Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Michelle Obama

2011-06-24T02:41:44Z

AShep:

[[Image:Obama_Michelle.jpg|right|140px]] '''Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama''' (born January 17, 1964) is the [[First Lady]] of the U.S. since her husband [[Barack Obama]]'s inauguration as president on Jan. 20, 2009. She is the first [[African American]] First Lady.

Born and raised on the south side of [[Chicago]], Michelle Obama's roots, has a complex path from Slavery: Fraser Robinson III (died in 1991) and his wife, Marian are the parents of Michelle; they got married in 1960; ''Melvinia Shields, the enslaved and illiterate young girl, and the unknown white man who impregnated her are the great-great-great-grandparents of Michelle Obama, the first lady...'' ''the more complete map of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors — including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields — connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency.'' <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/us/politics/08genealogy.html In First Lady’s Roots, a Complex Path From Slavery.] </ref> (Dolphus Shields was a very light skinned, church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town.) Some of Michelle's relatives still reside in [[South Carolina]].
[[File:Robinson III and Marian.jpg|left|175px|Robinson III and Marian with their children.]]
Michelle Obama attended Whitney Young High School in 1981, later majoring in [[sociology]] and graduating ''[[cum laude]]'' at [[Princeton University]]. She then went on to obtain her [[Juris Doctor|J.D. degree]] at [[Harvard Law School]] in 1988. She is also sister to Craig Robinson, coach of the [[Oregon State University]]'s men's basketball team.

Michelle was employed at the law firm [[Sidley Austin]] along with [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorist]] [[Bernardine Dohrn]],<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjY4YzdhMDBkZGQ3ZmU2MTUzYjdkMzc5ZjUzYmViZWM=#more ''Why Won’t Obama Talk About Columbia?],
The years he won’t discuss may explain the Ayers tie he keeps lying about.'' By Andrew C. McCarthy, [[National Review]], October 7, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection], Cliff Kincaid, America's Survival, Inc.</ref> where she met Barack Obama. In 1991 [[Valerie Jarrett]], Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, offered Michelle Robinson a job as Assistant to Mayor [[Richard Daley]].

She served as vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center. Michelle earned $317,000. per year as a board member dealing with community relations. She had resigned those positions to campaign for Barack.

Marrying in 1992, Obama gave birth to two daughters: Malia (born in 1998) and Natasha "Sasha" (born in 2001). She committed to campaign only two days out of the week during the election campaign in order to stay home with their children.

[[Bill Ayers]] stated "Michelle Obama has become the queen not just of [[America]] but of the world."

==Militant Racism==
Michelle Obama attended Princeton University where she created her graduating thesis paper. Media requests to view the documents during Barack's presidential campaign were denied. The university stated suspiciously that it would be available to the public after the general election and for good reason. Michelle identifies with black militancy, utterly obsessed with race in [[America]] and her own blackness. <ref>[http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1182 Michelle Obama’s Early Militant Racism Revealed, RightPundits.com, February 25th, 2008]</ref>

{{cquote|I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.}}

{{cquote|Attending Princeton has probably forced [black alumni] to compete intellectually with Whites more than with Blacks and, thus, they have probably become more familiar with Whites intellectually, but in other activities they are likely to have gained familiarity with Whites if they did not spend time with Whites in other activities besides intellectual ones.}}

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world. Her attitude explains the very reason she felt comfortable attending Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]]'s black liberation theology church for twenty years. Read the full thesis here: [http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf Part 1] [http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_26-501.pdf Part 2] [http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_51-751.pdf Part 3] [http://dyn.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_76-981.pdf Part 4]

==University of Chicago Medical Center==
While Michelle was vice-president at the medical center, she connected with [[David Axelrod]]'s company "ASK Public Strategies" and along with Valerie Jarrett, promoted the Urban Health Initiative. The hospital gave their approval. Some are calling for an investigation because the result was a patient-dumping scheme to avoid dealing with Medicare/Medicaid patients. <ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/23/video-did-michelle-obama-start-a-patient-dumping-program/ Video: Did Michelle Obama start a patient-dumping program? Hotair.com, July 23, 2009]</ref> In March of 2009, the ''[[American Thinker]]'' wrote:
{{cquote|Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP's president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes "dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html</ref>}}

==Support for Late Term Abortions==
Michelle Obama wrote a fund-raising letter during her husband's 2004 US Senate campaign claiming the [[partial birth abortion]] ban "is clearly unconstitutional" and "a flawed law." <ref>[http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/michelle_obamas.html Michelle Obama's partial birth abortion fund-raising letter, JillStanek.com, May 8, 2008]</ref> A late trimester abortion of a woman's pregnancy involves the jamming of scissors into the back of a child's head, Michelle describes it as "legitimate" medicine.

==Quotes While Campaigning==
* '''"For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."''' <ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331288,00.html</ref>

*"Before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

*"There is still a lot of hard work that we as a country need to do. They can't look to any one individual, whether it's Barack or it's the next new hope that's going to appear to be that '''savior'''."

*"No matter what the outcome is, we have to keep our eyes on the bigger picture. We need some kind of change. We can't cut off our noses to spite our faces."

*"We have this window of opportunity; we have a chance to make something real happen. Something possible happen, to live beyond our fear, think about that, and help us. Help lift us up, help us fight this fight to change, - transform - this country in a fundamental way. This chance won't come around again."

*"Millions of Americans who know that Barack understands their dreams; that Barack will fight for people like them; and that Barack will finally bring the change we need."

*"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service."

*"We had a miraculous victory in Iowa. '''Ain't no black people in Iowa!''' Something big, something new is happening. Let's build the future we all know is possible. Let's show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now."

==Michelle Obama and Liberal Elitism==
[[File:art.jpg|right|150px]]
''For more information please see:'' [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]] ''and also see'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]]

In 2008, the Huffington Post was reported that Michelle Obama wore $540 sneakers to a food bank.
<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html</ref>

[[Powerline]] offers the following criticism of Michelle Obama:
{{cquote|She says that she and Barack were born to parents of modest means, not with "silver spoons" in their mouths. Nobody knows the trouble they've seen. The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at [[Princeton]] and her law school education at [[Harvard]] has scarred her. It remains a motif of her stump speech. No one is accorded a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any of the financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/05/020456.php</ref>}}

Michelle Obama's [[liberal elite|liberal elitism]] is not surprising given the [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|high degree of liberal elitism that Barack Obama continually displays]].

