A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
You need 10 Republican senators to go along and a bunch of conservative states to not sue and move the issue to the Supreme Court
Looks like we will get a House vote on Same-sex Marriage, Contraception and Abortion
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
I would vote for you. You have some very reasonable takes. And you are very pragmatic about the need to accept our differences and let each other live the way we want without the government mandating how we should live. The authoritarian religious right scares me though.
So what are you crying about now? Is there something wrong? Are peoples rights being infringed by this or something?
How would you feel if 157 Democrats voted against legally recognizing your marriage?
Do I REALLY need to explain further???
77% of Republican reps voted against allowing gay marriage. FWIW, for the first time ever, a majority of Republican voters are actually in favor of it. So, it’s not even to appease or to appeal to voters, it’s either out of religious ideology, which undermines the idea that the authoritarian right is a minority, or out of political spite against democrats. Either way, not a good look, hard to present this as a reasonable group.
Funny how the debate went from, it’s not up to the Supreme Court to decide, let’s pass a law to codify it to, well, now that there’s an opportunity to pass a law, let’s show our true colors and try and block it. Interesting, isn’t it?
There are those who believe marriage is between only a man and a woman as it was devised by our Creator. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be other means of recognition like a civil union or even marriage in a legal sense. That's a very easy things to understand.
There are people that vote against recognizing a number of things about me all the time. It passed easily.
Thank you. And this response isn't necessarily directed toward you.
It seems very interesting that we get so afraid of the extreme on the conservative side but the world-destroying force that is the left gets a total pass. Why do we do that? Unless you go back to the dark ages, the religious right as we call it hasn't used armies to march the countryside and kill their countrymen(women). The highly authoritarian left we see now is the most successful killing force in the history of the planet. JFK would be a hard right extremist by today's standards. How is it we've slipped so far that we can't recognize there are two standards we hold groups to and it isn't right?
If I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, does that make me a authoritarian religious right? Ever see the Book of Eli? In the movie, Gary Oldman's character wants a copy of the Bible to use it to gain power over people by inserting himself in the shoes that can only be occupied by God. Those kinds of people have always existed. They will always exist.
But a counter point to that is the fact that the much ridiculed "religious people" in this country have offered more of their time, money and service to the people of this planet than any other group by a factor of a thousand. They have provided more shelter, more food, more hope, more opportunity, more love and more opportunity to the people on this planet than any other group. For their efforts, they get lumped in with a bunch of cooks and labeled something they couldn't be further from. They have their views insulted and people ridicule them for having an "imaginary friend in the sky." When did that kind of disrespect become OK?
We just seem to spend so much time dividing ourselves and attacking each other and not nearly enough trying to understand differing views and differing beliefs. It makes for a very tough world to live in.
Naw, marriage is a license in the US, it’s already in a legal sense. It doesn’t have a thing to do with religion.
There was marriage long before there was a United States. Hence the reason I said under our Constitution, we must recognize a union between two people. However, in Biblical terms and pretty much throughout all of history, it is a union between a man and a woman. And saying that isn't meant to denigrate anyone else's view on this matter.
It’s incredibly obtuse is all, plenty of people get married who don’t worship a Christian god but no one cares because they aren’t gay.
How is obtuse to say the word marriage was created to define the union between and man and a woman? A car is a car. When it was invented, we called it a car. You aren't going to call a bus a car. It's a bus. It doesn't mean a car is better than a bus or vice versa. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been. That doesn't cheapen or denigrate the relationship between two men or two women.
Please understand that I recognize that it is right to provide for that legally in this country and really in any culture. I don't believe in discriminated classes or protected classes. Just people. Also, it's not a Christian God. It's just God. Choosing not to believe something doesn't make it any less true or real. Lastly, I don't care what people do in their homes or who they live with, love, sleep with or anything else. It's really obtuse to not recognize a person can believe in marriage as a union between a man and a woman while also recognizing that a lifetime union can exist between two men or two women.
The thing is, we thought we had moved past using religious beliefs to guide how we vote on the rights of others.
And, for the last few years, Republicans have largely laid off the subject. Now, however, Republicans have fully ripped their masks off and are making no secret of the fact they intend to make second-class citizens of anyone in the US who isn’t a rich straight white dude.
