An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[NYcarbineer]

... Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion...

"Equal Inclusion"... of what?

Does the 14th amendment provide that every idea is equal? That every person with every far-flung notion has a RESPONSIBILITY to subject the consequences of their 'beliefs' upon everyone else and IF the law precludes them from doing so THAT THE LAW IS USURPING THE RIGHT WHICH IS SUSTAINED ONLY THROUGH THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO INJURE AS MANY PEOPLE AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE?

No... it doesn't.

The amendment guarantees that RACIAL DISTINCTION will not stand as a reason for a person to be treated differently from ANY OTHER PERSON.

RACE... now, where SPECIFICALLY does "RACE EQUALITY" establish that PROFOUND SEXUAL DEVIANCY MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS SEXUAL EQUALITY?

(The Reader should know that despite the ANSA Cult REJECTING THAT REALITY, they will have NO MEANS TO ADDRESS that point. And as such, they will ignore it, or immediately set out to deflect from it.)

What's the identifiable, harmful consequence of legalizing same sex marriage.?

Be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
I know this challenges our faith in following civil authorities and trusting that enforcing laws
consistently will steer towards the right direction we agree on anyway.

Please trust that SCIENCE will prove that homosexuality can change, and has been
healed where such conditions were unnatural. People will attest to that, and science can show this.

We do not need to be so afraid that we rely on faith-based arguments
when we can prove our points using science that MEETS secular standards
and proves this once and for all.

Do you see this is God's will to use THIS issue to prove that spiritual healing does work naturally
and freely, and is not fraud or forced or anything negative.

Nobody cared enough to do the medical research to prove spiritual healing, when it would
have saved lived from cancer, mental illness, and all kinds of deadly physical and criminal illnesses.
So nobody pushed to prove it scientifically, when there wasn't enough motivation.

But now, with THIS issue, suddenly people do care enough to push for proof.

Now we can organize enough support to prove spiritual healing
has cured people of unnatural conditions that include homosexual attractions.

And because of the push for funds invested in marijuana research and medical benefits,
why not push for equal resources invested in research on spiritual healing which is even
more natural and applies to a wider range of conditions, including healing addictions and abuse,
physical diseases and personal relationships.

God will use ALL THINGS for his good purposes.

So I join with you in prayer and absolute faith that even better things
than we imagined will come from these conflicts that seem so negative right now.

May I please pray with you for full forgiveness and corrections of all the
wrongs that we see going on, so that all can be made right in Christ Jesus?
Amen!

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

Where_r_my_Keys Yes Where, you have the right to your beliefs,
and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws.
However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either.

So they do have the right to marriage laws that include them and their beliefs
equally as you and I do. If we cannot agree on this publicly, it should be left to
district level or private churches or whatever can accommodate us equally.

The same reason it would be unconstitutional to impose their beliefs in conflict with yours,
it is equally unconstitutional for you or me to impose our beliefs on them. I believe
in consensus and even that must be agreed upon by free choice and cannot be forced by law.
or even that contradicts religious freedom.

since these are personal matters of belief, they cannot be forced by govt.
we either agree what laws to pass, or we remove them from govt jurisdiction
and pass neutral laws on where we agree and keep our beliefs out of it that others oppose.

Hello Emily.

"... you have the right to your beliefs, and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws. However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either."

To the extent that all of the beliefs are reasonable, which is to say, resting upon valid reason... substantiated by the evidence in nature that those beliefs reflect reality, then what you say it true.

But where you simply ascribe that 'a belief', any belief deserves equal standing with every other... is, and forgive me for the certainty here, simply false and, I respectfully submit, absurdly so.

What they are asking, without fear of over simplifying their position, is that reasonable people accept that deviancy; which is to say that behavior which PROFOUNDLY deviates from human physiological NORMALITY be accepted as NORMAL HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.

Emily... THAT is in purely scientific terms: FALSE. Without regard to ANY "BELIEF"... without consideration of ANY RELIGIOUS TENET: what they are claiming as TRUTH, is FALSE. It is NOT-TRUE, in terms of THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY!

They are further demanding that THOSE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITIES REST IN VACUOUS, MEANINGLESS OPINION, THAT SUCH REFLECTS MERELY THE BIASED INTERPRETATION; A FALSELY PREJUDICED VIEW OF ARCAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF!

And in that, Emily, reasonable people; which is to say, people who are in possession of a strong sense of reality, can rest assured that such 'BELIEFS' are a manifestation of a disordered mind.

