Politics and Religion

[Steve]

I've been pretty much following Santorum's campaign since January, not because I'm interested in his ideas, but pretty much because I can't believe how someone like him could run as potential candidate. First of all, I'm agnostic, so that means I don't really care about religious vs non-religious debates, but when it comes to something as important as the presidential election, I wonder why the church hasn't been completely separated from the state , even when some politicians claim this has been reviewed so many times, with the BS we hear everyday, I really do beg to differ.

So basically, should people base their votes solely because of faith?, apparently, many do. I recently compared Santorum's resume against Romney's. Romney's ideas come from "apparently" years of experience as a businessman, while Santorum claims America is being targeted by Satan and that he will do something about it, this is not exaggerated, at all, nop. He also claims Obama has been misguided and has lot his faith. Sure thing, Santorum is not on the lead, but hell, if you are a Candidate, then that means you have something innovative to offer, right?

Santorum is catholic while Romney is a Mormon. On recent polls, Santorum won on Alabama and Mississippi by a clear margin, but when some conservatives were asked why he won, they simply said "we don't consider Mormonism as a religion, so we can't trust a person that follows a cult"

I don't know if you guys have seem some of his ideas, and I could pretty much open 5 new topics for discussion (seriously, this board has been dead for a while), but to make the list short, here's what I mostly consider BS:

*He wants to make contraception illegal, because you know, women like to have tons of children, he also made a public comment saying "women should have a lot of children". To the same point, he made a big fuss about how contraception should be banned from health care plans.

*He wants to ban same sex marriage, because it goes against the bible.

*He wants America to be Pro-life. As we know, usually, abortions in the States come from Genetically disorders that doctors find out, mostly, in early states of pregnancy. On most of the gruesome cases, the parents still have a choice, he wants to take that choice away. He also claims that rape victims should stay Pro-life.

And while I don't want to make this topic about Santorum, that's the only clear, present example I have about "Politics vs Religion", I personally believe that a presidential candidate should have a solid resume, a person that would know how to run the country, instead of a religious zealot. Vote should be based on ideas, not about "who goes more times to church" or "who's more into the bible". After all, the constitution should always go before straightforward religious views, right?

[CrypticQuery]

There's...there's no way this could affect the United States negatively at all! [/sarcasm]

I can't believe that this nut job was allowed the chance to even RUN for office, let alone the fact that he made it this far. Let's take a look at his views;

1) Contraception - Evidently Santorum hasn't been paying attention to how overpopulated the world is already, how stupid people can be, and the state of the economy. Families cannot prosper like this, and contraception plays an invaluable role in keeping things in order.

2) Same-Sex Marraige - Today he wants to ban same-sex marraige, tomorrow it will be interracial marraige. This is absolutely ridiculous, just like the ways in which his views are twisted.

3) Abortion - The pro life view takes numerous things for granted. If the child has a debilitating disability, wouldn't it be better to not bring the child into a world of prejudice and bullying in the first place? Do the parents have enough money or are they responsible enough to have a kid? Is the person a victim of rape? The fact that he shows no compassion toward rape victims is appalling IMO.

And I agree with your last point; beliefs and government should stay completely separate in a country that allows religious freedom to all.

[Thu'um]

well guys i'd like to say i am pro life and not the biggest support of gay marrige

i am also a catholic......

But even i understand that alot of what santorum thinks is a little, crazy...

i do agree with speration of church and state, but religous views will always influence presidents.

but i would be pro life and ant homosexual marrigage with out religous views, not to mention does being religous and having the views make me some kind of zealot?

the highest percentage of abortions are due to "lack" of responsablilty and not enough money; however, i just don't belive these reasons to be signifgant enought ot even start to consider abortion and to terminate a child. Puting up a child for adoption is a much better choice and IMO always better then abortion. There is no shortage of faimlys willing to adopt right now.

To straigten a few things up: the constitution does come before religous views but alows these views to be carried into office, Now i am not pro santorum i am a big conservative though

[Steve]

the highest percentage of abortions are due to "lack" of responsablilty and not enough money; however, i just don't belive these reasons to be signifgant enought ot even start to consider abortion and to terminate a child. Puting up a child for adoption is a much better choice and IMO always better then abortion. There is no shortage of faimlys willing to adopt right now.

