nonprejudicial reasons, can disagree on ssm... you don't...

whether the majority opinion will eventually be overturned by courts, time will tell.
imo.

[LisaM22]

i know you don't find any nonreligious reason to be reasonable... other people do... as the ny appeals court said---

"In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the question on which these cases turn. If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice -- if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is comparable to the restriction in Loving v Virginia (388 US 1[1967]), a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly "designed to maintain White Supremacy" (id. at 11) -- we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history."

though i might disagree with reasons for opposing ssm, i understand the arguments and find some 'reasonable'... you don't... i believe reasonable people, for nonreligious, nonprejudicial reasons, can disagree on ssm... you don't...

whether the majority opinion will eventually be overturned by courts, time will tell.
imo.

'reasonable' people see that America already has 1000's a same sex married couples and it is silly to take that right away from others

[beattherap]

'reasonable' people see that America already has 1000's a same sex married couples and it is silly to take that right away from others
arrogant people believe those who disagree with them are unreasonable... the president, congress, a majority of americans, judges, all unreasonable in the eyes of the arrogant.
imo.

[Lyvia]

i know you don't find any nonreligious reason to be reasonable... other people do... as the ny appeals court said---

"In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the question on which these cases turn. If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice -- if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is comparable to the restriction in Loving v Virginia (388 US 1[1967]), a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly "designed to maintain White Supremacy" (id. at 11) -- we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history."

though i might disagree with reasons for opposing ssm, i understand the arguments and find some 'reasonable'... you don't... i believe reasonable people, for nonreligious, nonprejudicial reasons, can disagree on ssm... you don't...

whether the majority opinion will eventually be overturned by courts, time will tell.
imo.

What you quoted doesn't say that there are valid nonreligious reasons to ban gay marriage. It primarily deals with the question of prejudice. But we also know sometimes courts get it wrong.

The only STATED secular reasons never hold up and come back to religion. They fly in the face of reality and reason. Trust me, I've looked and looked. When I first became a gay rights activist and found that some of my friends were against gay marriage, I listened. I wanted to understand how people could be against it. I have had thousands of discussions, attended debate and seminar and even have activist friends on the other side. I've wanted to hear something that made sense, but nothing ever has.

[LisaM22]

momof6, you said you do not believe in god, then what reason do you have to not support equal rights for same sex couples, just interested to hear a non-religious reason from a non-believer like yourself

[beattherap]

What you quoted doesn't say that there are valid nonreligious reasons to ban gay marriage. It primarily deals with the question of prejudice. But we also know sometimes courts get it wrong.

The only STATED secular reasons never hold up and come back to religion. They fly in the face of reality and reason. Trust me, I've looked and looked. When I first became a gay rights activist and found that some of my friends were against gay marriage, I listened. I wanted to understand how people could be against it. I have had thousands of discussions, attended debate and seminar and even have activist friends on the other side. I've wanted to hear something that made sense, but nothing ever has.

'the only STATED secular reasons never hold up'... for you they don't... and you apparently don't think they can hold up for anyone else... you're not willing to accept that other people have good faith belief in secular reasons to oppose ssm.
imo.

[LisaM22]

arrogant people believe those who disagree with them are unreasonable... the president, congress, a majority of americans, judges, all unreasonable in the eyes of the arrogant.
imo.

yes and the same was true about interracial marriage, slavery and the likes, you may call those wanting equal rights for all arrogant if you want, but you really may want to look the word up in the dictionary - you might just have a new view on who really is the arrogant ones - just my two cents

[LisaM22]

That is the spin gays want you to believe, how can you fault homosexual behavior if gays can persuade you to believe they were born that way. 'No one' that I'm aware of can prove either theory (nature or nurture) as being fact. What was it that convinced you into subscribing to the nature theory?

you may have had the same attractions to both males and females and made a choice, but I know for a fact I did not, in fact most do not, I did not have a choice, the only ones that truly have a choice is bi-sexuals

[LisaM22]

If bi-sexuals have a choice then how can you claim it is not the same with heterosexuals and homosexuals?

because bi-sexuals are attracted to both sexes, heterosexuals and homosexuals are only attracted to one or the other, obviously to choose, you must have a choice... only bi-sexuals have a choice

[Details]

One or the other, that would also be a choice.When did you choose? Because, for myself, there was never a choice. I'm attracted to one, and not to the other - I have no choice in who I am sexually attracted to.

I won the genetic lotto (there's a lot of evidence, more than enough, to put it at nature) - and thus I'm able to be married and have my marriage legally recognized everywhere. Why should those born the opposite way not be able to be married like I am? I see no reason other than some people's religious dogma - and that has no place in law. Everything else - there is no difference between a gay couple and a straight couple that explains the legal difference. Gay couples seldom have kids - but then same goes for straight couples - there's a couple of women who are married because one of them had some hormone therapy and took a new name - why is that? Infertile couples are allowed to wed, so obviously it's not about children. A pair of women can marry - so long as one of them wears a beard and a suit.

