Problems in our country that need to be dealt with?

There's no reason for the state to define marriage. Its one thing if the catholic church interprets marriage to be between a man and a woman but why the government. The government's sole purpose on this manner is to guarantee legal benefits to partners. I dont see why at the worst we cant have civil unions that guarantee equal rights for gays and lesbians. Even if you cant give them the title of "marriage," at least guarantee them their rights. Its amazing that in the 21st century we're still contemplating denying every day Americans a significant chunk of their rights. I mean a lesbian who's lived with her partner for 20 years doesnt have visitation rights at a hospital so she cant see her partner. If you can possibly justify that then maybe just maybe you'll have a point. I dont understand why we have to be the arbiter that determines the fate of homosexuals. You say its a sin then have God judge them when they pass away but we arent God and there's no reason as to why we should take God's role and regulate who gets certain rights.

 

Fatty I just don't follow your logic. You talk about choices yet it sounds to me like you want to deny people choices. You say yourself that you made a choice to drink and accept the consequences of drinking would you rather have the government say that you as an adult shouldn't be allowed to drink?

Frankly I don't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not and IMO it doesn't matter that much to the argument. If homosexuals want to marry in additions to the perceived benefits there are also many obligations that are the consequence of marriage that they also have to take on. What it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't want to give them even the choice of being able to marry and accept all of the inherent responsibilities with it and if anything you're arguing for denial of choice. That to me is would be the same as the government saying you as an adult can't drink because you're not entitled to the privelage of being drunk or the responsibility of not driving drunk and dealing with a hangover.

As for treating homosexuality like any persecuted race I don't see how letting them marry is like treating them like a persecuted race. Its not giving them any special rights, its not affirmative action or creating set asides. By letting homosexuals marry how are we treating them like a persecuted race? If anything its the opposite that we're treating them as anyone else.

 

They aren't allowed to marry the person they love or would choose to marry. That is one less freedom they have than heterosexuals have.

You say they made the choice to be gay, but that is far from proven. It also isn't proven that it is genetics. I know people who have chosen to be gay, but most homosexuals that I know say that it wasn't their choice.

That makes sense to me, since I know for a fact I didn't have a choice between wanting women or wanting men. I always wanted women, and that wasn't my choice. It was very natural. So for at least some people I know it isn't a choice from personal experience.

A choice implies at least two options. I didn't have the option to be attracted to the same sex. It was very natural for me, and there was no other choice.

If you believe it was a choice, at what point did you realize you could be attracted to guys or to women? I can't understand that, and would love to find out what it was like for someone who chose that way, if you wouldn't mind trying to describe it.

 

That would be up to the individual congressmen to decide for themselves, I guess. In my opinion, there are a lot of place in the world right now that could do with some military intervention, and Sudan is pretty near the top of the list. I don't know that endless war is possible, but it would likely lead to war for the forseeable future, if I had my way. Not everything that is right is going to be popular (prepare for the upcoming hypocrisy).

I don't want Republicans/conseratives blocking the will of the people either, to tell you the truth. Sometimes an ideology ends up giving you unpleasant results, but that doesn't mean you should abandon your ideals. If you don't like what one party is doing, vote for someone else, if enough people agree with you, then that party will not be in power. If the people have elected representatives to make Tuesdays blue shirt and brown pants day though, the dissenters should not be given veto power. In effect, every senator who can drum up 33 supporters has the power to veto a bill. I don't think every law should require a 2/3 majority.

This also implies that I agree with everything that the Republicans would do and disagree with everything that a Congress dominated by liberals would do, and that is not the case. This Congress would likely vote for laws restricting gay marriage, which I would oppose. Your hypothetical future Congress would be far more likely to legalize drugs, which I would support. No one party shares all of my views, so getting rid of filibusters is a mixed bag no matter who is in power. That doesn't change the fact that I think they are a bad idea. Get the votes for your position on the merit of your arguments, and then let the results speak for themselves, don't just block the vote from occuring. How would people like it if the Religious right filibustered the vote for president and we had an eternity of GWB.

The established age of consent for most matters in this country is 18. I'm pretty sure that applies to signing contracts as well. If a parent decided that their child is mature enough to work and the child choses to do so, I have no problem with it. I worked when I was about 12 years old preparing files for storage in a friend's father's medical practice.

