Political Crossfire Forums

barnes · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 1

What ever happened to the ideas of separation of church from state?
As far as I have come to understand, I have been under the impression that in the United States of America we are free to practice our own religions where , how and whenever we'd like; then why does Bush so greatly disagree with the ideas of man and man getting married or woman and woman getting married? As we have all learned through his terms, he is an avid Christian, but does that mean that the whole country should be reprimanded for HIS beliefs and not the majority of the countries? How does gay marriage hurt HIM? it doesn't, so why do the men and women that love eachother, not get the same rights as the rest of the country? They are citizens as well Aren't they? Does he not know the quote, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness? I guess not, maybe he is applying it to himself...

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

barnes wrote: What ever happened to the ideas of separation of church from state?
As far as I have come to understand, I have been under the impression that in the United States of America we are free to practice our own religions where , how and whenever we'd like; then why does Bush so greatly disagree with the ideas of man and man getting married or woman and woman getting married? As we have all learned through his terms, he is an avid Christian, but does that mean that the whole country should be reprimanded for HIS beliefs and not the majority of the countries? How does gay marriage hurt HIM? it doesn't, so why do the men and women that love eachother, not get the same rights as the rest of the country? They are citizens as well Aren't they? Does he not know the quote, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness? I guess not, maybe he is applying it to himself...

I think a main difference is that Bush is not trying to CHANGE a law in this regard.

I could ask, "Why are the homosexuals forcing their agenda on the nation?" :shock:

Silkheat · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 5981 Location: Austin

barnes wrote: What ever happened to the ideas of separation of church from state?
As far as I have come to understand, I have been under the impression that in the United States of America we are free to practice our own religions where , how and whenever we'd like; then why does Bush so greatly disagree with the ideas of man and man getting married or woman and woman getting married? As we have all learned through his terms, he is an avid Christian, but does that mean that the whole country should be reprimanded for HIS beliefs and not the majority of the countries? How does gay marriage hurt HIM? it doesn't, so why do the men and women that love eachother, not get the same rights as the rest of the country? They are citizens as well Aren't they? Does he not know the quote, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness? I guess not, maybe he is applying it to himself...

I think it has something to do with Christians once again thinking they're better than evryone else. You see homosexuality is considered a sin in the bible so they think it must be wrong therefore unlawful. They love to point it out to. I personally could give two ***** if gays get married because it will not affect me at all.

Charon · Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 7 Location: Left Coast

Very well stated point that. However we must consider that fact that even though President Bush is against gay marriage that cannot not stop the states from legalizing gay marriage.

Americans and their beliefs vary as you go from state to state. What is great about this country is that states are pretty much left to do as they wish. Many southern deeply Christian states like Texas, and Mississippi will probably not legalize gay marriage. However more liberal (California and New York) and "homosexual" states (Mass. and New Jersey) may choose to legalize gay marriage.

The struggle is getting the measure past the state legislatures and state governors. Lets face it a majority of this nation is not gay so the homosexuals in this nation will have to generate support. The national government is capable of influencing and judging state laws but if a state really wants gay marriage they will have gay marriage.

Gay marriage was recently passed in California, however there is belief that Governor Terminator will terminate (veto) the measure. So the real problem is getting state governments (executive, judicial, and legislative branches) to agree. In reality Bush is not going to be the one to blame in this particular issue as it is left up to the states themselves to legalize gay marriage. Bush can say all he wants but thats all it is... talk.

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

Charon wrote: Very well stated point that. However we must consider that fact that even though President Bush is against gay marriage that cannot not stop the states from legalizing gay marriage.

Americans and their beliefs vary as you go from state to state. What is great about this country is that states are pretty much left to do as they wish. Many southern deeply Christian states like Texas, and Mississippi will probably not legalize gay marriage. However more liberal (California and New York) and "homosexual" states (Mass. and New Jersey) may choose to legalize gay marriage.

The struggle is getting the measure past the state legislatures and state governors. Lets face it a majority of this nation is not gay so the homosexuals in this nation will have to generate support. The national government is capable of influencing and judging state laws but if a state really wants gay marriage they will have gay marriage.

Gay marriage was recently passed in California, however there is belief that Governor Terminator will terminate (veto) the measure. So the real problem is getting state governments (executive, judicial, and legislative branches) to agree. In reality Bush is not going to be the one to blame in this particular issue as it is left up to the states themselves to legalize gay marriage. Bush can say all he wants but thats all it is... talk.

This is an interesting point.

I also find it interesting how many states rushed to make marriage clearly stated as "between a man and a woman". Note that it's STATES doing this - not the FEDS.