But there is no choice - except for the few born bisexual, most of us couldn't want sex with the wrong gender no matter how we tried.

[LisaM22]

One or the other, that would also be a choice.

what? if your only attracted to one or the other, then you do not have a choice.... only if your attracted to both do you have a choice, I feel that those that believe there is a choice must be attracted to both males and females or there would be no choice to make

[Lynden1000]

Regardless of what you or I believe the issue of born-gay/choice is unresolved and IMO it really doesn't matter, I don't care if they marry but let's not give homosexuals exclusive rights on non traditional marriage, it needs to be more inclusive, include the polygamists, incestuous relationships etc to do their thing.

OCTIJMO

As a libertarian, I agree that all of the above should be permitted as long as only consenting adults are involved. This, of course, would rule out children, animals, victims of coercion, and those who are unable to provide consent. If consenting adults want to form some type of marital union with relatives or multiple partners, I'm uncomfortable with the government making it their business.

[LisaM22]

"Obama Breaks Down Why We Need Separation of Church & State"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdB1_KFOhnU&NR=1

[LisaM22]

You're confusing attraction with choice, at some age we all made a choice based on attraction. <snip>

OCTIJMO

exactly, and unless you were born bi-sexual, the only "choice" you had was the sex you were attracted too at birth, you can choose from many of that sex that you are attracted too, that is the choice you have

[Details]

So if it's genetics and they could isolate the gay gene and remove it in the womb would you be against it?I'll answer your question when you answer mine! Why are you changing the topic before we're done with this one? I had no choice. Few people have every said they had a choice. So - it's not a choice - unless you are bisexual. It's nature.

May or may not be a gene - might be hormones in the womb - have you read the research that finds that a huge percentage of gay men are younger brothers? The further down in the male birth order you are, the more likely you are to be gay. It suggests, perhaps, a natural method of controlling population or competition for women, when too many males are being born.

There are many other physical differences between gay men and straight men - there's a simple test looking at the relative length of your fingers that does a pretty good job picking out the gay men. A brain scan of a gay person looks different than that of a straight person. Everything is there to say this is not a choice, never was a choice, it's a physical difference. Nature. Not nurture.

There was a study of children adopted and raised by gay couples. Guess what? The children turned out gay - and straight - in the same proportions as children raised by straight couples. No difference. It's not nurture. You couldn't be turned gay (IMO - likely your opinion too?). I couldn't be turned gay. It's just how you are made.


And this is why religion doesn't belong in politics - we need the facts about being gay, not the religious perspective - no matter whether the religious perspective is that it's a choice and a sin, or the religious perspective is that it's a holy condition that should be encouraged for everyone. Religion is for you personally, law is for everyone to coexist.

So you answer my question - if you think we do have a choice, you have a choice - I've already said I never had a choice - in who we are attracted to. And I'll answer - as best I can - if I'd support people being changed to be straight in the womb, were such technology available. But to have a conversation where the topic jumps anytime I ask a reasonable question, where I do all the answering without return - seems pointless to me. That's an interrogation, not a discussion.

[LisaM22]

I can only speak for myself but my sexual awareness didn't happen until somewhere around 9-12 yrs of age, I'm sure it was influenced by peers, surroundings, movies etc, are you trying to claim at birth you were aware that you were attracted to the opposite sex? GMAB. :rolleyes:

if you were attracted to both males and females, then yes you had a choice, most of us do not

[LisaM22]

What does any of this have to do with religion? So if you're bi-sexual then it is not nature, then what is it<snip>

if your bi-sexual, you can choose anyone you want, male or female, if your hetero sexual you can only choose from the opposite sex, if your homosexual you can only choose from the same sex - I imagine it is hard for some bi-sexuals to understand that not everyone is attracted to both sexes equally like they are, they like you, think everyone has a choice in who they are attracted too

[Details]

What does any of this have to do with religion? So if you're bi-sexual then it is not nature, then what is it, nurture, a choice. Why are you so quick to kick them out of the club? Are cross-dressers also born that way or does nurture play a role?

You say you never had a choice, wrong, you've always had a choice and you have a choice today. You see it all the time of course you have to throw in the "I've been living a lie" spin but in reality people often make the choice to change their sexual preference.

Your 2nd paragraph, if true, suggests nurture IMO not nature, how the heck does a male fetus know many males preceeded him from his location, more hogwash.

