- Nov 14, 2011
- 122,307
- 70,285
- 2,635
Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.I said, "civil marriage is already secular," which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
Sorry but I disagree.
I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.
I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill. people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.
Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.
So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
Thanks Faun
I answered this before, several times.
I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
Same principle. Faun
In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
Or that's discrimination by creed.
That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.