How do you make both sides happy, when it comes to religion and politics?

It’s hypocritical to force your views on others so why do we make laws like these? I suppose though that would be just as bad. Because the default should be that you marry whoever but that wouldn’t make everyone happy.

You don’t. The two often do not mix. Some people consider these are private and NOT topics for discussion.

“We” make laws like these to bring structured rules to the world, the same reason we “created” god (or gods) to begin with. Gender in particular was little understood when the rules were formulated, like gravity certain things must remain immutable even at the threat of death. Therefore, any evidence of cats “dating” dogs or water flowing uphill, and SOMEONE’s going to burn for it.

Stay neutral when it comes to delicate issues.

Don’t bring up the subject of either one.

“Not everyone in America is a Christian, so why make laws based on your Christian beliefs?”

Many people in America are Christian, so why make laws based on your Non-Christian beliefs?

Asking someone who doesn’t believe in it, to legally vote to accept abortions or SSM marriage or gender neutral bathrooms seems to be just as hypocritical to me.

Frankly, it’s getting to the point of bullying by both parties, we don’t have to be the same, that’s what makes us great and diverse in this republic!

@KNOWITALL Its hypocritical on both sides

You often don’t. That’s why it’s called a “culture war”. There were once people trying to prevent women from voting, trying to prevent schools from integrating, trying to prevent slavery from being outlawed. There was no compromise with these, no solution that satisfied both sides. One side lost and is now a relic of history. Other times a compromise is possible. Same-sex marriage is legal, as marriage was never the domain of one religion or religion in general (Buddhists can get married, atheists can get married in a courthouse, etc.), but churches and religious institutions are free to make their own decision about whether they will perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

There is at least one, universal truth.
You can’t make everyone happy.

Example. I’m happy when my team wins. Conversely, the other team’s fans, will be sad…And vice versa….

@Demosthenes ”but churches and religious institutions are free to make their own decision about whether they will perform or recognize same-sex marriages.”
Exactly.
Why can’t the church ban gay marriages on an individual basis (as in, up to the church) but allow for it to be legal nationally? I suppose that is what they are doing now, but I still see people calling for it to be illegal

Good point SQ….

@Sergeant There are two schools of thought.

One, our vote reflects OUR personal beliefs.

Two, some dont want to legalize sinful behavior.

Also, the bible is full of choices, from beginning to end. Personally, I think taking choice away is wrong, generally speaking. But I cant condone abortion or encourage what I see as infanticide by the millions, thus theres no easy answer.

@KNOWITALL I understand. It’s a hard choice for people to make. Too many choices sometimes and not all of them good

^That’s it…
With everyone, having a different idea of what is wrong or right, you can’t comfort them all….

@Demosthenes Yes and all of those folks resisting women’s suffrage or school integration or advocating slavery—- those were and remain conservative positions rather exclusively. How come? And more to the point, why is there such an affinity for anyone likely to hold one those cards to embrace the rest of the deck?

You protect the religious people’s rights to believe what they want and practice their faith without interference, while protecting everyone else’s rights to not have those beliefs imposed on them.

I would divide the country into groups of like minded people. Your vote is to decide how you are treated by the government. That you get to decide for your group without having to win an election. Also you can decide where your tax dollars go to. Also everyone would have to freedom to vote for every decision based not on who winds the vote but divided through individual votes.

Like a half and half pizza. Everyone gets what they want instead of the winner gets to decide the toppings for everyone. Better still everyone gets to decide what pizza toppings by the slice for them.

Every decision would be a phone/email referendum where your vote doesn’t affect other people, but It would affect your taxes and other decisions that one would like to decide for themselves.

I would have two supreme courts. One for those who vote democratic an one group for republicans that doesn’t interfere with each other.

You can say that the phrase victimless crime is self-contradictory. If no victim then no crime. What two consenting adults do is nobody’s business provided nobody gets hurt. If a religion wants to impose certain rules for its members, it is certainly free to do so.

@RedDeerGuy1, Would you have two sets of laws, one for each party? Would a company be allowed to pollute because that is what their party voted for? Would you not be allowed to drive on a highway because your party disapproved of paying taxes for it?

@LostInParadise The United States already is divided by states and cities. I would have common sense laws in the constitution held. I would change the systems laws case by case. It would just add a level to the administration that answers directly to the individual. Like what we have now a vote with your dollar for what businesses succeed and which fails.

You have not answered my specific questions. You can’t have two sets of laws in the same place. According to you, people in the same city would follow different sets of laws depending on which party they voted for. If your party did not vote to pay taxes for a state highway, you would not be allowed to drive on it or buy anything carried in a truck driving along it. As Churchill said, majority rule democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

@LostInParadise Sorry. Just throwing out a new idea. I would like the freedom to decide more of my fate. In the form of a game. I would like to explore the idea, for fun. That would help me to get more involved in politics. Maybe if people had the right to start a city or administration district.
An expansion of individual rights and an explanation of the rights that we have.

@LostInParadise Of course a majority of lotto players want their own island or mansion to decide their own fate. I just suggest a way to do it with out millions of dollars.

@RedDeerGuy1 That was pretty much what States Rights are about.

That’s why the Feds still have marijuana as a crime and states that legalized do not.

^You beat me to it. There are federal laws, and state laws. That’s a perfect example…

It’s best to not get involved with those topics at all.

@Bootsie Do you vote?