Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

 

[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.

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!

Wow - what you propose would be impossible to enforce. if the female "thinks" she took her pill but forgot and conceived, you would call it abuse? Or if the condom fails, you would call it abuse?

Nurturing network is religious based. Planned Parenthood isn't. Only PP can get federal funding.

Texas is already trying to allow abortion in just certain counties - it's tied up in the courts, if you remember. That example of yours won't work.

Can't have just the left getting health care through government. Unwanted sex is called RAPE. It's a crime
Your examples are not Prochoice And ProLife - quite the opposite.

 

[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!

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

No Sneekin I did NOT EVER consent to authorize Govt to violate the Constitutional principle of liberty and rights of states and people in this manner.

Just because someone consents to marriage including SEX
does NOT GIVE the other partner FULL LICENSE to RAPE that person by forcing SEX without CONSENT.

Just because I vote for and support govt does NOT give anyone license to violate Constitutional ethics and equal protections.
You may consent to that, but not me, because I cannot afford the cost of correcting overreaches of govt.

Saying I should join the exchanges at no cost
is as offense to me as against my beliefs in Constitutional limits on govt,
as saying YOU could go get free spiritual healing or marriage
through a Christian church that is against YOUR beliefs!

So the govt mandating that I join an exchange or pay for insurance I cannot afford,
is like telling YOU to "go join a free Christian group to get help with health care,"
or worse, to PAY to join one as ACA requires me to do to get an exemption!

 

[Sneekin]

Then

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck 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.)

3. You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment. It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1. We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, not the way our constitution or our laws work (statement 2).

 

[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!

Wow - what you propose would be impossible to enforce. if the female "thinks" she took her pill but forgot and conceived, you would call it abuse? Or if the condom fails, you would call it abuse?

Nurturing network is religious based. Planned Parenthood isn't. Only PP can get federal funding.

Texas is already trying to allow abortion in just certain counties - it's tied up in the courts, if you remember. That example of yours won't work.

Can't have just the left getting health care through government. Unwanted sex is called RAPE. It's a crime
Your examples are not Prochoice And ProLife - quite the opposite.

Dear Sneekin

1. It depends on what terms people would agree to.
And I would make it Optional for people to adopt some form of this policy instead of trying to ban abortions after
sex or pregnancy has already occurred. I think there is greater chance of consensus there, then after the fact.

And yes I would offer the IDEA of expanding statutory or a lesser degree of RAPE
to apply to coercion to start addressing abortion prevention at the point where men are equally responsible for
the decision to have sex if pregnancy, children or abortion are not wanted.

2. Nurturing Network is nonprofit and so is Planned Parenthood.
If people argue one or the other is biased at least they are equal choices.

 

[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.)

3. You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment. It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1. We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.

Dear Sneekin
I didn't get to vote on ACA.
That's part of the complaint.

The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!

If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?

If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
I would like to present the proposed project, including how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.

 

[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

No Sneekin I did NOT EVER consent to authorize Govt to violate the Constitutional principle of liberty and rights of states and people in this manner.

Just because someone consents to marriage including SEX
does NOT GIVE the other partner FULL LICENSE to RAPE that person by forcing SEX without CONSENT.

Just because I vote for and support govt does NOT give anyone license to violate Constitutional ethics and equal protections.
You may consent to that, but not me, because I cannot afford the cost of correcting overreaches of govt.

Saying I should join the exchanges at no cost
is as offense to me as against my beliefs in Constitutional limits on govt,
as saying YOU could go get free spiritual healing or marriage
through a Christian church that is against YOUR beliefs!

So the govt mandating that I join an exchange or pay for insurance I cannot afford,
is like telling YOU to "go join a free Christian group to get help with health care,"
or worse, to PAY to join one as ACA requires me to do to get an exemption!

