R
rossum
Guest
So, you agree that there are limits to freedom of religion. We disagree on where those limits should be, but we both agree that limits are necessary.
rossum
- Status
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I already do. My taxes help pay for an army and for nuclear weapons of mass destruction. My taxes help pay for some unnecessary abortions. It is part of living in a society that you have to make some compromises. At least I do not have to pay taxes to support executions, though there are countries where Buddhists do have to do that.
Agreed, which is why we have courts and politics. There is no position that will fully satisfy everyone, so the usual solution is to try to find a position that gives everyone most, but not all, of what they want.
rossum
E
epan
Guest
In the US, all healthcare workers who object to participating in an abortion are protected by law. There has been some call by academics and professional organizations to provide similar protection from prosecution under anti-abortion legislation to healthcare providers who choose to participate.
In fact, it is legally protected to choose not to perform any medical procedure out of conscience, or on moral or religious grounds.
The debate is ongoing as to pharmacists and the dispensation of drugs, however. I believe the thinking for many is that the pharmacist is not an active participant to the same extent, say, as a physician performing a surgical procedure, or a nurse assisting such a procedure.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Well with same sex marriage, it isn’t a marriage, so the main thing is whether the government wants to pretend that homosexual marriage exists and if they do, than it would be wrong for anti discrimination laws to force everyone else to play along with that illusion.
Two men or two women marrying (coming together to give one self to the other fully which includes sexually) is intrinsically Immoral and Disordered, if you disagree with Immoral and Disordered than it still shouldn’t be reffered to as marriage because a homosexual union is just so very different to a heterosexual union, so yes the sexual nature of both unions is very relevant when it comes to marriage and for people or the law to ignore that fact in regards to marriage would be a big mistake I think.
It’s an unjust treatment to equate things in certain aspects that are unequal, such as homosexuality and heterosexuality being viewed as marriage’s.
Yes, but It’s different to paying taxes, with the florist, it’s more like selling materials to the government knowing it would be used for the build of neuclear weapons, do certain businesses have any choice in such a matter? would you be okay to sell the government materials knowing they would be used to build nuclear weapons rossum?
I think anti-discrimination laws should be there for equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because they are both equal, however when it comes to homosexuality and heterosexuality, it would be unjust to equate them for certain things under anti discrimination laws, especially in regards to marriage, as they are very different.
I would view the florist more like a pub or club that has a dress code, which they are allowed to do, so I think the florist should be allowed to refuse service if it is for something and not someone.
In the case of the florist I think It’s okay for the law to be forcing equal treatment for homosexuals and heterosexuals, but it’s wrong for the law to be forcing equal treatment for homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
josh987654321
Guest
I just viewed a few of Rick Santorum’s arguments (had never heard of him before) and his arguments are very good.
If we legalise same sex marriage, on what grounds would we refuse polygamous marriage?
Because it’s double standards and hypocrtitcal to be pro-same sex marriage and against polygamous marriage’s, if it’s no longer between a man and a woman, whats to say it can’t be between more than two people, why can’t we include three people into the definition of marriage?
Rick Santorum is dead right in using this argument, people often reply “that’s irrelevant” because it’s all they can think of, but it’s actually very relevant, people can’t be pro-same sex marriage and against polygamous marriage’s because that is a double standard.
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
epan
Guest
Perhaps the Republican Party should split into two parties: a Conservative Christian Party, and a Libertarian Republican Party.
It is certainly incongruous that a libertarian agenda forms the platform to attract one large part of the coalition, while a moralist agenda forms the platform to attract another part of the coalition which is the “Republican Party”. Who knows? The previous president, who gained the governorship, and then the presidency by pushing the religious agenda in the Republican party, might go down in history as the man who planted the seed to split the party apart. It is certainly not a party which Lincoln would recognize, nor one that Reagan would, either.
As public opinion continues to shift, it will be political suicide in many races to oppose gay marriage. How will the Republicans handle this problem? We are starting see Republican politicians as individuals changing their own platforms to more closely reflect their constituency. Will the Republican party simply continue to lose influence, as recent demographic data would suggest? Or, will it revise its platform to be more inclusive, in a more diverse future? If anything, acceptance of diversity will continue to increase, and not decrease within the general population. How disconnected can the Republican party be from the electorate, and still hope to survive? It will be very interesting to see what happens in 2016.
I suspect that more Republican politicians than will admit it, are secretly praying for a Supreme Court ruling which will bring in gay marriage. The reason is simple. If the Court does not legalize marriage equality, than many Republicans will have to change their stand on the issue in order to be re-elected. If the Court does adopt the gay marriage standard, then it will no longer be an issue, and they can save face.
D
Dawnia
Guest
I agree to a point. Except that Republicans who change their stance on gay marriage will likely also have to change their political party. The base of the Republican party is still the Evangelical Christians who have no problem getting rid of dissident politicians during the primaries.
E
epan
Guest
You may have that wrong. Part of the base of the Republican party is moralist, another part is libertarian business interests. It may be the Evangelical partial base who finds that it must leave the party. Regardless, it is bound to become a divisive issue, as politicians have to choose whether to have a chance at being elected, or throwing in the towel over this issue.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Well as Rick Santorum has said, they thought the same thing would happen with the Abortion debate, but they have not budged on that either and if I was an American I would definatly vote him.