==Fashion Disaster==

Michelle has been consistently ridiculed for her fashion choices. Since the age of television, the press has been keen to report on the First Lady's appearance by noting regal, stylish and elegant dresses she wears. The opposite can be said of Michelle. She makes headlines for sleeveless gowns, hideous color matching, $500 sneakers, always wearing torso belts, and exiting [[Air Force One]] in shorts and a t-shirt, among others. She gives the impression that she is trying to be a Diva, but in reality, she is far from being a trend-setter. In fact, reviews always return negative statements such as gaudy, tacky, and unbecoming of the role the First Lady inherits. <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0226-sleeveless-michelle-obafeb26,0,3657652.story Some harrumph over Michelle Obama's sleeveless dress, Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009]</ref> <ref>[http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/06/16/fashion-designers-keep-pretending-michelle-obama-has-style/ Fashion Designers Keep Pretending Michelle Obama Has Style, thehotjoints.com, JUNE 16, 2009]</ref> <ref>[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huggett/090611 Michelle Obama: First Lady of fashion victims, RenewAmerica.com, June 11, 2009]</ref> <ref>[http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article6470675.ece Michelle Obama's Abbey outfit: stacked like a wedding cake – but nice colours, The Times, June 10, 2009]</ref>

It was noted in April 2011 that Michelle has already replaced her first two fashion stylists. <ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/04/michelle_obama_may_have_switch.html Michelle Obama May Have Switched Stylists Again, NYMag.com, April 13, 2011]</ref>

==First Grandmother==
Michelle's mother moved into the [[White House]] to help raise her grandchildren.

==Bringing the Olympics to Chicago==
The First Lady, along with [[Oprah Winfrey]], traveled to [[Copenhagen]] to support Barack Obama's pitch for the Olympics in Chicago. She claimed that the trip was a sacrifice to visit for a few days. <ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michelle-Obama-Its-a-sacrifice-to-travel-to-Europe-to-pitch-for-the-Olympics--For-Oprah-and-the-president-too--But-were-doing-it-for-the-kids-62928957.html Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids, Washington Examiner, September 30, 2009]</ref> She would give a speech to Olympic officials saying, "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection." <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/michelle.obama.olympics/ Michelle Obama steals the show in Copenhagen, CNN, October 2, 2009]</ref> It was noted that either she was lying or that it was a strange occurrence for her to be sitting on her dad's lap, since she was 20 years old when Carl Lewis first competed in the Olympics. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/quote-of-the-day-the-first-ladys-tall-olympic-tale/ tall tale of the day: The First Lady’s weird Olympic memory, Michelle Malkin, October 2, 2009]</ref>

==Healthy Eating Initiative==

''See also:'' [[Overweight Obama administration officials]]

Michelle made the liberal media news cycle by promoting healthy eating from the White House garden. The food network filmed “Iron Chef America" showcasing Michelle's healthy food, cooking five dishes using the secret ingredient: produce from the [[White House]] garden. The two-hour special showed the chefs picking sweet potatoes, broccoli, fennel and tomatillos from the White House garden. An issue came to light that the foods were actually prepared in [[New York City]], speculating that the entire show was just staged to look like produce from her garden. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/14/everythings-staged-michelle-obamas-garden-food-was-fake/ Everything’s staged: Michelle Obama’s garden food was fake, Michelle Malkin, January 14, 2010]</ref> Also, her campaign against obesity has not stopped her and Barack from [http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_hypocrisy#The_Obamas_and_obesity taking their children out for ice cream while on vacation].

In Michelle Obama's first interview on the [[Fox News]] network, she would tout her responsible-eating initiative for kids. She would highlight the Obama Administration's $400 million Healthy Food Financing Initiative and her "Let's Move" campaign, which educates the danger of obese children and healthy eating. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61I5E820100219 U.S. launches program to end "food deserts", February 19, 2010]</ref> She would tie the promises of the program to saying it would create 5000 jobs and pointed out that childhood obesity is a threat to national security. She urges children and parents to just skip "food desserts".

She would promote healthy eating initiatives for schools. Barack sought and passed legislation costing more than $4 billion. It is a horrible example of nanny state politics with draconian requirements on what can or cannot be sold at school bake sales and at the school cafeteria.

=== Michelle Obama Greeted an overweight U.S. Surgeon General for a MyPlate initiative ===

''See also:'' [[Overweight Obama administration officials]]

In June of 2011, Michelle Obama greeted an overweight U.S. Surgeon General Regina M. Benjamin as they introduce the MyPlate initiative.<ref>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/06/06/food_guide_efforts_are_a_waste/</ref>

==First Lady's staff of 22==

*$172,200 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
*$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
*$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
*Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY) <ref>[http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 First Lady requires more than twenty attendants] Canadian Free Press, July 7, 2009</ref>

===Staff Turnover Rate===
In just under three years, she has gone through three chiefs of staff, three secretaries, two communication directors and a press secretary. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/expert-blames-michelle-os-staff-turnover-on-race/ EXPERT BLAMES MICHELLE O’S STAFF TURNOVER ON….RACE?, THEBLAZE, May 27, 2011]</ref>

== About This Article ==
This article is a disgusting example of what Conservapedia is. It is an unwarranted, malicious attack on the first lady of the United States. It is racist article that spews out only the cruel, distorted, and malevolent opinions of a group of haters. The people who wrote this article should be ashamed and anyone who reads it for factual information is out of their mind.

[[File:MichelleandCarla.jpg|right|250px|thumb| Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy in attendance of a ceremony to mark the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, June 6, 2009.]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.life-in-spite-of-ms.com/fraserrobinson.html Fraser Robinson III ~ Michelle Obama's Father]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Michelle}}
[[Category: Women]]
[[Category: Obama Administration]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2011-06-24T02:26:10Z

AShep:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref>

[[Poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly in his time in office.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-09-16-poverty-rate-income-numbers_N.htm</ref>By and large, his economic policies to combat the recession have, to date, ranged from ineffective to counterproductive.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed a major [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. In foreign policy Obama has escalated the [[Afghanistan War]] and, against his own Defense Secretary's advice, [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. On May 1st 2011 he announced that the United States had killed [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]] in [[Pakistan]] with negligible impact on his overall approval ratings.

[[John Maynard Keynes]] was an incompetent [[liberal]] [[British]] economist, [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] and one of the most persuasive frauds of the 20th century.
<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> It is ironic that [[liberal]]s such as [[Barack Obama]] advocate [[Keynesian Economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] since they are violating one of Keynes' key principles. [[John Maynard Keynes]] advocated having governments run [[budget surplus|budget surpluses]] during good economic times.<ref>EK Brown-Collie and Bruce E. Collier, What Keynes really said about deficit spending, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 1995</ref>
In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in [[deficit spending]].<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> Keynes was also against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/</ref> Liberals such as Barack Obama [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|advocate massive U.S. government spending]] during a period when the federal government already has a [[Obama administration fiscal policy|massive amount of existing debt]]. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems]], but merely [[Obama administration fiscal policy|buried the U.S. economy under more debt.]]

In 2010, Keynes' native land of [[Britain]] (which is deeply in debt) repudiated the Keynesian economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of a government austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.<ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref> Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as [[investment|investing.]]

