Rod38um

Restricting civil freedoms and discriminating based on sexual orientation, however, is not

Without creating a special law to allow same sex marriage, nobody is being discriminated against. Each man can marry a woman, each woman can marry a man. I contend that creating that special law to allow that special right for any group, discriminates against other groups.

Isn’t it time we stopped lumping people into groups for the sole purpose of simplified discrimination? Can’t we all just be people and all of us play by the same rules.

Also, I would like to understand, in the context of "earthly" law, how this statement isn't completely contradictory:

I'm not trying to prohibit them from their pursuit of happiness. I'm just not endorsing a sin and I'm not in favor of granting them any special rights or privileges. I want the same rules, laws, rights, etc. for all people.

It’s not the least bit contradictory, I don’t know how you could even ask that question. I'm not endorsing it with my vote. I want the same playing field, same laws, taxes, rights, etc. for everyone.

I could ask the same thing, why do you want to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us?

I don’t, force would defeat my purpose.

It just so happens I was at a same-sex marriage in a church in Columbus a month ago. There are churches out there that will do it, no strongarm tactics needed.

Don’t know what kind of church that was but it sure wasn't Christian. As with anything though, there are those will warp anything to suit their wants and desires.

Is there any place you would draw the line? I mean, there was an organization in the news recently because they advocate the legalization of consensual sex between adults minors. Apparently they have a web site that many would like shut down but can’t because they are not actually crossing the legal line yet. They actual use the same sex marriage argument. Are they being discriminated against in your eyes? Are their civil rights being denied? What about polygamists? There are some who are now making the argument that if same sex couples can, then they should be able to also? At what point does marriage no longer hold any value or worth? When the word "family" no longer hold meaning?

so you can make that decision for every church (not to mention every person) in this country?

No, but I have a little understanding of my religion, your the one who would like the majority to conform to the whims of the minority.

and since when is allowing all people in this country the same rights and priveledges "worse"? isn't that kinda contrary to your sig line?

Apparently you dont read my posts. I dont know how many times or how many ways I have to say that I want the want the same rights for everyone, you are the one who wants to create special rights for certain groups.

I don't want your religion to do anything except "butt out" of what is a civil matter, and has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is asking your church to perform the ceremony, nobody is asking your religion to endorse it.

It has everything to do with religion. Besides 83% of Americans claim a religion. 76% claim Christianity. 4% identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. You are asking more than 76% to endorse a sin they believe to be wrong in order to placate the portion of the 4% who would choose a same sex marriage.

You may not want a church wedding but some same sex couple will.

If by butt out you mean for me to not vote the way I want to...... sorry, its never gonna happen. Voting your way would be an endorsement.

I could ask you to just butt out also. Just butt out and stop trying to change things for the worse........... but I wont...........

How is gay marriage a special privilege? If two straight people can get married but two gay people can't, doesn't that go against giving one group special rights over another?

Marrriage is a religious ceramony, defined by law as a union between a man and a woman. Allowing same sex marriage would require a special right be given to a group. Right now any man may marry a woman, any woman may marry a man, it doesn't matter how you describe yourself.

In states where gay marriage has been added as a special right, the next thing that happens is discrimination law suits trying to force pastors into performing the ceramony. (state defining religion)

Instead of trying to force religion to conform to sin, why would a gay person who is actively engaging in the sin want to enter into a religious ceramony anyway? Whether they are living together in sin or whether they have been falsly blessed in a ceramony, its still living in sin. It makes no difference to them. Why would they want it if for no other reason than to stir the religious pot, so to speak?

Why not propose legislation to make your religion the only acceptable one? we're talking about people's futures here... aren't we?

For one, the whole idea of Christianity is for people to accept and freely give their love to God. To force anyone into it would be defeating the purpose. If your wife was forced into a relationship with you, would it be as valuable to you? And... Do you really want to set a precedence of a state religion? I for one don’t want the government involved in my religion and I don’t think anyone else does. Historically, combining the two in any manor has led to corruption and oppression as the government sees religion as a tool to control the people. I want the people to be the supreme authority and the government to do the will of the people. I don’t endorse any other religion, I don’t want the government to make special rules, laws, rights, privileges or allowances for them or any other group.

