Democratic party platform does not mention God

[Adam]

Were other things that aren't real removed, like the square roots of negative numbers?

[DC Tom]

Were other things that aren't real removed, like the square roots of negative numbers?

 

Those are real.

[WorldTraveller]

I admire principled men. Ya know, the kind of men that are for gay marriage, then before an important election to become president of the US, decides that he isn't for gay marriage, then suddenly before the next election decides that he is for gay marriage.

 

 

So I guess he was completely evolved, then he de evolved, then he evolved again, ya know, because he has a spine.

[CosmicBills]

I admire principled men. Ya know, the kind of men that are for gay marriage, then before an important election to become president of the US, decides that he isn't for gay marriage, then suddenly before the next election decides that he is for gay marriage.

 

 

So I guess he was completely evolved, then he de evolved, then he evolved again, ya know, because he has a spine.

So he did the reverse of Romney who started for then moved against? Both candidates made mirrored moves on the issue -- neither should be held up as an example of principled actions.

[WorldTraveller]

I never claimed that he was, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[DC Tom]

So he did the reverse of Romney who started for then moved against? Both candidates made mirrored moves on the issue -- neither should be held up as an example of principled actions.

 

I've never seen any candidate run a campaign on any principle other than "win". Except Kerry, and his awesome "I have a plan" principle.

 

 

There's a word for politicians that pander to the electorate during elections, then moderate themselves in office. They're called "successful."

[CosmicBills]

I never claimed that he was, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

I've never seen any candidate run a campaign on any principle other than "win". Except Kerry, and his awesome "I have a plan" principle.

 

 

There's a word for politicians that pander to the electorate during elections, then moderate themselves in office. They're called "successful."

Not disputing the benefit of pandering to politicians. But this is an entirely different issue. One politician moved towards supporting equality. One moved AGAINST equality -- not because he believes it (he doesn't) but because the religious fringe in his party demands it.

[Adam]

Not disputing the benefit of pandering to politicians. But this is an entirely different issue. One politician moved towards supporting equality. One moved AGAINST equality -- not because he believes it (he doesn't) but because the religious fringe in his party demands it.

Which is which?

[Chef Jim]

And what about us Pastafarians?

 

Are those the one's that season their fettuccine with marijuana??

[WorldTraveller]

Not disputing the benefit of pandering to politicians. But this is an entirely different issue. One politician moved towards supporting equality. One moved AGAINST equality -- not because he believes it (he doesn't) but because the religious fringe in his party demands it.

 

You frame it as "equality"

 

they frame it as a religious belief.

 

Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected

[DC Tom]

You frame it as "equality"

 

they frame it as a religious belief.

 

Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected accepted.

 

I can accept that people believe things. I can accept that people believe that I, as an upper middle class white male, have to fork over my earnings to take care of them.

 

But I don't have to !@#$ing respect it.

[CosmicBills]

You frame it as "equality"

 

they frame it as a religious belief.

 

Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected

But, fittingly with this topic, Religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US GOVERNMENT.

 

So how can you justify amending the constitution to include a religious based view that oppresses a segment of the population? This is exactly why a barrier was created between church and state, was it not?

[WorldTraveller]

But, fittingly with this topic, Religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US GOVERNMENT.

 

So how can you justify amending the constitution to include a religious based view that oppresses a segment of the population? This is exactly why a barrier was created between church and state, was it not?

 

I can't justify it, because I don't agree with it.

 

I can accept that people believe things. I can accept that people believe that I, as an upper middle class white male, have to fork over my earnings to take care of them.

 

But I don't have to !@#$ing respect it.

 

Yes, accepted

[CosmicBills]

I can't justify it, because I don't agree with it.

But you don't speak out against it?

[WorldTraveller]

But you don't speak out against it?

 

I don't care about the issue nearly as much as I do fiscal policies. Any half brained twit realizes that it's a pandering position that will never occur, so it's a moot point. However, their decisions regarding fiscal and economic policies can profoundly affect us, such as myself.

[DC Tom]

So how can you justify amending the constitution to include a religious based view that oppresses a segment of the population? This is exactly why a barrier was created between church and state, was it not?

 

How can you justify a constitutional amendment on the subject either way? The definition of marriage is not a federal issue. Period.

[CosmicBills]

I don't care about the issue nearly as much as I do fiscal policies. Any half brained twit realizes that it's a pandering position that will never occur, so it's a moot point. However, their decisions regarding fiscal and economic policies can profoundly affect us, such as myself.

Interesting.

 

How can you justify a constitutional amendment on the subject either way? The definition of marriage is not a federal issue. Period.

I agree in principle.

[DC Tom]

I agree in principle.

 

Stop being wrong. Agree in practice.

[K-9]

Those are real.

 

And they're spectacular!

[CosmicBills]

Stop being wrong. Agree in practice.

 

I do agree in practice. But at what point does it become a federal issue? Currently there are what, 20+ states that have adopted constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage... which runs counter to the 14th amendment. While a constitutional amendment defining marriage either way is a mistake, how long do we let a segment of the population dangle in limbo? What's the middle ground?