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It is disputed whether Obama was actually born in the United States, many people believing him to have been born in Kenya.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father.''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher Jeremiah Wright. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor.<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, although it certainly was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]].<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]], the federal courts have found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainsream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]] filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Khadafy [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, however 50,000 U.S. troops remain in the country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-31/politics/obama.oval.office.address_1_iraq-requests-united-states-and-iraq-troop-surge?_s=PM:POLITICS|work=CNN|title=Obama: 'Time to turn the page' as Iraq combat mission ends|date=August 31, 2010|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2011-06-24T02:25:01Z

AShep:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref>

[[Poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly in his time in office.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-09-16-poverty-rate-income-numbers_N.htm</ref>By and large, his economic policies to combat the recession have, to date, ranged from ineffective to counterproductive.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed a major [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. In foreign policy Obama has escalated the [[Afghanistan War]] and, against his own Defense Secretary's advice, [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. On May 1st 2011 he announced that the United States had killed [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]] in [[Pakistan]] with negligible impact on his overall approval ratings.

[[John Maynard Keynes]] was an incompetent [[liberal]] [[British]] economist, [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] and one of the most persuasive frauds of the 20th century.
<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> It is ironic that [[liberal]]s such as [[Barack Obama]] advocate [[Keynesian Economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] since they are violating one of Keynes' key principles. [[John Maynard Keynes]] advocated having governments run [[budget surplus|budget surpluses]] during good economic times.<ref>EK Brown-Collie and Bruce E. Collier, What Keynes really said about deficit spending, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 1995</ref>
In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in [[deficit spending]].<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> Keynes was also against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/</ref> Liberals such as Barack Obama [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|advocate massive U.S. government spending]] during a period when the federal government already has a [[Obama administration fiscal policy|massive amount of existing debt]]. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems]], but merely [[Obama administration fiscal policy|buried the U.S. economy under more debt.]]

In 2010, Keynes' native land of [[Britain]] (which is deeply in debt) repudiated the Keynesian economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of a government austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.<ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref> Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as [[investment|investing.]]

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It is disputed whether Obama was actually born in the United States, many people believing him to have been born in Kenya.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father.''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher Jeremiah Wright. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor.<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, although it certainly was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]].<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]], the federal courts have found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainsream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]] filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Khadafy [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, however 50,000 U.S. troops remain in the country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-31/politics/obama.oval.office.address_1_iraq-requests-united-states-and-iraq-troop-surge?_s=PM:POLITICS|work=CNN|title=Obama: 'Time to turn the page' as Iraq combat mission ends|date=August 31, 2010|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2011-06-23T04:24:47Z

AShep: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

A pharmacist is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL and has a duty to his client to ensure the drug provided is proper treatment and has no bad interactions with other drugs prescribed and no safety concerns with a patients other conditions. They are a additional support and check on the Doctor. If the drug is legal and properly prescribed then the Pharmacist has a professional responsibility to provide it. If they can make choices on personal moral grounds then they could decide that an alcoholic should not get treatment, a women could be prevented from contraceptives and that sort of thing.

*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''yes''': I think it's important that pharmacists who have moral objections be allowed to do what they can to avoid something they object to, but if it comes down to it, the doctor prescribed a medication based on his or her best understanding of the situation. I have read stories of Pharmacists refusing to give women Birth Control, but they do not know *why* the woman needed it. there are medical conditions that require birth control, including some that are very serious like debilitating crams and blood loss. Conditions which have nothing to do with a woman having sex or not, or wanting a child or not. If arrangements can be made, say another pharmacist, they should get to say "you do it". but if no alternative exists, their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway. I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts. If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items. I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows. You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank. You '''can''' do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights. (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though. I just think employers should have the option to do so.) [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Buddy, if they think they might have to handle and give out drugs they think are morally wrong, they shouldn't go for the job in the first place. If they do decide to do so they need to realize their mistake of taking the job and then either do their job or quit. If one could always claim that moral and religious duties came before their employment duties, people could get away with a lot of bad crap. If I worked at Starbucks but felt that a specific frappoccino (probably spelled that wrong) was against my religion and I refused to make and give it to people on those grounds, people would disapprove of that and I'd probably get my ass fired in the meantime. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 00:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Going back to Terry's original point, a pharmacist could not be sued for dispensing a prescribed drug (Viagra in your example) to a patient, even if the patient died as a result of a side-effect of that drug, unless the pharmacist was negligent (that is to say, unless the pharmacist dispensed his viagra script at the same time he dispensed a nitrate to the guy, and he died as a result of an interaction between the two that the pharmacist should have picked up on but did not.) Giving Viagra to a really old guy might have been a bad call on the behalf of the old man's doctor, and it's possible the doctor could be sued for malpractice over it -- but the pharmacist could not be sued for it. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Pointing out to someone that they are making a common grammatical error is hardly an ad hominem attack. Mr. Schlafly himself points out such errors all the time. The fact that language is dynamic does not change the fact that there are generally-agreed upon standards. You are, of course, perfectly free to flout those standards if you so choose; however, the message that you are likely to convey in so doing is a lack of facility with standard English. Someone who insists on using "ain't" on a resume, on the grounds that it's a word and he has a right to use it, is still likely to get his job application tossed in the circular file in short order. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those?

::Yes. Moreover, I can enumerate them. Allow me to point out that, contrary to the beliefs of a great many people today, those inalienable rights do ''not'' include the "right to employment." As an aside, I truly wish that all of those who feel the need to talk about their "Constitutional rights" would take the time to become educated on precisely what those rights are; the level of ignorance in this country concerning the supreme law of the land is shocking.

:You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

::As a matter of fact, it does not. Could you please show me where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the right to "not do anything that's against your own conscience" is spelled out? In fact, there are many things that you can be forced to do, regardless of whether they're "against your own conscience." Someone who decides that taxes are morally wrong and therefore refuses to pay them is quite likely to go to jail for doing so. Someone whose conscience tells them that a suspected rapist who gets out on a technicality deserves to die, and shoots said rapist, is still going to face severe legal consequences. During time of war, those whose conscience leads them to give material aid and comfort to the enemy can face consequences up to and including execution as a result.

:The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::So you don't believe the employer has the basic right to decide who he will or will not employ. Thank you for clarifying that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life? Interesting. Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat. What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam? And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No one should be forced to do something they find objectionable but they're going to find slim pickings in the job market if they can't suck it up close their eyes and hand the bottle away. GoSweden

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2011-06-23T04:24:27Z

AShep: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

A pharmacist is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL and has a duty to his client to ensure the drug provided is proper treatment and has no bad interactions with other drugs prescribed and no safety concerns with a patients other conditions. They are a additional support and check on the Doctor. If the drug is legal and properly prescribed then the Pharmacist has a professional responsibility to provide it. If they can make choices on personal moral grounds then they could decide that an alcoholic should not get treatment, a women could be prevented from contraceptives and that sort of thing.