I debated on how to approach that in my post, which is why I just underlined the word "usually". Yeah, I wanted to focus on the "pregnancy with responsibility", not the random teenager pregnancies, that's a whole different topic. My point is, anyone, as parents, should have the option to terminate a pregnancy if there's a genetic disorder that will only cause a premature and painful death to a child/baby. There's nothing definite though, but I do believe the choice should be left open.

I "was" raised to be Catholic. My point is not to bash the Bible, the Bible has a lot of moral codes that should be followed, but there's also a lot of stuff that has been overused by people with power to control the masses, that's where I believe religion should step away from politics.

[DZComposer]

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.) Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

Jan.1.1802.

Emphasis mine.

You cannot claim to have religious freedom when you force the ideas of one religion down the throats of others, even if said religion is the most popular.

but i would be... ant homosexual marrigage with out religous views

I am curious as to what non-religious arguments there are for this position. Every argument I have heard boils down to either religion or fear/distrust of those who are different different, even the ones that seem secular on the surface.

religous views will always influence presidents.

While this is sadly true, it should not. It is quite clear:

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

US Constitution, Article VI

[Thu'um]

Emphasis mine.

You cannot claim to have religious freedom when you force the ideas of one religion down the throats of others, even if said religion is the most popular.

I am curious as to what non-religious arguments there are for this position. Every argument I have heard boils down to either religion or fear/distrust of those who are different different, even the ones that seem secular on the surface.

While this is sadly true, it should not. It is quite clear:

i agree with jefferson completely, religous views should not forced upon on another, but what if your moral views and religous view run parralel, as abortion does for me. I belive that abortion is wrong, not only as a catholic but as a person. If i went into office with one such view i don't think to pass a bill illegalizing abortion would be to force my religon on another.

As for homosexual marriage, part of me belives that it shouldn't be legal, another belives it should. Part of me beives its unatrual, and morally in correct, but i belive we all also need to be able to pursue happyness. And if a law stops homosexual individuals from doing such, is it wrong? But there are things that are morraly incorrect ( forgive me for saying) such as Beastiality -_- . These things are considered morally wrong but they could in ( what i hope to be a very small amount of instances) prevent the pursiut of happyness.

I am not really argueing a point here so much as reflecting some ideas i am pretty young and don't have complete political views yet.

"While this is sadly true, it should not. It is quite clear:" could you rephrase that, i could make it out.

"if there's a genetic disorder that will only cause a premature and painful death to a child/baby" - always has been a major concern of mine with illegalizing abortion

but there are many disorders in which people live to be as old as an individual with out a disorder, many even though not enjoying the fullest of life still are better of living what we may consider to be half a life, then no life at all. But what about these kids who will die soon after birth or in thier first years of life. I can't give you an answer steve the only thing i can say is ask these children them selves, but you'd have to wait for them to be born to. but i find think its better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all.

[CrypticQuery]

but i find think its better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one, and I'd specifically cite pets as an example. If you've ever suffered the loss of a cherished pet, it can be quite detrimental to your daily life and routine, not to mention your emotions. It is much easier to have never had the chance to love; your life will go on unchanged.

On the subject of whether abortion is ethical or not, I'm going to agree with Steve; a child that has a disability will always live life at a disadvantage, regardless of what many people will lead you to believe. They usually cannot achieve the same things as others do, nor do they have the same opportunities. Also, if the prospective parents are poor and/or irresponsible, abortion should be an option. There may be no shortage of adoptive families, but waiting lists are long, younger children are more likely to be adopted out, and one's mental stability could come into question during these times. This doesn't begin to mention overcrowding problems in facilities and general overpopulation of areas.

Also, if gay marraige was as unatural as many make it out to be, why do homosexual activities occur in wildlife all the time? If you don't want to have a gay marraige, don't have one. Until you stop taking the rights of others away, they won't stop taking your rights away either.

__

To relate back to the topic, however; religion and politics should not be synonymous under any circumstances in which a country allows its citizens to practice their own religions freely, or not practice at all. While it could be argued that I am biased as an atheist, this does not excuse the fact that the leader of a country with a multitude of beliefs and religions [or a lack thereof] should not be swayed by his own personal religious beliefs.

