Am I against the Constitution and it's founding fathers if I don't think that gay marriage should be legal?

Posted by: SongHaGin

See, I don't belive in homosexuality, I shun the very act of it. But it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the laws of the USA. And It doesn't mean i am a Homophobe. ><

Vote
22 Total Votes
1

No, You just live by the bible and Shun homosexuality.

16 votes
6 comments
2

Yes, You're against everything if you don't Believe in gay marriage.

6 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-13T19:42:55.3720522Z
Of course not. As a matter of fact, there was a time in our history when slavery was actually allowed according to the constitution of the United States, and yet, the President himself, namely Abraham Lincoln, was opposed to slavery. Did this make him a lawbreaker? HARDLY!!!
Sciguy says2015-10-13T19:46:26.1715033Z
How true @OneNationUnderGod you may have an opinion and you are not a lawbreaker, should you have an opinion that harms a man physically and breaks the law then you are the lawbreaker. This does not apply here.
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T19:46:56.8802965Z
@OneNationUnderGod, Thank you so much. I was beginning to panic, but It just turns out the guy who said that was just a little twerp ^.^ Plus gay marriage wasn't originally in the constitution, it's relatively new!
Sciguy says2015-10-13T19:48:58.5314359Z
That is due to the fact @SongHaGin that back then it was not required that you got married. It is just a thin paper dictating who you are living your life with, it has no meaning!
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T19:49:54.9615649Z
You guys are Cool Give me a Hug \(^.^)/
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T19:50:34.5239113Z
Right!
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-13T20:05:38.8883146Z
Its funny really that the entire narrative would shift over to "respect the law" now, considering its coming from all those people who wholly disrespected the law previously when it was illegal. Fleeing off to foreign countries just to get married, or to bordering states. No different than going to Mexico to do drugs, because you cant do them back home in your state. Granted something may be legal there, or easier to get away with, but its still a total disrespect to the law to run around and do those things just outside of its jurisdiction and then come back to it afterwards.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T20:06:47.5731940Z
If you have non-religious reasons for being against gay marriage, that's fine. The problem comes when you want to outlaw something purely due to the Bible, that's violating church state seperation.
Sciguy says2015-10-13T20:08:39.7861519Z
As long as there are exams there will be prayer in school.
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T20:11:02.3064414Z
I'm not even going to get into with you. I don't even know why you commented, triangle.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T20:13:00.2104856Z
You're ignoring literally everything I say.
Sciguy says2015-10-13T20:13:20.4511492Z
*looks at the ad below, attempting to cool the inevitable flame war* Oooh, Paypal! It keeps gamers' happy.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T20:14:43.9127542Z
I never said being against gay marriage is constitutional. What I said was opposing it purely based on the Bible is violating church state seperation.
Sciguy says2015-10-13T20:15:22.3206928Z
I agree with you @triangle. 128k and I did not overlook your opinion. I just found it to be an appropriate time for my small joke.
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T20:15:55.8145369Z
Really, the bible violates the law? Is that what you're saying?
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T20:16:38.7826845Z
I'm ignoring you because now is not the time to be stressed ><
Sciguy says2015-10-13T20:18:14.0331949Z
No, @SongHaGin he is trying to say do not allow your opinions to come purely from the bible and act as if you are a fundamentalist but rather base your opinions on life itself and what YOU as a PERSON think is right and or wrong.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T20:19:00.6156907Z
The bible doesn't violate law, it just has no relevancy to US law. Do you know what church state seperation is?
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T20:20:07.7745448Z
Thanks for calling my poll stupid. Just, Please, stop talking to me. Please. I don't want to talk to you anymore.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T20:22:50.7321002Z
You refuse to reason, rather you're finding ways to dodge all my arguments. You completely misinterpreted what I said and made a poll out of your misinterpretation.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-13T20:23:56.2360803Z
But by saying the bible isnt a viable source to use to derive personal beliefs from is just as wrong. Its as much a personal choice to derive your morals from the illogical as it is theirs. Youre not going to defend personal freedom and choice while bashing it ... Thats just not going to work at all.
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T20:24:44.0979741Z
What part of I don't want to talk to you don't you understand? You're the one who misinterpreted. I can't even reason with you. Goodbye.
Sciguy says2015-10-13T20:25:05.7506353Z
You both are misunderstanding what you have, "discussed" so do please just quite your rather petty argument.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-13T20:25:33.7378559Z
Its all relevant. As relevant as talking with you is about what I ought to be thinking. Its all the same.
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T20:26:13.6424001Z
Everyone, stop...
Sciguy says2015-10-13T20:27:41.6969113Z
What a shame. We have all fallen to the IQ level of a child on this poll.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-13T20:27:49.5359854Z
That was meant for triangle ... Not you SongHaGin.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T20:55:46.0301017Z
@FBE I never said there was anything wrong with deriving personal beliefs from the bible. The thing is, your personal religious beliefs can't effect the legal decisions you make if you're a politician. That's how church-state separation works.
Vox_Veritas says2015-10-13T21:10:10.8015316Z
