Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

 

[Sneekin]

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

Much of what you advocate Emily, is either illegal, or tried and failed. The rest has already been implemented. You can't separate social programs by political, that is laughable. I'll be a republican, until I need SNAP, public aid, food stamps, gas and light assistance, etc. I'll quit my job, switch my party, and get all of this for free (not paying taxes). When I want more, I get a job, switch my party to republican, and still not pay. That's the most epic failure to date. You have no idea how many times I've seen political leanings just for this purpose.

 

[Sneekin]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.

Faun I'm not asking for that
I'm basically asking help to sue Democrats to create a separate internal govt to practice those political beliefs without imposing on beliefs of others!

Right to health care, right to marriage, no death penalty, reproductive freedom, all these can be exercised through social programs directed and funded by liberal and Democratic party leaders with the funds already spent on lobbying and campaigns.

I'd further argue that reimbursement already owed to taxpayers for contested war contracts and ACA corporate payouts in the trillions could set up sustainable health care by reforming prisons into medical programs for early diagnosis screening and treatment of both physical and mental illness especially criminal disorders or other dangerous diseases that threaten public health and safety.

If Statists want to impose political beliefs by majority rule, have a separate govt that believes in that.

As for me I believe in consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, due process of laws before depriving people of rights and freedoms, and either consensus or separation on areas involving faith based beliefs to ensure equal protections of the laws without discrimination by creed.

One-sided imposition of left on right or right on left is not equal.

I believe in equal inclusion and representation or else separate taxation by party so each manages their own social agenda for members of like beliefs.

Sure there can still be national govt recognizing rights people believe in. Where the public agrees these can still be through federal govt. Where parties disagree the federal taxes can be divided by party proportionally or allocate to states to work out their state or national agenda without imposing political beliefs on taxpayers who don't consent.

Except for the fact his would not be legal. Think equal protection. Think - the only way I can get assistance is to change my political affiliation? Really? If I get diagnosed with cancer, I have to change my political party to get better insurance?

 

[emilynghiem]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

It really makes no difference what the others think - I am free to marry (civilly) whoever I want to marry. Pardon this expression, but it fits perfectly - I can't change stupid. If they are too stupid to understand that they are having holy matrimony performed, some gay people are having holy matrimony, some gays and some straights are only getting a civil marriage, but in ALL cases, they ALL are getting civilly married, be it priest, rabbi or judge.

It's not a matter of tolerance. It's equal protection. Just as prayer in school of crucifix in the public square violates my equal protection. Your beliefs about creation or prayer do attempt to change my beliefs, and so have ruled the courts. It violates my first amendment rights. You also aren't winning any friends using unnatural. Leave spirituality out of this, we are discussing civil marriage only. We already have equal treatment of beliefs. We are all free to get married, we are all able to worship in our own houses of worship. I can't force anyone to enter into a SSM or OSM, and they can't force me to pray, and I can't force them to pray. Faith based beliefs (ie, Hobby Lobby, Chik-fil-a, etc are most certainly forcing their religious beliefs on me, and I will never utilize their services. You will not be allowed to teach creationism, as it it a religious based method that isn't truthful in several ways (ie, the earth is only a few thousands of years old, yet we carbon date things from millions of years ago). You might want to research more on Jesus, as some religions view him as a charlatan, some just as a man, some believe he never existed, and some believe him to be nothing more than a prophet. Why should you be able to teach my children that? If I'm a devout theist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, I find your total opening sentences comopletely offensive. Don't tell me I have to believe in someone that never existed, or was nothing ore than a prophet.

Dear Sneekin
And that's about how people feel about govt endorsing beliefs about homosexuality as natural
and gay couples as equal in marriage.

We agree on civil unions as secular and neutral,
but I'm just being honest with you and Faun: not everyone agrees with the civil marriage.

You can insult people all you want for not seeing this as civil secular unions,
but I respect their beliefs as I do yours, which many people also see as problematic
even equating to mental diseases and disorders because they just don't see how that can be normal rational thinkìng.

The same way you reject creationism being taught in schools as deceitful,
that reminds me of how as many people believe the same about teaching homosexuality as natural.

So you are about even on that score.

[BTW the interpretation in the Bible does not have to mean literally 6 thousand years "literally" but 6 AGES where 1000 years represent a stage or age.
So it is possible to teach the Bible as representing the same process that science backs up, and just teach it symbolically not literally as in 6 Ages or Stages.
I believe we are in the 7th stage or age of our spiritual/social growth or development.]

As for Buddhists, not all of them are offended or intolerant of prayer in God or Jesus name. I know people who are both and take no offense.
Muslims are also called to respect and follow the prophets and laws in the Bible as given by God.

