Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 7:50:29 GMT
I just don't get why others care who other people marry. If you don't like/agree with gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple. Why do you care? No church will be forced perform a marriage for anyone. They don't now. Churches can choose who can marry there or not. Just let it go. You can't force your religious beliefs on the country. It is really that simple. And I certainly didn't choose to be straight, no one chooses to be gay either. :S Then why are those of you who support gay marriage trying to force yours on others?
did Carson say he'd declare gay marriage dead? Is it up to a president to do this?
I'd say maybe so looking at DBO but, he isn't a president now, is he? Could be there won't even be an election in 2016. so many are jumping to conclusions.
Why wouldn't there be an election in 2016? What did I miss?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 5, 2015 8:54:57 GMT
I don't believe it's the one opinion that did it. I think most of the people that is coming from, have already made up their mind about him and are using this one opinion of his as proof that their opinion of him was right. I don't need to use this one opinion as "proof" of anything. I know from virtually all of his opinions that I disagree fundamentally with him on almost every topic.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 11:08:50 GMT
Not calling you out specifically, but this is a sentiment I see a lot on here. Why would you not vote for a man over an opinion/statement about an issue that isn't likely to be anything he deals with from the Oval Office anyhow? When I look for a president, I measure his strategy and plan to address things that he will be asked to make direct decisions on for our country: foreign affairs, military moves, immigration, economic strength in terms of budgets and taxes. Social issues, in reality, are left to states to determine and the courts to be the arbitrator of what is Constititutional. A candidate's opinion on gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, which religion he follows, ... these make up his personality but not his executive leadership potential. Now, having said all that, I've never intended to vote for Ben Carson because I don't think he has the experience to survive in Washington yet, and he needs to take a few other leadership steps in a political arena before he has the chops for the highest office in the land. In my opinion, this country has already tried that experiment where we put a man with little executive experience in that seat, and I didn't like the outcome. This. Totally this.
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Mar 5, 2015 11:49:57 GMT
And who is it, do you think, who's appointing the Supreme Court justices who get to arbitrate constitutionality? Social issues DO matter to me when I decide to vote for because of those appointments (and for a bunch of other reasons too, but that's the most obvious).
|
|
|
Post by gypsymama on Mar 5, 2015 12:02:43 GMT
as a Texan who just watched Wendy Davis SHREDDED over one "social issue"... i'm well aware that conservatives can base their voting on one issue as well.
|
|
|
Post by Florida Cindy on Mar 5, 2015 12:20:10 GMT
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay." The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day." Asked whether being gay is a choice, Carson responded: "Absolutely." "Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question," Carson said.
His archaic statement decided his potential run for President. I wasn't going to vote for him anyway due to his earlier statements from various interviews.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Mar 5, 2015 12:29:00 GMT
I just don't get why others care who other people marry. If you don't like/agree with gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple. Why do you care? No church will be forced perform a marriage for anyone. They don't now. Churches can choose who can marry there or not. Just let it go. You can't force your religious beliefs on the country. It is really that simple. And I certainly didn't choose to be straight, no one chooses to be gay either. :S Then why are those of you who support gay marriage trying to force yours on others?
did Carson say he'd declare gay marriage dead? Is it up to a president to do this?
I'd say maybe so looking at DBO but, he isn't a president now, is he? Could be there won't even be an election in 2016. so many are jumping to conclusions.
But isn't that the crux of the issue? Some of us believe that gay rights is a civil rights issue and others of us believe that it is a religious issue? My guess is that until that is resolved, this argument will continue. I am not even going to touch the no election thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 13:57:00 GMT
I just don't get why others care who other people marry. If you don't like/agree with gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple. Why do you care? No church will be forced perform a marriage for anyone. They don't now. Churches can choose who can marry there or not. Just let it go. You can't force your religious beliefs on the country. It is really that simple. And I certainly didn't choose to be straight, no one chooses to be gay either. :S Then why are those of you who support gay marriage trying to force yours on others?
did Carson say he'd declare gay marriage dead? Is it up to a president to do this?
