Politics and Religion A dangerous game

Status
Not open for further replies.

vindicator

Rear Admiral
Today I saw that George Bush Plans to encourage 1.5 billion in tax benefits to those who get Married I believe this is Just another way of Legislating morality or what is percieved to be moral This game bush has decided to play pointing the fingers at homosexuals for the collapse of the family The simple fact that he continues this Church crusade and with the purposed gay marrige ban he is playing moral GOD

My fear is this when we allow religion to dictate our laws we will become like the terrorist nations we seek to defeat which are dictated by their religious law They opress women kill those who try to leave their church perhaps this won't turn that bad but if this so called "Moral" persident has his way here what's to stop him from going a step further and then a step futher and then futher I am horrified by the possibility

Right wing christians will claim I am the evil secular left wing seeking to over throw the morality of this country I am neither of these I only seek eqaulity and equal recognition as a Man that was created equal

-Rance-

vote for anyone but bush 2004
 

GeeBot

Spaceman
I'm going to vote for Ralph Nader!

More seriously, though, this has the tone of a troll. First off, the $1.5 billion in benefits aren't in the form of more tax breaks, but in a combination of funding for services like marriage counseling and the like.

Second, the fact that married families are, on average, more stable, have higher income and standard living, and raise their children better are statistical facts, not just spiel generated by the religious right.

Third, the program is being targetted at low income families, which probably have the most to gain. Considering the skyrocketing rates of divorce (which are also statistically proven to be detrimental to the welfare of children), spending less than $2 billion to try and preserve and encourage marriage is sound social policy.

Nobody is being forced to marry, or stay in bad marriages. It's simply a way of helping those marriages that could be saved, but need a little extra help. And while I'm sure Bush agrees, remember that it was Bill Clinton who signed the defense of marriage act (which defines marriage strictly in heterosexual terms) into law. This is clearly a position that has wide support among average Americans on both sides of the political spectrum (most polls show clear majorities), so it's hardly an intermixing of religion and politics.

Furthermore, who ever said that marriage had to involve religion at all? People get married who are atheists, agnostic, or any of the many religions which embody a concept of marriage. Marriage isn't so much a religious institution as a social and legal one. The marriage initiative never specifies that those who get married have to be card-carrying Southern Baptists or anything like that.

While I disagree with Bush on a lot of things (like environmental protection and the ballooning budget deficit), this is something I could support. I'm still not voting for him, though.
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
While I really like President Bush, I agree that he's taking some steps in an unneccessary direction. Even though I'm heterosexual, and believe what the Bible says about homosexuality being sinful, I'm not in agreement with forcing heterosexuality on everyone. Nor am I a proponent of Christians browbeating homosexuals into submission. It's bad policy and VERY counterproductive. Am I right, Rance?

If I were Bush, I'd spend more time working on getting things accomplished in our overseas efforts (without starting another war, hopefully) and doing my best to stabalize or improve America's economic position. If nothing else, there's always the war on abortion (which I haven't paid much attention to since Clinton, even though I agree that abortion is indeed killing another life, and should be outlawed on pain of death or life-imprisonment or somesuch).

Anyway, I do agree that homo or hetero sexuality is a choice made by an individual, and only affects that individual, and should have no legal reprocussions. Sexual orientation and state and/or federal law are apples and oranges. Two entirely different entities.

However, I'm still going to vote for Bush, because he DID carry out his promise to kick inordinate amounts of ass over 9/11. That, and I'm Rebuplican, so I'm probably gonna vote Republican anyway. (Unless another party has a candidate that REALLY convinces me that he'll do a better job)

EDIT: The previous post was made as I was typing this, so I didn't have a chance to read or respond to anything said.
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
overmortal I never thought I would agree with you at all but I have to say very well stated my boy very well stated

-Rance-
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Meh, this seems like one of those "I'm looking for an excuse to be offended!" situations.

(Plus, 'vote for anyone but Bush' is the stupidest, most non-sensical political campaign ever. 'I don't care what you do as long as you don't {variable}' doesn't work in voting.)
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
GeeBot said:
More seriously, though, this has the tone of a troll.

Second, the fact that...are statistical facts, not just spiel...

Third, the program is...spending less than $2 billion to try and preserve and encourage marriage is sound social policy.

Nobody is being forced to marry...This is clearly a position that has wide support among average Americans on both sides of the political spectrum (most polls show clear majorities), so it's hardly an intermixing of religion and politics.

...who ever said that marriage had to involve religion at all?...The marriage initiative never specifies that those who get married have to be card-carrying Southern Baptists or anything like that.
Well said, Gee!...

vindicator said:
Today I saw that George Bush Plans to encourage 1.5 billion in tax benefits to those who get Married I believe this is Just another way of Legislating morality or what is percieved to be moral...
Wrong. GeeBot's refutation sez it rather well:

"First off, the $1.5 billion in benefits aren't in the form of more tax breaks, but in a combination of funding for services like marriage counseling and the like."

My fear is this when we allow religion to dictate our laws we will become like the terrorist nations we seek to defeat which are dictated by their religious law...
You may be right on that point, but you need to understand that it's one thing for religion to *dictate* our laws ; it's quite another for faith to "guide* our lawmaking process. The former is the case in most Muslim nations; the latter was the case at the founding of this country. One is bad, the other is good. Had the latter not been the case, the US would never have risen to the place of prominence on the world stage we have occupied for so long.