Some gay people believe that being married to their chosen partner will make them happy, and since their marriage affects you very little (if at all) why try to prohibit them from their DOI protected pursuit of happiness?

I'm not trying to prohibit them from their pursuit of happiness. I'm just not endorsing a sin and I'm not in favor of granting them any special rights or privileges. I want the same rules, laws, rights, etc. for all people.

Why do you want to force my religion to accept and endorse a sin?

No sinner who is actively engaged in the sin is asking for forgiveness. I can’t speak for folks who are not Christian. I work with several conservative folks who are not the least bit religious. One is a self-proclaimed atheist. Their opinions may come from a different place.

I just like every other voter, vote my beliefs. I cannot in good conscience, vote for something that furthers the acceptance of gay marriage any more than I could vote to legalize contract killing as legitimate occupation. It doesn't mean I hate gays, I don’t hate killers. It’s quite the opposite. I hope they live a long enough life that they eventually find the path that leads them to salvation. If my child was into drugs, I would not vote to legalize drugs so she could gain better access to them. I would hope that eventually she would be able to see that her behavior is harmful to her and that she would find a better path. You may say that being gay is not harmful, well, if your perspective is simply an earthly one, you may be correct but if it’s an eternal one then you must think about eternal consequences.

When you talk about the clearly defined punishments in the bible, it’s clear that you do not understand Christianity.

I understand that you would like to make clear some revelation that would suddenly make me and others not "hate gay people" but your entire premise that to be against gay marriage you must dislike gays could not be further from the Christian perspective and I don’t honestly know how to make it clearer to you without you spending quite a bit of time in church.

I can go on and on. How is it possible to pick and choose what is and isn't a sin from the book that you hold to be the cornerstone of your beliefs and morality?

Where you are getting confused with Christianity is you are trying to apply old testament law in place of the Grace covered in the new testament (after Jesus) Before Jesus = live under the law After Jesus= same standards just the ability ask forgiveness because your sin has been paid for. All men have the ability to ask for forgiveness.

This poll warms my heart.

The president just signed into law the The National Defense Authorization Act which grants the President the ability to militarily detain and imprison indefinitely foreigners or Americans who they suspect of terrorism.

No trial, no warrants........ Now, who defines terrorism? The president? If someone disagrees with him, can they be suspected of terrorism? This seems like the first power grab of a prospective dictator. This is the kind of legislation Hugo Chavez passed. This is one of the few things that the ACLU and I agree on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

The ACLU response: " If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. "

Certainly, though, if you don't believe that gays should be married, while you may not hate gays, you certainly have enough dislike to want to continue depriving them of the same rights that everyone else has.

There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice.

Likewise, it takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself in order to continue dislike practitioners of a particular religion (for instance, the 72 virgins myth, or the rewards in heaven for suicide bombing).

Hmmm, where to start.... This is getting away from the topic a bit and into my personal beliefs.... but...........Lets break it down a bit. As a Christian, I love every human being. In a Christian perspective, we are all children of God and each of us has the potential to enter into heaven. Very few will choose the path that leads them there. As a Christian I can not accept or endorse sin. Sure we are all weak and we all commit sin. In reality, gay sex is a sin, adultry is a sin. Murder is a sin. But for a Christian to accept gay marriage is akin to saying its alright to enter into a binding commitment of sin and attempt to force Gods blessing on it. That can not happen any more than a Christian could accept a contract muderer as a legitimate occupation and bless him with prayer before he starts his day of killing. No dont let that get twisted. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying the sin is not relevant in the issue, its the endorsement or acceptance of its continuation versus the understanding it is sin and asking forgiveness.

Now lets back up again..... gay sex..... ask forgiveness, do you best not to be weak and sin again......... acceptable.

Murder someone.... same deal. to accept any sin as a continuing situation and try to distort Gods word into acceptance of a sin is not going to happen.

So in reality your assertion that "There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice" is completely false. It is not the sin, it is not the person, it is the acceptance or endorsement of the continuation of the sin. Gay has nothing to do with it.