Back to the gay gene, (hypothetical) the scientists have isolated the "gay gene" and they can remove the gene in the womb resulting in a straight/heterosexual baby, you have any problems with that?Being bi-sexual is also nature - they aren't kicked out of any clubs. They are the only people to have a choice, in that being attracted to both genders means they could, if they chose, exclusively pick one or the other. The rest of us are attracted to one gender, and we have no such choice.

No - I do not have a choice. Do what you like - I won't be attracted to women. You really think that's a choice? Maybe if you're bisexual, then you can chose which attraction to act on - but without that attraction, you have no choice. Could you choose to be gay? Really? You could chose to act gay - maybe - with a great deal of effort and no enjoyment. Think about what that would involve - that's what you are demanding gay people do, to 'switch'. That's "living a lie" - and it's horrendous. I suspect you could see that, were you to be forced to live as a gay person, rather than as yourself.

This has EVERYTHING to do with religion in politics. With religious views pushing the idea this is a choice, and that one sexual orientation is a sin, and all kinds of laws to discriminate against people based on their view that it is a sin, and a choice that could be changed - if that religion gets into politics, then decisions are made based on religion, rather than science and facts. So it matters a ton that the scientific and medical facts are so very different than the religious beliefs.



OK - I guess I'll take your second paragraph as your answer to my question - you believe you had a choice, that you could choose to become gay whenever you liked. Me - I couldn't. Oh - and there's more to "nature" than mere DNA - hormones in the womb can change many things. Every bit of evidence I showed shows that it's a physical difference between gay and straight people - you don't choose the length of your fingers, you don't choose to alter your brain waves. There is no choice there.

But - let's pretend that you could, in the womb, take a gay baby, and change them to be straight. I don't see the problem with that - any more than I see the problem with taking a straight baby and making them gay. I think we might soon see whatever purpose nature has for these differences - much as the Chinese do today (they've been discarding females for decades, and now their sons have no wives) - but it's a mistake we can make. No different to me than altering a child to have a higher IQ, to remove a disease, to have green rather than blue eyes.

Of course - when we can do that - you'll have to recognize that there is indeed, no choice, and that this is how you are born. Much like handedness. You are born right handed, left handed, or ambidexterous. 3 options, only one of them has any choice.




And laws regarding all of this need to come from facts, not religion. Religions vary - why should someone of another religion be forced to live by the beliefs of someone else's religion? Laws are the common denominator we all live with - they must come from verifiable facts, research, not beliefs that only some hold.

[Details]

if your bi-sexual, you can choose anyone you want, male or female, if your hetero sexual you can only choose from the opposite sex, if your homosexual you can only choose from the same sex - I imagine it is hard for some bi-sexuals to understand that not everyone is attracted to both sexes equally like they are, they like you, think everyone has a choice in who they are attracted tooI'd imagine it would be quite hard, were you bisexual, to understand that others don't have a choice, don't find people of both genders sexually attractive. It'd be as mind-warping for them to try to understand heterosexuals and homosexuals as it is for me to imagine I was attracted to women.

You could probably, as a bisexual, just think that others were making too much fuss, not being open minded enough.

[crocdog1]

Do you have a problem with those whose votes are influenced by their religion?


I have absolutely no problem with those religion influences their vote, or, for that matter, those whose religion plays a major role in their lives.

My problem is with those who seek to force their very strong faith based beliefs, values and convictions on the American people.

Unfortunately, there are many in the core/base of the GOP who seek to do this to our social and education system.

IMO,this is one reason, in fact the main reason, the GOP seeks to derail the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer.

[LisaM22]

I'd imagine it would be quite hard, were you bisexual, to understand that others don't have a choice, don't find people of both genders sexually attractive. It'd be as mind-warping for them to try to understand heterosexuals and homosexuals as it is for me to imagine I was attracted to women.

You could probably, as a bisexual, just think that others were making too much fuss, not being open minded enough.

yep, it's the only thing that makes sense, otherwise they would know it wasn't a choice, based on their own personal experience, the only way they could not know that is if they were bisexual as then they would be attracted to both males and females and think everyone else was the same as them and that everyone chooses like they did

[Doc Holliday]

I didn't want to start a new thread, and this bit of news seems to fit here because it's definitely 'religion and politics'......

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/news/2009/ayers.php) filed a lawsuit today to stop the prominent engraving of "In God We Trust" and the religious Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C.

[EMAA]

Some day the mere mention of His Name in this country will be forbidden. But that's been tried before and failed.

I just choose to believe there is something more, something better. jmo

[Details]

Some day the mere mention of His Name in this country will be forbidden. But that's been tried before and failed.

I just choose to believe there is something more, something better. jmoLies.

There has never been a single attempt to forbid mentioning God in this country. Not even remotely. And with a supermajority of the country believing in God - it's really pretty silly to act as a put-upon minority.