*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''yes''': I think it's important that pharmacists who have moral objections be allowed to do what they can to avoid something they object to, but if it comes down to it, the doctor prescribed a medication based on his or her best understanding of the situation. I have read stories of Pharmacists refusing to give women Birth Control, but they do not know *why* the woman needed it. there are medical conditions that require birth control, including some that are very serious like debilitating crams and blood loss. Conditions which have nothing to do with a woman having sex or not, or wanting a child or not. If arrangements can be made, say another pharmacist, they should get to say "you do it". but if no alternative exists, their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway. I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts. If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items. I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows. You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank. You '''can''' do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights. (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though. I just think employers should have the option to do so.) [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

^^Buddy, if they think they might have to handle and give out drugs they think are morally wrong, they shouldn't go for the job in the first place. If they do decide to do so they need to realize their mistake of taking the job and then either do their job or quit. If one could always claim that moral and religious duties came before their employment duties, people could get away with a lot of bad crap. If I worked at Starbucks but felt that a specific frappoccino (probably spelled that wrong) was against my religion and I refused to make and give it to people on those grounds, people would disapprove of that and I'd probably get my ass fired in the meantime. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 00:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Going back to Terry's original point, a pharmacist could not be sued for dispensing a prescribed drug (Viagra in your example) to a patient, even if the patient died as a result of a side-effect of that drug, unless the pharmacist was negligent (that is to say, unless the pharmacist dispensed his viagra script at the same time he dispensed a nitrate to the guy, and he died as a result of an interaction between the two that the pharmacist should have picked up on but did not.) Giving Viagra to a really old guy might have been a bad call on the behalf of the old man's doctor, and it's possible the doctor could be sued for malpractice over it -- but the pharmacist could not be sued for it. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Pointing out to someone that they are making a common grammatical error is hardly an ad hominem attack. Mr. Schlafly himself points out such errors all the time. The fact that language is dynamic does not change the fact that there are generally-agreed upon standards. You are, of course, perfectly free to flout those standards if you so choose; however, the message that you are likely to convey in so doing is a lack of facility with standard English. Someone who insists on using "ain't" on a resume, on the grounds that it's a word and he has a right to use it, is still likely to get his job application tossed in the circular file in short order. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those?

::Yes. Moreover, I can enumerate them. Allow me to point out that, contrary to the beliefs of a great many people today, those inalienable rights do ''not'' include the "right to employment." As an aside, I truly wish that all of those who feel the need to talk about their "Constitutional rights" would take the time to become educated on precisely what those rights are; the level of ignorance in this country concerning the supreme law of the land is shocking.

:You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

::As a matter of fact, it does not. Could you please show me where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the right to "not do anything that's against your own conscience" is spelled out? In fact, there are many things that you can be forced to do, regardless of whether they're "against your own conscience." Someone who decides that taxes are morally wrong and therefore refuses to pay them is quite likely to go to jail for doing so. Someone whose conscience tells them that a suspected rapist who gets out on a technicality deserves to die, and shoots said rapist, is still going to face severe legal consequences. During time of war, those whose conscience leads them to give material aid and comfort to the enemy can face consequences up to and including execution as a result.

:The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::So you don't believe the employer has the basic right to decide who he will or will not employ. Thank you for clarifying that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life? Interesting. Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat. What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam? And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No one should be forced to do something they find objectionable but they're going to find slim pickings in the job market if they can't suck it up close their eyes and hand the bottle away. GoSweden

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2011-06-23T04:24:03Z

AShep: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

A pharmacist is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL and has a duty to his client to ensure the drug provided is proper treatment and has no bad interactions with other drugs prescribed and no safety concerns with a patients other conditions. They are a additional support and check on the Doctor. If the drug is legal and properly prescribed then the Pharmacist has a professional responsibility to provide it. If they can make choices on personal moral grounds then they could decide that an alcoholic should not get treatment, a women could be prevented from contraceptives and that sort of thing.

*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''yes''': I think it's important that pharmacists who have moral objections be allowed to do what they can to avoid something they object to, but if it comes down to it, the doctor prescribed a medication based on his or her best understanding of the situation. I have read stories of Pharmacists refusing to give women Birth Control, but they do not know *why* the woman needed it. there are medical conditions that require birth control, including some that are very serious like debilitating crams and blood loss. Conditions which have nothing to do with a woman having sex or not, or wanting a child or not. If arrangements can be made, say another pharmacist, they should get to say "you do it". but if no alternative exists, their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway. I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts. If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items. I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows. You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank. You '''can''' do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights. (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though. I just think employers should have the option to do so.) [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

^Buddy, if they think they might have to handle and give out drugs they think are morally wrong, they shouldn't go for the job in the first place. If they do decide to do so they need to realize their mistake of taking the job and then either do their job or quit. If one could always claim that moral and religious duties came before their employment duties, people could get away with a lot of bad crap. If I worked at Starbucks but felt that a specific frappoccino (probably spelled that wrong) was against my religion and I refused to make and give it to people on those grounds, people would disapprove of that and I'd probably get my ass fired in the meantime. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 00:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Going back to Terry's original point, a pharmacist could not be sued for dispensing a prescribed drug (Viagra in your example) to a patient, even if the patient died as a result of a side-effect of that drug, unless the pharmacist was negligent (that is to say, unless the pharmacist dispensed his viagra script at the same time he dispensed a nitrate to the guy, and he died as a result of an interaction between the two that the pharmacist should have picked up on but did not.) Giving Viagra to a really old guy might have been a bad call on the behalf of the old man's doctor, and it's possible the doctor could be sued for malpractice over it -- but the pharmacist could not be sued for it. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Pointing out to someone that they are making a common grammatical error is hardly an ad hominem attack. Mr. Schlafly himself points out such errors all the time. The fact that language is dynamic does not change the fact that there are generally-agreed upon standards. You are, of course, perfectly free to flout those standards if you so choose; however, the message that you are likely to convey in so doing is a lack of facility with standard English. Someone who insists on using "ain't" on a resume, on the grounds that it's a word and he has a right to use it, is still likely to get his job application tossed in the circular file in short order. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those?

::Yes. Moreover, I can enumerate them. Allow me to point out that, contrary to the beliefs of a great many people today, those inalienable rights do ''not'' include the "right to employment." As an aside, I truly wish that all of those who feel the need to talk about their "Constitutional rights" would take the time to become educated on precisely what those rights are; the level of ignorance in this country concerning the supreme law of the land is shocking.

:You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

::As a matter of fact, it does not. Could you please show me where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the right to "not do anything that's against your own conscience" is spelled out? In fact, there are many things that you can be forced to do, regardless of whether they're "against your own conscience." Someone who decides that taxes are morally wrong and therefore refuses to pay them is quite likely to go to jail for doing so. Someone whose conscience tells them that a suspected rapist who gets out on a technicality deserves to die, and shoots said rapist, is still going to face severe legal consequences. During time of war, those whose conscience leads them to give material aid and comfort to the enemy can face consequences up to and including execution as a result.