This poll is kind of pointless.
TBR says2015-10-13T21:10:19.1094426Z
The question itself seems odd to me. I sure can't vote given the descriptions given.
SongHaGin says2015-10-13T21:16:48.3123477Z
Whatever, guys.
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-14T02:13:40.1987546Z
Actually, "Separation of Church and State" is not a constitutional law. The words "separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the constitution. In fact, I'm not sure it is a law of any kind at all.... More of a political theory initiated by Thomas Jefferson, but not a law for the intent and purpose that people are not allowed to base their opinions on the Bible. On the contrary. People are guaranteed freedoms in this country to base their opinions completely on the Bible if they should want to! That's part of what the definition of freedom is. The first amendment states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof...." In other words, the government SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION." That's the first amendment! So - if my free exercise of religion means that I believe I should form all of my opinions, legal or otherwise, based upon the bible, IT IS MY LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO, as well as anyone elses.
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-14T02:17:07.6203434Z
....And by the way - Politians in this country are also guaranteed first amendment rights, since they are also American Citizens! It is up to the people whether or not they shall elect said politician or not!
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T02:31:40.8315356Z
So you want America to become a Christian theocracy and brutally suppress the religious freedom of non-Christians?
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T02:35:02.6526167Z
Basing politics purely off the Bible is promoting the establishment of a religion and prohibiting free exercise. You're simply forcing non-Christians to follow biblical laws they don't believe in. That's the whole idea of theocracy.
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-14T02:51:09.0839590Z
I get where you are coming from Triangle, but be realistic. Have you ever been forced or coerced into being a Christian or to follow the teachings of Christ in your lifetime by your government? Ever? If so, please provide a realistic and practical example of how this has happened in your life. I'd be curious to know about it. Freedom of religion is meant to persist in this country. Although many of the founders of this nation used language consistent with a belief in God constantly within the important documents establishing this country, then were also at the very same time genuinely concerned about preventing a theocracy. That is much of the reason why America was born. Our founders wanted freedom from oppression and tyranny, on either side of the argument. It just so happened that many of the founders held Christian beliefs, or Diest beliefs, or some type of belief in God and they did not want anyone to be prevented from worshipping God as they freely chose to do so. This is something that is meant to work both ways. For those who choose to profess Christ and follow him, and base their whole life on that belief, whether it is how they vote, how they govern, how they live or whatever - they should be free to do so according to the founders. For those who want nothing to do with it, the same freedom holds true. I tend to be a moderate thinker in many respects, and I think that many of our problems with debate is that people fail to see that our constitution was designed for freedom for all Americans.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-14T13:01:14.7425767Z
But yours do? Your beliefs on the matter arent any more substantial than theirs based on religion are, religious or not. I think maybe the only element that would violate separation of church and state is the first 4 commandments, as they pertain only toward forcing those people to revere him in particular. As far as legal aspects go, with the 'dont murder', 'dont covet', 'dont bear false witness', etc ... Those beliefs arent automatically discredited because the religion backs them. And quite honestly, you get no freedom of religion if the religion you choose is one that contradicts some of those most common-sensical type things. I have no problem with people who follow the bible being able to make moral calls that are in alignment with the American way. There are a ton of more damaging ideals out there, born from non-religious or non-christian bases, that you should be worried about before these guys.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-14T13:06:08.9174338Z
I dont get people both discrediting the validity of the bible in a political sense -and- trying to discredit it for being written by humans and not god. If a human wrote it and its being followed in the manner that we do (3 Billion strong), that certainly says something about its validity as a governing idea/document. Its in everyway as valid as the legal code judges are writing up everyday, or any other historical document that people back.
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-14T15:26:49.3162708Z
I tend to agree with you FreedomBeforeEquality, there is a bizarre tendency to discredit the Bible entirely even though there is a very strong influence from it on our way of life that is incredibly undeniable. I think that if I were an atheist, I would still be grateful for and even respectful toward the Biblical heritage here in the U.S., because without that heritage, one may not be allowed to be so openly atheistic. China for example only allows the atheistic viewpoint. Talk about oppression. Our culture, in it's pursuit of freedom, produces a strange irony. My father served in the Marine Corps, and he often mentioned the irony that existed in that he we freely sacrifice his own life for another's freedom to speak openly against this country that he loved so dearly. It doesn't get more ironic than that. Views about God by the founding fathers, seemed to cause them to recognize that even the Creator Himself has endowed us with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....... Which may ironically mean that pursuit leads people to choose against Him. Ironic.....And somwhat mysterious. Personally, I love it.