[Thu'um]

I'm going to have to disagree on this one, and I'd specifically cite pets as an example. If you've ever suffered the loss of a cherished pet, it can be quite detrimental to your daily life and routine, not to mention your emotions. It is much easier to have never had the chance to love; your life will go on unchanged.

On the subject of whether abortion is ethical or not, I'm going to agree with Steve; a child that has a disability will always live life at a disadvantage, regardless of what many people will lead you to believe. They usually cannot achieve the same things as others do, nor do they have the same opportunities. Also, if the prospective parents are poor and/or irresponsible, abortion should be an option. There may be no shortage of adoptive families, but waiting lists are long, younger children are more likely to be adopted out, and one's mental stability could come into question during these times. This doesn't begin to mention overcrowding problems in facilities and general overpopulation of areas.

Also, if gay marraige was as unatural as many make it out to be, why do homosexual activities occur in wildlife all the time? If you don't want to have a gay marraige, don't have one. Until you stop taking the rights of others away, they won't stop taking your rights away either.

__

To relate back to the topic, however; religion and politics should not be synonymous under any circumstances in which a country allows its citizens to practice their own religions freely, or not practice at all. While it could be argued that I am biased as an atheist, this does not excuse the fact that the leader of a country with a multitude of beliefs and religions [or a lack thereof] should not be swayed by his own personal religious beliefs.

i can't really argue with alot of that abortion reall comes down to ones value on life *shrugs*

as for homsexuality, species with that have to sexes are deisgned onyl to mate with the OTHER sex. homosexual activivty does occur in the wild...But not in the way we might think. all of the species who actively have homosexual realtionships have reasons and not natrual instinct. Cnemidophorus is a lizard in which femals often role play with other femals to trriger pregnancy but this is only due to an extinction of males. flour beetles flour beetles often particpate in so behavior to rid them selves of difficiant sperm.

"this does not excuse the fact that the leader of a country with a multitude of beliefs and religions [or a lack thereof] should not be swayed by his own personal religious beliefs. "

i agree and disagree, Many of my religous views are my personal views on polotical matters aswell, should this prohibiate the passing of certian bills that wouldn't infringe on other religous views? and to belive that relgious views shouldn't have an influence on polotical views is to also asume that cultural, ethinic, age, gender, class, and sexual preffrence specific views shouldn't influence our oppions on such matters either, yet the vary foundations of our political views come form these sources. I honostly do not see a man who is highly religous going into office with his morals derived from his religon a problem intill he begins to violate the constition.

[Drasiana]

as for homsexuality, species with that have to sexes are deisgned onyl to mate with the OTHER sex.

Hahaha, NO.

Look up the bonobo, penguins, giraffes, dolphins and porpoises, goats...so on and so forth. Homosexuality and bisexuality isn't only normal, but frequent in thousands of species. Giraffes have more gay sex than straight sex. If you're saying that homosexuality is "wrong" because it doesn't produce a baby, you're completely ignoring the definitive traits of everything that comprises human relationships, primarily being emotional attraction. Do you seriously look at a girl you like and think "man, I really hope we can reproduce"? You're approaching homosexuality as if it were primarily based in base sexual attraction, which it is most definitely not.

Now, that aside, Rick Santorum is a fucking lunatic, and I don't say that lightly.

The man hates women. He has blamed "radical feminism" for the decline of society. What has he defined as "radical feminism", you ask? Women having jobs. His idea is that the world would be a better place if all women were stay-at-home mothers and nothing more. It's a "get back in the kitchen" joke until you realize he isn't joking and there exist people that actually have a mentality this archaic.

The whole birth control debacle is a topic in itself, and the original reason I asked to repeal the ban on abortion topics here, I just didn't get around to ever posting it. But the fact that this is still a debate blows my mind. They put the responsibility on women, say that the only women that want birth control are whores, while ignoring the fact that a) men use birth control, dumbfucks and b) guess what's covered in their healthcare? Viagra. "But Viagra has other medical uses!" you say, eh? Well guess what? So does birth control. And a woman on the pill could be having monogamous boring sex with her husband once a week. The amount of sex you have has nothing to do with having the pill, because it's a set dosage that covers everything, and many women use it to regulate medical problems.