:The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::So you don't believe the employer has the basic right to decide who he will or will not employ. Thank you for clarifying that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life? Interesting. Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat. What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam? And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No one should be forced to do something they find objectionable but they're going to find slim pickings in the job market if they can't suck it up close their eyes and hand the bottle away. GoSweden

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2011-06-23T04:23:31Z

AShep: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

A pharmacist is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL and has a duty to his client to ensure the drug provided is proper treatment and has no bad interactions with other drugs prescribed and no safety concerns with a patients other conditions. They are a additional support and check on the Doctor. If the drug is legal and properly prescribed then the Pharmacist has a professional responsibility to provide it. If they can make choices on personal moral grounds then they could decide that an alcoholic should not get treatment, a women could be prevented from contraceptives and that sort of thing.

*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''yes''': I think it's important that pharmacists who have moral objections be allowed to do what they can to avoid something they object to, but if it comes down to it, the doctor prescribed a medication based on his or her best understanding of the situation. I have read stories of Pharmacists refusing to give women Birth Control, but they do not know *why* the woman needed it. there are medical conditions that require birth control, including some that are very serious like debilitating crams and blood loss. Conditions which have nothing to do with a woman having sex or not, or wanting a child or not. If arrangements can be made, say another pharmacist, they should get to say "you do it". but if no alternative exists, their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway. I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts. If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items. I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows. You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank. You '''can''' do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights. (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though. I just think employers should have the option to do so.) [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

^Buddy, if they think they might have to handle and give out drugs they think are morally wrong, they shouldn't go for the job in the first place. If they do decide to do so they need to realize their mistake of taking the job and then either do their job or quit. If one could always claim that moral and religious duties came before their employment duties, people could get away with a lot of bad crap. If I worked at Starbucks but felt that a specific frappoccino (probably spelled that wrong) was against my religion and I refused to make and give it to people on those grounds, people would disapprove of that and I'd probably get my ass fired in the meantime. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 00:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Going back to Terry's original point, a pharmacist could not be sued for dispensing a prescribed drug (Viagra in your example) to a patient, even if the patient died as a result of a side-effect of that drug, unless the pharmacist was negligent (that is to say, unless the pharmacist dispensed his viagra script at the same time he dispensed a nitrate to the guy, and he died as a result of an interaction between the two that the pharmacist should have picked up on but did not.) Giving Viagra to a really old guy might have been a bad call on the behalf of the old man's doctor, and it's possible the doctor could be sued for malpractice over it -- but the pharmacist could not be sued for it. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Pointing out to someone that they are making a common grammatical error is hardly an ad hominem attack. Mr. Schlafly himself points out such errors all the time. The fact that language is dynamic does not change the fact that there are generally-agreed upon standards. You are, of course, perfectly free to flout those standards if you so choose; however, the message that you are likely to convey in so doing is a lack of facility with standard English. Someone who insists on using "ain't" on a resume, on the grounds that it's a word and he has a right to use it, is still likely to get his job application tossed in the circular file in short order. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those?

::Yes. Moreover, I can enumerate them. Allow me to point out that, contrary to the beliefs of a great many people today, those inalienable rights do ''not'' include the "right to employment." As an aside, I truly wish that all of those who feel the need to talk about their "Constitutional rights" would take the time to become educated on precisely what those rights are; the level of ignorance in this country concerning the supreme law of the land is shocking.

:You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

::As a matter of fact, it does not. Could you please show me where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the right to "not do anything that's against your own conscience" is spelled out? In fact, there are many things that you can be forced to do, regardless of whether they're "against your own conscience." Someone who decides that taxes are morally wrong and therefore refuses to pay them is quite likely to go to jail for doing so. Someone whose conscience tells them that a suspected rapist who gets out on a technicality deserves to die, and shoots said rapist, is still going to face severe legal consequences. During time of war, those whose conscience leads them to give material aid and comfort to the enemy can face consequences up to and including execution as a result.

:The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::So you don't believe the employer has the basic right to decide who he will or will not employ. Thank you for clarifying that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life? Interesting. Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat. What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam? And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No one should be forced to do something they find objectionable but they're going to find slim pickings in the job market if they can't suck it up close their eyes and hand the bottle away. GoSweden

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2011-06-23T04:12:43Z

AShep: /* No */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminisce with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marriage should be legalized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundamental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't necessarily held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marriage allowed (a very long stretch, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illegal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religions to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Similarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimum voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral standards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speaks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marriages are based upon one's behavioral preference. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

Here are my questions that no one has yet been able to answer: In what way does homosexuality threaten "straight" marriage? Something I'm not sure if you're aware of: Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't make it mandatory. As to the arguments about it being a behavioral issue, so what if it is? It's attraction. That means it's wrong? You're saying anything we do because we choose to should be illegal? As to gay marriage being against the Bible, so is shaving your face, eating shellfish, and wearing poly-cotton blends. Oh, and you know, stoning people to death for disobeying God's will. Let's reinstate THOSE things, shall we? The fact of the matter is, Congress cannot make laws because God says so, because we do not live in a theocracy. For that same reason, Congress cannot mandate churches to perform same-sex marriages. Now explain to me where you (as in, the collective of heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage) are hurt by this? You say it is your moral decision; and yet, are you not infringing upon my morals with what I view as discrimination? As long as we're following that train of logic. My problem is, this is a "values voting" issue, and that entire concept is wrong to me--values are something you develop through life based on experiences. Values are not something you vote on. I don't think this should even be an issue--as long as it's not hurting anybody, let people make their own moral decisions, and that means, yes, legalizing something because it's behavioral and people want to do it. Because you don't have the right to tell them whether what they do, when it isn't hurting anyone else, is immoral.[[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Now we're getting somewhere! Could someone for the Anti-LGBT Marriage side kindly clarify as to why LGBT marriage is "immoral" or "damaging to society"? Please don't bombard me with "It's God's will" and other crap because being a human, you do '''NOT''' know the will of God.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 12:53, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a sort of silly argument - the notion that because we are not divine we know nothing of the divine. I think the Bible is pretty articulate of the will of God.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:57, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::It's rather simple, actually. If you allow gay marriage, then what reason is there not to allow any other type of marriage? Now, you probably will simply dismiss the question as a "slippery slope" argument and never, ever provide a serious answer. It's okay. It won't be the first time I've run into gay marriage advocates who refuse to answer that question, but it is an important question to answer. In fact, I suspect you already know the answer to the question, just as everyone who opposes gay marriage does. You just refuse to answer it because it would embarrass you and undermine your position. The fact is that if you allow gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to bar any other type of marriage no matter how extreme. Bigamy and polygamy will be first, of course. (In fact, the Netherlands has already started down that road after legalizing gay marriage.[http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301]) Then you will move into "unthinkable" territory: people with animals (which people have already tried[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html]), adults with kids (as is commonplace in Middle Eastern and Eastern societies), etc. But don't worry. I'm sure you can work out deciphering God's will when you meet Him face-to-face and impotently try to explain yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|euHcM xniJ]] 13:49, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