SongHaGin says2015-10-14T15:53:20.7683503Z
Wow, four people really do think I'm against everything! They're wrong. I was raised on the bible, not my choice. But now I understand the bible and what I've been taught, and I think this is wrong. I am this close to debating with the numb-skulls who think I'm against the USA, basically!
TBR says2015-10-14T17:51:22.5804760Z
@SongHaGin - No they don't. You created a poll with a false dichotomy. A push poll basically. Can't blame the voters for the poor option.
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T19:19:25.7306115Z
@OneNationUnderGod Besides a couple religious zealots here and there, no. That's a good thing that we have a sense of church-state separation here, otherwise I would be forced to legally follow biblical laws which I disbelieve in. It's true many of the founding fathers held Christian beliefs along with a few Deists here and there, but they still wanted church-state separation if you look at their work. If you base your political decisions off the Bible, that's OBVIOUSLY violating Church-state separation. Like free speech, there's exceptions to religious freedom when you want to use your "religious freedom" to oppress the religious freedom of minority beliefs. If politicians made decisions based on the Bible, wouldn't the US become a theocracy?
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T19:26:05.4800490Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality True, the last 6th commandments do have secular value to them. It's perfectly fine if someone were to make decisions which the Bible supports if they have a secular REASON to them. The problem comes in place when politicians want to make political decisions only based off religion, like what SongHaGin is promoting as she has no secular reasoning against SSM.
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T19:29:43.3638523Z
"because without that heritage, one may not be allowed to be so openly atheistic" I don't get what you mean, what does "biblical heritage" have to do with the ideals in the USA? Ideals of oppression and inequality was common in much of Europe during the 1700s, yet Europe was influenced by Christianity.
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T19:30:39.9883026Z
Also, you're wrong. China doesn't just allow the atheistic viewpoint, there's free practice of religion there for the most part.
UtherPenguin says2015-10-14T19:34:25.3034355Z
@triangle.128k BUTCHINAISCOMMUNISTSOKILACOMMIEFORCHRIST!'!11
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T19:36:06.5149962Z
Oh right I forgot, KILLACOMMIE4CHRIST
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-14T19:37:22.1484363Z
Well ones man's secular is another man's religion. Im telling you there is no difference in fit or function between the codes we write as a nation and the ones written in the bible. We are in everyway just as misrepresented in politics here as you feel you are from the bible and gods word. The ruse that because this is a democracy, that i am in some way still advocating the things that I lose outright in through vote, is just that, a ruse. In our hearts we still are going to find things wrong with what youre impressing on me ... What you call secular. And youre saying that no matter how much we might disagree with the alternative ... We cant turn to religion for the answers. Even if they are the right ones.
Sciguy says2015-10-14T19:38:09.7605519Z
#KillASocialest4Christ and #KillAAmerican4Christ and #ILOVECOMMUNISM
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-14T19:43:48.7550709Z
"We are in everyway just as misrepresented in politics here as you feel you are from the bible and gods word." In fact I take that back. We are less represented under democracy and secularism than the bible tries to provide. Religion plays to a very self centric style of motivating people, while at the same time applying that idea to literally everyone. There is nothing but hope conveyed in the bible. There is absolute certain loss conveyed in secularism.
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-14T20:43:35.6474418Z
@triangle.128k what keeps us from being a Theocracy is that we are a nation that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people", which means that this government must rule only within the consent of it's own people. The United States will never be a Theocracy because the founders established a representative form of government., not because of the concept of "separation of church and state". We have elections and have a representative form of government, and we have a diversity of people here which has a way of protecting against anything like a Theocracy. Government officials can indeed be led by their religious beliefs while in office, and while enacting laws, for as long as the people they represent allow it. I have yet to see where "separation of church and state" is written in our laws, and is not anything more than mere political theory that has been blown out of proportion in recent times. When someone who believes in God holds an elected office, they pretty much have to take their constituency into consideration because that is who elected them, and they also as people who consider themselves accountable to God consider their repsonsibility to Him as they seek to govern in a way that promotes justice. As for China, well, I suppose they may be more than atheistic because they do have Buddhism and Confucionism. Maybe I did mis-speak on that one, but they have been quite oppressive toward Christians historically and intolerant in many ways. They are not free in the sense that you and I understand freedom. I had a friend who defected from China, and he spoke of many nightmarish horror stories from that country. They may be changing in some regards, but they regulate pretty much every aspect of people's lives there, including how many children people are allowed to have, and if you have too many, they do not give you the choice whether to terminate a pregnancy or not. My friend spoke of many many brutalities that he both witnessed and endured himself. He never heard of homosexuality before coming here, and when we asked what happened to people like that his reply was "I don't know, I guess they just get killed." Atheist in this country are not forced