There has been an avalanche of bills attempting to undermine the constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion and a horrifying – and historic – wave of anti-LGBT legislation. Republican legislators have proposed at least 325 anti-LGBT bills so far this year, with about 130 targeting transgender rights specifically. A total of 27 made it into law in 2021, for the worst year in recent history for anti-LGBTQ legislation.
We are sick and tired of their overreach, but in the current climate, that's what they think their voters want. I'm inclined to believe it because in the states with the most oppressive legislation, those governors are hugely popular. However, if they keep it up, I expect a severe backlash.
You're unhinged. As I have told you in the past, once you realize it is a human life in the womb, what do you expect people to do? The bills you're talking about with respect to transgender deal with bathrooms and women's sports. How's that "targeting?" As usual, you take one piece of information and then create something that doesn't exist from it. But I can't blame you for that. It's everywhere and you've just joined the parade. Please do continue with it.
The Democrats have proposed thousands of anti-people with brain bills. They overtly discriminate against thought and reason and any semblance of moral principle on anything. They also actively seek to keep the poor very poor and the homeless as hopeless and helpless as possible. This discrimination must stop.
Second class citizens... Good gosh! Give me a freaking break. Your standards and definitions are so out of touch with reality it's hard to know where to begin. But as I said, please keep it up. It's good for business and good for the country.
Last edited:
You're unhinged. As I have told you in the past, once you realize it is a human life in the womb, what do you expect people to do? The bills you're talking about with respect to transgender deal with bathrooms and women's sports. How's that "targeting?" As usual, you take one piece of information and then create something that doesn't exist from it. But I can't blame you for that. It's everywhere and you've just joined the parade. Please do continue with it.
The Democrats have proposed thousands of anti-people will brain bills. They overtly discriminate against thought and reason and any semblance of moral principle on anything. They also actively seek to keep the poor very poor and the homeless as hopeless and helpless as possible. This discrimination must stop.
Second class citizens... Good gosh! Give me a freaking break. Your standards and definitions are so out of touch with reality it's hard to know where to begin. But as I said, please keep it up. It's good for business and good for the country.
Nice quote from the woman who took a historically Democrat state and turned it Republican. Also, way to demonstrate your reading skills by applying something to me that seriously doesn't apply at all and is stated as such repeatedly in this thread. But do carry on.
Still obtuse. Not you, but this argument is nonsense. Again, there are plenty of married people who don’t give a shit about the Christian God.
Sigh... that is true. But if you do believe (and I do) in God and that marriage his His plan for man and woman then it should not be expected that I have to change my view on things to accommodate society. I certainly won't get in the way nor do I expect others to believe as I do. I just want the freedom and respect to have my views and have that be OK. With most on the left, that isn't OK. That's wrong.
Well I am sorry to disappoint you, but you don't make me cry. I just pity you in so many ways. I want to give you a hug and help you. So I'm sorry but you've failed as I am sure I have in my desire to help you see how blinded you are by your disdain for those who don't think the way you want them to.
So, just a couple of points
I am equally concerned about the impact of the woke crowd. The concept of entitlement can destroy a society in a heartbeat.
Religious beliefs are on a spectrum. Some of them have become pillars of morality for society. Others have caused wars and millions of deaths. The main problem with most religions is they are mutually exclusive (and incompatible with non-religious people). So, the choices are: to expulse people that don’t believe in your belief system , exterminate them, or convert them. None of these choices are great if you are on the receiving end, but they all feel like good options for religious people because they feel like they have God on their side and they are “justified”. So, it is very difficult to create a society with different viewpoints and religions when acceptance of others is not a desirable path.
which interestingly brings us to the system you had described before, where we need to create a system without government mandates so that people can live within their belief system. Look at the Amish, I find what they are doing weird but they don’t bother me and I don’t bother them.
The authoritarian right doesn’t believe in this. They don’t just want to live freely within their belief system, they feel like they have the moral imperative to impose it on the rest of the world (see gay marriage issue, why do they care?). They technically don’t care about the U.S.A. as a country, they have a set of beliefs they think came from the only legitimate God (theirs, of course…) and they will fight anything in the way (science, education, civil rights, laws, etc) that goes against their beliefs. There is no reasoning with them. People that don’t use logic are hard to collaborate with…
So, just a couple of points
I am equally concerned about the impact of the woke crowd. The concept of entitlement can destroy a society in a heartbeat.