Yes, you did consent to authorize - I went online and checked, and the state of Texas was represented in the PP/ACA voting by congress. In our form of government, YOU don't have a separate vote on these matters, you have people you elected to office that vote. I believe they voted against the PP/ACA (I know Cruz did). So, they heard your vote, and you were OUTVOTED.

Rape is non-consensual. Of course it's not the same as sex - it's a violent act where the rapist acts to control the victim, not to perform a sex act.

I didn't say you should join the exchanges. Actually, I said you COULD join a private self funded program through work, which is totally opposite of what you are claiming. If you have insurance through work, there's no reason to go through the exchanges.

 

[Sneekin]

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.)

3. You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment. It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1. We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.

Dear Sneekin
I didn't get to vote on ACA.
That's part of the complaint.

The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!

If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?

If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
I would like to present the proposed project, including how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.

You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.

 

[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?

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!)

I asked a simple question...and No Emily you did not answer

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

Abortion is a womans decision. It can be for "relationship abuse", family planning, financial difficulty or any other reason a woman chooses. How do you stop abortion without banning it?

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

Prolife people have already blocked taxpayer funding..whether you support abortion or not...They will not be satisfied until ALL abortion is illegal. There is no middle ground....no place to compromise

 

[emilynghiem]

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.)

3. You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment. It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1. We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.

Dear Sneekin
I didn't get to vote on ACA.
That's part of the complaint.

The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!

If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?

If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
I would like to present the proposed project, including how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.

You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.

that's right Sneekin
and if you look at the VOTES split in Congress
these were divided by PARTY.

so if the Democrats who BELIEVE in right to health care as
a political BELIEF or RELIGION were treated equally
as Christians imposing right to life against free choice,
this would not have passed as Constitutional.

It would be recognized as an overreach in establishing
a biased belief that violates the beliefs and freedom of others!

I argue to treat right to health care imposition against free choice
DIFFERENTLY from right to life imposition against free chioce
is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

The same way I would reject faith based right to life imposed on people through govt,
I treat secular faith based beliefs in right to health care the same way,
and argue this should remain FREE CHOICE of people,
NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVT under mandates, penalty and fines!

 

[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!)

I asked a simple question...and No Emily you did not answer

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

Abortion is a womans decision. It can be for "relationship abuse", family planning, financial difficulty or any other reason a woman chooses. How do you stop abortion without banning it?

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

Prolife people have already blocked taxpayer funding..whether you support abortion or not...They will not be satisfied until ALL abortion is illegal. There is no middle ground....no place to compromise

Dear rightwinger

1. I am saying that all sex that leads to abortion can
be counted as relationship abuse.

That is one way to go after it indirectly.
Stop the abuse of sex and relationships across the board,
and indirectly this would eliminate abortion.

2. separate health care tracks into
* right to health care / prochoice/anti death penalty
* right to life/ no abortion or drugs or euthanasia/ no ACA mandates

And the right to life people will be so happy to have a separate track that
doesn't have gay marriage or abortion, they would agree to separate.

Whatever you THINK would prevent consensus, find out
what they want or don't want and agree to add those conditions on to fix several at once.

If people absolutely religiously believe in no abortion and no gay marriage,
sure, they have full right to fund their own programs that don't have these things
they don't believe in. I totally support them in separating,
or if they cannot, in totally integrating the choice of spiritual healing into health care
programs if that would solve the problem easier!
Give them what they want and believe in, and the right answers will get a YES

 

[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.

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!

Wow - what you propose would be impossible to enforce. if the female "thinks" she took her pill but forgot and conceived, you would call it abuse? Or if the condom fails, you would call it abuse?

Nurturing network is religious based. Planned Parenthood isn't. Only PP can get federal funding.

Texas is already trying to allow abortion in just certain counties - it's tied up in the courts, if you remember. That example of yours won't work.

Can't have just the left getting health care through government. Unwanted sex is called RAPE. It's a crime
Your examples are not Prochoice And ProLife - quite the opposite.

