Could we say that it's subcultures that encourage extremism more than a culture at large, perhaps?
AMOS TAJ-I honestly think all Muslims are not the same, likewise as I don't generalize all Christians. The holy books of both faiths could be argued to advocate fairly bad things, yet either by ignorance or erudition, Christians do not tend to behave this way; at least not to that extreme. Our enemy is extremism, not any particular group that may have practitioners of it
REGIS NICOLL-Evidently you have a simplistic, if not childish, definition of equality. Just because a law has a notion of equality, but also separates people from the same acknowledgement of the law because of an unnecessary discrimination, doesn't mean it is actually equitable for all relevant parties.
Gay people are not disqualified from marriage because a heteronormative definition of the term prohibits them from participation. Marriage is larger than the majority's commonly ill educated and sometimes willfully ignorant knowledge of the practice. It's about commitment, fidelity, and the encouragement thereof. Gay people can do this just as much as straight people. Family is incidental to it and families can be more than those who are related by blood, as I imagine you'd agree with.
Marriage equality demands true fairness, not a segregated notion that has no basis in reality beyond a short sighted and even bigoted idea of what relationships recognized by the state should be.
Anyone recall the massacre of children alleged to have happened in the Exodus? And who did it? God.
In another universe where people started realizing that the GOP is ineffective and antiquated, Gary Johnson, for instance, might have been competing with Obama, which I would have been ecstatic at, even if he lost.
If God truly gave us the resources and trusted us to use them, I would also think God would make them renewable, which they really aren't in the grand scheme of things. Now wind and solar power are much more effective in that regard. Not to mention we seem to neglect nuclear power because we live in the shadow of fear from Chernobyl and Fukushima more recently
The government isn't intending to provide for the lazy, but for those who are impoverished and unable to even have a living wage or any sort of living income. Of course it's broken and that will take time to fix.
Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions as much as you seem to think. I believe the statistics suggest only about 3% of their practices are abortion. Many abortions are probably done by licensed practitioners separate from PP. And you're paying for a lot of things you don't want done, but that's the issue of transparency in government, not to mention an issue of spending that I agree is wasteful in some regards.
From what I can tell of Jesus, I don't think he would do so, but that's irrelevant from a Christian standpoint when we're talking about secular civil marriage. No one is forcing a church to do a gay marriage and if Jesus didn't want to, but it was legal in Rome, he would just move on and say, "Okay you do gay marriages, I'm gonna do my thing,"
DANIEL D. NAVE and BRENDA DUNN-
even if there was a God, which I see no reason to believe or take seriously, I imagine anything like what you describe would not actually care about human affairs in the slightest. Any correlations you make between "anti biblical" declarations and disasters are coincidence at most, inane at worst. Or it certainly wouldn't judge us based the mere snuffing out of potential life that cannot survive outside the womb to begin with or accepting people with a variation on human sexuality that is not damaging in any way more than heterosexuality.
God was not the founding principle of this country so much as the incidental source that people believed freedom came from. The Bible is not implicit or explicit in the laws of the country and I wouldn't take the words of someone who insists Jefferson was a Christian when the man cut up the Bible and took out Jesus' miracles.
I would hope that this kind of nonsense dies out, but it won't unless people speak up and correct claims that are baseless and rooted in deep seated insecurity that is only resolved by superstition and theocratic tendencies.
Livn4life, your sarcasm isn't even remotely amusing. I did not claim to be an expert. I certainly wasn't the one who sent a letter with the notation that I was a PhD, so that's already a start. If someone wants to correct me, they only need bring forth evidence or a sound and valid argument against my position to make me remotely reconsider. It's not that difficult. We don't need to rely on rhetoric when logic is more consistent
MARY ANNE COOK-
If you really get that bent out of shape over two women kissing, you shouldn't watch TV at all. It's going to come up, move into the 21st century. They're not forcing it on you, it's your choice to watch television in the first place
I don't want to go to the kingdom of God, assuming it even exists, which I've found wanting in terms of any evidence or reason to believe it is so. And someone's prayer with God is hardly your business. You can go on believing abortion is murder and somehow gay marriage is as horrible as that, not to mention this fixation on God in politics.
But your kind is dying out as people realize that people's rights to do things that are not harming anyone ultimately should not be infringed upon by the government. Abortion is not forced on people, it is suggested as an option. Gay marriage is not forced on churches, it is a civil matter.
BRIAN HALE (PhD not relevant)-
Your argument is probably the most atrocious, which only proves my point that a fancy degree establishes nothing. I have my bachelors and feel like you've just made me not want to go into graduate school if people come out with this sort of stubborn conservative attitude.
Liberalism in American culture is admittedly closer to the "perversity" that you criticize, though I'd neve rstoop to calling mere libertarian ideas of self determination and lack of government intervention in regards to defining marriage much more liberal in the classic sense of the term than having the government take a stand on abortion or gay marriage to begin with.
And clearly you have no concept of the experience of, nor any real background, in the study of sexual identity, to say nothing of gender identity. Transexuals and transgenders are a small portion of our population, but they are not forcing anything on others that is explicitly harmful. If you wish to remain stuck in ridiculous gender and sexual binaries, then by all means stay in the 1920s, before women even remotely had a right to vote or even work jobs that men had traditionally done. But this is not an age where discrimination against people for essentially immutable traits should be acceptable, however tolerated they might be by people who have greater compassion than I do for the likes of willfully ignorant sanctimonious intellectuals like yourself. No one is forcing these ideas on you, they are exposing you to differences that are inevitable.
Orr, I don't think you'll really care to even look at my criticism, but life doesn't start with sperm and ovum, except in the sense of unique genetic material. Life is in a cycle and sperm and ovum are part of that. Life began a couple billion years ago in the form of some method of abiogenesis and thus it started that cycle going
And you're really just going to throw Job at me to claim I can't criticize your Biblical literalism? Move on and just admit you have no grounds for your belief in Eden or a sacred marriage.
If by liberal, you mean classical liberal, I'll take that title proudly. Conservative as a term is ridiculous, since preserving tradition is not by necessity always a good thing and innovation is a method of progress tempered by discretion, not previous established norms of culture
I do not call all positions that differ from mine specifically idiocy. And you use ignorance in a way it is most often incorrectly interpreted. It simply means you don't know: it is not meant to disparage a person, but correct them to learn.
People have a right to oppose same sex marriage and abortion, but any arguments are bogus, far as I've heard them. Nature supports homosexuality as a basic variation on sexuality and abortion is a medical procedure, so any argument on the basis of nature is missing the point of medicine, as well as technology in general not technically being "natural"
And you can't write my name in for president, since I'm not even remotely qualified. I still need 10 years of life to even meet the age requirement. I'm only remotely qualified to be a House Representative and I've never really been interested in political management or the like, to be honest.
I prefer to correct and educate those who insist on believing nonsense and not using critical thinking skills to advance a sound and valid argument instead of trying to use power to change things as if that will effect lasting influence