I guess to answer your question, I do. In child labor there should be some oversite to make sure children are not being taken advantage of, but I have no problem with allowing a child to work if that is their choice (eg Dakota Fanning). Child labor already exists in America. You also see child labor on family farms and in many households and small family-owned businesses.

Child labor is kind of a loaded term because what you are implying is little kids forced into working in the coal mines. That is only one way to look at it, and I do not support taking that route, no.

Basically, I want to get rid of all of the artificial distortions of the labor market. There are people willing to work in the fields for less than minimum wage, obviously, because it is happening every day. Instead of forcing people to hire illegal aliens or otherwise break the law, allow them to legally pay people a compensation package they can accept. I am not advocating slavery, just allowing people to choose for how much they are willing to work.

Another one I forgot in my original post is to legalize prostitution.

 

Yep, but I think there is a lot of good in America also, at least in the people. I don't sit around thinking of our problems because I basically believe they are much greater than who gets elected and what the media is reporting.

I can't remember Jesus complaining about the Roman govt.

God will work all things out.

I enjoy the study of corruption in politics. It is a good reminder to me that I am just passing through this world.

 

I am with rhester. again.

This thread reminds me of the SNL Mathew Mcconaughey protest sketch!

"Feed the Children!"

"Yeah! Feed 'em to the whales!"

 

Living for death is not an answer.

 

thread derail coming...i'm not living for death...Christ's promises don't include death.

 

But you have to "die" to get it. It's stupid.

 

Aren't you a Buddhist?

 

Well kind of. And as a kind of Buddhist I realize that this is heaven, but I have a hard time seeing it due to my own ego, desire etc. I don't' agree that this world is meaningless and the world after are "death" is the one of importance. It is self-defeating. That type of thought is why we don't really cherish and respect our world the way we should (why should we when it doesn't really count?). I think if Christians etc saw this world as heaven we would treat it as such.

 

no....you don't. the Kingdom of God is here and now. it's not a "when you die" thing only.

by the way...the whole "it's stupid" and "i hate it" thing...maybe not the best way to communicate with others about their faith.

 

but it's not heaven. don't be stupid.

 

One man's death is another man's redemption,
O death where is your sting?
Laid on a cross the foolishness of man,
This world, what does it bring?

Death is the door every soul will enter,
O grave where is your victory?
An empty tomb, a resurrection morning,
The Lamb is the light of this city.

 

I'm letting it out.

Translation: Let's just stop talking about this becuase I don't really have any rational argument to support my pre-determined prejudices. I like to rely on my personal beliefs and refuse to change them because, dammit I know that being gay is wrong.

Translation: I did not want to get so deep into this debate because each time I reply I get pwned for making such ignorant statements.

Translation: I like to pretend that I'm not a homophobe because it makes me feel more secure in denouncing their way of life. Calling people "unnatural" and denying them equal treatment isn't hatred or bigotry - It's my weird way of showing love.

I really don't know what the heck you are talking about. If you are trying to say that having the government grant equal protection to gay people is socialist, please go get an extra-large cluestick and beat yourself senseless with it.

EDIT: To answer the question, I think it is prettty simple. The government is obligated (American gov. anyhow) to protect every citizen's right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Anytime society/people/interest groups/religion prevents this, the government should step in to assure equal protection for different cultures/lifestyles. Personally, I don't think that counts as "taking care of me" - I think it is more to protect me from persecution - which may indirectly aid me in a variety of ways, but should not provide any direct benefit, be it jobs or money or laws.

 

I don't desire the government to use my tax dollars to finance faith-based initiatives, to build an overblown military that is not needed post Cold War, to construct highways that I may never travel, to subsidize ill-managed industries, to provide help to your family when your home is destroyed by hurricane or other natural disasters that are not covered by your insurance, to pay for the salaries of those idiots in the Congress who enact laws against my own interests. Those are just a few things that top off my head. But hey, we live in a society, where the mechanism of one government program directly/indirectly affects another, which in turn affects everyone eventually.

 

What is the role of a government? To me the primary role of the government is to make the lives of citizens better, by that I do not mean only the few powerful people at the top but all citizens. Every country, even the very poor country have a few rich people, what seperate the industrial nations of today from the "great nations" in the past is that vast majority of people have relatively high standard of living.

I do not blieve people should be given a hand out and not work. However, I do believe when people are working hard they should be given some basic social protection so that they do not starve and have the ability to seek medical help.

 

when i read a thread like this i realize how much more liberal...or moderate..i've become as i've gotten older.

 

Jesus is a liberal.