Dear Sneekin

1. It depends on what terms people would agree to.
And I would make it Optional for people to adopt some form of this policy instead of trying to ban abortions after
sex or pregnancy has already occurred. I think there is greater chance of consensus there, then after the fact.

And yes I would offer the IDEA of expanding statutory or a lesser degree of RAPE
to apply to coercion to start addressing abortion prevention at the point where men are equally responsible for
the decision to have sex if pregnancy, children or abortion are not wanted.

2. Nurturing Network is nonprofit and so is Planned Parenthood.
If people argue one or the other is biased at least they are equal choices.

Sounds like you need someone to lobby for Nurturing Network then. It does say it's anti-abortion, so it's right on the line of political/religious. You don't get to vote where your taxes go, you need to write your congressmen to have part of the money appropriated to NN instead of PP, or additional funding for NN.

Coercion to have sex that results in pregnancy is either a rape or not a rape; not a lesser version of rape. Again - Sexual Assault laws are on the books. Have your state enforce the laws. Unless we sterilize men and women at birth (which of course is unconstitutional), how are you going to hold someone equally responsible? What if the pill doesn't work/forgot to take it/condom broke/condom sabotaged and so on? What if he wants the pregnancy to continue and she doesn't? What if he doesn't and she does? She carries the fetus, not him. If my 17 year old child is student teaching a 19 year old high school student, the law is specific - the 17 year old is in a position of power, and guilty of rape. In various states, laws vary by the age gap between the consenting parties. Where are the parents? We need existing laws enforced - no expansion of laws. Statutory rape is what it is, and should always be enforced.

 

[Sneekin]

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.)

3. You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment. It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1. We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.

Dear Sneekin
I didn't get to vote on ACA.
That's part of the complaint.

The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!

If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?

If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
I would like to present the proposed project, including how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.

You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.

that's right Sneekin
and if you look at the VOTES split in Congress
these were divided by PARTY.

so if the Democrats who BELIEVE in right to health care as
a political BELIEF or RELIGION were treated equally
as Christians imposing right to life against free choice,
this would not have passed as Constitutional.

It would be recognized as an overreach in establishing
a biased belief that violates the beliefs and freedom of others!

I argue to treat right to health care imposition against free choice
DIFFERENTLY from right to life imposition against free chioce
is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

The same way I would reject faith based right to life imposed on people through govt,
I treat secular faith based beliefs in right to health care the same way,
and argue this should remain FREE CHOICE of people,
NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVT under mandates, penalty and fines!

But yet, your own state politicians voted it down........by a majority. You aren't familiar with the way the government works. Please go on line and check it out.

 

[Sneekin]

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!)

I asked a simple question...and No Emily you did not answer

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

Abortion is a womans decision. It can be for "relationship abuse", family planning, financial difficulty or any other reason a woman chooses. How do you stop abortion without banning it?

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

Prolife people have already blocked taxpayer funding..whether you support abortion or not...They will not be satisfied until ALL abortion is illegal. There is no middle ground....no place to compromise

Dear rightwinger

1. I am saying that all sex that leads to abortion can
be counted as relationship abuse.

That is one way to go after it indirectly.
Stop the abuse of sex and relationships across the board,
and indirectly this would eliminate abortion.

2. separate health care tracks into
* right to health care / prochoice/anti death penalty
* right to life/ no abortion or drugs or euthanasia/ no ACA mandates

And the right to life people will be so happy to have a separate track that
doesn't have gay marriage or abortion, they would agree to separate.

Whatever you THINK would prevent consensus, find out
what they want or don't want and agree to add those conditions on to fix several at once.