I'd say maybe so looking at DBO but, he isn't a president now, is he? Could be there won't even be an election in 2016. so many are jumping to conclusions.
Who is forcing you to marry a woman? Oh that's right no one is. No one is forcing you to do anything. Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is s civil right. And yes there will be an election in 2016. I 100% guarantee it.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 5, 2015 15:04:17 GMT
Not calling you out specifically, but this is a sentiment I see a lot on here. Why would you not vote for a man over an opinion/statement about an issue that isn't likely to be anything he deals with from the Oval Office anyhow? Because, IMO, it speaks to his attitude about protecting our constitutional rights overall. If someone thinks it's ok to abridge another person's rights to equal protection under the law, or deny them the benefit of the full faith and credit clause, based on their religious belief, I don't trust them to uphold any of our rights or constitutional protections. Anyone who would require others to live by his own religious beliefs instead of fulfilling his oath to uphold the constitution is a dangerous person to put in the executive seat. No one should be surprised when a president like that oversteps his powers.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 5, 2015 15:45:44 GMT
Not calling you out specifically, but this is a sentiment I see a lot on here. Why would you not vote for a man over an opinion/statement about an issue that isn't likely to be anything he deals with from the Oval Office anyhow? When I look for a president, I measure his strategy and plan to address things that he will be asked to make direct decisions on for our country: foreign affairs, military moves, immigration, economic strength in terms of budgets and taxes. Social issues, in reality, are left to states to determine and the courts to be the arbitrator of what is Constititutional. A candidate's opinion on gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, which religion he follows, ... these make up his personality but not his executive leadership potential. Now, having said all that, I've never intended to vote for Ben Carson because I don't think he has the experience to survive in Washington yet, and he needs to take a few other leadership steps in a political arena before he has the chops for the highest office in the land. In my opinion, this country has already tried that experiment where we put a man with little executive experience in that seat, and I didn't like the outcome. This. Totally this. But seriously. Would you guys vote for a pro-choice candidate, even for dog catcher? I don't think most of you would, but maybe you'll say differently. What I see in reality from my conservative friends online and IRL is that they have one question and one question only for a candidate. "Do you support the right to life?" If the answer is wrong, it doesn't matter if they agree on every.single.other issue. I think a candidate's stand on social issues usually reflects his stand on other, more "serious" matters. If I agree with him on one, I'm likely to mostly agree with him on the rest.
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Mar 5, 2015 16:01:47 GMT
I'm not liberal, but if you truly believe people choose to be gay and that evolution is just "a bunch of propaganda," I don't really trust you around nuclear weapons. ETA- Link to evolution thing Carson on theory of evolutionBut I don't understand that way of thinking, Ingrid. There are thousands and thousands of highly educated people (far more educated than either you or I) who believe in Intelligent Design. And I'm not just talking liberal arts educated either--there are many scientists who do not believe the earth evolved (I'm not discussing evolution here per say--I do understand that evolution takes place all the time). I'm talking about how the earth came into existence. It is just nonsense to suppose that there aren't equally brilliant people on BOTH sides of the fence on this one. I do not understand what that has to do with having the power to unleash nuclear weapons. And I'm pretty sure if you read Dr. Carson's apology, you will find that he, himself does not believe a person "chooses" to be gay. There are differing opinions from equally brilliant people on this as well. Personally I will NEVER vote on a social issues. As Julie pointed out, these things are handled by states generally anyway. I care far more about terrorism, taxes, personal freedoms and the loss thereof, etc. etc. Those are the issues that secure my vote. I think the problem is what you define as a social issue. To me, restrictions on abortion and gay rights represent the highest level possible of loss of personal freedom. That is why I cannot in good conscious vote for a Republican as long as the Republican platform includes attacks on those rights.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Mar 5, 2015 16:31:04 GMT
I've been reading this thread with interest. I actually confess I like Carson a little, in a reluctant dyed-in-the-wool liberal kind of way, the way I would confess that I like Domino's pizza or Chick-Fil-A.