As far as the muslim thing, I agree with part of what you said. It takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself or willfully ignore the facts, the actions and the words of muslims around the world. However, again from a Christian perspective, they are brothers and I have love for them all and wish that they turn from their sinful ways.

As to the issue of rights. I do not believe in granting anyone special rights or extra rights simply because they belong to a certain group. We have way too much of that on the books now and it needs to stop. All people should be treated as equals, any law that grants anyone a special status is wrong.

This is worth reading.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/

I think it's a good idea....but who pays the X amount?

It comes from the same funding it does now only you need less of it due to the lower cost of privatizing. Some call it the voucher system. Its recognized as a compromise between total privatization and the socialist bureaucracy we have now.

While an all private school system would improve performance for some, I anticipate there would be bigger problems with poor schools in impoverished areas than we already have.

Thats the beauty of the system. Since each kid is worth the X amount. there is the same incentive in poor areas as in rich. since its not the government, bad teachers are fired, good teachers are rewarded enough to keep them from leaving. A school that doesn't perform wont have the kids, wont have the dollars, cant survive. It has already worked in one of the worst areas in the nation....... I'd like to at least try it........ the system we have now sure isn't working. I'm not trying to argue though. Just presenting my social conservative views.

What systems of morality and ethics (I'll lump that in with honesty) are you suggesting be promoted. There are quite a few, I was wondering which you would prefer to be promoted to the country as a whole.

Where you are going is why I didnt say mandated or promoted by the government. If we have economic success, jobs are readily available, life long programs are not. Those factors promote a sense of fair play, reap what you sow, respect others type of atmosphere. When you have to earn your stuff and your way, most people respect their own stuff and the other person doing the same. Its tough for a kid born to a broken home in a project housing, on gov assistance, with nobody he knows working, friends or family with nothing to do all day but drugs or other trouble to ever attain those values. That system, though it was designed to help those people, has in fact enslaved them to it.

Seeing as corporations are "people", what would you consider to be a fair corporate tax, would that be higher or lower than the taxes levied on a middle-class worker and why?

The consumer ultimately pays for all taxes whether its from being directly taxed or from paying higher product costs when high corporate tax and capitol gains taxes are passed on to the price of the product. The difference is that when you over tax a corporation, they have to raise the product price to the point that they cant compete over seas. When that happens, they generally fold or move over seas, taking those jobs with them. Then we are left with fewer tax payers so again the taxes must be raised. Its a cycle that just pushes jobs over seas. Jobs are our biggest problem right now. We all want environmental protection. That in itself is not a problem, its that our current laws are so confusing that anyone looking to start a business has to hire a few law firms to sort thru it all. Simplify the laws

Lower the corporate tax rate 10% and 0% for the first 5 years for any foreign company setting up manufacturing here that will sell a product overseas.

Cut the capital gains tax in half

Business would come flooding back into the US and jobs would be everywhere. People would be paying taxes into the treasury instead of living off of the treasury.

Can you dive further into this? What would you consider to be a "strong" military, and what purpose would they serve? Also, what does "consistent guidelines on infrastructure" mean?

I want to maintain world dominance militarily. I dont want to be the world police but I do see a need for many foreign operations. Those should be decided by congress on a case by case basis. Just like the locks on your door, your dog that barks, the gun in your drawer, the sheriffs department we pay for, it does no good to have anything if you cant protect it.

We need consistent guidelines on roads, signs air travel, shipping, etc. But we dont need the federal government to run these things. Its almost always faster, cheaper and a better product or end result when privatized unless the government sticks its nose in and dictates who can do a job.

There are no laws restricting your child from wearing a cross at school, none...

True but we often have children sent home for doing exactly this because of schools interpretation a court ruling phrase "seperation of church and state" instead of the constitution wording of: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We have those, they are called "private schools" they cost money, please pay them and send your child there.

True. I would like them all to be private. louisiana tried it after the flood in order quickly get people back into school. They contracted it out. each kid was worth X amount. Several contractors stepped up, they hired the best teachers they could find and paid them well, they were able to easily fire the bad ones. Several contractors rose to the top quickly because the kids enjoyed learning from a good teacher and the schools were motivated to do well in order to attract students. There were no limits on what school your kid went to. It has been the biggest success in our nations school history. Former bad students from poor minority areas are now producing some of the best scores in the nation. We need a system that works this well in order to compete on a world stage.