::Iduan, you're citing a religious scripture to support a discriminatory law (Which is expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights) that has been translated and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times in human history, putting into question whether today's Bible differs from that of the one from the Biblical times. As for Jinx's retort, clarification is appreciated on the magical connection between homosexuality and polygamy/bestiality/etc. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:41, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, of course it should be allowed. Civil rights. The constitution bans the government from embracing and promoting religion (ie: the Bible's disapproval of homosexuality). People can't help being gay or lesbian (and if you dare say it's a choice, you are clearly an ignorant bigot who denies scientific fact in favor of what your religion tells you...and I ''almost'' pity you that you have to go through life like that) and they shouldn't be denied the right to be married. I highly doubt other forms of marriage (polygamy, marrying plants or dogs, etc) would then become law. Almost no one supports those other forms of marriage. In the US, with separation of church and state (as described above), religious interpretation of marriage shouldn't be the legal interpretation. No one's going to be forced into a gay marriage against their will and it won't hurt anyone (if your values would be offended, stop being a bigot and it'll be fine). We are in a modern, progressive world (to the dismay of some) and it is inevitable that a basic right such as gay marriage will come into law. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:13, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

^^Yes, because the Bible's interpretation of marriage should be the government's legal interpretation. Screw separation of church and state and the constitutional fact that the govt's prohibited to promote religion. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 00:12, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:What if the law allowed an exception for religious groups? [[User:MatthewLa|MatthewLa]] 20:14, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?

* Civil partnerships should be independent of marriages - meaning that every marriage should be a civil partnership, but not every civil partnership should be a marriage. And civil partnerships shouldn't be restricted to couples; they should allow more than two, and even close relatives, to join. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 15:33, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?

2011-06-23T01:43:20Z

AShep: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Apparently, if we look at the [[Soviet Union]], [[Nazi Germany]] (the Nazis didn't fully persecute gays, see [[Homosexuality in Nazi Germany]] and [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]), and the [[Roman Empire]], these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms. Also, in [[Britain]], [[Canada]], and [[Sweden]], known to be gay friendly countries, people lost their freedom to criticize gays. --[[User:KStanley|KStanley]] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
==No==
Most totalitarian societies have outlawed homosexuality, including Iran's current regime.

KStanley, the Nazis murdered gays, as well as Jews, Slavs, Romani, and the mentally challenged. Murder is murder, no matter the number killed. Canada, Sweden, and the UK, although they are indeed more gay-friendly, are immensely less totalitarian than Nazi Germany and Iran. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]
:Homosexuality itself does not logically equate to totalitarianism. The argument KStanley makes is irrelevant, "these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms.", by that logic if Nazi Germany encouraged eating oranges then oranges are responsable for totalitarianism. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:19, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Correlations and Causality are distinct. Nazi Germany had 2 types of gays, the Butches and the Fems. Nazis persecuted some fems, but promoted many butches to death camp guards, and used other gays for hit squad cannon fodder. if this sounds completely insane, look up the pink swastika, and the many useful and varied sources and references.

: Clarification : many fems were male, and many butches were also male.

:: Conclusion :: Gays as a whole were not to blame for the Nazi ascendancy and ultimate defeat. Hatred of the homoerotic idea was also not completely involved on either side of the Nazi-counterNazi debate.

with love of Israel,

thanks for the new sig ;) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (EST)

'''Is this really a topic for discussion??''' [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:42, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?

2011-06-23T01:42:37Z

AShep: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Apparently, if we look at the [[Soviet Union]], [[Nazi Germany]] (the Nazis didn't fully persecute gays, see [[Homosexuality in Nazi Germany]] and [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]), and the [[Roman Empire]], these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms. Also, in [[Britain]], [[Canada]], and [[Sweden]], known to be gay friendly countries, people lost their freedom to criticize gays. --[[User:KStanley|KStanley]] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
==No==
Most totalitarian societies have outlawed homosexuality, including Iran's current regime.

KStanley, the Nazis murdered gays, as well as Jews, Slavs, Romani, and the mentally challenged. Murder is murder, no matter the number killed. Canada, Sweden, and the UK, although they are indeed more gay-friendly, are immensely less totalitarian than Nazi Germany and Iran. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]
:Homosexuality itself does not logically equate to totalitarianism. The argument KStanley makes is irrelevant, "these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms.", by that logic if Nazi Germany encouraged eating oranges then oranges are responsable for totalitarianism. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:19, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Correlations and Causality are distinct. Nazi Germany had 2 types of gays, the Butches and the Fems. Nazis persecuted some fems, but promoted many butches to death camp guards, and used other gays for hit squad cannon fodder. if this sounds completely insane, look up the pink swastika, and the many useful and varied sources and references.

: Clarification : many fems were male, and many butches were also male.

:: Conclusion :: Gays as a whole were not to blame for the Nazi ascendancy and ultimate defeat. Hatred of the homoerotic idea was also not completely involved on either side of the Nazi-counterNazi debate.

with love of Israel,

thanks for the new sig ;) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Is this really a topic for discussion?? [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:42, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2011-06-23T01:38:25Z

AShep: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.
:*My scientific and theological statements each stand on their own. Please respond to science with science and theology with theology, rather than dismissing my statements. Otherwise, there is no debate.
:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:*Your accusation of dishonesty is misplaced. Positions taken by the APA or WHO are not related to the science; those organizations are politicized (see [[politicized science]]). What matters is the research.
:*Additionally, your reference to a biological basis is incorrect, as scientists have yet to find one - despite media campaigns about a "[[gay gene]]", the research points '''away''' from genetics.
:*As to "environment", if you mean the way children are brought up in their families, then this proves my point. If homosexuals are made, then homosexuals can be cured (although this is harder: see [[reparative therapy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Is ''Sin'' a mental illness? It does affect the mind. You can't seperate God from man. Man was created in His image and likeness. To go against the Creator and sin, you are writing checks to the Devil and his demons.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals...think about Oscar Wilde etc!
You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you,
Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! [[User:bealecr]] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Someone said it is "a development disorder which begins in early childhood". That is not true. They are confused with an actual psychological disorder called Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. Gender Identity Disorder is commonly first seen in childhood. Children who show these symptoms are sometime called tom boys or nancy boys. Those with GID are homosexual, but they are homosexuals who seek a relationship with a heterosexual. An example would be a natural born male who dresses in woman clothing who seekes a relationship with a heterosexual man. He feels he was born in the wrong body and he should be a female. Many crossdress and consider sex reassignment surgury.

