Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun
Everyone has the right to Prayer
but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.

Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.

All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.

If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

 

[Faun]

Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.

I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.

what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
* gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
* right to health care or free market
* prochoice or prolife beliefs
* gun regulations or gun rights
* life imprisonment or death penalty
* statism vs states rights

Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out

Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs

pvsi

You're completely off base. Marriage laws are not decided by the federal government. They are decided by the states. In regard to same-sex marriage, the federal government did not write or create any laws. It protected the Constitutional rights of folks who were being denied their right to marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals were able to do.

^ Here is your post where we agree Faun ^
yes I agree that although marriage is up to states and people, that federal government is correct in striking down laws or bans against gay marriage as unconstitutional -- but not because they discriminate against marriage as a Constitutional right but *Religious Freedom* as a Constitutional and natural right which includes beliefs on marriage.

Beliefs about marriage and relationships are naturally under free exercise of religion. And violating or regulating free exercise of beliefs violates 14th amendment equal protections to all persons independent of Creed.

Faun by this interpretation of marriage beliefs and rights under First amendment free exercise barring govt from either Establishing or Prohibiting
One belief or another
*Then BOTH sides beliefs are protected equally from each other!*

That interpretation is more universal, covers ALL cases, and includes ALL people regardless of beliefs on marriage and rights.

Now you and traditional interpretations of rulings and precedence keep adding conditions to this such as
* NOT treating religious beliefs and secular political beliefs the same and thus allowing LGBT beliefs to be endorsed by govt while excluding faith based beliefs in prayer or creation
* counting only the civil definition and use of the word marriage instead of seeking neutral terms
* not recognizing right to marriage as a faith based belief but treating it unequally as right to life and other faith based beliefs that other people argue are natural rights not beliefs

So this creates an environment of discrimination.

That's why I believe in recognizing political beliefs equally as faith based as religious beliefs.

I recognize this change requires free choice of people.

But if you and others insist that it requires govt to change it first, that's your belief. I will respect it for you, but for those who believe it should be free choice, I respect that as well.

I don't have money for a lawyer but willing to do a fundraiser to find one and/or call for a Constitutional conference on political beliefs. Recognizing some statists require govt to change laws before they feel they have those rights or choices legally. Recognizing some secularists require proof that is demonstrated or replicated before accepting to change beliefs. And recognizing some people cannot help or change their beliefs and can't be forced to by law.

I'm okay with all that in seeking a consensus on laws touching faith based beliefs, whether religious political or secular, and/or seeking cost effective fair ways to separate policies or funding which includes reimbursement of costs for past abuses of govt paid or credited back to taxpayers to invest in reforms needed to separate or reconcile policies.

Thank you Faun Sneekin etc all
This opens up the whole can of worms,
So let's go fishing for agreed solutions!

This is the root to why you can't understand this topic...

"Beliefs about marriage and relationships are naturally under free exercise of religion."​

...that is simply not true. Peoples' right to civil marriage has nothing to do with their right to exercise religion. It has nothing to do with religion. Many folks who get civilly married don't practice any religion.

Until you understand that, you will never understand why you're on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[Faun]

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

The parties essentially espoused beliefs.

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

 

[Faun]

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

 

[Faun]

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin and occupied

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your best efforts!

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Faun

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Faun

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How contrary is that Faun???

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

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

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Faun

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

I answered this before, several times.

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

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

Same principle. Faun

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

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

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

Or that's discrimination by creed.