Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Give it a rest, you lost.

 

[Skylar]

Right, laws are based on consent of the governed. They are based on people AGREEING on beliefs
of truth, justice and protecting freedom, peace and security.

With that consent expressed by the majority. And we live in a republic where the people's collective authority is tempered by the rights of the individual. And a law is valid even if some people disagree with it. Universal unanimity isn't the basis of our laws. Majority judgement tempered by our constitution is.

And when people don't agree, you have no method of conflict resolution. Your solution for resolving conflict is that we 'resolve conflict'. But you have no how. No useful suggestions on how to come to consensus on issues we don't agree on.

Which renders your perspective meaningless in any practical sense. As it doesn't actually solve any problem.

I'm not putting "faith based beliefs above others" I'm saying that all faith based creeds should be treated equally.

Equally to what? Again, virtually no belief allows you to invalidate our laws. So if religion is 'equal' to other beliefs, then religion isn't a valid basis for ignoring the law.

Again, 'belief' - your currency of authority and legitimacy....isn't. Its not the basis of our laws. Or invalidating them. We don't give the religious a blank check to ignore any law they don't 'feel' they should have to follow. Nor do we give those with any random belief a similar power to ignore any law they don't like.

Nor have we ever.

The Constitutional laws specify that govt cannot establish religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Again, you're putting religious belief at a premium. So lets be honest. Its not belief you weight so heavily. Its RELIGIOUS belief that you weight so heavily. As its the only basis of belief that you've argued should be allowed to invalidate any law.

And that's not our system of government either, nor ever has been. If such were the case, we've live under Sharia right now. As Muslim 'religious beliefs' would trump all civil law. And anyone could ignore any law by simply claiming a religious basis.

Which again is the religious based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and at the discretion of the individual. Which isn't our law nor ever has been. The founders never followed this.

No one has. As its religiously justified anarchy.

If anything, I am interpreting the laws to the broadest most inclusive extent possible,
by including secular and political beliefs equally as religious ones, and saying NO CREEDS should be discriminated against.

So using any political or secular belief......you can ignore any law? I mean, if religion can is such a basis and any political or secular belief is equal to religion.......

.....your argument sounds like a voluntary legal system. Void of any practical enforcement. If not, why not?

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to admit that there is Only willful blindness on the part of the Establishment to our supreme law of the land in favor of the religious ideology of morals from the Iron Age.

 

[emilynghiem]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“Because people don't agree, that's why you leave it to the people and quit trying to impose one way through the state.”

Nonsense.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, where citizens of the Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are in capable of ruling justly – measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are proof of that.

Moreover, one's civil rights are not subject to majority rule, one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, as the people have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

And when the state acts in a manner intended to deny citizens their civil rights in violation of the Constitution, those adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court and seek relief; indeed, had the states simply followed the Constitution, and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment, this would never had manifested into a controversy in the first place.

People don't agree on Protestant or Catholic BELIEFS.
People don't agree on following Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist BELIEFS.

these are not areas that federal govt has jurisdiction to decide through representative democracy.
There is a limit on govt authority, and BELIEFS is one area that it cannot establish without consent of people.

We AGREE to let people exercise their Buddhist, Christian or other beliefs in private.
Why can't we agree to let people exercise their marriage beliefs in private, or health
care beliefs, if we KNOW that we have conflicting beliefs just like Muslims and Hindus?

Why this need to force the Hindu beliefs in favor over the Muslims with different beliefs?
That's what is happening with forcing right to health care but not allowing right to life
to establish their beliefs through federal gov they believe will save lives, too!

If we don't agree on beliefs, why can't we agree to leave them to private choices
as we do with other religious beliefs we don't agree on either?

Im convinced youve lost your ever loving ******* mind.

Everything you say now is some unfound illogical conservative curmudgeon bullshit.

If the state is going to recognize marriages, it should be all of them. The pseudo intellectual reasoning to have the state discriminate against a class of ppl because of who they love is vile and disturbing.

You have now disgusted me and ive lost all respect. Pz.

??? I think you've misunderstood me and I miscommunicated then.

I AGREE THAT ALL MARRIAGES SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED IF ANY ARE.

I totally agree! So why are you saying we disagree?

Where we may disagree: Since I respect BOTH the beliefs in gay marriage,
traditional marriage, or both, but if these people do not agree, I do not believe
in forcing that through the state.

So I would agree to REMOVE all marriage from the state
unless all people can agree on the terms, such as by including all marriages.

I think we also disagree on substituting civil unions or civil contracts
and leaving out the term marriage if that invokes religious implications.

Can you be specific over which of these things you object to point by point?

Because I agree completely with what you said about including all marriage
if any are going to be endorsed through the state.

G.T. maybe it is better you spell out what you believe in or disagree with
and then I can go through YOUR points, and specify which ones I agree with.
And explain the reasons for any differences.

Is that better? Since I obviously did not communicate clearly.
maybe you can do better.

We agree on ONE point you made, can we do the rest the same way? Thanks!
sorry for miscommunicating!

I do NOT believe in imposing traditional marriage through the state but banning gay marriage, unless all people of that state agree by consensus on those terms.
Since they would not agree to that, that pretty much means no bans on gay marriage.

So I don't believe in the degree to which Ted Cruz pushes it.
So if you think I mean like that, no, I don't agree with the extreme right
that pushes their beliefs but excludes others. You would have to have a
consensus by the entire state on marriage laws and I might agree to that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Right, laws are based on consent of the governed. They are based on people AGREEING on beliefs
of truth, justice and protecting freedom, peace and security.

