Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
rightwingerEmilyThis 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...
Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
With each person their points may be different!
So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.
If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.
When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
- Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
- Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
Things do not back themselves up because you say they do. You have to prove your claims and you can't. You made the fallacious claim that same-sex marriage is practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.???I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?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.
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...
Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
With each person their points may be different!
So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.
If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.
When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.
You're done.
Faun
It backs itself up!
Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.
Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun
If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE
Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.
So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.
Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.
We've been over this already....Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.There's already a word for it...I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.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?
In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
Marriage
Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.
We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.
So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.
We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.
Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
Seems simple to me Faun but
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
You're delirious. I never said anyone was delusional or deficient for opposing gay marriage.You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency.
EmilyThis isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues????
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.
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...
Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
With each person their points may be different!
So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.
If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.
When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
))
Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...rightwingerEmilyThis 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...
Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
With each person their points may be different!
So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.
If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.
When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
Then we're good here since same-sex marriage isn't faith based. It's equal protection under the law.Nope Faun it's not "gays taking rights from others" but biases in laws that deprive citizens of equal freedom by discriminating by creed. Both sides complain if the other bias is imposed by law. Neither side wants a faith based bias creeping into laws.
Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...rightwingerEmilyDear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
With each person their points may be different!
So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.
If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.
When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
No Faun but neither do you "own the laws" that affect other people also!Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
We all depend on the government to secure our rights. That's a main purpose for having a government like ours.Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...rightwingerEmily
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"
You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.
I think we are saying the same things
that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
(except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)
somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!
that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.
The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.
I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!
rightwingerEmilyDear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
With each person their points may be different!
So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.
If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.
When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.
Of course I don't own laws. That's why I said, your rights are not determined by my beliefs. Regardless, you still lack any basis for claiming public laws require public consent. Complete nonsense. Public laws require constitutionailty.No Faun but neither do you "own the laws" that affect other people also!Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
Public laws must reflect the PUBLIC consent especially where BELIEFS are involved
or it's imposing a bias. If these are public laws, you and those who believe and think as you do are not the ONLY ones affected by these laws and who have a say in them. If you want total control, then write your own platforms and policies and you are free to live under those similar to private Catholic schools or programs that are prolife or proGod.
When dealing with state laws, these reflect consent of ALL people in that state.
and federal laws with all people of all states across the nation under those laws.
You wouldn't want me imposing my wording using the word "God"
just because I happen to interpret it universally to include atheists and nontheists.
If Atheists and nontheists don't see a term as universal as I do,
of course, it's natural to change and use different terms they can relate to in order to accommodate and include others!
Just because I was brought up by Buddhist parents who didn't object to YMCA being Christian
and Girl Scouts praying to God, doesn't mean ALL people should be "tolerant" the same way.
It's up to each person and I respect that.
Sorry that you don't see that this imposes any issue or bias you don't understand or think affects anyone.
(I will separately post a link to a thread and examples of related cases of conflicts with people
whose beliefs do not allow them to serve gay couples as married.)
None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."
B. RE Catholic adoption services:
"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
For the umpteenth time, same-sex marriage is not a faith-based ruling. It's an equal protection ruling.rightwingerEmily
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.
Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.
A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
We all depend on the government to secure our rights. That's a main purpose for having a government like ours.Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...rightwinger1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"
You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.
I think we are saying the same things
that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
(except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)
somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!
that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.
The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.
I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!
In terms of same-sex marriage, nobody's rights were deprived.
None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."
B. RE Catholic adoption services:
"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
rightwingerEmily
What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
PRECISELY rightwinger!
2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.
Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.
A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
No matter how many times you say it, we don't craft laws around peoples' feelings being hurt. Christians may not lime the idea that gay people can now marry each other, but the rights of Christians to marry have not been deprived. Christians' rights to practice their faith have not been deprived. The Constitution does not give a shit if same-sex marriage goes against their beliefs as long as it doesn't impose restrictions on their beliefs.We all depend on the government to secure our rights. That's a main purpose for having a government like ours.Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...rightwingerBTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"
You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.
I think we are saying the same things
that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
(except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)
somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!
that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.
The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.
I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!
In terms of same-sex marriage, nobody's rights were deprived.
Not in the same way Faun
A. some people frame the process as rights being inherent by human nature created by God or Life,
and then the purpose of Constitutional laws is to LIMIT the powers of govt, to separate and check and balance
them so these natural rights and freedoms are preserved as given.
So the divine source of rights and freedoms and democratic process of self govt
is given by natural laws that exist independent of govt.
And govt is a reflection or representation of laws we agree on as contracts that
people agree on by consent, in order to carry authority of people as govt.
It's not the other way where
B. govt and laws are used to IMPOSE the collective will of the whole onto the individuals
to try to define and protect rights depending on govt as the source of that authority.
and then beliefs about God and natural laws are optional as people's religions under govt.
Where we agree on laws, such as agreeing that murder is punishable as a crime,
it does not matter if one person stacks their hierarchy as
B. Govt as the default authority for all people, and any beliefs about God or religion second
A. Nature or God as the default source, and laws through Govt being a reflection of that
The problem is when we disagree on beliefs,
then both sides prioritize differently and clash, both fearing the other is imposing their system from outside their own.
Instead, as you are attempting to do, we should focus on what
are the intents and affects of the actual laws and resolve issues that way.
The problem is people from different systems do not word or interpret terms the same way,
so that is part of the communication and consensus process. We can't ignore this factor.
Thanks Faun I think you and I agree on the basic spirit
but the process and how we talk about it needs work
so that neither side threatens to disparage or exclude the
belief system of the other including what are given rights under that system.