And in that, reasonable people can recognize the HISTORICAL opinion of eons of civilization, wherein EVERY CULTURE IN HUMAN HISTORY, DURING THE PERIODS OF SUBSTANTIAL VIABILITY, recognized that homosexual behavior was the result of a mental disorder.

And we can test that against the history wherein ONCE SUCH BEHAVIOR CAME TO BE EXCEPTED AS NORMAL... the viability of those culture's evaporated, and shortly thereafter, so evaporated THE CULTURE.

So, no ma'am... all 'beliefs' are not equal... and subsequently all beliefs ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION OR NATURE ITSELF, as being such.

If we cannot agree upon that SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH... we cannot agree upon anything.

Understand, the Founders of the United States did not recognize the 'beliefs' of King George and the British parliament which had long subjugated their means to exercise their God-given rights.

And I NEED you to understand that: IT WAS THIS SINGULAR TRUTH FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

What's more... as in all matters of mathematical certainty, where the positive is true, as represented by our founding, it is certain that the negative is just as true, thus the inversion; which is to say the turning from that self-evident truth, can ONLY lead to our cultural demise.

These are immutable laws of nature Emily... they're right there in front of you. It is impossible to NOT see them, except and unless one simply refuses TO see them. Which is very common, because to recognize them brings the responsibility to comport one's behavior, within them.

And that's HARD!

And because IT is HARD, the Ideological Left has evolved through centuries of rationalizations, in vane grope for an EASIER WAY.

The problem is, it only appears easier on the front end; but in reality, it never is.

Not to worry, God has a plan for the gentiles, and these natural laws will lead to perfect unity and understanding
between both folds of the flock made one, new, whole and fulfilled in Christ Jesus, Amen.

Emily, we agree...

But God's will is truth. And truth can only be found, through the rejection of falsity. And where we attempt to compromise with falsity, even toward the pursuit of the truth, we do not get halfway toward the truth, we actually 'get' farther from the truth, by half measures. Which, is the surest and fastest path to destruction.

Emily, they're wrong. Nature does not require that they recognize themselves as wrong to be wrong.

They're animated by un-truth... and because of that, they are impervious to reason.

Did you see the cabby just ask me for 'a quote from God?'.

Do you understand that it did so, not because it is searching for evidence of God's will... it did that because it rejects the existence of God and as such God's law.

The simple truth is, IF God were to materialize directly in front of it and perform all manner of 'miracles'... altering matter from inanimate composition to life... it would not recognize God, and that is because it cannot and that is because it lacks the means to reason.

For Pete's sale Emily... these people just witnesses socialist policy DESTROY the financial markets... rendering the planet into economic chaos. And they have absolutely NO MEANS to understand what they saw.

They promoted unprincipled behavior... that unprincipled behavior resulted in catastrophe and they immediately turn to blame those who promote principled behavior for THEIR FAILURE. THAT IS A PRESENTATION OF A DISORDERED MIND. A perversion of human reasoning; the inability to discern REALITY!

There's no right to impart catastrophe onto others by misleading them to believe that which is false, to be true.

I truly appreciate your point of view, but I cannot agree that tolerating the intolerable is going to produce anything but more intolerable behavior.

Look around you... they are crippling the WESTERN CIVILIZATION. And we're approaching a point where there will be no means to stop it, where the Left exists.

And yes... I realize that what that means. And in my 54th year of life, with innocent, defenseless grand-babies all about me, I have no desire to experience that hell or subject these children to it. But, I am not the one causing it... therefore I have no means to stop it, short of conveying to as many as possible, the reasoning which mathematically demonstrates the absolute certainty of the errors intrinsic to their way.

IOW you can provide neither proof that God exists nor proof that God has told us what the law should be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I had to see this again

Why? Because you adore the fabulous pastel shade of his jacket?

 

[Seawytch]

And in 37 States, DC and Canada- it is the joining of 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman.

And that is lovely progress.

[/QUOTE]

Sure, Syriusly, as long as the laws don't exclude or demean the beliefs of others.
Otherwise, the same mistake as before is being repeated again.
Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion and creating MORE backlash against gays.[/QUOTE]

The law doesn't. The law treats all equally regardless of their religious affiliation. Civil and religious marriage are already a completely separate thing.[/QUOTE]

TO YOU Seawytch
To people whose beliefs and whose mindsets don't separate laws the way we do,
this language is like trying to impose GOD on Atheists. it's just a word, but it invokes BELIEFS.

