How Can George Bush Represent the People if.......

[MishMish]

Fafalone, I am not evading arguments. You had put religious practice, not consent, as the factor of interest, and that is what I was addressing with that point.

[fafalone]

I cited the constitutional provision of separation of church of state to invalidate religious arguments.

[MishMish]

Faflone, what purpose, then, does the "in accordance with their faith" hold? As mentioned in my response, if polygamy were to be allowed, it should be allowed to all.

 

It looks instead as if you were referring to freedom of religious expression.

 

I will not hold you to that if that is not what you meant of course, but that is what I was responding to

[fafalone]

Polygamy should be allowed to all so long as there is an establishment of religion that recognizes such unions.

 

If the Mormon church recognizes polygamy and chooses to marry polygamists, the government should recognize such unions.

[MishMish]

Fafalone, why should religion enter in at all?

 

I may be missing something in your explanation, but you seem to still be restricting it to religious expression

 

Would it not set up a different discrimination if a Mormon (and ignoring the technicality as Demosthenes pointed out that the modern Mormon church no longer recognizes polygamous marriages) or Muslim were allowed a polygamous marriage and not an atheist? And what if I would rather a polyandrous marriage? While ("classic") Mormonism and Islam may discriminate against women in that respect, would it be appropriate for the govenment to?

 

If polygamy is to be legalized, why should it be tied to religion in any manner? And if it is to be tied to religion as exemption, should not what is obligatory as opposed to what is simply permitted be a factor in determining whether or not that exemption is granted?

[Skye]

I took what faf was saying as the allowances set out in the bill of rights were to be in accordance of your faith.

[MishMish]

Skye, I did as well, and when I initially responded to that point he said I was evading the question of consenting adults. So I asked for a clarification, and here we are.

 

Unless I am missng something in your comment as well. Are you suggesting the government must (or should) allow any act permitted by a religion to be granted an exemption from general law, even if not required for the faith?

 

It is not something I follow closely, but the cases I have heard about revolve around matters considered obligatory, at least by some sects, for the faith in question.

[fafalone]

MishMish said in post # :

Unless I am missng something in your comment as well. Are you suggesting the government must (or should) allow any act permitted by a religion to be granted an exemption from general law, even if not required for the faith?

 

 

Yes, so long as the acts involve only consenting adults and in private if offensive to others.

 

The "consenting adults" part means things like sacrificing virgins would still be illegal.

[MishMish]

Fafalone, so you are saying consenting adults, if members of a specific religion which allows but does not require some act, may be given an exemptions while consenting adults who do not belong to some religion will still be forbidden by law to perform the same act?

 

Are you saying that is the way things are or should be?

 

If my religion, and assuming I were a member of some religious group, allowed though did not require me to purchase beer before noon on Sundays shouldn't my local grocery then be required to sell it to me? If I were to pursue the hypothetical case and by your outline above?

 

I still do not see why you apparently do not distinguish between what is obligatory to the religion and what is simply permissible, and why for matters not obligatory you do not consider that discrimination against non-believers

 

And as an aside, what is offensive to others should not be a factor. It is highly subjective. What is illegal to do in public is another matter. I would prefer that what is illegal should depend more on interfering with the rights of others, but willagree some depends more on what others simply find offensive instead.

[ydoaPs]

.......he's so blatantly homophobic?

 

 

 

How can you represent the people if you don't believe in the basic right to formally express love? Same sex marrage is not a premise that's way out there (like polygamy' date=' which is legal in some US states), it's a fact of life in the modern life.

 

 

 

Not going into the warmongering, alcoholic stupidity of the man.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3110581.stm[/quote']

 

polygamy is illegal in every state in the US

[atinymonkey]

polygamy is illegal in every state in the US

 

Yes, yes. Quite so. Indisputably. Spot on. Hurrah for the American things! Wave the flag! Light the fireworks!

 

Although it is also perfectly legal, written into the constitution and a protected right afforded any person in America (albeit the members of a handful of faiths).

 

Wow, the world is a complex place isn’t it? Laws, exceptions, loopholes, constitutional rights. It’s almost as if they were trying to confuse you, the cad's. Polygamy is illegal and yet it's legal? Whoof!!!112

 

Never mind though, it’ll all be ok. You don’t need to know all the laws, just the big ones. If you do something wrong, someone will point it out for you.

[john5746]

How can you represent the people if you don't believe in the basic right to formally express love? Same sex marrage is not a premise that's way out there (like polygamy' date=' which is legal in some US states), it's a fact of life in the modern life.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3110581.stm[/quote']

 

 

Bush is an arrogant buttwipe who doesn't understand the separation of church and state.

It is interesting to see the people who think not being allowed to marry is a small thing, whine when they don’t get their way. (Prayer in school, Jesus in schools, etc.)

 

That being said:

 

A President serves the country in the way he sees fit, not based on popular opinion. When a candidate runs for political office, he runs on a platform. People vote for him based on the platform and the person. That is why it is important to consider the issues and the candidate.