Santorum has stated open disgust with the fact that the church is meant to be seperate from the state. He's a close-minded bigot and doesn't deserve an ounce of power. When a man's focus is more on getting women back in the kitchen and pumping out babies, rather than creating jobs or other kind of important things, the red flags should be obvious.

edit: Oh, and don't let me forget, the guy who is openly opposed to denying women birth control is the same one that said rape is a blessing if it results in a pregnancy. So, yeah. Fuck him.

[Xortberg]

The man hates women. He has blamed "radical feminism" for the decline of society. What has he defined as "radical feminism", you ask? Women having jobs. His idea is that the world would be a better place if all women were stay-at-home mothers and nothing more. It's a "get back in the kitchen" joke until you realize he isn't joking and there exist people that actually have a mentality this archaic.

[Harlow]

Politics and Religion don't mix. Look at Iran and Uganda for example. Very few states can pull off a joint of religion and politics (look Denmark and Norway)

Other interesting cases:

Rabbi Yosef from Israel, a parliament member, compares the non-Jewish with donkeys, and like good donkeys, we must follow Jewish people's orders

Rabbi Ginzburg (I think also a political personality) states that it's OK to murder a non-jew and take his organs of another jew needs them

Iranian president claiming there were no gay people in Iran (comparable to saying "there aren't any flies in my country")

No state it's 100% of one religion, so it's stupid to mix ruling with beliefs. It's also a cheap trick. President Chavez recently went to a religious site here in Venezuela, with the praise of lots. The same man who was directly attacking the Christian priests some months ago. (BTW, A pro-goverment television netweork recently accused the opposition member of being a... wait for it... "NEO-NAZI JEW")

Sure, homosexuality would be a technical liability to reproduction, but so is adoption, and that isn't looked badly...

BTW, even though I'm still debating over gay marraige, I keep finding good arguements like this one: "Just because a couple's gay doesn't mean they can't enjoy an emotional, financially unstable divorce..."

Also, compare development and overall place in the world of countries where gays can marry (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, South Africa, Canada), and where intolerance it's encouraged while preaching their countries rock (Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela)

So, I'd prefer the Mormon (who said he'll bombard Venezuela) over a Christian fanatic everyday.

BTW Dras, here's more: Bolivia's president said that if men get their women pregnant, they should leave her and go into the army to get rid of that burden. THEN we're asking why we are the Third World

[Drasiana]

Sure, homosexuality would be a technical liability to reproduction, but so is adoption, and that isn't looked badly...

That and we don't need any more babies. The guys so openly opposed to gay marriage are the same ones dealing with the fact that there are not enough jobs in the United States.

...and, uh, gay people can still reproduce, so...

[Faisul]

I can't speak exhaustively on this, because I am not a US citizen and have fairly limited knowledge of its politics beyond the basics. I am somewhat familiar with the issues it is currently facing, however, and this includes some smatterings of the lunacy of the Republican party. I really have no other words to describe it other than lunacy; while the Democrats have their problems, it's the Republicans that stand out as the worst bunch to me. And pointing to what Dras brought up in the above post, if a person such as this was an actual running candidate in any form of election in my country, no matter how conservative the party, he'd be booed out and pelted with rotten vegetables. Seriously. While I recognize I'm biased towards a leftist government, and that much of what I'm about to say may be plain wrong, my opinions do represent those of a large group of people here who are genuinely worried about the state of the US GOP and some of the messages the Republicans are sending its constituency.

Considering that the obstacles facing social advancement in the US is getting increasingly worse, more and more people are going to be left without a job or the education to get one that pays beyond the bare minimum required to sustain a functional standard of living. It's the people like these who stand out to me as the ones the Republicans are gunning for - they don't get to travel much, largely keep to their own communities, and are often deeply religious. While this in itself isn't a problem, and may be an unfair generalisation, it's these kinds of environments that breeds prejudice, bigotry, misconceptions about the boundaries between church and state, and how much influence the one should have on the other.

When a political party actively preys on and reinforces these beliefs, that's when you get the situation that's been developing over the past few years. The Republicans seem to love the ignorant and the fearful, since they are so easily manipulated. Eventually you get what is essentially scattered communities of echo-chambers where the only thing actively discussed is that taxes are evil, abortion is murder, that homosexuals aren't human, women are vessels for a man's seed and nothing else, and similar guff. They're playing off the lack of general understanding a lot of these people have, saying what they like to hear, and helping to reinforce these attitudes. It's disgusting.