That's fine if you don't see the difference.
I am perfectly fine translating Jesus into Justice, God into Life/Nature, and those words don't have to be
changed for me either.

But I happen to RESPECT if people's inherent beliefs can't agree with how something is worded,
and may need that to be changed.

Nobody has to justify their beliefs to me for me to recognize them and work with them.

If you want YOUR laws to say that, then don't pass them in a state where other citizens
have the right NOT to have that wording in the laws.

Sorry that you do not respect or understand the beliefs of others equally as your own.
I do, as a Constitutionalist. And I cannot make you follow the Golden Rule and treat
the consent of others equally weighted as your own. In mediation, the people in conflict
are weighed the same, and if they are not comfortable with how a resolution is worded, it is changed.

Sorry this isn't your standard, but it's the one I use to defend and protect the beliefs of others
equally as my own, even and especially when I don't agree or don't understand.

I am fine with creating a level of law and state system, such as through the Democrats and our party platform
so that people can have the marriage laws they want, and it doesn't have to affect people who disagree.

Otherwise, all people, all couples should have "civil unions" through the state
and keep marriage private so everyone is equal.

Whatever people in a state agree on, that's their rights and their laws.
But as long as the state and laws I am under affect people with opposing beliefs,
I will support a consensus to make sure all beliefs are included and the laws are worded where everyone consents.

That's fine, Seawytch, if that is enough to work in your state, and all the citizens there agree to the language.

I live in Texas and right now, they are even celebrating the anniversary of passing
a ban on gay marriage. So to get an alternative system set up would be a victory.
I believe this can be done by consensus, and same with resolving issues over the ACA and those mandates.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but your idea of "consensus" is not how Civil Rights work. It's not a popularity contest. Religious and civil marriage are already completely, 100% separate. You can get one without the other either way. They are not related.

If the religious are offended because you straight folks called it civil marriage, well then the onus is them to change it for everyone, not just gays. Anyone doing that? No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

... Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion...

"Equal Inclusion"... of what?

Does the 14th amendment provide that every idea is equal? That every person with every far-flung notion has a RESPONSIBILITY to subject the consequences of their 'beliefs' upon everyone else and IF the law precludes them from doing so THAT THE LAW IS USURPING THE RIGHT WHICH IS SUSTAINED ONLY THROUGH THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO INJURE AS MANY PEOPLE AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE?

No... it doesn't.

The amendment guarantees that RACIAL DISTINCTION will not stand as a reason for a person to be treated differently from ANY OTHER PERSON.

RACE... now, where SPECIFICALLY does "RACE EQUALITY" establish that PROFOUND SEXUAL DEVIANCY MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS SEXUAL EQUALITY?

(The Reader should know that despite the ANSA Cult REJECTING THAT REALITY, they will have NO MEANS TO ADDRESS that point. And as such, they will ignore it, or immediately set out to deflect from it.)

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
I know this challenges our faith in following civil authorities and trusting that enforcing laws
consistently will steer towards the right direction we agree on anyway.

Please trust that SCIENCE will prove that homosexuality can change, and has been
healed where such conditions were unnatural. People will attest to that, and science can show this.

We do not need to be so afraid that we rely on faith-based arguments
when we can prove our points using science that MEETS secular standards
and proves this once and for all.

Do you see this is God's will to use THIS issue to prove that spiritual healing does work naturally
and freely, and is not fraud or forced or anything negative.

Nobody cared enough to do the medical research to prove spiritual healing, when it would
have saved lived from cancer, mental illness, and all kinds of deadly physical and criminal illnesses.
So nobody pushed to prove it scientifically, when there wasn't enough motivation.

But now, with THIS issue, suddenly people do care enough to push for proof.

Now we can organize enough support to prove spiritual healing
has cured people of unnatural conditions that include homosexual attractions.

And because of the push for funds invested in marijuana research and medical benefits,
why not push for equal resources invested in research on spiritual healing which is even
more natural and applies to a wider range of conditions, including healing addictions and abuse,
physical diseases and personal relationships.

God will use ALL THINGS for his good purposes.

So I join with you in prayer and absolute faith that even better things
than we imagined will come from these conflicts that seem so negative right now.

May I please pray with you for full forgiveness and corrections of all the
wrongs that we see going on, so that all can be made right in Christ Jesus?
Amen!