just as much as heterosexuality-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:07, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it anyones fault that they like the color blue? Is it anyones fault they like coffee? Is it anyones fault that they're sexually attracted to animals, corpses, or little children? If that's the case, then bestiality, necrophilia, and child molestation aren't immoral either. I mean, you can't help that you want to partake in sexual intercourse with an animal or corpse or child, right? Moral and immoral are based on how you feel towards a matter. Thats great to know you don't think its immoral, just know you speak for yourself and your own feelings. I would say to leave morality out of this since obviously there will be different truths. In terms of feelings and most everything, truth is in the mind of the beholder. but back to mental illness, mental illness is a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior or all three. But the question with that is, changes their thinking feelings or behavior from what? normal? natural? who decides what is normal or natural? the answer to that is popular opinion. its not necessarily truth, its just an agreement amongst multiple people. So why did the majority of people decide that homosexuality was a mental illness (before 1973 when popular opinion changed) ? I guess that they looked around for answers instead of just deciding things based on feelings. Penis and anus, vagina and vagina, they cant reproduce. The survival of a species is based on its ability to survive and reproduce. If we didn't have the technology we have (such as artificial insemination) , and if everyone was homosexual, there would eventually be no more humans. I guess that people said it was a mental illness because they figured that the want of survival of ones' species is normal or natural. (i say we need both homosexual and heterosexual in order to limit the population so that theres enough recourses to go around so that the race of human can continue.) -nathan

The real mental disorder is in believing what Conservapedia writes of homosexuality. Not only is the information misrepresentative, it excludes the fact that while some cases are inflicted by psychosocial causes, homosexuality can sometimes be genetically predisposed and has been observed in many species of animals, but most famously sheep. Either way, homosexuals are still people too and discrimination and persecution is not the answer. There once was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. Gays may become the blacks of tomorrow.

Freud stated that religion is a psychosis. A mental illness. When someone with mental illness accuses someone else of having mental illness, is he informed or crazy? James101.

Being black is genetic, homosexuality on the other hand is behavior, thus a comparison of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, makes no sense-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

In some cases, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic.

:My following reply answers both this question and if homosexuality is a choice.
:No, it's just a sin. With what previous people have stated, mental illnesses dictate a person's actions. Only with medication and severe therapy are they able to overcome it.
:Homosexuals, whether someone thinks they are (choice) or they were actually melded into that state, they have will power. They can '''choose''' whether to act upon it or not. Summary: Homosexuality (attraction) is not a choice. Fake homosexuality (experimentation) is a choice. Homosexuals are not sinful (in this one sexual immorality sense) unless they act upon their attraction.
:Counterpoints/criticism encouraged on my above comments. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

yeah of course being gay is amental illness just like being left handed those revolting left handers how dare they go against the norm! and those people who can't curl their tongue in a tube why it sickens me just to look at them something is obviously wrong with them. and last the most disgusting of all those people who are immune to poison ivy eww can't believe they chose such sick lifestyles can you.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

I'm sorry, but if you think homosexuality is a mental illness (or worse, a choice) then your an ignorant bigot (or just mean, stupid, and/or gullible). Homosexuals are homosexual because of their genes. The ONLY reason people think otherwise is because their religion tells them so and they feel compelled to defend their infallible religion. Unfortunately (''sarcasm'') we don't live in a biblical world anymore; people can explain homosexuality properly and can be tolerant. I don't really like how religious people today still embrace the terribly old-fashioned viewpoint of the Bible and discriminate. C'mon people! Think for yourselves for once. You're grown adults . . . act that way! Sorta went off on a tangent there...my bad... [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:38, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==More Research Needed==

I dunno about this one. I know it's not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I'm definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
:Why would we need to fix something that does not need to be corrected? [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 22:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: That is the major point. Where is the problem? As far as we know, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Torquemada, Musolini, all the current African dictators, Somoza, Pinochet, all Chinese presidents or emperators, and so on (we may fill several pages), are/were not homosexual, however, just one of them made more crimes that all the homosexual men together. We need to focus.....
::Are we talking about homosexuality as an attraction or acting upon homosexuality? God doesn't hate His children, He hates their sins. Fellow God-believers...am I right? o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:46, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>
Hellooooooooooo??
Just because it is not "Normal" ~ doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed".
Some of history's greats are also not "normal".
We have a Taiwanese basketball star in Houston who is 7 feet tall.
He doesn't need to be "fixed".
Some more "not normal" greats in history are:
Michaelangelo, Alexander The Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ira Gershwin, Sir Elton John, Daniel of the Bible, ............. Oh, I could go on and on.

:Daniel of the Bible was not a homosexual; he knew what God's law was and knew it was an abomination. Your rants have been noted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Basically... ==
People hate homosexuality because it's different. It's as normal as heterosexuality is, but because it's not the norm, people hate it. It's that simple. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:You should refine your comment and say, "ultra Conservative Christians" instead of "people". o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 17:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

::Opposition to homosexuality is based on religious and scientific principles. We oppose race prejudice and discrimination without hating racists, simply because we believe that each person should be "judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrhetoric.com%2Fspeeches%2Fmlkihaveadream.htm&ei=m72zSYymApaitgeFibjEBw&usg=AFQjCNEju4lodXxTPiTbb_rbD1h-PisYiA&sig2=IdyzsshL9YRXCVqS2fcDwg I have a dream] - [[Martin Luther King]]</ref> Doctors try to cure [[mental illness]] out of concern for their patients' well-being. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==By definition, NO==
A mental illness is something that disrupts a person's ability to reason and perform everyday activities. Homosexuality does neither of these. There are plenty of intelligent, successful homosexuals that contribute to society. They can still drive their cars, go to work, and do everything else a heterosexual person can do. They can even have sex with the opposite gender, they just don't prefer that. Homosexuality is far from a mental illness. This should really be a morality issue, not an mental health issue. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Has Britain Declined?

2011-06-23T01:22:36Z

AShep: /* No */

==No==

The British Empire and it's political influence have declined since the beginning of the 20th century, this is true, and is not a bad thing for the British people or the rest of the world.
Since the largely peaceful dissolution of the empire, after the end of WWII the lives of ordinary working class British people have improved greatly. My grandmother was born in to abject poverty in the Nottingham inner city in the 1920's, they had little food and no furniture. This is what imperialism and a rigid class system without social benefits did for the British. Thanks to [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[welfare state]] however, no-one lives like this in Britain any more. We have one of the best standards of living in the world, and Britain, along with the rest of western europe, is without doubt one of the best places to live.
Sorry, but I fail to see where the 'decline' is. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

That is all entirely true. Britain has not declined in any political or social aspect. I suspect what the person who wrote that news piece means is that Britain has declined morally, with their acceptance of evolution and all. That is opinion, and somehow not very befitting an website which fancies itself as an encyclopedia. [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 18:35, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

With the exception of the idiotic observation about the 'acceptance of evolution' above, I agree. The acceptance of evolution is a sign of intelligence, not of moral anything. The notion that Britain has 'declined' suggests a monstrous presupposition, that Britain was once great. Britain became great in 1948 with the introduction of the National Health Service, the Nationalisation of the Railways the Coal Mines and the major industries all of which took the working people of Great Britain forward into a world immensely richer and freer than that of their forefathers. This work by the Attlee govn was a major, practical step towards socialism, and should be being celebrated and analysed in a positive way, not knocked in sly, leading questions by stupid, right-wing pretend-encyclopedias such as this.

chris larner

Britain hasn't declined. It has simply been overshadowed by the United States, currently the world's most powerful state. And I'm sure, in time, the USA will in turn be overshadowed by another upstart superpower. The good ol' People's Republic, for instance. All hail Chairman Mao!