If people absolutely religiously believe in no abortion and no gay marriage,
sure, they have full right to fund their own programs that don't have these things
they don't believe in. I totally support them in separating,
or if they cannot, in totally integrating the choice of spiritual healing into health care
programs if that would solve the problem easier!
Give them what they want and believe in, and the right answers will get a YES

1. All sex that can lead to abortion (any time a pregnancy occurs) would not be abuse. It would not eliminate marriage. What's been recommended for the last 30-40 years is birth control available to all - and blocked by right wing fundamentalists - is birth control. It's amazing how quickly the birth rate drops when birth control becomes available to all (ie, no religious exemptions - because even the Catholic Church allows women to use birth control in certain scenarios).
2. Courts ruled on this -
a) healthcare - passed, ruled constitutional.
b) pro-choice - Roe v Wade, ruled constitutional
c) Death Penalty - state by state decision (I live in a no death penalty state - IL overturned the DP because of all of the cases getting overturned. Texas, instead of killing innocent people, need to go back in and put a freeze on until outside agencies stop overturning DP cases)

If people want to live where there is no abortion and no gay marriage, I suggest they leave this country. They don't have any right to fund fund any programs that would disallow others to take advantage of abortion or getting married (again, no such thing as gay marriage)).
Spiritual Healing violates the constitution - it cannot fully nor in part be incorporated into health care programs that receive federal funds.

You don't always get what you want - you have to obey standing law. You change the law - which is done by voting the right people into office. Clean house in Texas, for starters.

 

[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. And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights. My religion allows slavery to this day. You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.

B. 1) Spiritual healing is religious. I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B 2) There is no such thing as gay marriage. The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE. The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE. The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage. It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE. No endorsement at all, never has been.
C) A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage). It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners. You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion. No one is forced to change any beliefs. You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT.. Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything? You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage. Quite a difference.

 

[Syriusly]

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

How are the rights of any 'religious people' being taken away? No one is forcing any 'religious people' into gay marriage. No one is forcing them to have 'gay marriages' in their church.

And what about the religious gays who belong to a church that does allow gay marriage? Why would you deny them their religious beliefs?

The majority of Americans believe in marriage equality. That isn't the reason why gay couples have the right to marry each other- but it is a recognition that the majority of Americans have reached the same place as the law.

Dear Syriusly if everyone can agree that the state marriages are civil only as Faun and I seem to agree in Spirit, but not all people yet agree on the language,
then attaching all the other social conditions to marriage is what is causing the
imposition of beliefs that not all people share.!

Again- no one is being forced to marry- no one is having marriage imposed upon them.

Can you say what you would like to see in one short succinct sentence?

I would truly love to see that.

 

[Sneekin]

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.)

3. You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment. It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1. We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.

Dear Sneekin
I didn't get to vote on ACA.
That's part of the complaint.

The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!

If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?

If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
I would like to present the proposed project, including how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.

You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.

that's right Sneekin
and if you look at the VOTES split in Congress
these were divided by PARTY.

so if the Democrats who BELIEVE in right to health care as
a political BELIEF or RELIGION were treated equally
as Christians imposing right to life against free choice,
this would not have passed as Constitutional.

It would be recognized as an overreach in establishing
a biased belief that violates the beliefs and freedom of others!

I argue to treat right to health care imposition against free choice
DIFFERENTLY from right to life imposition against free chioce
is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

The same way I would reject faith based right to life imposed on people through govt,
I treat secular faith based beliefs in right to health care the same way,
and argue this should remain FREE CHOICE of people,
NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVT under mandates, penalty and fines!

SIGH. Please admit the fact that YOUR REPRESENTATIVES voted it down. They lost. Welcome to our constitutional republic. It's how the legal system works.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?

Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?

Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?

Marriage is a right in the United States- that is a well established legal fact.

Those rights are not always immediately recognized- hence court cases that said that voters couldn't deny marriage to mixed race couples, or gay couples, or men who owed child support, or prisoners in jail.

No one is going to force any Christian to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.

Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.

Just like the gay couple that gets married.

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?

I don't want that I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.

No- why do you actually ignore the words I actually use- and make up your own crap?

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?