Here is the video on their New Hampshire panel. I hesitate to call it a debate, although opinions varied. Ron Paul echos some comments seen on Nexus. Bachman would not tell states what to do but would support constitutional amendment to tell states what to do. Hard to say if this will be a signifcant issue in the election. I think the electorate is more concerned about jobs but that core consituencies for particular candidates feel differently.

Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"The best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life."

 

Complete nonsense. In fact, studies consistently show that the only detriment brought to children of same sex couples are the stresses associated with discrimination and bigotry from outside the family.

It's a travesty that these people are legislating morality based on their ridiculously primitive and honestly often theological understanding of "common sense".

 

Other things common sense once told us:

The earth is flat

The sun revolves around the earth

Black people are 3/5th human

Women aren't smart enough to vote

Slavery is a-ok

There's a CNN article they would do well to look at as it comes to the whole gay/Lesbian families thing.

The single most disturbing part of this whole business is that we KNOW this stuff ... and either they don't or they don't want to ... or they are being purposefully ignorant.

Of course it's known to anyone who cares to look. The problem, as you said, is purposeful ignorance. They only want give credence to their own "common sense" and it's, in fact, complete nonsense.
I was disturbed that Bachman wasn't raving and wild-eyed.  She looked almost human.  Santorum was pretty much the prissy sanctimonious twit that I pictured.  It was interesting to me that Ron Paul sounded the most reasonable. 
He makes a decent point. I too believe marriage should be handled outside the government, but as long as married couples get special dispensation those same privileges should be given to same sex couples. I've always been partial to the idea of civil unions for all that grant the privileges, and people can keep their ceremonies in their churches if they so desire.
Adam, are you suggesting something like they do in France? Civil unions regardless of the genders getting hitched. With the goal that everyone has the exact same rights and the churches don't have as much a need to attack? As long as it's the same label and same rights I'm for it. I'm very invested in marriage equality here in the U.S because civil unions don't have the same status and rights as marriage.
Yes, exactly right. I don't mean civil unions as they are now. I mean redefining what we have as civil unions to include the rights that marriages have. Then removing all reference to marriage from the government perspective. If you want to get married via ceremony at your church or whatever, you're welcome to but it will hold no weight legally. They'll also have to get the civil union for it to be recognized. And, of course, there's absolutely no need to prevent same sex couples from receiving the civil union status.
Because he is the most reasonable.  Marriage is inherently a religious institution, thus government should not be involved in it.  We should not also be granting special privileges to marriage or civil unions.  The whole idea that there are such things as gay rights, minority rights, xxxxx rights is ludicrous.  We all have the same rights, and if we applied human rights we wouldn't need to have things like gay rights.
Well the good new is: We won New York!  I think the momentum will keep going.  I love how Atheists and the LGBT community are working together on this.  We need a simultaneous enforcement of separation of church and state to go along with these efforts.  It bothers me how President Obama keeps talking about his Christian views regarding policy decisions because it is so blatently unconstitutional, just like most of our past presidents have done. 

If their names differ (i.e., civil union and marriage), their rights will differ.

If their names don't differ, bigots with power will make their rights differ.

Remain vigilant.

 

"If their names differ (i.e., civil union and marriage), their rights will differ." I think that's the whole point of marriage equality opponents. They want the rights to differ.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service