Who Are You Voting For President?

[michaelhobson]

But what many don't seems to get is the implications to the loss of religious freedoms.

 

Hm, well yes and no. My first inclination, since the word "marriage" seems to be so important to some folks, is to send the word back to the churches where it originated. People could then get "married" in the church of their choice without any involvement from the government. They could then if they choose commit to a civil union sanctioned and enforced by the state.

 

But, this still doesn't solve your problem as many churches are more than happy to sanction a gay marriage. What about the religious freedoms of those who attend those churches? Having already taken the word marriage out of the governments hands and returned it to the churches, would we then limit which churches can use the word?

 

I guess what confuses me most on this whole issue is that we are surrounded by married gay couples. Some are sanctioned by their state, some only by their church and some only by each other. I don't see that it has in any way affected anyone else's religious freedom or downgraded the status of marriage in general. The married gay couples I know have far outlasted straight me in years of marriage. Oh well, I guess my point is made, I'm not trying to convince you to change your views.

 

Sorry to hijack this thread, I'm voting for Obama since Ron Paul dropped out. I could vote for the constitution party, but it would be a wasted vote in a critical state. McCain is just a continuation of Bush in my opinion and it's not unlikely that he'd die in office, Palin is just plain frightening!

[Vegan Joe]

But what many don't seems to get is the implications to the loss of religious freedoms.

 

Hm, well yes and no. My first inclination, since the word "marriage" seems to be so important to some folks, is to send the word back to the churches where it originated. People could then get "married" in the church of their choice without any involvement from the government. They could then if they choose commit to a civil union sanctioned and enforced by the state.

 

But, this still doesn't solve your problem as many churches are more than happy to sanction a gay marriage. What about the religious freedoms of those who attend those churches? Having already taken the word marriage out of the governments hands and returned it to the churches, would we then limit which churches can use the word?

 

I guess what confuses me most on this whole issue is that we are surrounded by married gay couples. Some are sanctioned by their state, some only by their church and some only by each other. I don't see that it has in any way affected anyone else's religious freedom or downgraded the status of marriage in general. The married gay couples I know have far outlasted straight me in years of marriage. Oh well, I guess my point is made, I'm not trying to convince you to change your views.

 

Sorry to hijack this thread, I'm voting for Obama since Ron Paul dropped out. I could vote for the constitution party, but it would be a wasted vote in a critical state. McCain is just a continuation of Bush in my opinion and it's not unlikely that he'd die in office, Palin is just plain frightening!

You mirror my point. It's not as simple and straight forward as Yes or No. Each has repercussions on freedoms.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Vegan Joe

[Vegan Joe]

Joe why do you keep hammering away at this prop 8 thing?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-37F6MmAYD4

[blabbate]

But what many don't seems to get is the implications to the loss of religious freedoms.

Joe, I've asked you before to explain exactly where the loss of religious freedoms comes in. California has legalized civil marriage. Prop 8 is about civil marriage. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry gays if they don't want to.

 

Please explain to me how this secular matter is affecting religious freedoms. Or, just explain where I'm wrong in my above statement.