Now that I've voiced my opinion on the Republican party - note that I'm ragging on the politicians only, as their voters at this point pretty much cannot help themselves, they have my sympathy, I should get on topic here.

Personal opinion, total utopianism but there you go: The church and the state must be clearly separated to ensure the proper functioning of a democracy. Demagogery and appeals to a higher power than the earthly in matters of governance must not be allowed to occur. While everyone is free to pursue their own particular faith or belief system, I believe it is amoral to allow one's own spiritual convictions to interfere with the running of a state. This is because religion, while accounting for social norms and dealing with what is right and what is wrong, carries so much baggage that, if it is allowed to take a hold on the legislative process of a nation, there will be no end to social injustice.

In practicality, religion influences politics because for many religion is such an integral part of their world view that anything else is unimaginable. Of course you would vote for a Christian candidate if you were a Christian, since he is much more likely to share your beliefs on what is right and wrong, and is more likely to attempt to enforce a moral code you are familiar and comfortable with on society. This is true for every country, everywhere. The problem is that there are so many clearly amoral practices being reinforced by this religious belief that religious contamination of politics is seemingly irresistible. At this point I may sound like I'm just parroting Dawkins like a brainless, militant atheist, but I want to make it clear if I already haven't that I am perfectly comfortable with people being religious, and the religions themselves. Except where literalists begin to enforce medieval, monoreligious practices on a heterogeneous population.

Because what else could you call it? Outright condemnation of the last 50 years of struggles relating to gender equality, the denounciation of sexual orientations straying from those that are conducive to childbirth, and then demonizing birth control - not simply saying 'well, this is how a condom works, but please try to get kids' - but saying that birth control is wrong, and that one should just not have sex at all before marriage. Without actually teaching anyone what sex entails or the risks included out of fear that the mere knowledge of the workings of sex will reduce the young population to one huge orgiastic clusterfuck. It's medieval. It's dangerous. It leads to kids having unprotected sex in risky ways that can, and has, resulted in the transmission of otherwise avoidable diseases for absolutely no good reason other than clinging on to fossilized moral truths that has no bearing on the realities of modern society.

Now I know that some of you are likely to be thinking 'hold on, this guy is making a huge amount of wild assumptions and accusations without backing them up or even allowing for an opposing opinion' by now, and that is true - because I see the above as a fundamental breach of the very principles of democracy, as fundamentally wrong as dismantling the separation of powers, the single most crucial system to help avoid a society becoming an autocracy. It helps uphold a paradigm that actively prevents its population from seeking knowledge, encourages fear and ignorance, and complete, blind faith to a ruling body, be it either in Heaven or in the White House. It is the worst crime I can concieve being committed against a nation, and that is what I see the Republicans going for.

I think Republicans actively dislike democracy.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. Politics influences religion, as well. Hot-button issues are often engineered to spark religiously motivated convictions in people. It's just a bait-and-switch act to divert attention from far more damning societal issues.

EDIT II: my words are not coming out right I think I may have had an aneurysm send help

[Drasiana]

Now guys, this is why you accept Faisul as your lord and saviour.

[jesseboyd7]

Hey guys, been a while since I posted. I do agree with you guys that church and the state should also be separated as well. What happens if Islam embedded with the state like England (for example)? Christians wouldn't have anymore rights to practice their beliefs in God anymore in public. So, the government should allow other religions to practice their beliefs as well. This allows competition to thrive, and allowing people to choose what is the real and true meaning of life in their own religions. If Islam of the Qua'ran doesn't work and does not solves the answers the meaning of life could it be that the Bible of Christianity is true? I leave that there.

I myself am Christian and a few years ago I was far right Conservative when it came to politics. I thought that the state had to regulate moral standards all the time. Until a particular friend whom was also Christian asked should the state decide on moral decisions? He was libertarian. That throw off my thinking and were confused. Later on I'd agreed with him and also restudied the U.S constitution. And listened to other talk radio shows online that made more sense. Not anywhere I could find the State regulating moral decisions (except the alcohol one, then repelled). Now I'm pretty much have

Libertarian philosophies (with a little bit of Conservative values) to this day and still Christian.