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

Where_r_my_Keys Yes Where, you have the right to your beliefs,
and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws.
However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either.

So they do have the right to marriage laws that include them and their beliefs
equally as you and I do. If we cannot agree on this publicly, it should be left to
district level or private churches or whatever can accommodate us equally.

The same reason it would be unconstitutional to impose their beliefs in conflict with yours,
it is equally unconstitutional for you or me to impose our beliefs on them. I believe
in consensus and even that must be agreed upon by free choice and cannot be forced by law.
or even that contradicts religious freedom.

since these are personal matters of belief, they cannot be forced by govt.
we either agree what laws to pass, or we remove them from govt jurisdiction
and pass neutral laws on where we agree and keep our beliefs out of it that others oppose.

Hello Emily.

"... you have the right to your beliefs, and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws. However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either."

To the extent that all of the beliefs are reasonable, which is to say, resting upon valid reason... substantiated by the evidence in nature that those beliefs reflect reality, then what you say it true.

But where you simply ascribe that 'a belief', any belief deserves equal standing with every other... is, and forgive me for the certainty here, simply false and, I respectfully submit, absurdly so.

What they are asking, without fear of over simplifying their position, is that reasonable people accept that deviancy; which is to say that behavior which PROFOUNDLY deviates from human physiological NORMALITY be accepted as NORMAL HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.

Emily... THAT is in purely scientific terms: FALSE. Without regard to ANY "BELIEF"... without consideration of ANY RELIGIOUS TENET: what they are claiming as TRUTH, is FALSE. It is NOT-TRUE, in terms of THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY!

They are further demanding that THOSE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITIES REST IN VACUOUS, MEANINGLESS OPINION, THAT SUCH REFLECTS MERELY THE BIASED INTERPRETATION; A FALSELY PREJUDICED VIEW OF ARCAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF!

And in that, Emily, reasonable people; which is to say, people who are in possession of a strong sense of reality, can rest assured that such 'BELIEFS' are a manifestation of a disordered mind.

And in that, reasonable people can recognize the HISTORICAL opinion of eons of civilization, wherein EVERY CULTURE IN HUMAN HISTORY, DURING THE PERIODS OF SUBSTANTIAL VIABILITY, recognized that homosexual behavior was the result of a mental disorder.

And we can test that against the history wherein ONCE SUCH BEHAVIOR CAME TO BE EXCEPTED AS NORMAL... the viability of those culture's evaporated, and shortly thereafter, so evaporated THE CULTURE.

So, no ma'am... all 'beliefs' are not equal... and subsequently all beliefs ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION OR NATURE ITSELF, as being such.

If we cannot agree upon that SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH... we cannot agree upon anything.

Understand, the Founders of the United States did not recognize the 'beliefs' of King George and the British parliament which had long subjugated their means to exercise their God-given rights.

And I NEED you to understand that: IT WAS THIS SINGULAR TRUTH FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

What's more... as in all matters of mathematical certainty, where the positive is true, as represented by our founding, it is certain that the negative is just as true, thus the inversion; which is to say the turning from that self-evident truth, can ONLY lead to our cultural demise.

These are immutable laws of nature Emily... they're right there in front of you. It is impossible to NOT see them, except and unless one simply refuses TO see them. Which is very common, because to recognize them brings the responsibility to comport one's behavior, within them.

And that's HARD!

And because IT is HARD, the Ideological Left has evolved through centuries of rationalizations, in vane grope for an EASIER WAY.

The problem is, it only appears easier on the front end; but in reality, it never is.

Not to worry, God has a plan for the gentiles, and these natural laws will lead to perfect unity and understanding
between both folds of the flock made one, new, whole and fulfilled in Christ Jesus, Amen.

Emily, we agree...

But God's will is truth. And truth can only be found, through the rejection of falsity. And where we attempt to compromise with falsity, even toward the pursuit of the truth, we do not get halfway toward the truth, we actually 'get' farther from the truth, by half measures. Which, is the surest and fastest path to destruction.

Emily, they're wrong. Nature does not require that they recognize themselves as wrong to be wrong.

They're animated by un-truth... and because of that, they are impervious to reason.

Did you see the cabby just ask me for 'a quote from God?'.

Do you understand that it did so, not because it is searching for evidence of God's will... it did that because it rejects the existence of God and as such God's law.

The simple truth is, IF God were to materialize directly in front of it and perform all manner of 'miracles'... altering matter from inanimate composition to life... it would not recognize God, and that is because it cannot and that is because it lacks the means to reason.