Perhaps it's more than just GWB who thinks homosexuality is wrong. :shock:

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Bag of Rags wrote: Perhaps it's more than just GWB who thinks homosexuality is wrong. :shock:

Easy solution to that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't have gay sex.

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

UrielsFyre wrote: Bag of Rags wrote: Perhaps it's more than just GWB who thinks homosexuality is wrong. :shock:

Easy solution to that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't have gay sex.

While that's true, that's not the point of this thread.

So many people want to, as always, point the accusing finger at GWB. However, IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS STATES that are "banning" homosexual marriage, not the Feds.

But I suppose that's Bush's fault too. :roll:

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Bag of Rags wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Bag of Rags wrote: Perhaps it's more than just GWB who thinks homosexuality is wrong. :shock:

Easy solution to that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't have gay sex.

While that's true, that's not the point of this thread.

So many people want to, as always, point the accusing finger at GWB. However, IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS STATES that are "banning" homosexual marriage, not the Feds.

But I suppose that's Bush's fault too. :roll:

I know that it isn't Bush's fault. I agree that pointing the finger at him isn't the right issue to address. People need to lobby the states to get gay marriage legalized. The only time that pointing the finger at the federal legislature was appropriate was when the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was being discussed. Once that ended, the focus needed to be shifted back to the states.

My point, in my last post, was that the people who think homosexuality is wrong really need to back off. Homosexuality doesn't interfere in their life, it isn't a crime, and doesn't concern them. If they think it is wrong, don't engage in homosexual activity.

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

UrielsFyre wrote: Bag of Rags wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Bag of Rags wrote: Perhaps it's more than just GWB who thinks homosexuality is wrong. :shock:

Easy solution to that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't have gay sex.

While that's true, that's not the point of this thread.

So many people want to, as always, point the accusing finger at GWB. However, IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS STATES that are "banning" homosexual marriage, not the Feds.

But I suppose that's Bush's fault too. :roll:

I know that it isn't Bush's fault. I agree that pointing the finger at him isn't the right issue to address. People need to lobby the states to get gay marriage legalized. The only time that pointing the finger at the federal legislature was appropriate was when the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was being discussed. Once that ended, the focus needed to be shifted back to the states.

My point, in my last post, was that the people who think homosexuality is wrong really need to back off. Homosexuality doesn't interfere in their life, it isn't a crime, and doesn't concern them. If they think it is wrong, don't engage in homosexual activity.

I believe homosexuality is wrong.

However, I have NEVER been "in your face" about it - as many of the homosexuals themselves are.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7581 Location: Tampa, FL

Bag of Rags wrote: barnes wrote: What ever happened to the ideas of separation of church from state?
As far as I have come to understand, I have been under the impression that in the United States of America we are free to practice our own religions where , how and whenever we'd like; then why does Bush so greatly disagree with the ideas of man and man getting married or woman and woman getting married? As we have all learned through his terms, he is an avid Christian, but does that mean that the whole country should be reprimanded for HIS beliefs and not the majority of the countries? How does gay marriage hurt HIM? it doesn't, so why do the men and women that love eachother, not get the same rights as the rest of the country? They are citizens as well Aren't they? Does he not know the quote, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness? I guess not, maybe he is applying it to himself...

I think a main difference is that Bush is not trying to CHANGE a law in this regard.

I could ask, "Why are the homosexuals forcing their agenda on the nation?" :shock:
For the same reason the blacks forced their agenda on the nation.

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

derEikopf wrote:
For the same reason the blacks forced their agenda on the nation.

Oh boy, here we go. The old, "homosexuality is no different than race" argument. :roll:

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Bag of Rags wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Bag of Rags wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Bag of Rags wrote: Perhaps it's more than just GWB who thinks homosexuality is wrong. :shock:

Easy solution to that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't have gay sex.

While that's true, that's not the point of this thread.

So many people want to, as always, point the accusing finger at GWB. However, IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS STATES that are "banning" homosexual marriage, not the Feds.

But I suppose that's Bush's fault too. :roll:

I know that it isn't Bush's fault. I agree that pointing the finger at him isn't the right issue to address. People need to lobby the states to get gay marriage legalized. The only time that pointing the finger at the federal legislature was appropriate was when the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was being discussed. Once that ended, the focus needed to be shifted back to the states.

My point, in my last post, was that the people who think homosexuality is wrong really need to back off. Homosexuality doesn't interfere in their life, it isn't a crime, and doesn't concern them. If they think it is wrong, don't engage in homosexual activity.

I believe homosexuality is wrong.

However, I have NEVER been "in your face" about it - as many of the homosexuals themselves are.
I find it amusing that when homosexuals actually discuss their sexuality, or fight for their rights, they are being "in your face." You strike me as the kind of guy who would like gay men and women to go back to hiding it at every possible moment, ignoring our mistreatment in society, and accepting the status quo so that you can forget homosexuals exist.