So teaching that the Christian God is exclusive of other paths is not the same denomination or interpretation I follow.
there are ways of teaching this that are inclusive, but these remain free choice.
It should not be govt abused to decide that one person's interpretation of the Cross is all inclusive
so that should be allowed and exclude anyone who doesn't interpret the Cross the same way.
And that's what I'm saying about marriage.
If people don't agree, I'm saying we should resolve those issues if we are going to have
marriage laws represent all people of a state without bias towards or against one belief or another.
They should be neutral laws, and if people are objecting then I would find out why and resolve that issue.

 

[Sneekin]

Thanks Faun you are taking free exercise and religious freedom literally to mean church based or organized religion.

I use it more universally and secularly to cover All beliefs
So this is fair to atheists, independents of no organized faith, secular humanists, and political beliefs or other faith based or personal beliefs such as in marriage health care global warming creation/evolution etc.

The parties essentially espoused beliefs.

So I'm saying to petition parties their leaders and members to fund and manage their own social policies as secular equivalents of what churches do.

This can still be orchestrate on state and national levels like govt. But have advantage of being private church like political religions that could qualify for 100 % deductions.

so everyone gets equal protection and exercise of beliefs without discriminating by creed whether religious or not.

So you are telling me I have to join the _____ Church now, if I have cancer, need food stamps, financial assistance, or a prescription drug filled? Nope. And you are stretching the definition beyond what religious freedom and free exercise means - to really simplify it, it means you are free to have belief in a higher being or not. Religious freedom literally means organized religion or personal beliefs. If I choose not to believe in a higher power, then I'm still covered by the first amendment. So are secular humanists. You still don't understand that civil marriage (as used in the law) is not faith based, nor is health care, global warming, etc. You are mixing too many items in here now. Creationism means a higher being created the heavens and the earth a few thousand years ago. Evolution means millions of years ago, we evolved up to what we are today. A million years ago, our appendix had a profound use in the digestive process. Now, not at all. Global Warming is a proven fact, nothing that can be in and of itself voted on. Healthcare - is a problem caused by insurance companies and billing offices of the medical profession.

You cannot have a political religion - it directly violates the first amendment. There are laws that prevent a minister from endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. That 100 percent deduction would actually be loss of it's 501.c3 status.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

Much of what you advocate Emily, is either illegal, or tried and failed. The rest has already been implemented. You can't separate social programs by political, that is laughable. I'll be a republican, until I need SNAP, public aid, food stamps, gas and light assistance, etc. I'll quit my job, switch my party, and get all of this for free (not paying taxes). When I want more, I get a job, switch my party to republican, and still not pay. That's the most epic failure to date. You have no idea how many times I've seen political leanings just for this purpose.

Dear Sneekin
And that would be up to each party to deal with that element.

If it affects their bottom line, they'd have motivation to deal with fraud or abuse,
or have the best charities to refer people to that specialize in helping people
with all manner of social or financial instability or crisis. Many groups I know
INVITE people to seek their help so they CAN do the counseling at the same time.
They WANT to do that part too!

If those are the terms of their help, then people would have to agree to get stable if they want that help.
That ensures accountability if people want the best help, they meet the terms of the program they join.

We already rely on charities and taxpayers to pay for everything
from prisons to medical expenses.
But if we at least organize likeminded people under the same programs,
we could start streamlining and maximizing resources under the best models.

If groups are serving more people effectively, they would get more funding.
So it's in their best interest to be the most effective, and show progress.

That's better than competing to make each other fail, to get political points for the next election!

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin and occupied

I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.

Please tell me how you would word this
so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.

I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.

At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.

If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid
but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
isn't that grounds for separation?

In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?

I can't help write anything like this, because it goes directly against my beliefs, not to mention, some of this is quite obviously in violation of existing law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks Faun you are taking free exercise and religious freedom literally to mean church based or organized religion.

I use it more universally and secularly to cover All beliefs
So this is fair to atheists, independents of no organized faith, secular humanists, and political beliefs or other faith based or personal beliefs such as in marriage health care global warming creation/evolution etc.

The parties essentially espoused beliefs.

So I'm saying to petition parties their leaders and members to fund and manage their own social policies as secular equivalents of what churches do.

This can still be orchestrate on state and national levels like govt. But have advantage of being private church like political religions that could qualify for 100 % deductions.

so everyone gets equal protection and exercise of beliefs without discriminating by creed whether religious or not.

