Bull Ring Spiritual vs. Physical definitions: Prolife vs. LGBT beliefs

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Thank you Chuz Life

    1. RE: limiting the application of the premises established by the 1st Amendment
    CL: "People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion."
    ^ This is the statement that sounded like you were limiting the meaning to only
    prohibiting laws based "SOLELY ON RELIGION"

    What about beliefs in general, and any values or rational for laws imposing a FAITH BASED argument or standard.

    I am arguing that it's not only RELIGION that govt cannot establish,
    but the broader meaning in order to apply to protecting all people
    concerns faith based beliefs.

    Are you okay with classing the pro LGBT "beliefs" as INCLUDED in
    not "establishing religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion" when it
    comes to persona choice to believe or not believe in gender identity that is apart from
    what is agreed by science as in genetic identity established at birth.

    2. Again the WHOLE POINT of this thread is to show how
    in both cases, OBJECTIONS to the prolife arguments or the pro-LGBT arguments
    are that the LEGAL defintions should be based on what is established at birth,
    and not conflicting beliefs such as
    * subjective "gender identity" that half the population doesn't agree to recognize
    * beliefs in recognizing rights of individual persons before birth, which again half the
    people doesn't agree to establish by law

    Instead of addressing these SEPARATELY where both issues deadlock and nobody
    changes their approach, I am comparing these at the same time to ask
    that in both cases we all agree to
    * neither establish the subjective conflicting beliefs and definitions that opposing views don't agree on
    and don't want this forced on them because of free exercise of religion and not establishing faith based
    beliefs that others do not choose freely and shouldn't be coerced into by force of law or govt
    * nor PROHIBIT or discriminate against either Prolife believers or LGBT believers since they have equal rights to those beliefs, and NOT be forced under laws that disparage and infringe on their rights and beliefs

    Are you okay with applying this broader sense of religious freedom to
    these kind of BELIEFS so that we agree not to make laws that
    infringe on either side in either case.

    Again, the reason I bring both up, is so that people who take one approach
    in one case, put themselves in the shoes of the other side in the other case.

    Chuz Life:
    If you are pushing your beliefs about prolife in the case of abortion,
    are you okay with others pushing their faith based beliefs about LGBT in the other case.


    If you do not agree to LGBT redefining gender to be some "subjective" faith based
    identity that isn't agreed on due to conflicting beliefs and can't be forced on other people by govt,
    are you okay with refraining from defining the starting point of human rights BEFORE birth
    instead of the legal terms using birth as the starting point, similar to laws recognizing gender
    at birth and not subjective/relative definitions which LGBT advocates believe in using.

    Baz Ares
    If you reject the faith based arguments about defining persons and rights
    based on conditions other than natural birth, and defending agreed
    secular standards of using BIRTH for determining legal status,
    are you okay when opponents of subjective LGBT identity
    "similarly demand" to use scientific genetic gender at birth as the legal definitions
    and NOT be forced to comply with "faith based beliefs about gender identity or orientation"
    under penalty of law because having beliefs otherwise is opposed as "class discrimination"
    when such opponents argue this isn't a class of person but is a range or choice of BEHAVIOR.

    Chuz Life
    If you believe in using scientific definitions of gender at birth
    instead of govt establishing and recognizing "faith based" beliefs in
    subjective LGBT identity,
    do you understand my point that secular liberals also demand to
    use legal definitions at birth when it comes to recognizing persons under law.

    If we cannot agree on this, that is why I am saying
    we need to solve the problem another way. Because
    both sides require establishing their beliefs over the beliefs of others
    which is unconstitutional. In order to respect all beliefs equally,
    we'd have to try a totally different approach that doesn't run
    into these impossible contradictions where laws couldn't be
    established without violating beliefs of others. The way to
    prevent that in such cases is to make laws by agreed consensus
    so no beliefs on either side are violated or discriminated against by the policies.
     
  2. Baz Ares
    Offline

    Baz Ares Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Messages:
    10,019
    Thanks Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +4,514
    upload_2019-2-8_23-32-4.png

    "If you reject the faith based arguments about defining persons and rights
    based on conditions other than natural birth, and defending agreed
    secular standards of using BIRTH for determining legal status,
    are you okay when opponents of subjective LGBT identity
    "similarly demand" to use scientific genetic gender at birth as the legal definitions
    and NOT be forced to comply with "faith based beliefs about gender identity or orientation"
    under penalty of law because having beliefs otherwise is opposed as "class discrimination"
    when such opponents argue this isn't a class of person but is a range or choice of BEHAVIOR."


    ----------------FFS here! :eusa_naughty:
    'Faith' is not based on facts.
    It's a feeling, weak it be. A Con play. A replacement, to not having real facts to prove a case.
    The defective weak, use it as a dodge.

    A person, and LGBT identity is real. Do I need to say more?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  3. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    5,974
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +4,096
    For someone who obviously thinks they have a point to make to do so much to bury it in a word salad like this?

    It's laughable and maybe just a little bit sad.

    How did you ever get to be a mod?

    Your post is not even interesting enough for me to consider reading it again to see if there might be a chance to re-engage.

    My time is better spent on something else.
     
  4. Baz Ares
    Offline

    Baz Ares Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Messages:
    10,019
    Thanks Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +4,514
    Keep playing your DOPer WEAK hand.
    As you have no reply to REAL facts.
     
  5. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    ??? Baz Ares and Chuz Life can we start here ^

    Just becauses LGBT identity is faith based doesn't mean it's not real!
    Someone's Christian identity (or Muslim or Atheist) is faith based and it's REAL
    and STILL cannot be regulated by govt because it's faith based
    ie NEITHER ESTABLISHED NOR PROHIBITED

    Something can be real and still not be proven by science,
    and doesn't NEED to be if it's a faith based choice.

    Chuz Life do you agree that LGBT identity beliefs are faith based?

    And part of the reason I was chosen as a Mod was because I support
    diversity and inclusion, and seek to facilitate communicate regardless of beliefs.
    Yes, it gets messy. If we don't allow freedom of thought and speech
    we'd never get through and finish the process, which can go in all directions.
    I allow for that freedom, and that's a major reason I support USMB that allows this freely.
     

Share This Page