Sorry, that's not going to happen. Gay men and women have fought long and hard for the advances we have made in equality and will continue to do so until that equality exists.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7581 Location: Tampa, FL

Bag of Rags wrote: derEikopf wrote:
For the same reason the blacks forced their agenda on the nation.

Oh boy, here we go. The old, "homosexuality is no different than race" argument. :roll:
Actually that's not what I'm arguing at all. Homosexuals are being treated differently by the government because of their sexual preference. Just like blacks were treated differently by the government because of their skin. Homosexuals have an agenda, just like blacks did during the Civil Rights Movement, because they are being profiled by their sexual preference.

I don't like homosexuality. I think it's gross. But if some dude wants to poke another dude...have at it, I don't care. Just don't make me watch. And if some dude wants to marry another guy, he should have the exact same government treatment that a man and a woman have.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Bag of Rags wrote: derEikopf wrote:
For the same reason the blacks forced their agenda on the nation.

Oh boy, here we go. The old, "homosexuality is no different than race" argument. :roll: There are differences, yes. But, inequality is inequality regardless of who it impacts.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

derEikopf wrote:
I don't like homosexuality. I think it's gross. But if some dude wants to poke another dude...have at it, I don't care. Just don't make me watch. And if some dude wants to marry another guy, he should have the exact same government treatment that a man and a woman have.

I can respect that. I don't care if people think it is "gross" or not. All I care is that my legal rights are protected, just as a straight couples are.

Oh, and I think straight sex is gross. So, we are even. ;)

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7581 Location: Tampa, FL

UrielsFyre wrote: derEikopf wrote:
I don't like homosexuality. I think it's gross. But if some dude wants to poke another dude...have at it, I don't care. Just don't make me watch. And if some dude wants to marry another guy, he should have the exact same government treatment that a man and a woman have.

I can respect that. I don't care if people think it is "gross" or not. All I care is that my legal rights are protected, just as a straight couples are.

Oh, and I think straight sex is gross. So, we are even. ;)
And I do my best to see to it that your rights are protected. What you do in the bedroom is your own business, and I'd do anything I can to protect your right to practice whatever sexuality you want and still be treated equally by the government.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

derEikopf wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: derEikopf wrote:
I don't like homosexuality. I think it's gross. But if some dude wants to poke another dude...have at it, I don't care. Just don't make me watch. And if some dude wants to marry another guy, he should have the exact same government treatment that a man and a woman have.

I can respect that. I don't care if people think it is "gross" or not. All I care is that my legal rights are protected, just as a straight couples are.

Oh, and I think straight sex is gross. So, we are even. ;)
And I do my best to see to it that your rights are protected. What you do in the bedroom is your own business, and I'd do anything I can to protect your right to practice whatever sexuality you want and still be treated equally by the government.
Thank you. Now, if we could only find more people who think that way.

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

UrielsFyre wrote:
I find it amusing that when homosexuals actually discuss their sexuality, or fight for their rights, they are being "in your face." You strike me as the kind of guy who would like gay men and women to go back to hiding it at every possible moment, ignoring our mistreatment in society, and accepting the status quo so that you can forget homosexuals exist.

Sorry, that's not going to happen. Gay men and women have fought long and hard for the advances we have made in equality and will continue to do so until that equality exists.

Do you always jump to such far-fetched conclusions, without any evidence?

You know me? You know how I think, and what I do?

That's pretty funny! :ah:

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Bag of Rags wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
I find it amusing that when homosexuals actually discuss their sexuality, or fight for their rights, they are being "in your face." You strike me as the kind of guy who would like gay men and women to go back to hiding it at every possible moment, ignoring our mistreatment in society, and accepting the status quo so that you can forget homosexuals exist.

Sorry, that's not going to happen. Gay men and women have fought long and hard for the advances we have made in equality and will continue to do so until that equality exists.

Do you always jump to such far-fetched conclusions, without any evidence?

You know me? You know how I think, and what I do?

That's pretty funny! :ah:
"You strike me as..." means that this is the impression I get from your postings on the issue. If I am incorrect, refute it and tell me how you really are. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, my first impression of you will stand.

Centrist · Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 4027

Bag of Rags wrote: derEikopf wrote:
For the same reason the blacks forced their agenda on the nation.

Oh boy, here we go. The old, "homosexuality is no different than race" argument. :roll:

You've identified the position; now argue against it. Can you justify discrimination against homosexuals without also justifying discrimination against blacks? You roll your eyes at it, but can you actually make a compelling argument for a secular distinction between race and sexual orientation for the purposes of discriminating against one but not the other?