Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

 

[rightwinger]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's another example Sneekin

A. I believe in both the Christian principle that salvation of humanity
is central to faith in Christ Jesus as the unique authority to establish truth collectively
inclusively and universally for all humanity covering collectively knowledge/perception of laws/history
B. I also believe in universal inclusion of ALL people of ALL faiths
including atheists and nontheists who do not identify as Christian.
I believe the secular equivalent of faith in Christ Jesus is called
Restorative Justice
and atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, Muslims can believe and unite
in this spirit and it is the same authority and process as Christ Jesus represents.

So I am both Christian in faith and secular in understanding and expression.

I consider this both A and B,
but others may say I am not completely A or completely B.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

 

[Sneekin]

Then

Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying **** that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence. You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation). Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
B. Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts. Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage. If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
C. Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.

Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress. Sounds like it's going away. Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services. A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold. So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services. Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments. Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home. Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along. Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes. Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.

 

[Sneekin]

Here's another example Sneekin

A. I believe in both the Christian principle that salvation of humanity
is central to faith in Christ Jesus as the unique authority to establish truth collectively
inclusively and universally for all humanity covering collectively knowledge/perception of laws/history
B. I also believe in universal inclusion of ALL people of ALL faiths
including atheists and nontheists who do not identify as Christian.
I believe the secular equivalent of faith in Christ Jesus is called
Restorative Justice
and atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, Muslims can believe and unite
in this spirit and it is the same authority and process as Christ Jesus represents.

So I am both Christian in faith and secular in understanding and expression.

I consider this both A and B,
but others may say I am not completely A or completely B.

You are imposing a state religion. This can't be done.

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community as opposed to simple punishment of the offender. This in no way is the same as what you propose.

Your problem is using religion in your examples - that violates my first amendment rights. Let's not forget, Restorative justice isn't used for every situation, and you are claiming that everything is a faith. Atheism is NOT a faith (trust me). Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. A religion is an organization of like cultural beliefs regarding God or other deity. Atheism isn't a group/organization. It's stand alone. There is no need for any common beliefs. Baptists share common reliefs. Hasid's share common beliefs, as do Sunni's, Sikh's, Catholics, etc.

 

[Sneekin]

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
Faun

Contracts are invalidated if you detrimentally change the language. However, contracts can be unilateral (one party makes the decisions) or bilateral (must arrive at a consensus). In a case where illegal language is contained (for example, Texas stated marriage was only between a man and a woman), the courts struck (repeatedly) the language "only between a man and a woman". From a civil contract point of view, that does NOT pressure any one side to defend itself. You (Texas) doesn't get to agree to changes when the changes make the contract legal and binding, instead of ILLEGAL and INVALID. No consensus would be required - or would be legal. When Loving v Virginia struck down the prohibition of interracial marriage, no one in the state of VA got to vote, discuss, negotiate, come to a consensus. The verbiage was struck/rewritten to become LEGAL. The only "fair way" is what is legal. It's not what we think, it's what the law is. You can't put have a legal and binding contract with illegal terms and conditions. That's why you can't marry your cat, dog, or computer, and why there is no negotiating (putting aside the fact that all 3 can't give consent, nor meet ANY of the legal conditions).

Yes and No Sneekin
Yes removing a ban as unconstitutional is one thing.

But what it takes to legalize something under terms that people agree represents them and the public
is a different process.

You can say Iowa legalized gay marriage by striking down any laws passed by the people of Iowa because of 14th amendment violations as well as state violations. Colorado legalized pot. It can be the same process. Sorry to inform you.

 

[rightwinger]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Then

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying **** that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence. You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation). Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
B. Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts. Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage. If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
C. Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.

Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress. Sounds like it's going away. Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services. A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold. So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services. Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments. Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home. Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along. Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes. Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.

Dear Sneekin

3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.

The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
so we can work it out together.

2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.

Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.

This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.

The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.

You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.

I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.

To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.

so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.

And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.

1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
*(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?