So you are telling me I have to join the _____ Church now, if I have cancer, need food stamps, financial assistance, or a prescription drug filled? Nope. And you are stretching the definition beyond what religious freedom and free exercise means - to really simplify it, it means you are free to have belief in a higher being or not. Religious freedom literally means organized religion or personal beliefs. If I choose not to believe in a higher power, then I'm still covered by the first amendment. So are secular humanists. You still don't understand that civil marriage (as used in the law) is not faith based, nor is health care, global warming, etc. You are mixing too many items in here now. Creationism means a higher being created the heavens and the earth a few thousand years ago. Evolution means millions of years ago, we evolved up to what we are today. A million years ago, our appendix had a profound use in the digestive process. Now, not at all. Global Warming is a proven fact, nothing that can be in and of itself voted on. Healthcare - is a problem caused by insurance companies and billing offices of the medical profession.

You cannot have a political religion - it directly violates the first amendment. There are laws that prevent a minister from endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. That 100 percent deduction would actually be loss of it's 501.c3 status.

Dear Sneekin

1. "right to health care" is already a political belief under ACA
and religion if you look at the whole operation

People either believe in it or they don't
and YES it IS BEING CONTESTED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Democratic platform at least in Texas states
"We BELIEVE health care is a right not a privilege"

So if you are saying "political religions" are unlawful,
well, the mandates of political parties already are that!

Welcome to the club contesting ACA mandates and exchanges
as unconstitutional, based on this national belief where
President Obama declared right to health care as "the law of the land"

(While people like me were contesting this as unconstitutional.)

2. if you don't believe in ACA insurance mandates,
or in religious based programs or terms,
that's why I'm saying we should use the Democratic party to create a secularized alternative.

And you and others who want to be under a secular health plan nationally
VOTE democratically on the terms of conditions.

So that way, you can keep religion out of it

NOTE: the prolife Christians would not contest this if they also get
their own platform that does have prolife only / no abortion, no drugs,
but spiritual healing to remove addictions or unnatural sexual behaviors, etc.
whatever they want too

Just don't make them pay for yours, and yes, you can
include or exclude whatever terms or conditions your group
agrees to pay for.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin and occupied

I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.

Please tell me how you would word this
so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.

I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.

At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.

If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid
but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
isn't that grounds for separation?

In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?

I can't help write anything like this, because it goes directly against my beliefs, not to mention, some of this is quite obviously in violation of existing law.

Dear Sneekin

The ACA mandates and exchanges were already set up with secular conditions.
You can just take that and make it for Democratic leaders party and members to be under.
And you're done.

 

[Sneekin]

You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.

Yes Faun
when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
you are dictating beliefs for people.

You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
Well, that's what some people say about
*atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
* LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!

They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.

So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.

You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"

So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.

You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!

How contrary is that Faun???

I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!

And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!

They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!

You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.

And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
or it's discriminating by creed.

I said, "civil marriage is already secular," which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.

And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.

See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

Sorry but I disagree.

I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.

And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.

But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.

So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.

If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.

You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.

Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.

sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.

I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill. people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.

but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.

I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It is not discriminating against anyone after Obergefell was passed. Until then, it was discriminating. Fundamentalist Christians may not agree with it, your lesbian friends may not agree with it, but they are wrong. Consensus on laws? Never going to happen. We are a republic, and you forget the rights of a "few". I (and the state courts for the most part, and the majority of the SCOTUS) believes that civil marriage is open to all people, and it can be same sex couples or opposite sex couples. In high school, I worked for a telemarketing company. They had a policy of not selling to blacks. If it was put to a vote, the majority would have agreed (within the company). I went to the civil rights commission, reported them. The next morning, the commission members were sitting with the head of our company. I left, and on the evening news, watched the people being escorted out (seems like the company had a history of doing this). You can't vote civil rights away, and that's what you propose to do.

The government ruled same sex couples couldn't be discriminated against by the states as it violated the constitution. It didn't leave "the other side" discriminated against, because that discrimination was illegal. You can't legislate those illegal acts into law. You can believe there is a bias, but there most certainly is not. So sayeth the courts.

 

[Sneekin]

I said, "civil marriage is already secular," which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.

And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.

See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

Sorry but I disagree.

I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.

And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.

But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.

So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.

If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.

You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.

Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.

sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.

I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill. people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.

but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.

I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin and occupied

I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.

Please tell me how you would word this
so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.

I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.

At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.

If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid
but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
isn't that grounds for separation?

In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?

I can't help write anything like this, because it goes directly against my beliefs, not to mention, some of this is quite obviously in violation of existing law.

Dear Sneekin

The ACA mandates and exchanges were already set up with secular conditions.
You can just take that and make it for Democratic leaders party and members to be under.
And you're done.

Reference the point of law that allows that to happen? You can't, because you can't mandate based on someone's political affiliation. IT IS ILLEGAL. IT IS THE EPITOME OF DISCRIMINATION. Take it from someone with 35 years of experience with EEO, Civil Rights, and direct interface with the EEOC several times a week.

 

[Sneekin]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited. It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations. Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted. The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being. You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same. Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay. Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight. It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice. Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks.. How do you explain atheist gays? You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion). No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves. I lost a dear friend that way in high school.