Religious beliefs are on a spectrum. Some of them have become pillars of morality for society. Others have caused wars and millions of deaths. The main problem with most religions is they are mutually exclusive (and incompatible with non-religious people). So, the choices are: to expulse people that don’t believe in your belief system , exterminate them, or convert them. None of these choices are great if you are on the receiving end, but they all feel like good options for religious people because they feel like they have God on their side and they are “justified”. So, it is very difficult to create a society with different viewpoints and religions when acceptance of others is not a desirable path.
which interestingly brings us to the system you had described before, where we need to create a system without government mandates so that people can live within their belief system. Look at the Amish, I find what they are doing weird but they don’t bother me and I don’t bother them.
The authoritarian right doesn’t believe in this. They don’t just want to live freely within their belief system, they feel like they have the moral imperative to impose it on the rest of the world (see gay marriage issue, why do they care?). They technically don’t care about the U.S.A. as a country, they have a set of beliefs they think came from the only legitimate God (theirs, of course…) and they will fight anything in the way (science, education, civil rights, laws, etc) that goes against their beliefs. There is no reasoning with them. People that don’t use logic are hard to collaborate with…
I don't agree with everything you said but let's just for the sake of argument to say I accept it all at a reasonable level. The issue is the authoritarian right you refer to has almost power in any of our institutions really. They win some victories here and there but for the most part they are viewed in such a way that very few changes occur.
That's one of the things that I write about frequently. Conservatives have been losing the culture war forever. They've had very few victories. But now we have a culture that is almost entirely produced by the left and I think most anyway I would agree the country is a total disaster right now. Yet in the midst of all this we're focused on almost everything but the people who have put us in this position. When you control all institutions you can get away with these things by using this direction. Things like the January 6th hearings and the multitude of other misdirections we see everywhere we look. And as good as your intentions are you're still mostly singling out the authoritarian right. I don't understand how that happens when there are so many greater threats at every turn.
Last edited:
holy crap man. Let’s recap.
yesterday I said “wait and see how many republicans vote against gay marriage.”
you called me out directly and basically accused me of demonizing people on the right.
77% of republicans voted against gay marriage.
and here you are today, talking about murderous mobs of leftists roving the countryside.
you are a drama queen and wrong 77% of the time.
i think if it doesn't pass the senate the explanation will be that the republicans don't want to call it "marriage" bc of religious reasons, and want to call it something different.
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
The argument from faith, the argument from certainty, is poison. There’s nothing you won’t say or do if you legitimately believe you’re promised eternal paradise when it’s all said and doneSo, just a couple of points
I am equally concerned about the impact of the woke crowd. The concept of entitlement can destroy a society in a heartbeat.
Religious beliefs are on a spectrum. Some of them have become pillars of morality for society. Others have caused wars and millions of deaths. The main problem with most religions is they are mutually exclusive (and incompatible with non-religious people). So, the choices are: to expulse people that don’t believe in your belief system , exterminate them, or convert them. None of these choices are great if you are on the receiving end, but they all feel like good options for religious people because they feel like they have God on their side and they are “justified”. So, it is very difficult to create a society with different viewpoints and religions when acceptance of others is not a desirable path.
which interestingly brings us to the system you had described before, where we need to create a system without government mandates so that people can live within their belief system. Look at the Amish, I find what they are doing weird but they don’t bother me and I don’t bother them.
The authoritarian right doesn’t believe in this. They don’t just want to live freely within their belief system, they feel like they have the moral imperative to impose it on the rest of the world (see gay marriage issue, why do they care?). They technically don’t care about the U.S.A. as a country, they have a set of beliefs they think came from the only legitimate God (theirs, of course…) and they will fight anything in the way (science, education, civil rights, laws, etc) that goes against their beliefs. There is no reasoning with them. People that don’t use logic are hard to collaborate with…
Sooooooooooooo Vote passed .... 47 Republicans joined with Democrats.
My rep, Andy Harris, voted NAY, which ... surprises me a little bit
See here where your Rep voted
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373
My rep, Andy Harris, voted NAY, which ... surprises me a little bit
See here where your Rep voted
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373
I have not, BUT .... I did just write him a email asking why he voted no. My email below
Hello Mr. Harris,
Im a registered Republican in your district(moved here in 2015), and supported you in your last election, voted for you yesterday, and will vote for you again this November.