For Pete's sale Emily... these people just witnesses socialist policy DESTROY the financial markets... rendering the planet into economic chaos. And they have absolutely NO MEANS to understand what they saw.

They promoted unprincipled behavior... that unprincipled behavior resulted in catastrophe and they immediately turn to blame those who promote principled behavior for THEIR FAILURE. THAT IS A PRESENTATION OF A DISORDERED MIND. A perversion of human reasoning; the inability to discern REALITY!

There's no right to impart catastrophe onto others by misleading them to believe that which is false, to be true.

I truly appreciate your point of view, but I cannot agree that tolerating the intolerable is going to produce anything but more intolerable behavior.

Look around you... they are crippling the WESTERN CIVILIZATION. And we're approaching a point where there will be no means to stop it, where the Left exists.

And yes... I realize that what that means. And in my 54th year of life, with innocent, defenseless grand-babies all about me, I have no desire to experience that hell or subject these children to it. But, I am not the one causing it... therefore I have no means to stop it, short of conveying to as many as possible, the reasoning which mathematically demonstrates the absolute certainty of the errors intrinsic to their way.

Well the first step is to *forgive fully* that which we ask God to correct.
We must relinquish all fear to God, so that this is replaced with love of truth which knows no fear.

Whatever you are afraid of, give that up and it will be replaced with wisdom and knowledge
of the right understanding to share. As we reject others, so do they reject us, instead of receiving
one another as children wanting truth and letting God into our relationship to make all things right between us.
If we reject each other, how can God's love enter?
So giving up any fear or rejection we have is one more thing we CAN do and we CAN sacrifice
to end the remaining barriers and open the door to full knowledge and understanding for everyone.

This is really a gift, a blessing in disguise, to push the issue into public light
that spiritual healing has changed lives and saved many people from
addiction, abuse, mental illness, death and all manner of living hell caused by unforgiveness.

I pray that all truth be brought forward, and all our fears be removed, and conflicts be resolved.
In Christ Jesus name, where two or three pray in agreement, it is done by God's will. Amen!
Love and more prayers, courage and inspiration to you
for God's perfect love to cast out all fear, worry and doubt.
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, but your idea of "consensus" is not how Civil Rights work. It's not a popularity contest. Religious and civil marriage are already completely, 100% separate. You can get one without the other either way. They are not related.

If the religious are offended because you straight folks called it civil marriage, well then the onus is them to change it for everyone, not just gays. Anyone doing that? No.

I'm not disagreeing that they are separate, I'm saying the LANGUAGE has to be worded right if you want that law not to be challenged over and over until everyone AGREES.

No, consensus is NOT a popularity contest as majority rule is. That is why I go with consensus and not just majority when it comes to people's beliefs the state cannot force anyone to change.

It only takes ONE atheist to remove a cross. It should only take ONE person objecting to a law as personal as marriage to either remove or change the wording, or get it out of state hands if not all people of all beliefs are protected equally.

Technically, Seawytch ALL marriage could be argued removed from the state if you want to be truly literal.
It could be taken as ALL social legislation and NONE of it Constitutional.

If your state agrees to put it up for majority rule vote, that is more like a popularity contest than consensus
that would account for all beliefs regardless of number.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry, but your idea of "consensus" is not how Civil Rights work. It's not a popularity contest. Religious and civil marriage are already completely, 100% separate. You can get one without the other either way. They are not related.

If the religious are offended because you straight folks called it civil marriage, well then the onus is them to change it for everyone, not just gays. Anyone doing that? No.

I'm not disagreeing that they are separate, I'm saying the LANGUAGE has to be worded right if you want that law not to be challenged over and over until everyone AGREES.

No, consensus is NOT a popularity contest as majority rule is. That is why I go with consensus and not just majority when it comes to people's beliefs the state cannot force anyone to change.

It only takes ONE atheist to remove a cross. It should only take ONE person objecting to a law as personal as marriage to either remove or change the wording, or get it out of state hands if not all people of all beliefs are protected equally.

Technically, Seawytch ALL marriage could be argued removed from the state if you want to be truly literal.
It could be taken as ALL social legislation and NONE of it Constitutional.

If your state agrees to put it up for majority rule vote, that is more like a popularity contest than consensus
that would account for all beliefs regardless of number.

Go for it. Fill the public pool so the black kids can't swim. Cut off that nose.

