JBLoudG20 Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I have no use for religion myself. I just wish those that are religious would keep it to themselves and not try to force their religious views on the rest of us. Shutup and worship my universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeepster Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I look at it this way, I never advertise the fact I dont believe in a God unless it is the topic of discussion and I wish religious people would do the same. Freedom to believe, not freedom to impose. What is it with people in this country? So many people want others to conform and yet this is supposed to be a free country. There are no one set of rules for every given situation, if people truley want freedom then they will have to agree to disagree on a few things. All they are doing is taking a hatchet to our freedom. If lesbians want to smoke some weed and have passionate sex on the lawn in front of the Washington monument then be tolerant, I would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 The problem is most everything they believe, politically, is based on their belief system. All of our opinions stem from our beliefs, religious, atheist and agnostic. You cant just nix them out, it doesnt work that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 The problem is most everything they believe, politically, is based on their belief system. All of our opinions stem from our beliefs, religious, atheist and agnostic. You cant just nix them out, it doesnt work that way. never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightWoundsTime Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Good job. Californians are among the most tolerant people, at least the ones on the coast. It's very different inland. There were similar measures passed in Arizona and Florida: Arizona: 56% for, 44% against Florida: 62% for, 38% against These results are a lot less "tolerant" than the California result. Look at a map, Florida ain't inland (wait, NVM, you meant inland California. I'm tired, ok?). The worst part about the Florida bill was it also contained a ban on civil unions or any other such measure. I voted "no" for that reason. And Government does have to get involved in marriage when it comes to divorces. I don't want to see the courts start dealing with gay divorces in the same ways they're involved in marriage as it stands. I'd be all for civil unions where the notions of shared property and alimony are not present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Shared property is one of the key tenants of the legal side of marriage. It could easily be handled in contract law, tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 <snip> And Government does have to get involved in marriage when it comes to divorces. I don't want to see the courts start dealing with gay divorces in the same ways they're involved in marriage as it stands. I'd be all for civil unions where the notions of shared property and alimony are not present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torpedo Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Thats a very open and tolerant view I was thinking of the Crusades, and all the wars caused for religious masked reasons. If you want a war for gold, diamonds or oil, call it for its name, but leave religion apart. Why can't all behave like Buddhists or Taoists. Still many things to learn from Orient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightWoundsTime Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Stop blinking at me and speak up. Aren't such legalities based on an antiquated gender gap anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzziguy Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Look at a map, Florida ain't inland . The worst part about the Florida bill was it also contained a ban on civil unions or any other such measure. I voted "no" for that reason. I meant inland California. Go look at the county by county California vote and it will be clear. And Government does have to get involved in marriage when it comes to divorces. I don't want to see the courts start dealing with gay divorces in the same ways they're involved in marriage as it stands. I'd be all for civil unions where the notions of shared property and alimony are not present. I'm not sure I understand this. Divorce is one of those things that has to be dealt with on a legal basis. So if government got out of marriage and just dealt with "civil unions", the legal part of a divorce would be covered by law. Why shouldn't a gay divorce be different than a non-gay divorce? Legally, divorce all about dividing assets, both current and future (alimony), and for deciding custody issues. To me, this applies to all unions (marriages if you prefer). So I don't see why and how it should be different for gay vs. non-gay unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessingx Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Thats a very open and tolerant view It's a little problematic to be tolerant of the intolerant, and although they've been forward thinking and on the edge of progressive movements in the past, religion (extremist or moderate) doesn't have a very good track record (actually horrible) on personal, social and civil rights lately. It's not surprising as religion fades from public life its more extreme members are more representative and feel their 'time honored' and 'god directed' beliefs under assault. So lash out. As one incomprehensible sign read near where I work "I honor your rights. You honor mine. Yes on 8." Err your right to ahistorical marriage beliefs? So it's not about gay rights? Lets meet in the middle - no marriage for you. Aardvark baguette, why attempt to equate all beliefs/belief systems when it comes to voting (or anything else)? That's an obvious slippery slope. Why not keep it more on the plane of reasonably substantiated beliefs instead of just faith-based ones? That we can agree or at least have a platform to debate on. I may have a long list of reasons why I think aliens are controlling my thoughts, the earth is supported on a team of turtles, JC is needed to wash away my Adam-given sins, and I vote thus.... but is it unreasonable to expect unsubstantiated beliefs may be marginalized by the larger public at the very least in commentary? Well except the majority of the public (in this country) believes one of those thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhd812 Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 i did not vote for Obama and i don't agree with lots of his ways but i really can see why people voted for him. 8 yrs of what we had anyone that represents the other side will look good (unless its Hillary), he has a perfect face that people believe in, and rounding up all in all i think the black race played even better for him in this election. regardless i think he is going to do a great job being President and i do believe in his moves he will make will be for the better even though i may disagree. i seriously never thought i would see a black man as President at least in the next 8-12 years, wow! its about time!! at-least the next time i hear a black person complaining the "man" is holding him down i can say the "man" is his brother and that excuse for being a complete piece of fucking lazy ass ghetto piece of shit just does not hold anymore! i really hope he inspires The black's living contently in the ghettos and getting a free ride to actually use what they have to their advantage and better themselves and move up and out of that shit. maybe i do believe in Change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 regardless i think he is going to do a great job being President and i do believe in his moves he will make will be for the better even though i may disagree. This may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post. i really hope he inspires The black's living contently in the ghettos and getting a free ride to actually use what they have to their advantage and better themselves and move up