But I think what really strikes me yet again is that I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, or if it's nature or nurture, because - and I realize that my fellow evangelical Christians disagree with me on this matter - if it is a choice, I think it's a perfectly legitimate one, and if it's nature, I think it's a perfectly legitimate variant.
I have never been comfortable with this particular portion of the debate, because it makes it way too easy to pathologize or patronize.
To my mind, some people are straight and some people are gay and some people are somewhere in-between, and I don't know why that is the case but it is, and I think the right thing for us as a civilized society to do is treat people correctly and equitably regardless, because I think that is a Constitutional matter; and that is an important issue for me when I go to the polls. That's why issues like gay rights are important to me as a voter.
|
|
|
Post by mamatoa on Mar 5, 2015 16:43:20 GMT
did Carson say he'd declare gay marriage dead? Is it up to a president to do this?
I'd say maybe so looking at DBO but, he isn't a president now, is he? Could be there won't even be an election in 2016. so many are jumping to conclusions.
WTF?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 16:44:14 GMT
Not calling you out specifically, but this is a sentiment I see a lot on here. Why would you not vote for a man over an opinion/statement about an issue that isn't likely to be anything he deals with from the Oval Office anyhow? Because, IMO, it speaks to his attitude about protecting our constitutional rights overall. He's been very clear that it's very important to him to protect our constitutional rights. From what I understand he wants gay people to have the same rights as everyone, he just doesn't want to define it as marriage, but he wants to leave that decision up to the states. So again he is very insistent on protecting everyone's rights. I've not heard him say anything about requiring others to live by his religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Regina Phalange on Mar 5, 2015 17:04:32 GMT
Because, IMO, it speaks to his attitude about protecting our constitutional rights overall. He's been very clear that it's very important to him to protect our constitutional rights. From what I understand he wants gay people to have the same rights as everyone, he just doesn't want to define it as marriage, but he wants to leave that decision up to the states. So again he is very insistent on protecting everyone's rights. I've not heard him say anything about requiring others to live by his religious beliefs. The very fact that he feels marriage is a religious institution shows that he lets his religion shape his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Mar 5, 2015 17:20:25 GMT
Ever since I read his statement, I have wondered why he didn't just take his thoughts a step further before he formulated a conclusion. So if a man in prison is offered the opportunity to have sex with a woman instead of a man, he will likely choose the woman if he is heterosexual. Heterosexual men do not go into prison and come out gay. They may have had same sex relations in prison, but that does not make them gay.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 17:48:27 GMT
He's been very clear that it's very important to him to protect our constitutional rights. From what I understand he wants gay people to have the same rights as everyone, he just doesn't want to define it as marriage, but he wants to leave that decision up to the states. So again he is very insistent on protecting everyone's rights. I've not heard him say anything about requiring others to live by his religious beliefs. The very fact that he feels marriage is a religious institution shows that he lets his religion shape his beliefs. That's what religion does. It shapes your beliefs. It's a moral compass of sorts. Our current President has religious beliefs that have shaped his beliefs. Every President has had religious beliefs that have shaped their beliefs. The founding fathers had religious beliefs that shaped their belief. Everyone has something that shaped their beliefs, some sort of moral compass. Do you prefer an atheist President? I'm not sure I understand your point.