 

Bush ran for President as a very conservative, evangelical Christian. Nobody would think that he would ever support homosexuals. Indeed, most of his supporters would expect him not to support Gay marriage.

 

A president cannot represent all of the people all of the time. Most decisions are going to irritate or inconvenience some group in the electorate.

 

Bush did run as a “compassionate conservative” and wanted to approach the world in a humble manner. He has done exactly the opposite, but can use 9/11 as an excuse.

[jordan]

How can you represent the people if you don't believe in the basic right to formally express love?

I'm not sure about all the stats, but I was never aware that the majority of people in this nation wanted to legalize gay marriage.

 

Same sex marrage is not a premise that's way out there (like polygamy, which is legal in some US states), it's a fact of life in the modern life.

Being prevalent doesn't equal being right.

[atinymonkey]

I'm not sure about all the stats' date=' but I was never aware that the majority of people in this nation wanted to legalize gay marriage. [/quote']

 

Well, they do seem to be behind it:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3879763.stm

 

Although the House of Lords has stalled the bill, as it apt to happen:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3836851.stm

 

But the original reference was to Bush, not Blair. Besides, it's about denial of the right to express love and hold legal rights in that respect, rather than homosexual rights specifically.

 

Being prevalent doesn't equal being right.

 

That's very true. But unless your damning the concept of love I don't see the relevence. Honestly. I'm a bit hungover and tired, you see.

 

Bush ran for President as a very conservative, evangelical Christian. Nobody would think that he would ever support homosexuals. Indeed, most of his supporters would expect him not to support Gay marriage.

 

And he should be free to express whatever views he might hold. However, religion is not part of the state and Bush has no reason to influence political structures based on whatever Church he is a member of. It's not as if he's even a member of a prevalent Church in America.

 

Church and state are always kept separate, even if daddy did make you president.

[ydoaPs]

how is polygamy legal according to the US constitution? i don't remember anything about polygamy in the constitution.

[Sayonara]

What do you remember from the constitution?

[newbie]

Homosexuals are not being denied rights, and I don't see how they are being denied the freedom to love who they want to. Homosexuals can marry and get all the privileges and benefits of state sanctioned matrimony, they just cannot marry someone of the same sex. Those are rights and restrictions that all citizens share equally. Might not be what some want but its legitimate nonetheless.

[fuhrerkeebs]

Not really...rights are definied as being something that is just and morally good. I can't see why gay marriage isn't just, and I don't see why it isn't morally good either (unless you hate queers).

[atinymonkey]

Homosexuals can marry and get all the privileges and benefits of state sanctioned matrimony, they just cannot marry someone of the same sex.

 

Fol De Roll Rol Rol.

 

Pick a different thread.

[AL]

Homosexuals are not being denied rights, and I don't see how they are being denied the freedom to love who they want to. Homosexuals can marry and get all the privileges and benefits of state sanctioned matrimony, they just cannot marry someone of the same sex. Those are rights and restrictions that all citizens share equally. Might not be what some want but its legitimate nonetheless.

 

Gee, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before...oh yeah, here:

"If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either."

--Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, in defense of anti-miscegenation laws.

[jordan]

Not really...rights are definied as being something that is just and morally good. I can't see why gay marriage isn't just, and I don't see why it isn't morally good either (unless you hate queers).

Because it's not the way it was designed to work.

[budullewraagh]

legally there is nothing you can do, though.

 

on a side note, since men are allowed to be shirtless in public, there is no law against women being shirtless in public. of course, there is quite a difference. but then again, there is no way to discriminate.

[revprez]

Gee' date=' this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before...oh yeah, here:

[i']"If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either."

--Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, in defense of anti-miscegenation laws.[/i]

 

Same sex marriage involves an entirely different set of circumstances than miscegenation. You can re-work the above quote to claim discrimination against polygamy (association), pedophilia (age discrimination), and bestiality (animal rights).

 

Rev Prez

[Sayonara]

Same sex marriage involves an entirely different set of circumstances than miscegenation. You can re-work the above quote to claim discrimination against polygamy (association), pedophilia (age discrimination), and bestiality (animal rights).

The circumstances may well be different, but I think AL's point was along the lines of "one rule for some and another rule for others" is, by definition, discriminatory.

 

How would you go about re-wording that quote for bestiality?

[revprez]

The circumstances may well be different, but I think AL's point was along the lines of "one rule for some and another rule for others" is, by definition, discriminatory.

 

Yes, it is discriminatory in the (irrelevant) broader sense that it involves "recogniz[ing] or perceiv[ing] the difference." Of course, that renders the context meaningless. A more appropriate definition--the "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice"--preserve the proper connotation conveyed in Trumbull's remarks.

 

How would you go about re-wording that quote for bestiality?

 

"If a male or female human being is denied the right to marry a male or female animal, [and] a male or female animal is equally denied the right to marry a male or female human being[,] I see no discrimination against either."

 

This assertion is sound enough to most people. However, indefensibly invoking a shallow case of special pleading leads us to question deep principles delineating proper and inappropriate relationships (i.e., consent).

 

Rev Prez