Britain has its problems (Yob culture, binge drinking, lack of respect, obesity, teenage pregnancy, overcrowding, etc. ) but what country doesn't? I think that Britain's problems are exaggerated in the press and that also a lot of things have improved greatly in the last 50 years. Britain has managed to become one of the wealthiest (per capita) nations in the world, with a high standard of living and education, with low levels of corruption (when compared to the rest of the world), a strong economy, and personal freedoms not enjoyed by 95% of the world's population.

May I just say, the British are awesome (ok, maybe their teeth and food are a bit dodgy...)! They have been overshadowed by American but still...they're British. And who can resist the accent?? They have James Bond, Robin Hood, the Beatles... the list is endless! [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:22, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==Yes==

In terms of being a world power-broker yes, Britain has declined. Entering the 20th century the British Empire was the largest power in the world with an empire reaching across the globe. The first half of the century saw Britain's lack of real miltary strength exposed, being unable to overcome Germany and the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the Irish War of Independance in the early 20's and the Second World War which was won through the endevours of the US and the USSR. The Statute of Westminster of 1931 saw Britain effectively give up its place at the head of the Empire, becoming equal with other members of the Commonwealth.

Economicaly speaking, Britain has been in decline ,in my opinion, since 1973. Obviously the 70's saw the end of a "Golden Age" of Western Europe (which had been kickstarted by Marshall Aid and cheap energy from Arabian Oil) and Britain was not immune. While the 1980's and 90's saw recovery, this recovery was built on debt, both public and private. While Thatcher did bring about much needed economic reform, she also went a long way toward creating the "credit culture" we see in the UK today. All of a sudden debt was o.k. and now we are reeping the consequences.

Britain is also far more susceptible to the global market than it was up until the 1980's. Most good sold in Britain are produced abroad and there is very little primary production compared to rates around the middle part of the last century.

Britain is probably the third most important nation in Europe, but it now lags a long way behing France and Germany in my estimation. [[Pukeynut]]

==FUNNY FUNNY TRUTH==
The funny truth about the piltdown man was it was the result of nationalism. It was fabricated as a response to a REAL discovery in Germany of the skeletons of the Neanderthal man. It's funny I don't see those IDERs/creationists mentioning that part of history.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:27, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2011-06-23T01:13:40Z

AShep: /* Yes */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminisce with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marriage should be legalized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundamental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't necessarily held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marriage allowed (a very long stretch, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illegal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religions to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Similarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimum voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral standards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speaks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marriages are based upon one's behavioral preference. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

Here are my questions that no one has yet been able to answer: In what way does homosexuality threaten "straight" marriage? Something I'm not sure if you're aware of: Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't make it mandatory. As to the arguments about it being a behavioral issue, so what if it is? It's attraction. That means it's wrong? You're saying anything we do because we choose to should be illegal? As to gay marriage being against the Bible, so is shaving your face, eating shellfish, and wearing poly-cotton blends. Oh, and you know, stoning people to death for disobeying God's will. Let's reinstate THOSE things, shall we? The fact of the matter is, Congress cannot make laws because God says so, because we do not live in a theocracy. For that same reason, Congress cannot mandate churches to perform same-sex marriages. Now explain to me where you (as in, the collective of heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage) are hurt by this? You say it is your moral decision; and yet, are you not infringing upon my morals with what I view as discrimination? As long as we're following that train of logic. My problem is, this is a "values voting" issue, and that entire concept is wrong to me--values are something you develop through life based on experiences. Values are not something you vote on. I don't think this should even be an issue--as long as it's not hurting anybody, let people make their own moral decisions, and that means, yes, legalizing something because it's behavioral and people want to do it. Because you don't have the right to tell them whether what they do, when it isn't hurting anyone else, is immoral.[[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Now we're getting somewhere! Could someone for the Anti-LGBT Marriage side kindly clarify as to why LGBT marriage is "immoral" or "damaging to society"? Please don't bombard me with "It's God's will" and other crap because being a human, you do '''NOT''' know the will of God.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 12:53, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a sort of silly argument - the notion that because we are not divine we know nothing of the divine. I think the Bible is pretty articulate of the will of God.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:57, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::It's rather simple, actually. If you allow gay marriage, then what reason is there not to allow any other type of marriage? Now, you probably will simply dismiss the question as a "slippery slope" argument and never, ever provide a serious answer. It's okay. It won't be the first time I've run into gay marriage advocates who refuse to answer that question, but it is an important question to answer. In fact, I suspect you already know the answer to the question, just as everyone who opposes gay marriage does. You just refuse to answer it because it would embarrass you and undermine your position. The fact is that if you allow gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to bar any other type of marriage no matter how extreme. Bigamy and polygamy will be first, of course. (In fact, the Netherlands has already started down that road after legalizing gay marriage.[http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301]) Then you will move into "unthinkable" territory: people with animals (which people have already tried[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html]), adults with kids (as is commonplace in Middle Eastern and Eastern societies), etc. But don't worry. I'm sure you can work out deciphering God's will when you meet Him face-to-face and impotently try to explain yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|euHcM xniJ]] 13:49, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

::Iduan, you're citing a religious scripture to support a discriminatory law (Which is expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights) that has been translated and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times in human history, putting into question whether today's Bible differs from that of the one from the Biblical times. As for Jinx's retort, clarification is appreciated on the magical connection between homosexuality and polygamy/bestiality/etc. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:41, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, of course it should be allowed. Civil rights. The constitution bans the government from embracing and promoting religion (ie: the Bible's disapproval of homosexuality). People can't help being gay or lesbian (and if you dare say it's a choice, you are clearly an ignorant bigot who denies scientific fact in favor of what your religion tells you...and I ''almost'' pity you that you have to go through life like that) and they shouldn't be denied the right to be married. I highly doubt other forms of marriage (polygamy, marrying plants or dogs, etc) would then become law. Almost no one supports those other forms of marriage. In the US, with separation of church and state (as described above), religious interpretation of marriage shouldn't be the legal interpretation. No one's going to be forced into a gay marriage against their will and it won't hurt anyone (if your values would be offended, stop being a bigot and it'll be fine). We are in a modern, progressive world (to the dismay of some) and it is inevitable that a basic right such as gay marriage will come into law. [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:13, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:What if the law allowed an exception for religious groups? [[User:MatthewLa|MatthewLa]] 20:14, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?

* Civil partnerships should be independent of marriages - meaning that every marriage should be a civil partnership, but not every civil partnership should be a marriage. And civil partnerships shouldn't be restricted to couples; they should allow more than two, and even close relatives, to join. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 15:33, 13 July 2010 (EDT)