in any way to worship God. They are not. They are not compelled to go to church, they are not compelled to pray, they are not compelled to get baptized, they are not compelled to believe in Jesus, or Buddah, or Confucius or do anything religious. The right to be an atheist is protected in our country, so I have a difficult time understanding why so many atheists argue as much as they do, and constantly talk about "separation of church and state", which does not exist as a law, but merely a political theory. Also, we are so free here, that if at some point you should ever change your mind, and have something happen in your life that causes your beliefs to change for any reason whatsoever - you will be allowed to continue to remain free, and worship or not in whatever way you see fit. If it causes you to want to run for political office, even on the basis that you support scriptures in their entirity, then you actually may do so, and then you would be allowed to be elected if you have enough votes and make your governing choices the way you want until you are no longer in office. That is the truth.
OneNationUnderGod says2015-10-14T21:21:52.6266201Z
Triangle.... Also, I meant to mention - what I meant about "biblical heritage" and what it has to do with the laws of the USA. I suppose that I was a little vague. What I mean is this the following: The founders were deeply religous people for the most part. Very much so. It's not hard to find that out whenever you read their writings, or take a look at the religious symbolism at the nation's capitol. But in their historical background, they actually did endure a Theocracy of sorts, from England. There was much more pressure back then to worship God in certain ways, and if you didn't worship the way the government wanted to there were consequences. There was a government authorized church, and so on. From that experience, our country was born. We were in the process leaving behind that kind of government oppression to become a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people", so that they did not have to experience that type of oppression anymore. And yet, just because they were oppressed, that didn't mean they lost their faith or did not still believe in God, or obviously allow God to influence their decisions about government. But I think that by this time in their development, they came to recognize that God cannot be truly worshipped until he is worshipped freely. This is our "biblical heritage" I'm referring to, and it is a freedom that extends to atheists. In an ironic twist, the Christian or Faith Based recognition that God cannot be truly worshipped unless he is worshipped freely, allows people in this country to be atheists if they choose. We are not a Theocracy, because we are a free country, that was founded on biblical principles, by people who feared God and worshipped God freely. I mean it is ironic to me that today, atheists are fearful of a Theocracy, when the country was founded by religious people who took many pains to protect them from a Theocracy. It's pure irony.
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T23:01:31.6485332Z
@OneNationUnderGod First off, please take this matter into the forums or post multiple comments rather than helping to build the great wall of text. Second, democracy and theocracy aren't exactly mutually exclusive. You can have elections while having the leaders rule under religion. Monarchy and democracy aren't inclusive either, the UK and Japan are Constitutional Monarchies. Church state seperation is what mainly keeps us from becoming a theocracy. In Saudi Arabia, there's complete mixing of religion and state, exactly how you want it. In Saudi Arabia, there are laws based upon Islam and you have to follow them even if you aren't Muslim. By mixing Church and State in the US, you oppress religious minorities by forcing them to follow Christian ideals. Do you think it would be fair for Lebanon to ban eating pork despite the Christian minority which contains people whom may like pork? It's the same way with forcing Christians ideals upon law, you're shoving your religion down people's throat and suppressing religous freedom.
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T23:11:49.6809723Z
@OneNationUnderGod Also, you're wrong regarding Church State seperation not existing in the Constitution. The first ammendment says not to respect the establishment of a religion, which means legislature can't favor one religion over another. By imposing laws which favor Christianity and Christian principles, that's already violating it. That's where "Establishment Clause" begins, even if it wasn't in the Constitution, why do you want to favor your religion in law? Almost all of the founding fathers also supported the idea of church-state separation, what you intend of church-state mixing is what the founding fathers feared in Europe at the time.
triangle.128k says2015-10-14T23:17:35.1115580Z
Regarding China, the majority of people are non-religious and Confucianism isn't really a religion. Neither are some forms of Buddhism. People not being compelled like you stated there is a good thing, you shouldn't be compelled to do anything religious. It's your personal choice, others shouldn't compel you. Atheists not being forced in any way to worship god is also a good thing, not forcing people to be religious or irreligious is ideal. Homosexuals aren't killed there either, they're more socially accepted in China because there are less religious zealots there. The right of being an atheist is protected, and mixing church and state is making it unfair for them and any other religious minority. I don't think anybody who isn't Christian would be happy with you forcing Christian ideals under law, it's unfair to them.
SongHaGin says2015-10-15T16:46:28.0625252Z
It's not a push poll. Stop. This isn't even debating, It's everyone trying to push their Idea as right.
SongHaGin says2015-10-15T16:47:44.4084358Z
And Um, No one is shoving anyone's religion down their throat. If you're not religious, fine! Didn't London try to shove religion at one time?
SongHaGin says2015-10-15T16:49:21.6107270Z
How do i close this poll?
Sciguy says2015-10-15T16:55:20.2148231Z
You can't close a poll, it is here,well, for a long time.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.