AngryOldGuy
double secret probation
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,917
- Reaction score
- 658
- Location
- Phx,Az
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Would you vote for him for president....Why or why not?
I'm taking this to mean his strong views on gay marriage and abortion. Why is it if someone holds those PERSONAL views somehow that equates to forcing their religion onto others? There are atheists making a secular argument against gay marriage. There are atheists that find abortion morally wrong. There are homosexuals against gay marriage. Not just Christians but Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews often hold the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be immoral or against their social ethics. If a Buddhist was running for office and held the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be against his/her social ethics would you consider that to be someone forcing their beliefs on you?No, it is fundamentally against my moral compass to vote for someone that wants to force his religion on others.
I'm taking this to mean his strong views on gay marriage and abortion. Why is it if someone holds those PERSONAL views somehow that equates to forcing their religion onto others? There are atheists making a secular argument against gay marriage. There are atheists that find abortion morally wrong. There are homosexuals against gay marriage. Not just Christians but Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews often hold the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be immoral or against their social ethics. If a Buddhist was running for office and held the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be against his/her social ethics would you consider that to be someone forcing their beliefs on you?
What a moral compass should be directing is to ask the question does Dr. Carlson believe the Federal government has no Constitutional right to define marriage and that Roe v Wade was bad law. That these issues should be resolved at the state level of government where the people decide what their own social ethics code will be within their local governments. In other words, is Dr. Carlson an advocate for states rights? If so, then you and a whole lot of people need to adjust their compasses. If he believes the Federal government has the right to define marriage and outlaw abortion nationally with a stroke of a pen, then that would be considered forcing one's beliefs onto another.
hmmmmm .... Republicans won't like him because of things like this ...
“Happiness doesn't result from what we get, but from what we give.”
― Ben Carson
“Being a doctor at Johns Hopkins does not make me any better in God's sight than the individual who has not had the opportunity to gain such an education but who still works hard.”
― Ben Carson, Think Big: Unleashing Your Potential for Excellence
and I don't like him because of things like this ...
“Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [the North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
Without the Republican vote and mine, he has no chance ...
Not everyone who finds homosexuality to be wrong is a Christian.It doesn't matter what you believe. If the person in question isn't harming anybody in any way, you have absolutely zero right to use government force against him. Gay marriage does not effect christians in any way shape or form. It harms nobody.
All I hear is this pathetic whining about how it demeans their marriage, which is total BS. If your marriage is demeaned by two other strangers getting married, then your marriage is in really bad shape and you should work on it.
Simply put, christians believe homosexuality is wrong because their bible told them so. They then think that even though it harms nobody they need to force this biblical view on others. How about we just mind our own business if it isn't effecting you? If you had any respect for liberty whatsoever that's what you'd do.
You have pretty much misrepresented the quotes and taken them out of context.
The quote about giving is reflecting on the happiness one feels when they give personally to another in need. Not forced giving where elites decide who deserves the money and steal it from your pockets.
Republicans wouldn't have a problem with the quote about a good work ethic either. It isn't what you do for a living that determines your self worth, but that you work hard at whatever and pay your own way.
The third one was a quote he gave in an interview expressing his personal beliefs on gay marriage and later apologized for his strong language. If the man thinks the federal government has the right to define marriage for all then I disagree with him just like I disagree with Obama supporting gay marriage as a national right. It's none of the damn business of the federal government period. And the special interests groups on both sides of the issue need to come to realize that one.
Not everyone who finds homosexuality to be wrong is a Christian.
It is not up to the federal government to define marriage.
This battle should be left in the states. This way each side is not forced to accept one or the other.
Those who do not want to recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state and it should be upheld in the courts.
Those who do recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state as well and it should be upheld in the courts.
This way both have the FREEDOM to move to any state that supports their views and no one is denied.
This whole issue needs to be removed from review of the Federal government period.
The Federal government has no right to define marriage but states surely do. And the vote of the people in every individual state should be honored whether you approve of it or not.I already explained, it doesn't matter what your reason is, religion or just plain flat out hate. The only thing that matters is that you want to enforce your will against people who haven't hurt anybody.
The government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, that's not their business.
Gays getting married doesn't hurt you, so stop crying about it.
I was joking about the first two, to a degree ... statements like that will be quoted time and time again out of context (e.g. remember "you didn't build that?") and suggesting everyone does not have the same opportunities will lose you teabaggers in a heartbeat ... (plus, I'm not sure the GOP is ready for another one of "them" as president...)
I'm not big on saying what you believe and then apologizing ... in any event, as you said, he apologized for the language, not his belief ... on gay marriage I prefer to focus on if the gov't is in the business of marriage, then gay marriages should be recognized too ...
You know I was so liking your post until you called me a teabagger.I have a whole list of things that I find the Federal government should not be in the business of and today we are all living the consequences for the overstepping of constitutional powers.
Would you vote for him for president....Why or why not?
The Federal government has no right to define marriage but states surely do. And the vote of the people in every individual state should be honored whether you approve of it or not.
This has nothing to do about hate but everything to do about FREEDOM and making sure an individual's vote does count.
Not everyone who finds homosexuality to be wrong is a Christian.
It is not up to the federal government to define marriage.
This battle should be left in the states. This way each side is not forced to accept one or the other.
Those who do not want to recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state and it should be upheld in the courts.
Those who do recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state as well and it should be upheld in the courts.
This way both have the FREEDOM to move to any state that supports their views and no one is denied.
This whole issue needs to be removed from review of the Federal government period.
The Federal government has no right to define marriage but states surely do. And the vote of the people in every individual state should be honored whether you approve of it or not.
This has nothing to do about hate but everything to do about FREEDOM and making sure an individual's vote does count.
Oh except for the Conservative part someone like Obama?
That is how H. Ross Perot gave us eight LONG years of Clinton eh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?