Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by TheProgressivePatriot, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,708
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,037
    Come back and start in when you can.
    These issues aren't going away.

    Think of it this way TheProgressivePatriot
    If you can wrap your mind around these points,
    and get where others are coming from,
    then more of them will do the same for you
    instead of saying enough I can only take so much.

    This is deep stuff.

    Thanks for all your effort which I applaud,
    encourage and want everyone to do the same.

    If you want others to get what you mean,
    and not just project what is convenient for them to hear
    and think you are saying, this is how much
    work you are asking of other people.

    If you aren't willing to do the work,
    how can you ask others to include and hear you either?

    This is what it looks like.
    It's comprehensive, and deep,
    but once we cover it all, then we gain all that ground.
    We either finish the process
    or it finishes us.
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,708
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,037
    Constitutional law covers free exercise of religion.
    Your internal gender ID or orientation/identity is your free choice to believe
    and treat as you believe,
    and doesn't have to be proven by science / DNA to be defended.

    My point exactly TheProgressivePatriot
    just cite Constitutional law as given in the First Amendment
    and "same sex marriage" is already covered under free exercise in the First Amendment.
     
  3. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,708
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,037
    Nope Not what I said
    although there is a popular gay business district
    that does quite well in Houston, so organizing by community has its benefits.

    What I mean is the Democratic and Green party
    is freely able to organize collective benefits for
    its own members, under terms they all agree to fund under.
    So they can have same sex marriage, or welfare for
    former inmates or single moms etc and not impose
    on people who only believe in funding charity on
    sustainable terms by requiring counseling to get out of drugs for example.

    If we don't agree on terms for providing benefits,
    then why not separate into different membership pools
    under terms we DO agree to?

    This can extend OVER state lines
    because parties organize both locally
    and nationally too! So every district
    can organize resources to buil dtheir own
    health care programs as they see necessary.

    All funded by voluntary participation,
    donations or investment, loans or barter etc.
     
  4. toobfreak
    Online

    toobfreak Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    9,292
    Thanks Received:
    1,712
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,883
    So you are admitting that the Democrat Party is not a party of God, has no room for God and if you believe in a God they want nothing to do with you? That's an awful LOT of people you are telling to go vote Republican!
     
  5. TheProgressivePatriot
    Offline

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    10,101
    Thanks Received:
    1,371
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +5,405
    No the issues aren't going away but I am. You are what is called high maintenance.
     
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,708
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,037
    Dear TheProgressivePatriot
    It's the issues, not me that are this highly comprehensive.
    If you want to leave out the spiritual side of this equation,
    don't complain when people cut you out of their calculations.

    I didn't make that side up.
    I'm just reporting what's out there, agree or not.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,708
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,037
    ^sorry TheProgressivePatriot didn't see this point^

    it means either
    * cases or reports of people changing their orientation
    where they no longer have homosexual attractions
    conflict with beliefs that "ALL cases are unchangeable period"
    that homosexual orientation is "inborn only" and "NEVER" a choice
    of behavior that can change in ANY CASES AT ALL

    * cases or reports of people not being able to change
    their orientation (even if they are Christian and went
    through spiritual healing and reconciled with God etc.)
    conflict with beliefs that "ALL cases" are changeable,
    "NONE" are naturally born that way but ALL are a "choice of behavior"

    This is what I said before:
    if you take either EXCLUSIVE position that
    * ALL cases are natural, inborn and cannot be changed
    OR
    * ALL cases are unnatural, behavior, and a choice that can be changed
    without exception, but one way for ALL cases, and that's the ONLY RULE,
    then these Extreme Exclusive positions
    LEAVE OUT cases of the other description.
    They mutually exclude each other.

    That's what I mean by leaving out cases that "conflict" (or don't fit that exclusive rule)
    and only counting cases that FIT your beliefs (or the other beliefs where they leave yours out),
    so that neither Extreme of either/or explains or includes ALL cases out there.
     
  8. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,708
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,037
    ^ Dear TheProgressivePatriot ^
    Let's back up to this point.
    Of why you need convincing?
    You don't have to AGREE with a belief as valid for it to be protected as someone's free exercise of belief.
    You don't have to be convinced, like does God or Jesus need to be proven valid to anyone before that belief can be claimed under free exercise? Belief in prayer or angels have to be verified first as real?

    All we need is to agree that something is a belief, first of all.

    Secondly, I think the issue is not allowing ABUSE of some belief to discriminate violate rights or harm someone else.

    Example: Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientist believers have the right to refuse medical procedures for themselves as consenting adults, which is legal. But we draw the line at one of their adults deciding for a minor child and refusing treatment that can save the life of someone under the age of consent.

    With Christian beliefs against gay marriage, or with Constitutionalist beliefs against marriage through the state, I think you are saying it's one thing to HAVE a belief but another thing to IMPOSE it publicly on someone else to cause harm or violate equal rights.

    Can we take these two separately?

    1. First if we can AGREE that different beliefs are held by different people and govt cannot impose one and penalize the other on the basis of creed, can we AGREE that if both parties or sides AGREE to recognize equal rights to express and exercise those beliefs, then we don't abuse govt to impose either one on the other.

    Do you need to see BOTH sides agree to respect and NOT to violate each other's beliefs
    in order to feel safe that this enforcement of Constitutional law will be upheld and respected?

    2. Second, once we have an agreement between both parties to respect separate beliefs as equal,
    then can we set up ways to prevent ABUSES that we want to ban?
    One side does not want Christian prayer or doctrine pushed on people through schools or govt to create discrimination and harassing or abusive situations.
    One side does not want LGBT beliefs, expressions, policies or practiced pushed through schools or govt either.

    Neither side wants the other to "teach or indoctrinate anyone" with FALSE information that either
    * ALL cases are natural and NONE can change
    (and thus deprive people of spiritual healing that could help those who can and want to change) or that
    * ALL cases are Unnatural and ALL can or should change (and thus discriminate harass and exclude people who cannot change their identity, beliefs or ways of expression and relations)

    You don't have to agree with my beliefs, you can defend your own
    and still argue we need to have a public agreement between parties
    NOT to abuse govt to impose or violate people's beliefs about this!

    Is the problem that you do not trust other groups to respect rights
    without imposition by govt? again, that falls under beliefs in A2.
    If so, then we need to address THAT issue ADDITIONALLY.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018

Share This Page