I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly

2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
but have a separate system they fund that is prolife

Who said answers to COMPLEX problems have to be answered in 50 words or less?
Where did you get that would ever work?
No wonder you don't believe in consensus because you restrict speech to 500 or 50?
Sorry rightwinger but the answers are not that simple as you want!

The First Amendment is 45 words.
And look how many Applications and Explanations it takes
to apply that to actual real life issues!!!

(Now that's fine if you have this belief answers have to fit in 50 words.
but don't blame your beliefs on me when I believe in free speech,
not restricting speech to terms I NEVER agreed to meet
then get mad when I don't meet them!)

 

[Sneekin]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

 

[emilynghiem]

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

 

[Sneekin]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

 

[Sneekin]

Then

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying **** that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence. You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation). Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
B. Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts. Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage. If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
C. Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.

Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress. Sounds like it's going away. Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services. A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold. So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services. Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments. Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home. Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along. Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes. Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.

Dear Sneekin

3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.

The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
so we can work it out together.

2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.

Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.

This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.

The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.

You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.

I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.

To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.

so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.

And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.

1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
*(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)

You are represented. Call your congressmen.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.

So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
* pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
* register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
* or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty

How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
I deem more cost effective and sustainable?

Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.

And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!

BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:

Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.

If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!

 

[emilynghiem]

Then
Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence. You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation). Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
B. Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts. Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage. If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
C. Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.

Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress. Sounds like it's going away. Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services. A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold. So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services. Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments. Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home. Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along. Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes. Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.

Dear Sneekin

3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.

The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
so we can work it out together.

2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.

Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.

This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.

The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.

You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.

I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.

To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.

so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.

And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.

1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
*(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)

You are represented. Call your congressmen.

Yes and no. I have been trying to work with our local Congresswoman who even signed the plans
to restore our national historic Freedmen's Town district as a campus back in 1994.
http://www.campusplan.org
After holding a press conference in 2012 to save the last set of historic houses,
she also held a press conference with NAACP leaders to save them, but nothing has been done.

I asked our Democratic Precinct Chair to contact Obama and ask to visit FT as a site for
his Executive Order on Excellence in African American Education, and nothing has been done.

My hope now is to contact Ben Carsons in charge of HUD and see if he can put these plans together and lead them. People will only listen if the MEN leaders unite and stand up, they won't respect me, SJL or any other women to be in charge, so nothing has been done. Not until the men unite, or nobody takes this seriously and keeps waiting on someone else to take charge. Sneekin

Gladys House is trying to save those last rowhouses. since she is a Black Republican
maybe she can get to Ben Carsons better than the Democrats ever got to Obama
which never happened, and he was in office for 8 years. and never got in contact.

 

[Sneekin]

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

Yes and no about Republicans and Democrats Sneekin
1. Republicans who want to push prolife or Christian beliefs through govt
are in violation of the First Amendment and contradict themselves and the Constitution.

I can work with fellow Constitutionalists and be perfectly consistent with Christianity
but cannot impose any beliefs that violate the equal rights or protections of others,
per the Constitution.

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat so that proves your point this doesn't have to
mean being anti God anti Christian or against prolife

2. Rejecting spiritual healing -- instead of proving it by science first so it can be
universally offered as a secular choice through science and medicine --
would count as discriminating against Christianity and God by exclusion by label or group associations,
instead of including this natural process of healing through secular science and proven research,
where it isn't relying on forcing faith but is a free choice consistent with science and medicine.

 

[Sneekin]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.

So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
* pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
* register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
* or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty

How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
I deem more cost effective and sustainable?

Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.

And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!

BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:

Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.

If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!

This post is offensive. For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources. To answer your question, you can't get an exemption from DV. No one is withholding your money. You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the resources to cover expenses.
Mandate: the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election: You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted. I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile. You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas. Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results

 

[Sneekin]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Emily - if you believe in abortion for any purpose at all, you are pro choice. Pro-choice is constitutional. Refusal of abortion for any reason (Pro-Life) is not constitutional..(29 words).