For those who live in the U.S and would like to vote for a candidate that follows the example of separation of church and state would be Ron Paul. The only thing that he would do with a little bit of conservatism is protecting the life of the unborn. Life of the unborn should have civil rights to live as well, I'll end my point there. Hehe and Santorum endorses Ron Paul :3

[Drasiana]

If Islam of the Qua'ran doesn't work and does not solves the answers the meaning of life could it be that the Bible of Christianity is true? I leave that there.

If the Bible of Christianity does not solves the answers the meaning of life could it be that religion is a subjective experience that should never be thrust upon anyone as being objectively true? I leave that there.

And, uh, just so you know? Santorum wants the church to be wholly involved in the state. That's kind of a direct contradiction of Ron Paul's whole thing. Supporting Santorum because he "endorses" Paul is insane because their ideologies are so conflicting.

[Faisul]

There's just too much of a focus on the 'opposing natures' of Islam and Christianity anyway. The fact that a rather harsh interpretation of Islam has (and still is) dictated legislation in certain countries, doesn't make the religion in itself less or more shitty than Christianity when it comes to being jumbled up in how the state is run. I can't think of a more subjective thing than religion anyway. If a Protestant, Lutheran majority was allowed to run the country, and used their religion to determine policy, what about the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Baptists, the Mormons, the Anglicanists, the Methodists, the Adventists, and the Pentecostal folks? Would they be given special treatment over people of more differing religious convictions than the Protestants, or would they too be harshly treated for not conforming to the state denomination?

[DZComposer]

The problem with morality is that morality is not absolute. There is no such thing as objective moral truth. You will find different concepts of morality in different cultures, and even within different groups of said cultures, and even more micro, some individuals within said groups.

This makes things difficult within the US, which has many ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse groups within it. Each of these groups have their own moral views.

Because of this, we need to be careful when making out laws. Basing them off of the morality of one group in a way that negatively impacts another group is going to create conflict.

i agree with jefferson completely, religous views should not forced upon on another, but what if your moral views and religous view run parralel, as abortion does for me. I belive that abortion is wrong, not only as a catholic but as a person. If i went into office with one such view i don't think to pass a bill illegalizing abortion would be to force my religon on another.

Except that it does. The vast majority of anti-choice (I do not say "pro-life," as many of them support war, and I don't say anti-abortion, because there are plenty of pro-chocie people, myself included, who have very uneasy feelings about it, but we recognize that those are our feelings and that the government has no business making the choice for people) activists have a religious component to their reasoning. They feel life begins at conception, and the basis for that argument is usually biblical.

What makes the issue complex is science does not yet agree on where a new life begins, as-in what constitutes it. Cell Unification (conception)? Separate Biological processes? A beating heart? Consciousness?

Also, what about the impact on the mother's life? Sometimes having a child at a certain time can be detrimental to future goals and ambition. It's expensive to have a baby, even if you give the child up for adoption you have the medical costs associated with the pregnancy and delivery.

As for homosexual marriage, part of me belives that it shouldn't be legal, another belives it should. Part of me beives its unatrual, and morally in correct, but i belive we all also need to be able to pursue happyness. And if a law stops homosexual individuals from doing such, is it wrong? But there are things that are morraly incorrect ( forgive me for saying) such as Beastiality -_- . These things are considered morally wrong but they could in ( what i hope to be a very small amount of instances) prevent the pursiut of happyness.

See my earlier statements about morality.

Also, remember that the government grants special privileges to married couples. In our society, we tend to favor marriage based on personal love than based on parental or governmental arrangement. I won't go into the natural science of homosexuality, as it has already been mentioned, but the point is that gays don't want to get married to have more sex. You don't need marriage for that, gay or straight. They want a real relationship. This usually leads to monogamy, which is a far cry from the promiscuity that the right wing feels will come from it. If a straight person can get rights by marrying their love, so should gay people. It's a matter of simple fairness, and it is codified in the constitution (Amendment 14): "No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I am not really argueing a point here so much as reflecting some ideas i am pretty young and don't have complete political views yet.

Open your mind. Read. Think critically. Form your own opinions. Especially: separate your religious views from your political ones.