and out of that shit. maybe i do believe in Change... You truly are a jackass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessingx Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 i really hope he inspires The black's living contently in the ghettos and getting a free ride to actually use what they have to their advantage and better themselves and move up and out of that shit. maybe i do believe in Change... Will be interesting to watch if change happens. Especially if you stop with the them blacks and their free ride shit. Do you really think you can change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeepster Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 My view on the topic as a non-American is that Obama inspires a lot of people in the USA and around the world and brings some fresh air in US politics. That's a very good thing IMO. He may or may not stand up in the future to what people want him to be, but for now, in the present, he connected with a lot of people that were not interested in politics previously or were cynical about it and gave hope to these persons. Sure, when putting some thought into it, we could say it's all sentimental BS and pretty artificial, but countries need strong leaders with character and new ideas, especially in time of crisis, and I think that's exactly what Obama brings to the table. Also, like it or not, Bush really sabotaged US foreign relations, and it's good to see a president that will likely be more open and try to re-build some bridges that were previously destroyed. I kind of hope also that the US will stop to follow Israel's agenda in the Middle East, but my expectations are low on that point. Fucking exactly, people want to be safe, there is your answer. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman94 Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I have no use for religion myself. I just wish those that are religious would keep it to themselves and not try to force their religious views on the rest of us. I just wish those who are not religious would stop forcing their views on the rest of us. Funny how oh-so-"tolerant" liberals are so quick to jump on and hate. Yes, evangelicals should back off, they piss me off because they're doing it wrong too. But come on, the double standards are suffocating. Stop calling yourselves tolerant when that only works in one direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeepster Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I just wish those who are not religious would stop forcing their views on the rest of us. Funny how oh-so-"tolerant" liberals are so quick to jump on and hate. Yes, evangelicals should back off, they piss me off because they're doing it wrong too. But come on, the double standards are suffocating. Stop calling yourselves tolerant when that only works in one direction. I dont see liberals trying to stop gay marrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeepster Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I just wish those who are not religious would stop forcing their views on the rest of us. Funny how oh-so-"tolerant" liberals are so quick to jump on and hate. Yes, evangelicals should back off, they piss me off because they're doing it wrong too. But come on, the double standards are suffocating. Stop calling yourselves tolerant when that only works in one direction. Isnt that exactly what we are talking about? I didnt see anyone wanting to erase religion here, just keep it separate from politics, do we agree on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherwood Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I do see them trying to start it, though. That could certainly be construed as forcing views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I just wish those who are not religious would stop forcing their views on the rest of us. Funny how oh-so-"tolerant" liberals are so quick to jump on and hate. Yes, evangelicals should back off, they piss me off because they're doing it wrong too. But come on, the double standards are suffocating. Stop calling yourselves tolerant when that only works in one direction. You can practice your religion all you want in your home, your church without affecting me. If I weren't tolerant, I would suggest that religion has no place in society and discuss how silly it is that people spend so much time and money on a bunch of fairy tales. I would never take away your right to practice your religion but when your religion begins to affect my rights and those of others, I draw the line. An example is religion deciding who can and can't marry, adopt or be foster parents. I see what a great job heterosexuals have done at all of the above. Maybe it's time to give those not heterosexual a chance. I bet they do a better job. Who do I hate, please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherwood Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Religion is already kept out of politics in the way you're describing. There are no laws forcing anyone to practice or not practice any religion, regardless of who they are. The debate on this thread is substituting "religion" for "morality". Religious individuals are entitled to a vote, as is everyone. It is only natural that their vote line up with their beliefs, which in theory should be the guiding principle behind their every decision. The issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue, it is just an issue where opinions are strongly influenced by religion. There are certainly religious people who aren't inclined to allow the government to make decisions on marriage. What you seem to want is for religious people not to participate in politics whenever their views don't coincide with yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I want to be able to park in front of a church and not get a ticket. I'll vote for whoever can get this done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessingx Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 I just wish those who are not religious would stop forcing their views on the rest of us. So the not-religious have put forth exactly which popular state or national propositions/laws (in this country) that took away your rights to perform what? No self-professed agnostic or atheist has ever taken away anothers right to personally pray, read their preferred holy book, enter into a relationship with whoever you preferred, vote, spend money, watch TV, etc. It's only the status-quo believers who fight change because accepting others viewpoints can impede their majority/governing current status. Their god and beliefs above all others. Unquestionably. If I'm going to be generous I guess some statue/sculpture debates have gone a bit overboard, but even there there is historical and multi-religion display options. Meanwhile shall we list the number of laws targeting other beliefs and/or non-believers? Shall we look at Ms. Dole's ad again? See the difference? Stop attacking those who have different beliefs or none faith-based and you'll probably stop hearing them complain about your attempts to take away their beliefs. Simple. To state those tolerant must accept all intolerance is arguably immoral, but certainly unethical and impractical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 My problem is when the religious views of politicians find it's way into legislation which then forces those religious beliefs on those that do not believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherwood Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 My problem is when the religious views of politicians find it's way into legislation which then forces those religious beliefs on those that do not believe. I still argue with the use of religious in this sense, though, since forbidding gay people to marry does not require anyone's belief in a god. In fact, I can't think of a single piece of legislation which compels anyone to practice or subscribe to a religion in this country, though I surely can in other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.