 

[Sneekin]

Emily, you are missing the big picture. You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's. They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM. The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was in the 70's. Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want. They are law. As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place. The same can't be said with SSM and slavery. Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not. Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated. Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad, it's law. Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited. It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations. Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted. The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being. You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same. Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay. Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight. It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice. Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks.. How do you explain atheist gays? You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion). No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves. I lost a dear friend that way in high school.

Dear Sneekin
I believe it is spiritually determined and up to someone's process if they change or not.

No, it is not shown to be genetic because studies on identical twins may show a tendency
but not a correlation.

Whatever you cite about other mammals, the smaller % is argued as an anomaly and not natural.

Yes, I do believe people have changed, but what you are saying is anyone who has,
was always heterosexual to begin with and they weren't really homosexual.
And if they are naturally homosexual you are saying they don't change but suppress it.

What is your opinion about Chirlane McCray, is she bisexual and just "suppressing" her lesbian past or was it false and not her true self:
‘Are You Still a Lesbian?’ Bill de Blasio’s Wife Doesn’t Have an Answer

Here are more links to resources about people changing orientation.
So by your theory these were never gay to begin with or they couldn't come out as heterosexual:
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
Obama has problem with this sex-identity group
Brothers Road | Brothers on a Road Less Traveled

That's fine, and I do hope the research on spiritual healing
will prove what is going on.

Neil Warren of eharmony wanted to team up with companies
to invest millions each to resolve this issue with research.
I think your angle is fair and proveable.
But I would apply the Christian Healing Ministries method that work internally to heal
people spiritually, and not other forms of reparative therapy that work externally and fail.

 

[Sneekin]

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you are missing the big picture. You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's. They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM. The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was in the 70's. Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want. They are law. As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place. The same can't be said with SSM and slavery. Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not. Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated. Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad, it's law. Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?

I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
[I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]

The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.

Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.

I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.

but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.

I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.

Sneekin

 

[Sneekin]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited. It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations. Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted. The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being. You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same. Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay. Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight. It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice. Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks.. How do you explain atheist gays? You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion). No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves. I lost a dear friend that way in high school.

Dear Sneekin
I believe it is spiritually determined and up to someone's process if they change or not.

No, it is not shown to be genetic because studies on identical twins may show a tendency
but not a correlation.

Whatever you cite about other mammals, the smaller % is argued as an anomaly and not natural.

Yes, I do believe people have changed, but what you are saying is anyone who has,
was always heterosexual to begin with and they weren't really homosexual.
And if they are naturally homosexual you are saying they don't change but suppress it.

What is your opinion about Chirlane McCray, is she bisexual and just "suppressing" her lesbian past or was it false and not her true self:
‘Are You Still a Lesbian?’ Bill de Blasio’s Wife Doesn’t Have an Answer

Here are more links to resources about people changing orientation.
So by your theory these were never gay to begin with or they couldn't come out as heterosexual:
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
Obama has problem with this sex-identity group
Brothers Road | Brothers on a Road Less Traveled

That's fine, and I do hope the research on spiritual healing
will prove what is going on.

Neil Warren of eharmony wanted to team up with companies
to invest millions each to resolve this issue with research.
I think your angle is fair and proveable.
But I would apply the Christian Healing Ministries method that work internally to heal
people's spiritually, and not other forms of reparative therapy that work externally and fail.

Bill DeBlasio's wife is bisexual. McHugh has been discredited. If you have ever gone through this conversion therapy, or seen it performed, you would know better. It's illegal in most states because it leads to suicide in adults and mostly children. Are you pro suicide for gay children?

I've been intimately involved with the therapy, various treatments, and various researches as I worked on my undergrad and grad degrees, you have not. I find your comments ludicrous. To quote the most discredited man in history is sad. Neil had to do that - eharmony was sued for not allowing SS relations to be pursued when he founded the corporation. It took years and lawsuits.

You are lying now about what I said - I said they were BISEXUAL, not Heterosexual. You apparently are unaware of how frequent this occurs. You can have 2 boys that start having sex in their early teens, and consider themselves 100 percent gay, into their 30's and 40's. Then they have sex with a woman after too many drinks - and now, they are straight? Nope - bisexual. DeBlasio's wife only had sex with women. She was an outspoken lesbian. She met Bill, fell in love, the rest is history. Those people would go through conversion therapy and be "cured". Not that 15 year old boy that vomits every time he see's a naked female. You'll just have someone who doesn't have sex with anyone.

 

[Sbiker]

See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

Sorry but I disagree.

I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.

And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.

But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.

So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.

If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.

You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.

Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.

sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.

I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill. people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.

but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.

I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

 

[Faun]

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...