|
|
|
Post by eebud on Mar 5, 2015 17:59:09 GMT
But seriously. Would you guys vote for a pro-choice candidate, even for dog catcher? I don't think most of you would, but maybe you'll say differently. What I see in reality from my conservative friends online and IRL is that they have one question and one question only for a candidate. "Do you support the right to life?" If the answer is wrong, it doesn't matter if they agree on every.single.other issue.I think a candidate's stand on social issues usually reflects his stand on other, more "serious" matters. If I agree with him on one, I'm likely to mostly agree with him on the rest. I realize this is a little off topic but I wanted to comment on this. I am a conservative voter. I always have been and I don't see that changing. I also have MANY conservative friends. I would say that my conservative friends are probably split down the middle regarding pro-life vs. pro-choice, although most of those that are pro-choice are not a free for all. They do have limitations primarily related to how far along the pregnancy can be. I don't know any IRL that vote based on that issue. I do have some that I "know" but have never met IRL that might not vote for someone who is not pro-life but if I know any IRL, they have never said it out loud. I guess my circle of conservatives are much different that yours.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 5, 2015 18:09:09 GMT
But seriously. Would you guys vote for a pro-choice candidate, even for dog catcher? I don't think most of you would, but maybe you'll say differently. What I see in reality from my conservative friends online and IRL is that they have one question and one question only for a candidate. "Do you support the right to life?" If the answer is wrong, it doesn't matter if they agree on every.single.other issue.I think a candidate's stand on social issues usually reflects his stand on other, more "serious" matters. If I agree with him on one, I'm likely to mostly agree with him on the rest. I realize this is a little off topic but I wanted to comment on this. I am a conservative voter. I always have been and I don't see that changing. I also have MANY conservative friends. I would say that my conservative friends are probably split down the middle regarding pro-life vs. pro-choice, although most of those that are pro-choice are not a free for all. They do have limitations primarily related to how far along the pregnancy can be. I don't know any IRL that vote based on that issue. I do have some that I "know" but have never met IRL that might not vote for someone who is not pro-life but if I know any IRL, they have never said it out loud. I guess my circle of conservatives are much different that yours. Thanks for the input. Most of the people I know vote Democratic. The few who don't are pretty vocal about abortion being their bottom line. It doesn't matter if their beliefs lean progressive otherwise, they still aren't going to vote for anyone who supports abortion rights. It's good for me to know that things are different elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Mar 5, 2015 18:26:15 GMT
Well, I'm a conservative and would vote for a pro choice candidate in a heartbeat if they supported the rest of my views. Contrary to popular belief, not all Republicans are anti-gay nor are they all against a woman's right to choose. Most of my friends feel the same way as I do and i would say we split 60/40 conservative/liberal. As a matter of fact, on the gay rights issue, I would say that most of my conservative friends are either ambivelant or in support of gay rights and gay marriage.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Mar 5, 2015 23:49:10 GMT
Does he not understand that people do what they do sometimes in adverse situations not out of choice, but necessity?
During famine, people have eaten rats, dogs, bugs, etc. Does that mean that if you can find someone who has at some point eaten a rat during a famine, you can make the statement that "this person LIKES to eat rats. They started the famine not eating rats, but then they ate rats...so they obviously chose to eat rats, they must like eating rats."
Lots of people do things in situations where they otherwise wouldn't do those things, that doesn't mean that they are choosing to do them and would continue to choose that if given other choices.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 5, 2015 23:49:37 GMT
Because, IMO, it speaks to his attitude about protecting our constitutional rights overall. He's been very clear that it's very important to him to protect our constitutional rights. From what I understand he wants gay people to have the same rights as everyone, he just doesn't want to define it as marriage, but he wants to leave that decision up to the states. So again he is very insistent on protecting everyone's rights. I've not heard him say anything about requiring others to live by his religious beliefs. Defining what marriage is or can be for all people, based in your personal religious beliefs = requiring others to live by your religious beliefs. Which is, in my opinion, the opposite of protecting our constitutional rights. We have a right to equal protection, not kind of equivalent protection. He can say all he want that he's interested in protecting constitutional rights. Doesn't make it true. His stance on gay rights says it isn't.
