« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, aymanelhakea, Liamjod, mnopq, Shweta-sj
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Marielle Saums
Joined: Mar 27, 2005
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Virginia
|
[Poll] Reply to A-mandolin
April 3, 2005 - 07:31 AM
|
|
Hey to all who are worrying their brains out about the state of the world! Oops, that might be just me. Anyways, I am very concerned about the role of religion in American politics. I feel that more and more of our rights are being taken away by the U.S.Governmnet. I was listening to NPR on the radio today and learned that there are pharmacies that refuse to carry birth control pills, or they don't sell them to unmarried women! Dosn't that scare you? It shouldn't be the choice of the pharmacist to wether they can have birth control or not!
Also, the issue of gay marriage. Even though laws that have to do with marriage are usually left to the states, George W. Bush wants to make an amendment to the constitution that bans gay marriage! It is extremely unfair that Bush is mixing his own personal beliefs with politics that effect millions of Americans! Leave the decision to people who are actually gay! Banning gay marriage won't make them straight! And what good would the amendment do?
On the issue of abortion, there are states that are banning it, even in cases of rape. Shouldn't very personal and serious life-changing decision be left to women to decide for themselves? I don't think Bush will be having to deal with a pregnancy anytime soon! besides, It isn't fair to let Bush make this decision for women when he has no idea how hard that decision is to make.
So guys and girls, what is your opinion about the role of religion in these issues of today? Write back with your opinion, no matter how conservative or liberal your answer is.
What do you think should be allowed?
Abortion
(0 votes for 0%)
Gay Marriage
(2 votes for 66.67%)
Birth Control in all pharmacies
(1 votes for 33.33%)
Euthanasia
(0 votes for 0%)
Death Penalty
(0 votes for 0%)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Aarthy
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 23
Country: Canada
|
Re: Reply to A-mandolin
April 3, 2005 - 08:20 AM
|
|
Hey, 
Well I'd like to begin with the fact that most of the U.S. population voted for the Bush government because of his stance on certain religious issues. America is largely a traditional society. Religion plays a large role.
Birth control, hmm. Well some believe that it is the women's biological responsibility to reproduce, and so on and so forth, so they are not to interfere with God's will. I may be wrong, but didn't Mary have a choice to whether she would have God's child? Just a question. It is the right of the pharmacy to sell or not sell whatever it wants. They are the profiters, it is a business, their business.
About Gay Marriages, yes it is an issue that many are fighting for and against. There are many places in the world where Gay Marriage, and acts, are banned, and treated as a fed. offence! This is not only personal for Bush, there are many Americans agaisnt it as well, mainly due to religion. Which brings back the role of religion in the state. I don't think they are banning gay marriages to "make them straight", but rather to "save" the meaning of family, etc. If you want more information about fights for Marriage, you can look at the Gay Marriage dispute in Canada. I believe, that next week, they will be stating whether, under law, these marriages can be conducted.
Well, you can't blame Bush on making a decision about it. He is the president, and was given this issue, it is his job to make such a decision, and the majority of Americans believe he will make the right one (as they voted him in). Abortion is a touchy subject, it shouldn't be looked at as "oh it will change the yet-to-be mother's life", it should be looked at in a way to see if the mother of the child can take care of them, with out that child being in any harm. It should be about the yet-to-be born child, because they will either be a joy or a burden. If the yet-to-be mother cannot survive, with a child, and the child will be in danger, then she can make a good decision. It is not always a selfish one, the child should be thought of as well. I mean to say this, because this is how we always think. When we use natural resources, and do business, we do it in a way that we can meet our needs, and are told to always make sure that the future generations are able to survive as well.
There is always two sides, sometimes three.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Amanda
Joined: Apr 4, 2005
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 19
Country: United States
Province/State: Kentucky
|
Re: Reply to A-mandolin
April 4, 2005 - 09:51 AM
|
|
The original constitution was written to give people freedom. When the seperation of church and state was made clear, it was to help protect people from unnecessary prejudice. I am against birth control myself, but that doesn't mean that I would want my constitutional rights to be taken away from me if I got the desire to have them. And birth control has many uses. It is used to regulate periods and clear up extreme cases of acne. But stores do have a right to decide what and when to sell.
Now, about the Gay marraige issue. I have been raised to be accepting. My aunt is a lesbian, and I have never been bothered by it. Now people are trying to say that her marraige is unconstitutional? I looked up marraige in a dictionary. Here is the definition: 'A loving legal union between two people'. So why is there an argument?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Uday Rosario
Joined: Feb 28, 2002
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: United Kingdom
|
Reply to A-mandolin
April 4, 2005 - 10:29 AM
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree with your views. But your definition of marriage struck me a bit. Your emphasis is on "loving" and "union", which is perfect. But you ignored the "legal" bit. Governments determine the legalities in their jurisdictions. Thereby, a government which has not seperated itself from religion ( also not fulfilling a fundamental criteria in defining democracy ) would determine such a union to be "not legal". So thats where all the arguments stem from.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 37
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Reply to A-mandolin
April 4, 2005 - 11:33 AM
|
|
Originally posted by eco-youth
I wholeheartedly agree with your views. But your definition of marriage struck me a bit. Your emphasis is on "loving" and "union", which is perfect. But you ignored the "legal" bit. Governments determine the legalities in their jurisdictions. Thereby, a government which has not seperated itself from religion ( also not fulfilling a fundamental criteria in defining democracy ) would determine such a union to be "not legal". So thats where all the arguments stem from.
On the Bush/gay marriage thing...he came out and said this not long before the election but I don't think many Christian Conservatives heard him! He said in an interview on TV (i forget with who exactly, but I saw it myself!) that he supports civil unions for gays. He stated it directly with no "Bushisms" which really threw me for a loop. I have no idea why this comment wasn't picked up and made a huge issue considering his stance on the marriage issue. That's the media for ya!
The State and Church are seperate, but from what I'm hearing lately from a good number of Christians, there is a movement to do away with the seperation. Nothing official, but there are many who feel that the "Church" needs to be running things. Personally, I think this would do great harm to both the Church and the State. Just my thoughts. = )
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