All of this is fine, as long as my "public" money isn't used to promote religions I disagree with, or at bare minimum, public money is available for equal access among all religious views.

I dont want my tax dollars paying for it either. The fewer things the government is involved in the smaller revenue stream it requires= the lower the taxes can be= the more business we can attract= the more jobs we have= the more people we have sharing in the tax burden= the better off we all are!

I dont want the government to tell me I have to follow a certain religion. I also dont want them to tell my kid that he cant wear a cross around his neck at school, simply because its government building (which I would like to put schools in private hands also) I dont mind seeing a jewish person wearing their little hat thing, I dont mind seeing a muslim wear his robe. I dont mind if you dont believe at all but dont try to prevent me from practicing mine.

Silence is free speech but you cant expect to force others into silence, your right to be silent is just protected like your right not to practice religion. You still will see others practice it.

Social conservatism to me?

Its several things:

I believe that social programs and project housing designed to help a target group ultimately do more harm than good and have led to the life long enslavement of many of the folks they were designed to help.

I believe that a job and earning your way helps to foster a sense of pride and responsibility that in turn gets passed on to your children by example.

I believe honesty, morality and self reliance should be promoted but I dont want laws designed to prevent me from being capable of committing a crime, These always lead to a loss of freedoms. I simply want those who do commit crimes to be held accountable. I believe it is the governments roll to create an environment where business can flourish. We should have low corporate tax. Regulation that protects our environment but does not require you to hire three law firms to decode it before starting up a manufacturing business. A strong military and consistent guide lines on infrastructure. I dont want my tax dollars to be spent supporting an able bodied person for life. I dont want my tax dollars spent on abortion or research grants or art or any number of other pet projects designed to get someone re-elected.I want the freedom of religion the constitution provides not freedom from religion that some try to twist it into. I dont want special rights or special laws for any group of people, fix that and I wont tolerate any kind of discrimination either.

Those are a few off the top of my head. I might add more later..... cleaning guns now.

It seems like the republican leadership has become increasingly progressive in their thinking. I dont care for it. I like Paul on many issues but not foreign affairs or military. My thinking is pretty close to Bachman but it seems the media gives you less play the farther away your thinking gets from the current leadership. I'll wind up voting for who ever the republicans nominate even if its a retarded chimp. Anything is better than what we have now.

quite the contrary, I'm looking for alternatives...

so far, every time I hear one of the candidates claim to be a "social conservative" it means they hate muslims and gays...

I'm really trying to keep an open mind, and ask if there are any alternative definitions for the term.

Um, thats not an open mind. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage, that doesnt mean they hate gays. If someone doesn't trust folks of a religion that gives reward point in heaven for killing folks who dont share their beliefs, it doesn't mean they hate them.

You sound as if you already have made up your mind.

I had to stop riding cruisers because my back would slip out of place in the relaxed, slumping position that cruisers require. Later I tried a sport bike and it really exercised my lower back, I found that over time, the low back work out, actually strengthened my back and reduced my overall problems. So I contend that riding a sport bike is good for your back! I've been riding a sport bike for more than a decade now with nothing but benefit from it!

While I like this.......... I cant help but think that Iran is ready to pounce on Iraq politically speaking and exert much if not total control. I worry that by pulling out now, it will just cost more in lives and cash by having to go back later.

Typical democrat thinking.......... makes no sense but it makes them feel good.

I thought this was great!

Read the statements below and circle the one that comes closest to representing your opinion.

· A) I think people should be able keep most of what they earn.

· B) I think the government could best spend the money I earn.

· A) I think limits or restrictions should be placed on abortions.

· B) I think abortions are just another form of birth control.

· A) Our country was founded on Christian principals and seeing a cross or the word “God” in public does not mean congress is making a law to endorse a particular religion.

· B) Even the mention of “God” in public is a violation and should stopped at all costs.

· A) We have fewer jobs in our country today because we have high taxes, costly regulation and higher wage expectations than other countries.