|
|
ingrid
Full Member
Posts: 490
Jun 26, 2014 0:52:41 GMT
|
Post by ingrid on Mar 6, 2015 2:04:17 GMT
I'm not liberal, but if you truly believe people choose to be gay and that evolution is just "a bunch of propaganda," I don't really trust you around nuclear weapons. ETA- Link to evolution thing Carson on theory of evolutionBut I don't understand that way of thinking, Ingrid. There are thousands and thousands of highly educated people (far more educated than either you or I) who believe in Intelligent Design. And I'm not just talking liberal arts educated either--there are many scientists who do not believe the earth evolved (I'm not discussing evolution here per say--I do understand that evolution takes place all the time). I'm talking about how the earth came into existence. It is just nonsense to suppose that there aren't equally brilliant people on BOTH sides of the fence on this one. I do not understand what that has to do with having the power to unleash nuclear weapons. And I'm pretty sure if you read Dr. Carson's apology, you will find that he, himself does not believe a person "chooses" to be gay. There are differing opinions from equally brilliant people on this as well. Personally I will NEVER vote on a social issues. As Julie pointed out, these things are handled by states generally anyway. I care far more about terrorism, taxes, personal freedoms and the loss thereof, etc. etc. Those are the issues that secure my vote. I see what you're saying and I'm trying to condense my thoughts into something that won't put you to sleep. First of all, I have always deeply admired Ben Carson. The contributions he's made to medicine, arguably to humanity in general, are astounding. Prior to yesterday I knew nothing of his religious beliefs or social views. Honestly, I haven't been following recent news coverage on potential candidates very closely. What I’d heard so far about Ben Carson actually sounded pretty great. Anyone who says, "Look, I want to start my own party, the Logic party, but I guess I'm stuck labeling myself as a Republican if I really want to do this thing" has my attention, because I can totally relate. But past practice dictates that my party will cast a reasonable candidate aside in favor of self-imploding and shoving someone like Palin on the ticket, so I don’t get super invested at this point in the game. The main issue I have with the party I’ve affiliated myself with for so long (I’ve several, but this is just the big one) is that it’s dominated by religious right-wing politicians who attempt to craft legislation based on their interpretation of the Bible, trampling on the civil rights of millions of American’s in the process. I don’t even like saying, “Well, I mean I’m just fiscally conservative” anymore because, what does that even mean now? It’s feels like “Obstruct everything that we didn’t come up with” is the current platform. Civil rights define and protect our “personal freedoms”, and while you may feel it’s wrong to “vote on social issues,” I’ve found that wherever people openly stand on a social issue says a lot about where they honestly stand on an issue concerning civil rights. Presidents have the ability to quietly impact civil rights through the appointments they make to the SCOTUS and throughout the Executive Branch, and the people they select typically hold a similar worldview to the their own. So I will absolutely vote based on a President’s stance on social issues. Back to Carson. The news yesterday was disappointing to me because I had higher hopes for him. Instead, he’s another fulfillment of the stereotype that the Republican Party is made up of black-and-white-thinking bible-thumpers who cling to an outdated way of approaching current events in the face of new information. Now, everything I’ve read leads me to believe Carson is a kind man who would treat a gay patient with the same intensity and attentiveness as he would anyone else. But despite his attempt to apologize and backpedal, I’m unconvinced that he doesn’t believe people chose to be gay. He’s clearly put thought into his initial statement on the matter, even forming a rationalization for his opinion as evidenced by the prisoner example. Suddenly, he’s changed his mind? As to the issue of intelligent design, Carson believes in literal creationism, which is a very extreme version of the theory of intelligent design. He has no problem asserting that the earth was formed in six 24-hour days. I’m still in the early stages of becoming a doctor, but even the prerequisites I was required to take to get this point make it very clear that things like accretionary prisms and their contents, fossil records, the theory of plate tectonics and viruses/bacteria developing resistance to certain medications are all pretty rock-solid evidence against claims that the earth just showed up in six days or that evolution is “propaganda.” Literal creationism is an example of how human beings can become so emotionally wedded to a belief system that they become incapable of adopting a more rational, accurate approach to the world. As a Christian and a conservative, I’m opposed to anyone who wishes to run this country based on any religious ideology, and years of disappointment in my own party due to the behavior of the religious right has left me with zero confidence in anyone who can look at hard scientific facts and dismiss them in favor of their personal belief system when it comes to their ability to set religious dogma aside in order to make decisions that benefit the greater good.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 3:12:43 GMT
To be so dismissive of millions of people who believe in intelligent design is ridiculous in my opinion.
