If America were a truly free country than pedophiles could rape kids because thats what they "are in to." Obviously thats an extreme but still like we were saying before, at some point the majority must step in what the minority is allowed to do.  Thats all it is, and it will get worked out.

They can.  They'll just be persecuted for it.

That's actually the issue, but in the opposite way that you're stating it.  This is not a case of a majority imposing a "better" opinion on an unruly minority; this is a case of a majority impinging on the rights of a minority.  Remember, the issue here is strictly a matter of tax breaks until you get into religious and cultural (i.e. nonlegal) interpretations; so if the majority can deny a minority tax breaks, then they can do the same to other minorities.

I believe the idea of "American Freedom" has been lost. There is, in fact, no freedom. I look to censorship of certain issues as my evidence and the discrimination of minorities based on their background/religion.

Well, I think there's a misconception here.  "Freedom" or liberty as the founding fathers thought of it meant the ability to have a voice in government without influence from other sources.  That is, freedom meant the right to vote however one wanted to vote; and America is certainly free in that sense.  But the meaning of freedom has evolved with the times, and today freedom embodies the idea that one should be able to do whatever one wants.  That's a far cry from being able to offer an opinion--which is, essentially, all a vote is--about what one should be able to do.

In the current sense of freedom, it exists, but it's certainly not complete.  It favors certain demographics, whether based on geography, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age... and many people believe that the democratization of freedom, so to speak, should be a goal for all of us.  It certainly speaks against the Locke-Rousseau concept of a General Will and more towards that mobocracy which Hobbes and Voltaire feared.  But the best argument for that democratization of freedom is the democratization of education; because the public is so much more educated these days, they should in theory be better prepared to participate in the democracy.

As we can see all too easily, however, this is often still untrue.  Many people remain stubborn and uneducated, as clearly evidenced by the quiz in this thread.  On the other hand, as we can see by the responses in that thread, there's certainly reason to hope for improvement.

if the constitution is interpreted as a living document then it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers intended, what matters is what we need and want now.  and today as you say freedom means the right to do what you want but not the right of nondiscrimination.  we may have a black president but a gay one would never get elected these days--[expletive], even a mormon one couldn't get his party's nomination

although I guess a jew was almost VP

This is dangerous. The constitution is hard to amend for a reason.  If what you said was how things we run the US could quickly fall into a mob mentality

1st of all... Sunny is right the constitution shouldnt be interpeted as we see fit... it binds us, as it should, to good government.

2nd As a Romney supporter... Mitt didnt lose because he was mormon... he lost because 1: McCain had a base from previous primaries 2: Of course Huckabee splitting votes.

Now to adress the issue at hand... our nation has become more and more socially liberal over time... we can see a clear example from the struggle of Blacks in America- Slavery to Freedom, Oppression to Civil Rights, Racism to the Presidency. Gays WILL eventually be given rights, America is getting closer and closer to universal tolerance but the fact that we arent there yet does not take away from American Freedom...

I couldn't agree more.

That said, it baffles me that people don't accept that fact and get moving with the liberalism already.

Looking back... I want to make it clear Im not arguing Racism is dead

I think racism is dying though. For example, in my small town with about 1% African Americans, the black students we have are virtually celebrities. That is an extreme example, but this is the same town where the KKK only recently died out. Things have really changed.

I think some forms of liberalism are good to adopt, but others should be avoided. I think morals should remain strong in America, and, unlike the vast majority of people here (I assume), I am a very strong supporter of gun rights.

However, bottom line, as liberalism pertains to this subject, it is beneficial - America needs to let go of discrimination.

Maybe I just couldn't appreciate that much but honestly I wasn't that moved when Obama won. I was thinking O that's cool, he's going to be our first president of color. But he's been a front runner for a long time and I really just wasn't that suprised or shocked.

Our generation had no reason to be surprised or shocked.  Older generations grew up thinking it couldn't happen; our generation grew up caring much, much less about skin color.

Yes, some forms of liberalism definitely take it too far.  (See French Revolution.)  In many ways extreme liberalism ends up contradicting itself as well or becoming unsustainable.

Haha in the inevitable Thanksgiving politics debate my Grandma assured me that Cheney arranged 911 (being totally serious) while the rest of them hounded me on Palin, almost like I had chosen her. Thank god its over for a while.

Exactly. Liberalism is meant to progress society to a near-Utopian status. Eventually, all forms of extremism, no matter how well-intended, end up falling apart. Because of that, I think political moderation is the answer.

hahahahaha.

Aha, but political moderation is a relative term.

sunshine is right; herkron is wrong.  the constitution should be interpreted per today's standards and needs, but it shouldn't be amended to say whatever we want.

huckabee would have had no base if romney was an evangelical protestant.

Well, yes, I can see your argument. But, I think moderation should be assumed to be nothing more than what the majority believes.