· B) We have fewer jobs in our country today because of corrupt businessmen and we need to tax and regulate them till they are in the same boat as the rest of us.

· A) I think jobs, scholarships and the like should be given based on a person’s qualifications and not on their race, sex or religion.

· B) I think minorities, gays and women are not as capable as a white man, so they must be given priority in hiring and at least the 15% on testing that they receive now.

· A) I think the death penalty is a just sentence for some of our more extreme criminals.

· B) I don’t care what a person has done; they should never be put to death.

· A) I think that given the needs of modern society that we need to balance production and manufacturing with sensible environmental laws.

· B) Production and manufacturing should be forcibly shut down if it impacts the environment in any way.

· A) I don’t want to wait for a policeman to protect me. If I’m in danger, I want my right to a weapon so I can protect myself.

· B) This is a modern society. We have laws and policeman. There no need for anyone to ever have a gun.

· A) I don’t mind legal immigrants who obey our laws in coming to our country. Criminals and those who refuse to assimilate are a problem though. Besides with open borders, even terrorists can come in.

· B) We should welcome anyone who can make it here and we should accommodate them by giving them help in their own language.

· A) I think our government needs to reduce its spending. Borrowing half of what we spend from other countries is a national security risk and our kids will have to pay for it.

· B) I like a big government; I don’t care how or where we get the money.

· A) I don’t think a person should be punished more severely just because his victim was gay

· B) Gays are a minority and should be protected by more severe laws just like an endangered animal is.

· A) We have to have a strong military. Nothing else matters if we can’t protect it.

· B) We don’t even need a military. There wouldn’t be violence in this world if we didn’t start trouble all the time.

· A) Since public employees work for me. I’d like to be able to hire or fire them, give raises or withhold raises based on their performance and not be forced to reward them for laziness.

· B) Public employees are our heroes and should be protected from cutbacks. Seniority is the only way.

· A) Welfare, project housing and food stamps have become a way of life for many people. It has taken away their motivation for doing more and needs to be trimmed back.

· B) Welfare, project housing and food stamps are vital for our poor. Programs like these ultimately help people become productive members of society.

· A) Everyone should have lifesaving health care performed in an emergency but I don’t agree that everyone should have access to everything when someone else is forced to pay for it.

· B) Healthcare is a right and is a good example of why the government should decide how to spend the money I earn.

· A) I think taxes and tariffs can be an effective tool in decreasing our trade deficit. Using them to increase the cost of cheap foreign products will make our companies better able to compete, creating more jobs here.

· B) I don’t think taxes and tariffs have anything to do with jobs at home. Besides I like getting stuff cheaper at Wal-Mart.

Total “A’s”_________

Total “B’s”_________

If the majority of your answers were marked “A” then you are a Republican and should vote accordingly. Their party platform most closely represents your views.

If the majority of your answers were marked “B” then you are a Democrat and should vote accordingly. Their party platform most closely represents your views.

No, I think it is the ability to put multiple things in one bill or attach riders to a bill. Hardly no amount of pork could be passed if it was voted on only by its own merit. Progressives, democrat and republican, have for years attached spending items to popular bills just to get them passed and paid for by the tax payer. This of course buys them votes but when so many do this, pretty soon we are spending twice what we take in thru taxes, like we are now. Congressmen complain that if they looked at each issue independently that they would never get anything done. Well considering that most of what they deal with would be considered pork by anyones standards that did not belong to the special interest group that benefits, I think removing the ability to link separate issues or attach riders should be made illegal. Then it wouldn't matter how much money someone gave a politician, he wouldn't be able to buy off others by attaching pork specifically designed to buy those passing votes.

Was it renewing an existing levy? Therefore not an "increase"?

Yes, had it been left alone or voted down my taxes would have gone back down to the original level. But like many levies, when they use it to buy or build stuff, then they need more to pay people to run it or maintain it. It seems to never end.......... At some point people are going to have to learn its ok to say no........ somebody always spins it so its for the kids..... its for our heroes, its for the disabled........ everyone wants to be kind to those that we care about but building an empire by throwing money at it is rarely a good answer.