I have a very smart friend that I've known for 20 plus years. He has a PhD & works in Dallas at a Creation Research institute there. He is far from dumb, and has at least 1 advanced degree from a major university.
I believe in intelligent design. Most people here may find me to be a right wing extremist, but I hope that most of you would agree that I'm reasonably intelligent.
All of that said, if you won't vote for someone based on their belief in Intelligent Design, that's your prerogative.
About the thread topic: I think Dr. Carson's first comment was insensitive, but I think he expressed himself well in his apology.
Personally, as much as I like him, as others have said, he doesn't have enough executive experience. I'm really only interested in voting for a governor in the primary...hopefully Scott Walker.
Everyone has their own criteria of what's important to them. Social issues play a huge role in who I vote for...because Presidents appoint so many federal judges.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 3:15:17 GMT
...and ingrid , as much as I disagree with you, your post above mine was very well stated.
|
|
ingrid
Full Member
Posts: 490
Jun 26, 2014 0:52:41 GMT
|
Post by ingrid on Mar 6, 2015 5:40:21 GMT
To be so dismissive of millions of people who believe in intelligent design is ridiculous in my opinion. I have a very smart friend that I've known for 20 plus years. He has a PhD & works in Dallas at a Creation Research institute there. He is far from dumb, and has at least 1 advanced degree from a major university. I believe in intelligent design. Most people here may find me to be a right wing extremist, but I hope that most of you would agree that I'm reasonably intelligent. All of that said, if you won't vote for someone based on their belief in Intelligent Design, that's your prerogative. About the thread topic: I think Dr. Carson's first comment was insensitive, but I think he expressed himself well in his apology. Personally, as much as I like him, as others have said, he doesn't have enough executive experience. I'm really only interested in voting for a governor in the primary...hopefully Scott Walker. Everyone has their own criteria of what's important to them. Social issues play a huge role in who I vote for...because Presidents appoint so many federal judges. First, thank you for your compliment. It means a lot to me coming from someone whose posts I read closely because I appreciate what you say and how you say it. I think being a Christian makes me a believer in Intelligent Design to some degree. While I reject a literal interpretation of Genesis as an explanation for how the universe came to be, I don't believe our existence is random or unintentional by any means. The Nebular Theory or the Theory of Evolution impose no threat to my belief in God. They're fascinating and beautiful and I feel blessed simply to have the faculties to understand them on some level, as silly as that sounds. What I fail to understand is why, when we've reached the point where we've closed significant gaps in the fossil record that goes back millions of years and can identify the process or scenario that leads to the formation of an eyeball, these theories are rejected and scorned by those who favor Literal Creationism. I sincerely want to understand why it would be so faith-shaking to embrace all the scientific explanations of things that were an absolute mystery until recently (relatively speaking) with the understanding that God has never been constrained by our idea of time and the whole "six days" thing might actually be up for liberal interpretation. I've actually asked that question with deep sincerity a few times and have come no closer to understanding. The answers vary between, "All I need to know about the universe is in the Bible" to "Take the eyeball (or the brain). It's so complex that we can never begin to understand how it was formed" and, I mean, we're actually pretty solid on both of those things but there's no use in pointing that out. Anyway, I'm so long-winded and I'm actually annoying myself. I don't mean to be dismissive towards those who believe in Intelligent Design. I try to remember that minds are rarely changed by an insulting attitude. I just feel frustrated when we actually have people fighting to keep schools from teaching students about evolution. It's critical information to understand and accept in order to continue to fight horrible illnesses. Teaching potential scientists of the future that it's all a sham seems like a bad move for a society that's racing to prevent or cure cancer, congenital defects, MS, etc..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 6:59:18 GMT