The language is "worded" fine. There is a distinct difference between civil and religious marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

NYcarbineer if the liberals keep pushing political beliefs into govt, this COULD open the door for ALL beliefs to get mandated through govt if this is allowed for liberal political beliefs.

If Obama and ACA supporters keep pushing the belief in the "right to health care" by majority rule or court ruling,
why not push the "right to life" through Courts and Congress and force that faith-based belief on everyone else?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?

Anything can go if we don't respect beliefs as equal and personal choices,
and stop abusing govt to push such beliefs onto the public politically.

At this point, a case could be built based on the patterns of political bias of the Democrats
in pushing one set of beliefs THROUGH GOVT while penalizing people of other beliefs, and may incur a lawsuit to stop abuse
of parties in imposing political beliefs by law. I'd rather see mediation of conflicts instead of lawsuits, but such collective prejudice to mandate political beliefs over others, abusing party and media, might be a form of "conspiring to violate civil rights."

 

[Syriusly]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?
"

Marriage is a right- not a belief.

What same gender couples are asking for is to be treated equally under the law.

There is nothing about 'beliefs' involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, but your idea of "consensus" is not how Civil Rights work. It's not a popularity contest. Religious and civil marriage are already completely, 100% separate. You can get one without the other either way. They are not related.

If the religious are offended because you straight folks called it civil marriage, well then the onus is them to change it for everyone, not just gays. Anyone doing that? No.

I'm not disagreeing that they are separate, I'm saying the LANGUAGE has to be worded right if you want that law not to be challenged over and over until everyone AGREES.

No, consensus is NOT a popularity contest as majority rule is. That is why I go with consensus and not just majority when it comes to people's beliefs the state cannot force anyone to change.

It only takes ONE atheist to remove a cross. It should only take ONE person objecting to a law as personal as marriage to either remove or change the wording, or get it out of state hands if not all people of all beliefs are protected equally.

Technically, Seawytch ALL marriage could be argued removed from the state if you want to be truly literal.
It could be taken as ALL social legislation and NONE of it Constitutional.

If your state agrees to put it up for majority rule vote, that is more like a popularity contest than consensus
that would account for all beliefs regardless of number.

Go for it. Fill the public pool so the black kids can't swim. Cut off that nose.

The language is "worded" fine. There is a distinct difference between civil and religious marriage.

Sure if people in your state agree to that.
I can already tell you in Texas we'd need a lot more than that to resolve the conflict.

You are free to be a hypocrite and not respect the beliefs of others while wanting that for yourself.
I believe in respecting and including all beliefs equally as necessary for the mediation process.

If people resolve the issue by sticking to the language that you suggest, that's great! The problem is resolved!
Consensus is reached! So my approach by consensus INCLUDES your solution as an option.
But you stopping when you are satisfied but others are not
PRECLUDES people and states that need more, which my approach includes.

If my approach serves more people and cases than yours, that is more Constitutionally inclusive
while yours is more exclusive to just the people that works for.

The process that includes and protects people in both cases is more universal, so that is what should be public.

And don't blame me for getting everyone out of the pool after you piss in it, in order to clean it out first.
As said before, many gay people agree to keep marriage private and out of the state.
There are many different ways to resolve this, and yours does not work for all people.

My approach by consensus INCLUDES yours but also all the other ways for all people to be protected.
Sorry you are not that broad based, but only care what works for you. The Constitution is broader than that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?
"

Marriage is a right- not a belief.

What same gender couples are asking for is to be treated equally under the law.

There is nothing about 'beliefs' involved.

^ Right to marriage is a political belief ^

 

[Syriusly]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?
"

Marriage is a right- not a belief.

What same gender couples are asking for is to be treated equally under the law.

There is nothing about 'beliefs' involved.

^ Right to marriage is a political belief ^

No- right to marriage is an established legal concept


Loving v Virginia

"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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"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"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

NYcarbineer if the liberals keep pushing political beliefs into govt, this COULD open the door for ALL beliefs to get mandated through govt if this is allowed for liberal political beliefs.

If Obama and ACA supporters keep pushing the belief in the "right to health care" by majority rule or court ruling,
why not push the "right to life" through Courts and Congress and force that faith-based belief on everyone else?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?

Anything can go if we don't respect beliefs as equal and personal choices,
and stop abusing govt to push such beliefs onto the public politically.