It’s funny that you say it will be political suicide, because alot of people think like that and the media really pushes that idea around, I bet they thought that abolishing slavery would have also been political suicide given all of those who owned slaves, or when Obama spoke about taxes for the wealthy.
Im just glad that there is someone out there bravely pushing the truth, who is doing what is right and not what is popular, because all of the greatest leaders in history did what they knew to be morally right and not what was popular at the time, many of their own people hated them, but they still pushed for what they knew to be right not matter the opposition and that’s what made them go down in history as a great leader.
“Praying” hahah, they’d have to be fairly Ignorant people to pray for something like that.
I know what you mean though, but their stand on Abortion has not changed and didn’t change so I have heard.
I think there is a loud minority who are for ‘gay marriage’ and a silent majority who are against it, because anyone who speaks against ‘gay marriage’ without listening to their reason are accused of bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals.
Also as Rick Santorum say’s Epan, if you legalise ‘gay marriage’ on what law grounds would you be able to refuse ‘polygamous marriage’?
The very nature of homosexuality means to use the organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, this is why we say it’s disordered and Immoral, If people religious or non-religious want to reject “Immoral” than okay, but they can’t reject “design or disordered” as thats just fact.
I don’t understand whether religious or non-religious how any body can view the acts of homosexuality as anything other than a miss use of the bodies organs, two men or two women are just not compatible sexually, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.
Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.
When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.
Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.
Anti-discrimination laws should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (which would be gay marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.
So I guess it’s not whether they want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not they want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether they want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
epan
Guest
I wouldn’t be so quick to put much stock in Santorum. His political career has been plummeting since it started. He is the laughing stock of everyone from moderate conservatives to liberals. He has an extremely small constituency, as his polling results showed in his recent bid for the Presidency.
I’m not sure where you get your ideas, as to the political and social momentum of gay marriage, but I think they are out of touch with reality. Just look at the trends. Wish as you may, the cat is not going back into the bag.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I am not sure but isn’t it considered unethical for a politician to try and influence something that the Supreme Court is investigating? I mean, wouldn’t him doing this possibly influence the Supreme Court towards his view when they need to look at this with objectivity and no bias?
E
epan
Guest
I am not sure. But I am quite certain that it is unethical for a justice not to recuse himself/herself when he has personal beliefs which would prevent impartiality in a case. Yet, Justice Scalia has not recused himself, as far as we know. Yet, he has spent the past couple of years lecturing to anyone who would listen as to what his personal opinions are.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Guess we’ll see.
I think we might see more independents running in the future as people get sick of both parties.
H
Holly3278
Guest
You are right. Justice Scalia should recuse himself. Apparently he hasn’t or we surely would have heard about it by now. I mean he’s obviously biased so I think it is unethical for him to be judging these gay “marriage” cases since he isn’t impartial. He definitely has a bias.
D
Dawnia
Guest
He has been a justice for over 25 years, of course he has a bias. Just as every other judge on the bench. That is why we have 9 judges and not 1.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
If Rick Santorum is a laughing stock, it’s only in far left circles where Jesus Himself would be a laughing stock. Rick acquitted himself very well in his failed attempt for the Republican nomination. He was forthright, clear and uncompromising in principles. He came off too much as lacking experience, maybe gravitas, and he certainly did not possess the charisma that many voters look for.
Obama in his first run was even more lacking in experience, but he had the ability to inspire people, plus he ran against someone that no one could get excited about. The Republicans have the case, but they don’t have anyone who can deliver it. Frankly, that is all that is lacking.
Find a quick-witted Republican with fire in his belly and you will have our next President. A poor message with a great messenger is better than a great message with a poor messenger. Sad, but true. For Republicans to win, they either need that great messenger, or they need two lackluster opponents so that the message becomes the focal point. .
E
epan
Guest
I have favored a more parliamentary system for some time. I would favor a party system, such as in Europe for the house of representatives. If the Catholic Party received a certain percentage, then a proportional number of seats, if the Aetheist Party, then they get their share. Leave the Senate with two per state, to protect State’s rights, and direct election of the President, with no electoral college.Guess we’ll see.
In this way, I think that the elected Federal government would be more representative of the views of the electorate. The two party system broke a long time ago, and seems to be getting worse.
E
epan
Guest
I would strongly disagree with that statement. Comparing Santorum to Jesus is a ludicrous comparison, laughable in itself.
E
epan
Guest
Every Justice has a bias. But that is not what I am talking about. I would recommend listening to the oral arguments carefully. Without exception, when the other justice’s ask question, they are sincere. They are trying to understand something about the case, or they are posing a counter example to probe the arguments. From what I have heard, without exception, Justice Scalia does not do this. He prefers to grand stand, and to try to advance his own opinion. It is as if, he decides a case before he hears it. He is very troubling to listen to. The other justices openly criticize him by prefacing questions with phrases like, “Justice Scalia won’t care what you answer is, but can you answer this…”
In this case, he has been out preaching against gay marriage in public. None of the other justices have been doing that. He can get away with it, because there is no appeal.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Oral arguments are a tiny tiny part of a SCOTUS case. There is nothing to give any indication that orals have ever swayed a judge one way or another on any case. They likely have an idea of they are going to rule long before they get to orals.
I have listened to quite a number of oral arguments. Scalia was far quieter in Prop 8 and DOMA cases than usual. He has a very defined legal theory and is very opinionated about it. So what. Ginsberg also has a very defined opinion, yet no one can ever seem to hear her.
- Status