Our government is secular - and when you look at the state of countries with religious governments around the world, all you can say is Thank Goodness for that, for the wisdom of our founding fathers!

[Patriot]

Lies.

There has never been a single attempt to forbid mentioning God in this country. Not even remotely. And with a supermajority of the country believing in God - it's really pretty silly to act as a put-upon minority.

Our government is secular - and when you look at the state of countries with religious governments around the world, all you can say is Thank Goodness for that, for the wisdom of our founding fathers!

"Lies"? Wow. So harsh and confrontational. She stated her opinion. As did you. Our government is not secular. But I won't rudely post "Lies" in response to your opinion.

[Details]

"Lies"? Wow. So harsh and confrontational. She stated her opinion. As did you. Our government is not secular. But I won't rudely post "Lies" in response to your opinion.But it was not about her opinion - it was about a falsehood presented as a fact. There has never been a "tried and failed" attempt to ban anyone speaking God's name in this country. That is quite simply not true. After seeing so much real discrimination, I am indeed not patient about pretending the majority that has so many things their way is a persecuted minority.

And our founding fathers went to a great deal of effort to give us a secular government, one in which there would be no religious test for office, no discrimination, no religion given preference in our laws. While some may attempt to change this - that is what we are set up to be - a secular nation. One that is in no way founded on the Christian religion, as the President and Congress clearly stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, one where our founding documents refer only to a 'creator' and no God.

We are a nation where the people are of many religions - and our government is not supposed to take sides and give preference to any of them.

[Patriot]

Yeah, it was all about opinion. Hers. Yours. Everyone who posts here on a public message board created for people to post their opinions. "A falsehood posted as fact" - "pretending" (wow again) - your opinion. At least she is able to post her opinion without being rude to anyone and trashing theirs.

[Details]

Yeah, it was all about opinion. Hers. Yours. Everyone who posts here on a public message board created for people to post their opinions. "A falsehood posted as fact" - "pretending" (wow again) - your opinion. At least she is able to post her opinion without being rude to anyone and trashing theirs."But that's been tried before and failed." - that is not an opinion. She is stating as a fact that "the mere mention of His Name in this country will be forbidden" has been tried before.

Her opinion that it may happen in the future is an opinion. Stating that it did happen in the past is not an opinion - it is a fact, and thus it may be true, or not true. It is not true. There has never been a single time in this country's history when anyone tried to forbid the mere mention of God's name. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

[LisaM22]

I didn't want to start a new thread, and this bit of news seems to fit here because it's definitely 'religion and politics'......

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/news/2009/ayers.php) filed a lawsuit today

guess this is what republicans do when the country is in crisis? try to weasel in religious dogma on the tax payer dime - geesh

http://ffrf.org/news/2009/ayers.php

"DeMint had threatened to hold up the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center last December, because he said the Center failed to recognize the purportedly integral role of religion in our federal government. DeMint said the cost of the mandated engraving would correct the alleged historical whitewash of the original design, welcome God back into the Center and highlight the "all important relationship between faith and freedom in America.""

wonder if Demint belongs to c street?, does he really think this will help them to re-write history?

[beattherap]

guess this is what republicans do when the country is in crisis? try to weasel in religious dogma on the tax payer dime - geesh

http://ffrf.org/news/2009/ayers.php

"DeMint had threatened to hold up the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center last December, because he said the Center failed to recognize the purportedly integral role of religion in our federal government. DeMint said the cost of the mandated engraving would correct the alleged historical whitewash of the original design, welcome God back into the Center and highlight the "all important relationship between faith and freedom in America.""

wonder if Demint belongs to c street?, does he really think this will help them to re-write history?
"Last week, the House and the Senate passed resolutions directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center,..."...

you reflexively blame republicans... the house passed the resolution 410-8... bipartisan.

imfo.

[LisaM22]

"Last week, the House and the Senate passed resolutions directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center,..."...

you reflexively blame republicans... the house passed the resolution 410-8... bipartisan.

imfo.

DeMint is a republican, I made no mistake, DeMint did

[LisaM22]

"Lies"? Wow. So harsh and confrontational. She stated her opinion. As did you. Our government is not secular. But I won't rudely post "Lies" in response to your opinion.

our government is not Christian, it supports no one religion over the other, that is a fact, sure some folks have weaseled in law here and there to try and push their own dogma, but our government is primarily secular in nature, that is a fact, even the bibles first two commandments are against god in the public square if it means any god like it would if done by our government

someday the religious fanatics will learn anything religious that has merged with government loses it's religious value and becomes secular over time, that is also fact

[LisaM22]

even the obama administration recognized the difference between same race and ssm...

i do agree on repealing doma... if a state recognizes ssm, the feds should too.
imo.

the equal rights violations are the same... interracial marriage should and is now legal, same sex marriage is almost there