At this point, a case could be built based on the patterns of political bias of the Democrats
in pushing one set of beliefs THROUGH GOVT while penalizing people of other beliefs, and may incur a lawsuit to stop abuse
of parties in imposing political beliefs by law. I'd rather see mediation of conflicts instead of lawsuits, but such collective prejudice to mandate political beliefs over others, abusing party and media, might be a form of "conspiring to violate civil rights."

I have no idea what you're talking about. You need to learn to be clear and concise.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?
"

Marriage is a right- not a belief.

What same gender couples are asking for is to be treated equally under the law.

There is nothing about 'beliefs' involved.

^ Right to marriage is a political belief ^

No- right to marriage is an established legal concept


Loving v Virginia

"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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"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"

Sure that is a political belief passed into law because people agree to it.

Justice is a political faith-based concept. Nobody has ever seen proof that Justice exists
or will ever truly be. So it is purely faith based and can at best be proven by consensus.

Again, something embedded in our laws because we AGREE to it.

If some atheist or smart aleck rationalist/secularist wanted to go all crazy on this
"separation of church and state" business, it could be the subject of a lawsuit to remove
all mention of "JUSTICE" from all govt documents and institutions because this is
as faith based as the terms "God" or "Heaven" and has never been proven to exist.

Sure there are a lot of political beliefs.

And the point is similar to religious beliefs -- that we have to AGREE on them to permit them into law.

Same with mentions of God in the Texas Constitution. People AGREED to that.

When people AGREE with beliefs, whether religious or political,
there is no contest. So that's why I'm saying consensus is necessary in those cases.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... 'does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!'

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION; which is to say an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Which on an individual basis, such has catastrophic potential... but where such individual are rallied around a cause, collectively... demanding a RIGHT to be purvey perverse reasoning and using the Federal Judiciary to effectively set such into law, the potential for catastrophe is untethered.

And that is precisely where we're at today: wherein it and the cult collective are demanding as a RIGHT, to have those delusions set EQUAL to the 'views' born of sound reasoning,

Claiming hysterically that such a right is CREATED in the 14th amendment, which IN REALITY: creates no rights for anyone, but protects the inalienable, divine rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than anyone else.

Which means in simple but incontrovertible terms... she's nuckin' futs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Name one unique harm that legal same sex marriage would do to society.

 

[emilynghiem]

Says who?

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Name one unique harm that legal same sex marriage would do to society.

It would require people of Christian views to prove their beliefs are harmed
when this was NOT required of Atheists views to prove they were harmed by Crosses ordered by Courts to remove.

Thus, it would PROVE a different standard of law is applied to Christians than to Atheists,
and further that political party leaders and members are abusing govt and process to endorse unequal standards and impose such a bias publicly through law.

This would cause even greater backlash and rejection of gays and liberals,
and further the division from Christians, and thus harm both sides further.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Where_r_my_Keys
Creeds are protected. And people have a right to their BELIEFS equally by law.
I state my objections to you equally as I do to Seawytch and Syriusly:
not to mock or harass or deny/demean anyone for their views and beliefs that have equal protection of by law.
especially where we want our beliefs to be included and respected equally.

Where_r_my_Keys especially if we are Christians
we should
1. love our neighbor as ourselves, including forgiving our neighbors and trespasses as we wish ours to be forgiven
2. respect the same equal protection of beliefs, even those we don't agree with and don't understand "how can that
even be valid" when we are asking others to do the same who don't see how our views are valid either!

I will pray that we grow stronger in our faith and ability
to treat, respect, love and forgive our neighbors equally in Christ Jesus,
so that all truth may be established by agreement.

The secular gentiles have a special role to play in establishing the spirit of truth,
and I pray this purpose is fulfilled in keeping with God's perfect will and plans.

Yours truly, Emily

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says who?

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Name one unique harm that legal same sex marriage would do to society.

So you're requiring that for a harm to be valid, the harm that such has caused needs to be 'unique; being the only harm of its kind; a harm unlike any other harm', for it to be considered?

So pedestrian 'harm', which would naturally occur as a result of redefining normality to include abnormality, would therefore not be something which would concern you?

Seems a tad subjective to me; unreasonable, distinct from any sense of the sort which serves viable citizenship... .

But, I would add that a culture that normalizes perverse reasoning, will quickly become perverse, as human history has proven repeatedly... with the landslide into decay and debauchery over the last 22 years having proven such, once again.

Would you care to offer a potential upside to a culture which embraces perversion, thus becoming perverse?