It was newsworthy and it did happen.
Some say. Some even believe it....but where's the proof?
Its interesting that the seemingly invincible world power of Rome ended up joining forces with the religion they so adamantly persecuted. Of course, after the church joined with the state serious consequences occurred. That's why the people who started this country wanted to get away from it. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a person who was afraid that their state would not recognize their offshoot of Baptist beliefs. Jefferson said there had to be a fence protecting religion from the government; not visa versa.
And that fence is still needed today, to make sure government is protected from a religious take-over, as some might prefer.
I don't remember saying he wasn't elected.
You put elected in quotes. Why?
He does, however seem to think he is king.
Only in the minds of certain individuals. He has certainly said nothing and done nothing to indicate this in reality.
I vote on whether they are legally allowed to be married, not on whether they have a right to be a homosexual.
Why? Did I have to ask for your vote when I decided to get married? Why didn't I?
Fact is, the 14th Amendment declared that all are entitled to equal protection under the law. What that means is the government cannot deny some people certain rights while allowing others the full benefit of those rights. So people who wish to marry someone of the same gender are just as entitled to get married as those who choose someone of a different gender. No state can deny this right to any individual.
It's not really something up for a vote.
Its interesting to note that there is a difference, even in the Bible between civil law and moral law. Its not very different in our society. The moral law in Christianity says homosexuality is wrong. I will defend that continuously. But that's moral law. Determining whether it should be legal is civil law. Divorce is legal. Co-habitation is legal. No being a Christian is legal. What I would vote against is them being able to adopt children. But something tells me that won't be enough tolerance for many homsexuals. They want full marriage rights, which I would vote against.
Of course they want full marriage rights! They're Americans, and the Constitution says they cannot be denied equal protection under the law.
As you said, civil law is different than moral or religious law. No church is required to perform same-sex marriages if their religion precludes it...but the state cannot deny it, per the Constitution.
Love is not just a feeling; its an action and an example of how to live. None of the examples I shared are examples of how to live. Sure that's my religious belief. Its also my right to vote regardless of whether you think its unconstitutional for me to vote different than you on gay marriage.
Just so we're clear here, it is not my opinion that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it is a fact. Every court that has ruled on this issue agrees.
I forget what we were talking about in this one.
Since you don't include the full quotes which link back to the post you're replying to, it's difficult to go back and check.
Yes and no. It is a duty of a citizen to respect authority as long as it that authority isn't asking to do something they think is wrong. Example: its not wrong to pay taxes to the government just because they may go to fund abortion. What the government does with their own money is something they are accountable for, not the person who pays them. On the other hand, there is the policy set forth from the very beginning that there should be no taxation without representation. Also the higher you raise taxes, the less people may buy because it gets expensive after a while.
Um, the fact is, it's against the law to not pay your taxes, regardless of your beliefs about how those tax dollars are spent. If you willingly choose to not pay them based on your conscience, that is, of course, your choice...but you will have to accept the consequences of those actions.
Even Al Capone had to.
As for health care, from what I understand one has to pay a fine to opt out of Obamacare. Where I work they already met Obamacare's requirements.
It's a small fine, but it does increase every year. Still, the idea behind it is to make sure everyone has health insurance because they will all need health care at some point in their lives.
I buy that. So quarantine them.
Easier to vaccinate them early so this doesn't become an issue. Public good and all that.
Its still their choice to be an uninformed idiot.
No one is disputing that. Only that at some point, the public good needs to take precedence over intentional stupidity.
The way its supposed to work is: someone with an excellent education should not have more voting power than someone who either doesn't have or couldn't afford an excellent education. It prevents the educated from dominating the uneducated. Its protecting the little guy.
But it is better for individuals, as well as society as a whole, that everyone has access to at least a basic education, which is why we support schools through our tax dollars, and require all citizens to have an education.
Education helps everyone; ignorance helps no one.
It actually makes it more expensive because now that everyone gets insurance, the hospitals, clinics, insurance companies, the medical product industries have to cover more people in an economy where employers of all kinds are forced to get more work done with less employees. If the economy wasn't so bad it would not be as big a deal.
Um, for those who have health insurance, all those services are paid for, so there is no drain on the economy. That's what health insurance is for, after all. And since there are less people getting health care who can't pay for it, it's actually economically better, overall. Especially since those who work for employers who claim they can't afford to pay health insurance for their employees can get health insurance through state-sponsored exchanges instead of through an employer.