Not calling you out specifically, but this is a sentiment I see a lot on here. Why would you not vote for a man over an opinion/statement about an issue that isn't likely to be anything he deals with from the Oval Office anyhow? When I look for a president, I measure his strategy and plan to address things that he will be asked to make direct decisions on for our country: foreign affairs, military moves, immigration, economic strength in terms of budgets and taxes. Social issues, in reality, are left to states to determine and the courts to be the arbitrator of what is Constititutional. A candidate's opinion on gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, which religion he follows, ... these make up his personality but not his executive leadership potential. Now, having said all that, I've never intended to vote for Ben Carson because I don't think he has the experience to survive in Washington yet, and he needs to take a few other leadership steps in a political arena before he has the chops for the highest office in the land. In my opinion, this country has already tried that experiment where we put a man with little executive experience in that seat, and I didn't like the outcome. Then don't quote me and proceed to put your own (incorrect) spin on what I said. You're assuming a lot about what went into my post, and it's pretty much all wrong. Up until I saw this thread, I hadn't paid much attention to Carson's politics, other than a doctor I very much admired was considering running on the Republican ticket. That's it. It's way too early for me personally to be paying hard-core attention to every single hopeful's details. I like to wait until things are much more fleshed out before devoting much time to reading up on their politics. If a candidate doesn't stand a chance, flames out early, etc. then that's just time wasted. And hell to the yes, I consider issues like Civil Rights when I am voting. Especially when casting my vote for President. Since they appoint SC Justices and all. With that said, it's not the only thing I look at either. But since this thread was specifically about Carson's statements about homosexuality, yes, that's what I commented on and addressed in my post. Only here can you get called out for staying on topic. I am not naive enough to think that any, and I mean any career politician is going to make a better President because "executive experience" chops. SMH. Bush. Finally, snowsilver*, I am not "a liberal" or even a registered member of any party. I have political views that are way too contradictory to fit into any political party. I am an independent who can't stand what either party has become and can't get behind either one of them. I really, really get tired of being referred to derisively and dismissively as "a liberal" when I express an opinion on some issues. Same goes for the times when I express an opinion on other issues that might seem more conservative, and then the wingnut, frother, or whatever jabs come flying. Basically, I'm so damned sick of the 'we're right/good and you're wrong/bad' schtick from the two major parties and their screeching lemmings that I need to stay the hell out of political threads from now on. The fact that so many are so easily manipulated into the us vs. them rhetoric coming from BOTH sides disgusts me. Life's too short to be so irritated by pointless bullshit arguing and mudslinging. I'm out of political talk for the forseeable future. So here ya go-a political hairflip, if you will. *jodster, I'm so sorry. I originally had your name here, but I should have known that was wrong. You're not one to throw out the passive-aggressive insults.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:44:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 11:37:34 GMT
Thank you for taking the time to explain Ingrid.
I do believe (to a point) in evolution...about species adapting over time. We see it all the time in germs, for example, and I believe it's happened with other species as well.
And I'm not against evolution being taught in school & my son learning about it. I want him to learn about both so that he can make a choice about what he believes when the time comes.
I believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I don't pretend to know how it fits in with modern science. I could learn more, but reading about scientific stuff bores me to tears....
@ilovecookies ... No worries. I'm sure I've been passive aggressive a time or two. It's an easy trap to fall into.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 6, 2015 13:47:43 GMT
ingrid, I just got a chance to read your long post above. Thank you for stating so eloquently what many of us were trying to say more clumsily. Great post.
|
|
|
Post by Regina Phalange on Mar 6, 2015 16:11:04 GMT
The very fact that he feels marriage is a religious institution shows that he lets his religion shape his beliefs. That's what religion does. It shapes your beliefs. It's a moral compass of sorts. Our current President has religious beliefs that have shaped his beliefs. Every President has had religious beliefs that have shaped their beliefs. The founding fathers had religious beliefs that shaped their belief. Everyone has something that shaped their beliefs, some sort of moral compass. Do you prefer an atheist President? I'm not sure I understand your point. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. People who use their religious beliefs to dictate to others, should not hold public office. The fact that he thinks that marriage is religious and not a civil matter is going to shape how he governs. He's basically conveyed that in what he's said. Religion has no place in making laws.
|
|