Yep!! And you should have seen the hatred and anger coming forth... when I started the thread about "The Pledge of Allegiance" (removing the phrase, "One nation under God...etc."). Wow!! You'd think I slapped and/or punched someone's mother here. And I was being 'nice' about things.
Yes, we can be passionate regarding America. But when the human mind translates someone seeing the benefit of keeping marriage traditional as....an attack to dehumanize THEM....I think that is over the top. This would be like you wanting to take One Nation under God out---because you hate me and wish me dead. What it boils down to is temper tantrums. A mature person would learn to tolerate disagreement without turning that disagreement into some sort of vile hate crime.
It is one thing to believe in something, another to coerce or overly compel another to see things your own way. And that isn't what happened. Of course, the person who takes that 'belief' and puts it in someone's face is going to be perceived as offensive... and that can take ANY over the top about virtually anything; if it's offensive, then that is what it is. And without a doubt, there are many who like to stick it to homosexual people in any way they see fit; that's aggravation. Like I said before, homosexual people are HUMAN like everyone else. I think some people tend to forget that. I really don't know where you got that terrible analogy. Even so, what causes many homosexual people to 'react', typically stems from repeated negative encounters within this society. There is indeed a dehumanizing effect that some may not react to for a time, then at some point you/I may see that expressed... possibly in some extreme way (what you might call "over the top"). For the most part, we are not talking about 'children', it is not tantrums I'm referring to, but OUTRAGE. And on the more extreme end, INTOLERANCE. Yes, I think about now, homosexual people are (or are becoming) intolerant of the social-slander and irrational animus they face in their lifetimes. And while some don't care at all, those who are homosexual take it head-on regularly. You trying to dismiss this as if it were a "tantrum" of some sort... really isn't appropriate. I'd say that many who want homosexuals to just BE what they want them to be (heterosexual) are as much to blame for the outrage as certain homosexual people might be. The almost constant prodding, persecution and unnecessary discrimination against homosexual people doesn't make sense, and yes it at times infuriates homosexual people. They are human beings, just as all the straight people are. Go look at the threads, where various "Conservatives" are disagreed with; then tell me how "mature" people really are. Bottom line, those who think it is okay to disregard the literal humanity of others to make their religious, moral, political or social point(s), surely take the risk of offending and angering other human beings. You are correct in a sense, people should be CIVIL in their responses or reactions to disagreement... but it isn't wise of you at all to assume that what you might say would not touch a nerve deep within someone you are directing your commentary towards. Some may be homosexual... but keep in mind that they are just as HUMAN as any one else. Hate crimes are surely "vile" (look up the purpose for them), and that is why they are handled differently than others.
Disagreement: I want to go to McDonalds. No, not again!!! Dehumanizing: I hate gays so they can't have equal rights. See the difference???
That's not being "passionate about America," that's being bigoted about religion! And I don't have a big problem about "under God" being added in the 1950's. . .but I do have an issue with that "GOD" being limited in too many hyper religious people to the image of a "CHRISTIAN" God. That is against the constitution. . .as NO RELIGION can be established as the "national" religion. . .because it goes against "Freedom of Religion and freedom FROM religion")
The only person using the word hate.....is the hype-mongers. I disagree with a brother and sister incestuous couple being eligible for marriage. But I don't hate them. The more hype and drama and total disregard for the actual arguments against changing the definition of marriage---the less serious your argument becomes.
acknowledging God is not a religion. Our founders from the first acknowledged unalienable rights as endowed by our Creator.
But sibling marriage is illegal, same sex marriage is not. It is purposely being denied simply because of hate, disgust, ignorance...but not for any legal reason. It is not a disagreement, it is an unlawful and unconstitutional denial.
Though our creator happens to have been natural selection, and that biotch doesn't acknowledge anyone's rights.
"Hate, disgust, ignorance" Hype, wind-blown and drama queen. Tantrum, child, and screaming with your ears tightly covered.
And that "creator" has very little to do with the narrow. Bigotted image too many people endoctrinated by organized religions continue to refer to while projecting their own human deficiecies of greed, hatred, bigotery and hypocrisy,which hey try to explain and absolve by describing those very human deficiency as "the word and will of God!" religious dogmas are NOT God's will or creation. They are the reflection of human desire for control over other humans, their fear of the unknown, and a mean to satisfy their greed.
The two are one and the same. That is why "what if" laws are so detrimental to society. They always spiral into more and more laws. Everything has bad and good, freedom is no exception. Laws are always passed with the intention of stopping the bad while keeping the good, but in the end just create another good/bad scenario which in turn requires yet another law. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until you have our modern society with more laws than even a lawyer knows. You have to have specialty lawyers. You have more cases than any lawyer or their staff could possibly know. You have test to become a lawyer that just makes sure you really know some of it. "What if" laws should never be passed. What if I get shot? Criminalize guns. What if that guy on drugs tries to rob me? Criminalize drugs. What if we get into a car wreck? Seat belts and car seats for kids mandatory. The only reason why gays want to get married is because "what if" scenarios in the arena of marriage brought the state into the living room. It is a joke.
The founding fathers would have words with those Americans today who keep trying to interpret those words (words added long after their time anyway) as justification for basing this nation's laws on religion. This is not a Christian nation in any official sense, but a secular one. Novus Ordo Seclorum.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. During the time of our founding fathers prayer was a way of life in schools and government. Our founding fathers knew that government should not make laws...endorsing or favoring a specific religion. Its in the constitution. But prayer in public places, acknowledging God and voting based on each individual persons values (whether those values are religious based or not) was consider crucial by our founders.
In all actuality, it was a Christian nation, being ran by a secular government. They had just freed themselves from a king, and kings are ordained by God. This was the divine right to which kings of the old world held their power, and that is why they kept religion out of the government. It had nothing to do with them being anti-religion, as secularists like to imply.
Their idea of God wasn't "the god of the bible," however, the way modern Americans are keen to look at it. Theirs was something far more overreaching, rather like the "god" of the physicists or the deists. In fact, I'm pretty sure a number of the founding fathers were in fact deists.
I doubt they were deists...that is a wet dream of the Atheist. But I do believe that promoting Jesus was not considered appropriate or within the constitutional boundries they set for government. Acknowledging God was considered crucial.
