Well thanks for atleast telling me this Jso. Its unfortunate the prior member was reluctant to come clear and further discuss this.
Excuse me if this is long.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that he sees you promoting an agenda, SG, and I'll come out and say what it is - gay rights.
The business of my neighbour, how he or she runs their lives are of no business to me. Neither do I feel there should be laws discrimminating them. So
long as its two consenting adults, in their house, their lives, their business, the law shouldnt be having any impact on it what so ever in my
opinion. Its their business, their lives, two consenting adult, they aint hurting anybody, they should be able to carry on under the same rights as
Gays in the military are obviously on your plate.
Yes it is. Somebodies sexuality should not effect whether they serve their nation or not. They shouldnt be barred. If straight soldiers feel
threatened by gays it would be on the bases of them fearing "they may catch the gay" or that this "gay member" will put him or herself onto them
or perv.That whole fear is that of the individual. Doesnt reflect the gay soldier who intends to be there to serve his or her country. Somebodies
personal "distractions" or "insercurities" should not have any bases in law.
We are a nation of the free, and yet freedom of sexuality, by two consenting adults, in their own backyard should be some kind of exception to
Also, I strongly suspect that gay marriage is also.
Funnily enough I dont support Gay marriage and it is because of my religion.... and thats exactly why I support taking marriage out of the law and
avoiding breaking the constitution. Religion has no business mixing with state, the founding fathers warned us of such a thing and its only caused us
trouble, namely in the last 8years. You ask anti-gay marriage supporters and the vast majority will base their reasoning on christianity itself. With
that it automatically constitutionally brings down the argument.
If marriage is religious, it has no business in the law. I dont agree with gay marriage, but at the same time neither do I want one single religion in
a text law discrimminating all law abiding americans. Take out marriage, replace it with civil unions for straight and homosexual couples, that way we
have religion out of the picture, its back in christian hands, the religious are no longer "threatened", state and religion are further seperated
and the founding fathers intended.
Spirituality is important, spirituality is only dependant on the decision of the individual. Entire governments were created to govern the land
I also have a suspicion that there is a message hidden in there regarding one particular religion.
Christianity, islam, Judism, hindu and so forth. They dont have business in the law of the land. Religion in your own backyard and thats how it should
stay. I will preach the word of god, preach my belief, but in no way will I force it into law to bare down on all americans. God taught us to preach,
not command and conquer.
We have seen what has happened in the past when religion mixed with state, look at Iran, Pakistan and even Israel. Look at the conflict. Governement
should be impartial to religion if it is to work internally and externally. Allowing religion to even dominate government endangers the freedoms of
the people within and a peaceful foreign policy.
Then again, you may have been just using these as examples, without an agenda.
There are great differences in what is defined as rights, and thus protected by the Constitution. For example, the 'right' to marriage. Is there
such a right? That is very debatable. And thus is a point of contention in the nation.
The mere fact marriage is seen as religious by the vast majority of individuals ends that debate right there.
Don't take this as a provocation for argument - I respect your thread and applaud your attempt to discuss it.
Not an issue at all. I posted this to further discussion on "constitutionalism" as a whole. Admittedly much of what the founding fathers left us is
blurry at best. It was the 18th century after all, things were different, im sure many of them would not have been able to comprehend the changes,
socially, foreign, economically and so forth. That being said it is important we all have a consensus closest to what the founding fathers intended,
because there are individuals out there corrupting the meaning of the constitution in the wrong direction.
[edit on 9-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]