tvashtarkatena

'Anyone', not 'any group'. Pretty clear, at least to me.

Because religious conservatives are actively working to impose their doctrines on all of us through public policy.

Uh, I can read. I'm talking about trends. You're not. So what? The issue varies widely by state. Currently 5 states allow some form of gay civil union/marriage. 11 states have no laws either way. The rest have some ban, court ruling, statutory or constitutional. In a situation that is in constant flux, trends are very relevant.

Disagree with what? I never said I was against nuclear power. I just reminded certain folks that, at the time of the No Nukes campaigns, the American nuclear power program was riddled with safety, financial, and waste management problems. Just trying to prevent a little revisionist history, that's all. The French nuclear program, with their smaller, less expensive, more standardized, and safer reactors, seems like more of a model to me. They still have the waste problem, however. I agree that that must be weighed against other environmental hazards, most particularly global warming. I'd rather see a radioactive salt mine than a dead planet, of course, but we should pursue conservation, wind, and other options with just as much vigor.

This is a pretty ironic statement coming from a guy that just gave us his testimony about why he's an atheist and his theory about what happens after death. Just what exactly did that have to do with gay marriage? Read the thread. It is about religion and government, primarily, but not solely, regarding gay marriage. Atheism and other philosophies have been a relevant topics of discussion. Polygamy has not.

Secular and religious marriage are separate issues. The state is involved in the former, but should not be involved in the latter. Granting secular gay marital rights would not force churches to change their doctrines. Just as the Catholic church can refuse me a church wedding because I do not adhere to its beliefs, so can any church refuse to marry gays for the same reason. As for America's viewpoint on gay marriage, the issue is still very new. There has not even been a substantive Supreme Court ruling yet. The states are still in the process of testing all the permutations. The trend, however, like many other issues involving basic civil liberties, is unmistakeably towards acceptance. The Equal Rights amendment didn't come overnight; neither will this.

Actually, JayB, you're the one who missed the point. No one here has called for government to get out of the business of marriage. That would be patently ridiculous: marriage is a fundamental legal contract. No shit, Sherlock. Quite the opposite. I am calling for government to become more involved, not less, by enforcing the equal protection clause of our constitution for gays so they have the same marital rights (or whatever you want to call it) as heterosexual couples to marry who they want. Note the word SAME: last time I checked heteros couldn't marry 26 other people. You're the only person on this forum confused by this. If you want to obfuscate this debate by involving polygamy and other scenarios that have not been under discussion, by all means start another forum. Gay marriage is a big enough topic for this one.

Regarding the % of atheist, agnostics, whatever, it doesn't really matter to me. If I was the only atheist in America, I would not change my beliefs. I believe our lives are a collection of stories; those we believe about ourselves, others, and the world, and those others believe about the same. So here's a story. After years of questions and deliberation, I stopped believing in God during a single conversation...about climbing, ironically. I don't expect anyone here or anywhere else to agree with or understand the subjective interpretation below, nor do I really care. I believe two things are important; arriving at beliefs regarding religion that work for you, and not imposing those beliefs on others. I was on an eight day ski traverse across the Sierras with other college students. We were gathered in the largest tent one night talking, and we came upon the subject of God. One young woman recounted the story of her only brother, who was killed two years prior when the piton he was rapelling off of pulled. She said "I loved my brother more than anything in the world, but no matter how much I wanted to see him again, no matter how many people told me I would see him again, I just couldn't bring myself to believe it. It just wasn't true." At that moment I let my belief in God, which never really made much sense to me, go. No matter how badly I wanted to believe it, I just couldn't anymore. Morality is a decision to act that we make for ourselves, no matter where our beliefs come from. If we are christian, it is because we have decided to act so. There are six billion different sets of morality in this world. Such is the challenge of society and government. I do think that human beings are predisposed to act morally in the modern sense because evolution favored that kind of social behavior. We act otherwise, of course, but that comes less naturally for the majority. I don't know where the universe came from. I'd like to know, but I accept that I may never have that answer, along with many others. I assume that after death I'll go the way of all other things that die, back into the great molecular recycling bin. From my standpoint, if entire galaxies and even universes have finite lives, why should the great Tvashtarkatena survive, in any recognizable form, for eternity? It seems a bit conceited to me. And as for heaven or hell, they can both be found right here on earth. The removal of what I've come to consider a supernatural filter overlaying the universe has allowed me to see that universe more clearly, to get closer to it, and to better appreciate its intrinsic beauty than I could when I was a Catholic. For me, that has been worth trading eternal life for. End of sermon. Donuts and coffee in Father Roberts Hall at 11:00.

How about Michael Jackson?

Oh, I have. I used to be a true believer all the way. I'm not anymore. Not for everybody, but it works for me.

Five percent of the U.S. population is atheist. I'm well used to differing. Practically nothing is a fact.

Recognizing that someone can appropriately be fired after repeated warnings doesn't require picking a side in this individual case; it does not require deciding, as ninth party observers, whether this particulary bus driver should have been fired for this particular flipped bird. I wouldn't know whether she should or should not have been fired...I'm not her boss, and I wasn't there.

Communication directly to God is called prayer. Communication directly from God is called psychosis. Catholics should consider themselves lucky to have priests...some evangelical churches require confession in front of the entire congregation. Look, I have trouble with the concept of a God at all, so you're preaching to the choir.

Uh...we're not discussing polygamy. That is a completely different subject with different social and legal implications. We also not discussing man-on-dog marriage, just in case that should come up. I think you'll find over time that most Americans will support gay marriage, as they did interracial marriage. The arguments against the latter were nearly identical. As for whether a technical majority do now, if not, it is very close, and certainly growing.

If you were raised catholic, you must not have been paying much attention...

Unless you're actually trained in a given religion, it's probably best to stick to what you know about other religions from their public record. Catholic priests, in addition to serving as pastors, administer sacraments such as baptism, marriage, etc. They do not serve as a middlemen between practitioners and god, particularly regarding prayer.

The supreme court recognizes employers right to limit free expression on the job. You can fire a telemarketer for telling customers to fuck off. You can fire a nurse for telling patients to fuck off. You can also fire a bus driver for telling other drivers, president or not, to fuck off. Personally, I think firing is be too draconian for a first time offense like this, but... ...if her employers took repeated steps to get her to stop her unacceptable behavior and she didn't, then firing is the only option left.

If that's the case, then so be it.

They might tell her to take it off and give her a warning. There are plenty of options that do not involve causing someone to loose their livelyhood.

Mother Superior forbids it.

If this is, indeed, a war of words, then you have achieved victory through sheer industrial output.

Hopefully, for the rest of you, I wasn't the model.

First off, I never used the generic term 'equal rights'. I used 'equal protection under the law', which is a specific, fundamental constitutional right. Second, I don't personally care whether gay unions are called that or marriage or something else, as long as there is equal protection under the law. I used the term 'marriage' for brevity and clarity (ie., everyone knows what a 'marriage' is). This issue is following the same historical arc as interracial marriages did when they were outlawed in many states. All the same arguments against are being recycled today. The outcome will probably be the same; gays will be allowed to 'marry' and we'll wonder what the fuss was all about.

The constitution, however, allows for a separation of church and state through the equal right to observe any religion (including none). The fact that it is not entirely neutral doesn't negate this principle. As for the latter; apples and oranges. Mine was a one time statement to a small discussion group, as subject to individual interpretation as any other statement, but not weighted with any widely accepted connotation. "Moral values" is a heavily used phrase in public, political speech with a specific connotative meaning.

Literalism is a simpleton's refuge.