While I fully admit having several problems with the ACA myself (mostly due to its reliance on private for-profit medical insurance carriers), it has brought down the number of people who do not have access to regular healthcare, and that's a good thing.
I'd debate that, especially when compared to other countries who do it without relying on private for-profit health insurance.
Unfortunately I don't think it will work due the reasons mentioned above.
Well, I've been living under the same health care idea longer than you have, and I can say that it needs adjustments, but it can work better than the alternative, where many do not have access to regular healthcare at all.
Its government driven with hospitals, insurance companies, clinics and medical product companies now have to supply goods and services to more people.
But not through the government. Medicaid has been expanded in some areas, sure, but the majority of Americans still have private health insurance, not government sponsored.
I would take up Obamacare with President Obama
If you like, but it wasn't his idea. The GOP suggested it first, and they sponsored it before President Obama even got into politics.
Rebpblicans pay for schools with their tax dollars too. We aren't against paying taxes, you know.
No, but many do feel we shouldn't support or pay for public schools, and some have specifically cut funding for them.
Because they aren't legally allowed to do it yet.
That is technically not true. See, there was no existing ban on same-sex marriage, it was never actually banned in US law prior to 1973.
And since then, state laws have been changed to specifically ban same-sex marriage, so the law had to be changed to deny this right, not to create it.
My best advice for homosexuals, other than thinking about where they will spend eternity is to be patient and use the political process already set forth instead of penalizing churches for not agreeing with their lifestyle.
They have been patient, but the tide is turning in their favor; especially since the Constitution has guaranteed them equal protection under the law since 1868.
Its unconstitutional to tell someone how to vote.
And no one's doing that.
Government must make no law with respect to religion OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXCERCESE THEREOF.
Meaning you are free to live your life as you choose. It does not mean you are free to deny others their legal, civil rights because you feel they don't deserve them for some reason....religious or otherwise.
I am excercising my religion by not voting in support of homosexuals having full marriage rights.
It's not something you get a vote on, frankly. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
And if the majority of the governed choose not to believe in a diety, its their right. But they cannot restrict the voting power of people who do believe in a diety.
No one is. But there are somethings they don't get a vote on. Denying entire segments of the American population their guaranteed Constitutional rights is one of those things.
Actually I said checks and balances are based on the concept of sin.
And I showed you exactly what they were
actually based on.
Not quite yet. As said before I think homosexuals should be free from persecution.
Then you should fight for their legal civil rights whenever some feel they should be denied them, as is the case with same-sex marriage bans or when they are denied services offered to the general public.
We are not Iran or Iraq or Syria or Russia. The human rights in Syria, for example are absolutely deplorable. We are a Republic. People have a right to live without being hunted down here unless they commit a serious crime. But since that republic was set up by Christians, the right of homosexuals to marry was not there.
Yeah, it was. It was never specifically prohibited, not until 1973 in Maryland.
If you want it there, vote.
Sorry, but you don't get to vote on whether or not some people deserve equal protection under the law; that right has been guaranteed by the Constitution since 1868.
Yes and no. If the law is not asking them to do something against their religious beliefs they can and should obey that government. Its in the Bible.
And the law isn't doing that, not as regards same-sex marriage. No church is required to perform the ceremony if doing so is against their religion. Even in those states where a ban on same-sex marriage has not been enacted, or has been overturned, this remains so.
Any social group not funded by the government can accept or deny membership to anyone. After all, college fraternities can kick out people who get bad grades or do not get along with other members in that fraternity. The lions club can get rid of people too. Its their right. This forum is a social group too. They can set their own rules and kick people out who cause trouble.
True. But we're not talking about them in this case. We're talking about businesses that are open to the public. Those businesses have the responsibility to actually serve the public, they can't deny service to certain segments of it.
Actually it does if their religious beliefs are against people doing certain things.
Still no. Those people still have rights, even if some people hold the religious belief that they shouldn't have them.
As said above, its not unconstitutional to vote if the issue is on the ballot. No one can tell you how to vote. That's American politics 101
And there is still no one doing that.
BTW, thank you for keeping the discussion civil. So far you have been a pleasant person to discuss with.
Thank you, I try. And I thank you as well.
-- A2SG, may be prone to sarcasm sometimes, but I do strive for civility wherever possible....