Right wing christians will claim I am the evil secular left wing seeking to over throw the morality of this country I am neither of these I only seek eqaulity and equal recognition as a Man that was created equal
Wrong again. I am a born-again Christian, with moral views that lean to the "right" (whether you call that "right wing" or not I dunno), and I don't make that claim of you. BTW, the Declaration of Independence was drafted with the idea that we were created equal under *God*, and that our rights were given to us by Him. Read it 4 yerself if you doubt. As such, why do you seek to divorce Him from the discussion?

overmortal said:
While I really like President Bush, I agree that he's taking some steps in an unneccessary direction...I'm not in agreement with forcing heterosexuality on everyone. Nor am I a proponent of Christians browbeating homosexuals into submission. It's bad policy and VERY counterproductive. Am I right...?
No, you are wrong - at least about him "forcing" heterosexuality on folks. Rather, the idea is to prevent the gay lobby from forcing themselves/their views on the rest of us. I, likewise, am against Christians browbeating any*one* about any*thing*. Browbeating is most definitely a wrong and counterproductive policy for we Christians to use. That's not what the Master would have us to do. We are to present the Truth in love, and, when necessary, to defend that Truth, and defend what is right. Browbeating don't enter into it. The problem is that "tolerance" has come to mean "embracing" other lifestyles/points of view, which is not the dictionary definition of the word. Moreover, the very ones who have hijacked the word "tolerance" are the generally the most IN-tolerant of the traditional JudeoChristian worldview. Indeed, it seems the only thing they CAN'T tolerate is that

::Irony meter spiking off the chart::
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Wrong. See GeeBot's post.
You can't really reply to the original post telling the original poster that he should have read one of the replies the post you're replying to generated. It just doesn't make sense.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
vindicator said:
Today I saw that George Bush Plans to encourage 1.5 billion in tax benefits to those who get Married I believe this is Just another way of Legislating morality or what is percieved to be moral This game bush has decided to play pointing the fingers at homosexuals for the collapse of the family The simple fact that he continues this Church crusade and with the purposed gay marrige ban he is playing moral GOD
It is an apparently little-known fact that heterosexual couples have more children than homosexual couples - presumably because only heterosexual couples have the ability to reproduce. This means that, in the eyes of a government interested in preserving the society it is running (as any government should be), heterosexual couples are extremely important, whereas homosexual couples are entirely useless. These days, it's unfortunately become very politically incorrect to say so, but the fact remains that there really is no reason whatsoever why society should treat heterosexual and homosexual couples equally.

And before you say anything, no, to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples is not equivalent to discriminating against homosexuals. After all, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are born to (and only to!) heterosexual couples, and any support offered to such couples is also support for their children, regardless of what their sexual orientation is.
 

sigma_nunki

Spaceman
<being very careful not to insult anyone>
First off, my cousin is gay and he didn't have a choice. It is the way you are born.

Second, to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason is IMHO a violation of human rights.

And I would not say that gays are useless. Marketing firms know that gays have billions of dollars of disposable income to spend in the US alone. That to me says good for economy = not useless.

Third, this bbc article states "statistical evidence for the success of marriage initiatives ... is not readily available". So, the success of the program is somewhat hazy.

Also, IMHO letting 1 religion "guide the way" in a country that has *many* religions isn't in that countries best interest. See discrimination remark above.

It seems to me that in the US (and Canada as well) the topic of marriage has become loaded. Talk about marriage automatically means talk about homosexual union/marriage. I think the proof of how loaded a topic this is is right here in this thread. It really has seemed to hit a nerve in alot of people.
</being very careful not to insult anyone>
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
I believe the topic's subject line is very accurate.... vindicator posts some political/religious thing, and then the thread becomes a dangerous game.

So what's behind door number three? :D
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Death said:
*cough*artificialinsemination*cough*
*cough*nottheprimary/defaultmeansofreproduction*cough*

sigma_nunki said:
...is gay and he didn't have a choice. It is the way you are born.
I'll believe that on the same day you can show me a day-old infant (better yet, a preemie) and PROVE that same is gay... :rolleyes:

, to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason is IMHO a violation of human rights.
So discriminating against, say, terrorists is a violation of human rights, then, eh?...

And I would not say that gays are useless..
Dude: Quarto was using "useless" in a very specific context, which you've obviously ignored. In context, the remark was quite dead-on...

Also, IMHO letting 1 religion "guide the way" in a country that has *many* religions isn't in that countries best interest.
If by "1 religion" you mean the previously cited JudeoChristian faith(s), then history saith otherwise, young Padawan. Read again the reply in my original post that you are obliquely referring to here. Then schmack yourself with a cold dead mackerel about 5 times. Hard.

t.c.cgi said:
I believe the topic's subject line is very accurate.... vindicator posts some political/religious thing, and then the thread becomes a dangerous game.
So what's behind door number three?
Door # 3?...well, gee, how about a nice, juicy, self-fulfilling prophecy?...
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
You might have a point, Preacher, had he actually said anything about "primary means", in regards to whom children are born.

Quarto's comment of "After all, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are born to (and only to!) heterosexual couples" [emphasis in original] sounds nothing like "primary/default means of reproduction".

I will grant you, however, that for male homosexual couples artificial insemination isn't really an option without assistance from a third party, due to physiology. Male couples aren't the only variety of homosexual couples, however.

(The other variety is fun to watch. :D )
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
If by "1 religion" you mean the previously cited JudeoChristian faith(s), then history saith otherwise, young Padawan. Read again the reply in my original post that you are obliquely referring to here. Then schmack yourself with a cold dead mackerel about 5 times. Hard.
Ah, intelligent debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top