Where it is true that the topic of "same-sex" marriage doesn't make my "Top 10" list of things that I'm most concerned about (the economy holds the 1 through 5 spots on my Top 10 list), I do firmly believe that adults of legal age should be allowed to love and marry who they want to and Government should not stand in the way of that. My personal caveat to the above is that the Government should not force a Church to conduct marriage ceremonies it does not agree with, nor should the Government force private businesses to provide services to a marriage that goes against the business owners religious beliefs.
I was a little surprised with your "NAY" vote yesterday on H.R 8404 Respect for Marriage Act, and would like a better understanding of your reasoning. Was there something in the text of the Bill that you disagreed with? Admittedly, I have only read the summary, so there may be something in the body of the Bill that may have caused concern.
I think its important that I provide my feedback to my Representatives because it helps me understand how my elected officials are representing me, and it helps them maintain a pulse on their constituency. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to casting my vote for Harris in November.
Thank you !
Your caveat is why a lot of Republicans voted "nay" on this. There were no first amendment protections and as per usual, no attempt was made to build a consensus by either side. Totally ridiculous that we can't try to build bridges instead of burning them down. It would have been very simple to add that language and still accomplish the desired goal.
Here is the text:
H.R. 8404
Im figuring that is it and if so ... that is incredibly unfortunate ..... and youre right ...... this was worded this way on purpose (probably) so both sides could use it as a club in the interests of campaign finance
Dems - "See! Republicans want to take away peoples rights and they hate homosexuals!!!! Give me money and send me to Washington and I'll stop them"
Pubs - "See!!! Democrats dont respect the First Amendment and what to take away your religious freedoms!!!!! Give me money and send me to Washington and I'll stop them"
Yes. However, the majority party controls these things. If they wanted it to be inclusive for both parties, they could have made it that way. Instead, they wrote it to try and get no votes so they could campaign on it. One need look no further than our resident lefties here coming to play politics with it to see how those disingenuous efforts are rewarded. And next year when Republicans take over, the reverse will be true. They will write things in such a way that Democrats can't support it. It's really unfortunate that electoral politics taints everything!
THIS is going to happen for sure. In before the first person says that this doesn't need to be a law.
Agree that we should find a spot b/w 10-20 weeks of pregnancy for legal abortions. Sadly we have these all or nothing debates when we should instead be focusing on finding a morally agreeable cutoff time (which would require sacrifice on both sides to reach a consensus).This is exactly what Congress is supposed to do. We shouldn't be relying on a flimsy Supreme Court ruling to legislate something like abortion.
Hopefully Republicans come out with enthusiastic support for same-sex marriage and contraception. These are absolute no-brainers in 2022. It's the right thing to do and it would take these issues off the table for the midterms.
Abortion is more difficult, and much more nuanced. While I have conflicting personal opinions, I think the best policy is one similar to what exists in most of Europe. Provisions for rape/incest/health of the mother and availability upon request up to a certain point. The vast majority of Europe limits this at 14 weeks or below. There's a compromise to be struck here and I hope they find it.
House to vote on same-sex marriage, abortion rights, contraceptive coverage over SCOTUS concerns
House Democrats have set up a series of votes to codify certain marriage and abortion rights brought into question following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.www.foxnews.com
I ultimately know that I will have to compromise my views which is very difficult because I'm not sure how there's an okay time to kill a baby. But I also understand reality and the earlier the better in terms of limitations on abortions. I'm not going to get what I want so hopefully we can find somewhere that is at least more limited in terms of how many unborn children we you choose to murder in this country.
So you are against IVF? Family member is going through the process now and discarded 2 fertilized embryos that failed genetic testing (trisomy or monosomy that may or may not have been viable). Are they murderers or are we accepting that there are shades of gray?
Makes more sense. This kind of follows my poison pill logic earlier in the thread. Yea, gay marriage should be legal, but forcing a religious organization to perform one should not be. Everyone on this board should agree with that. And if the latter protection was in jeopardy, I can see why some people voted against the bill. I can't imagine why the religious protection would not have been added though... Perhaps our friends in the senate can amend the bill, make it inclusive of all factors, pass it and send it back to the house for a clean vote.
No I am not against that. I am for it in fact. Being a parent is the most beautiful thing in life and I would support any effort to help more people become parents if they have that kind of desire to raise a child.
I'm interested to see how our own Senator Graham will vote on this. His orientation is one of the worst kept secrets in DC. I'm sure he will make an impassioned fence sitting stand, then go whichever way the most expedient political winds are blowing.