"While this is sadly true, it should not. It is quite clear:" could you rephrase that, i could make it out.

I was trying to point out that the constitution says that religion should not be playing a role in presidential politics, despite the fact that it unfortunately does. Some people wrongly think that Obama is a Muslim. Even if that was true (which it isn't), why does it matter? Why does it matter that Mitt Romney is a Mormon? Or that JFK was Catholic? Or a hypothetical atheist candidate?

"if there's a genetic disorder that will only cause a premature and painful death to a child/baby" - always has been a major concern of mine with illegalizing abortion

but there are many disorders in which people live to be as old as an individual with out a disorder, many even though not enjoying the fullest of life still are better of living what we may consider to be half a life, then no life at all. But what about these kids who will die soon after birth or in thier first years of life. I can't give you an answer steve the only thing i can say is ask these children them selves, but you'd have to wait for them to be born to. but i find think its better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all.

This would fall under the purview of your conundrums of Philosophy:

Remove abortion from the equation for a second, and focus on the central question: Is it better to have lived and only known suffering than it is to have never lived?

Like most philosophical questions, there is no "right" answer. It all depends on what you value more: Quality of Life or Life Itself. But, I find the arguments for Quality of Life being more important vastly more compelling, based on personal experience. I watched my grandfather rot in a nursing home. He suffered GREATLY. He eventually refused to eat, IE starved himself, so that he wouldn't have to suffer anymore. STARVED HIMSELF. A fucking awful way to die. I cannot even imagine what pain he must have been in. Fuck everything about that. I'll take a heart-attack 10 years earlier, thank you.

[unoservix]

Christians wouldn't have anymore rights to practice their beliefs in God anymore in public. So, the government should allow other religions to practice their beliefs as well. This allows competition to thrive, and allowing people to choose what is the real and true meaning of life in their own religions. If Islam of the Qua'ran doesn't work and does not solves the answers the meaning of life could it be that the Bible of Christianity is true? I leave that there.

i would just like to point out that this would be hilariously catastrophically detrimental to each and every religion forced to compete on the marketplace for believers. religions must necessarily posit themselves as containing the one objective incontrivertible truth. you can't put truth up on the market, and if you do, you are thereby admitting that your religion does not have the one objective incontrivertible truth, otherwise it would not be up to the market to determine which one does possess such truth.

if Christianity (or any other faith you so choose to substitute) went on the marketplace to compete for believers, it would cease to be a religion and would instead become fundamentally indistinguishable from the Greek fraternities on college campuses that try to convince stupid freshmen to pledge. God is necessarily above the petty machinations of the market.

seriously. "competition is good for religions." it boggles the mind.

[Drasiana]

I thought "religious competition" usually ended in, you know, bloody wars.

Co-existing and competition are not synonymous.

[The Green Fox]

I find that the far religious right and the far secular left are both quite insane. The far religious right wants to outlaw sex unless it's for procreation, and the far left wants us to be able to marry inanimate objects. An exaggeration of course, although objectphillia really does exist, and a woman once married the Eiffel Tower. (Look it up!)

For anyone wanting to know how ridiculous the far religious right is, listen to this prank caller (I think) JC webster guy on Coast to Coast AM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKOStoq3CZk

Anyway, I'm borderline athiest, and I view the whole "God" thing as an excuse made by us humans to be lazy and not get our crap together, hoping some "God" will save us all. I think we're the most powerful beings (on this planet anyway, I believe aliens exist call me crazy) and that we have been neglecting our minds, that our own minds are much more amazing than we think. Dogmas and belief systems put us in boxes, and make us unable to expand.

[Drasiana]

Yes, because the inanimate object marriage movement is definitely gaining steam :rolleyes:

[The Green Fox]

I was joking, truth is I'm mostly liberal on these kinds of issues, but I wanted to be fair and satisfy both parties so I threw in a joke about inanimate object marriage (which actually has happened, however).

Lol.

I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want to.

The whole "If everyone was gay we'd all die out" argument doesn't hold up, because you can counter it with "And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"

Lol.

[Harlow]

Conclusion: Let's all move to Canada. Dras will host the welcoming party. :troll:

[ballisticwaffles]

So to sum up, Religion is bad, mkay. and the fact that our presidents arent Athiests mean they are idiots.