With that consent expressed by the majority. And we live in a republic where the people's collective authority is tempered by the rights of the individual. And a law is valid even if some people disagree with it. Universal unanimity isn't the basis of our laws. Majority judgement tempered by our constitution is.

And when people don't agree, you have no method of conflict resolution. Your solution for resolving conflict is that we 'resolve conflict'. But you have no how. No useful suggestions on how to come to consensus on issues we don't agree on.

Which renders your perspective meaningless in any practical sense. As it doesn't actually solve any problem.

I'm not putting "faith based beliefs above others" I'm saying that all faith based creeds should be treated equally.

Equally to what? Again, virtually no belief allows you to invalidate our laws. So if religion is 'equal' to other beliefs, then religion isn't a valid basis for ignoring the law.

Again, 'belief' - your currency of authority and legitimacy....isn't. Its not the basis of our laws. Or invalidating them. We don't give the religious a blank check to ignore any law they don't 'feel' they should have to follow. Nor do we give those with any random belief a similar power to ignore any law they don't like.

Nor have we ever.

The Constitutional laws specify that govt cannot establish religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Again, you're putting religious belief at a premium. So lets be honest. Its not belief you weight so heavily. Its RELIGIOUS belief that you weight so heavily. As its the only basis of belief that you've argued should be allowed to invalidate any law.

And that's not our system of government either, nor ever has been. If such were the case, we've live under Sharia right now. As Muslim 'religious beliefs' would trump all civil law. And anyone could ignore any law by simply claiming a religious basis.

Which again is the religious based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and at the discretion of the individual. Which isn't our law nor ever has been. The founders never followed this.

No one has. As its religiously justified anarchy.

If anything, I am interpreting the laws to the broadest most inclusive extent possible,
by including secular and political beliefs equally as religious ones, and saying NO CREEDS should be discriminated against.

So using any political or secular belief......you can ignore any law? I mean, if religion can is such a basis and any political or secular belief is equal to religion.......

.....your argument sounds like a voluntary legal system. Void of any practical enforcement. If not, why not?

Sorry Skylar we are talking about two different scenarios.

A. I am talking about treating people's secular beliefs with the same respect
as religious beliefs. NO, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are not up to federal govt to pass laws.
So I'm saying that these beliefs are NOT up to majority rule either! They are still BELIEFS.

B. as for "anarchy or lawlessness"
when you violate the same laws you claim to enforce,
that causes disrespect for the law.

So if one group is saying we want separation of church and state,
and to remove any faith based beliefs from govt that we don't share,
then turns around and pushes FEDERAL legislation imposing
* beliefs in health care as a right over belief in free market choices
* beliefs in gay marriage and faith-based beliefs in homosexuality as natural
for the public to accept as "equal accommodations"

that is DISCRIMINATORY when the SAME groups or parties
seek to BAN expressions of Christian beliefs as outside what govt can endorse.

It contradicts the same principles.

Just like mandating insurance as the only option to avoid fines
CONTRADICTS prochoice principles. That's what causes chaotic disruption.

When you impose things against the natural laws of human free will,
this creates disruption, dissension and uprising in protest of imposition by govt
in areas that are outside govt jurisdiction. And areas of BELIEFS is one of these.

Sorry you don't understand human nature, but that is what our
Constitutional laws and process were drawn from -- natural laws
on human behavior. Not unnatural desire to justify and validate
a person's beliefs by abusing govt to seek public validation;
and then turn around and object if Christians or others impose their beliefs through govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

I agree to admit that there is Only willful blindness on the part of the Establishment to our supreme law of the land in favor of the religious ideology of morals from the Iron Age.

danielpalos
I don't think people agree what are the limits of govt
and what type of beliefs can or cannot be imposed by law.

We seem to have some folks who rally to remove religious beliefs,
but then have no problem imposing their secular or political beliefs.

If we are not treating ALL such beliefs or creed equally,
isn't that a form of discrimination?

The same way people have argued CHRISTIANS keep pushing their beliefs
through govt, it seems the secular left has now started to do the same thing
with their beliefs. So maybe it's to learn that all people are capable of trying
to do this, not just Christians, but both left and right are protested when
either one tries to push their beliefs through govt -- whether those beliefs
are religious, political or secular. If people don't agree with beliefs, they will fight it.

Maybe that's the lesson here to be learned, that ALL beliefs have that effect on people
when pushed through govt against the beliefs of dissenters.

Not just beliefs recognized as religious, but with Political beliefs about
health care and marriage rights as well. This comes across the same as religious imposition.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

NO.

It is not a state issue. You big government RWs just want more and more laws but the govt has no place in our private lives.

If YOU are a consenting adult and you want to marry a consenting adult, its is none of my business.

Period.

For something that is none of your business, you sure weigh in 24/7 on it...

 

[emilynghiem]

Tony Perkins SCOTUS won t have final say on gay marriage MSNBC

"Despite support for gay marriage being at a record high, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, is arguing that the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the issue will not be the final say.

“The court is not going to settle this issue. In fact, I think it does a disservice to both sides if the court weighs in on public policy like this,” said Perkins on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “The courts are designed to interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws, not create public policy. When they do that, they create division and they erect barriers to reaching consensus on public policy like this.”

Why the hell do I care what Tony Perkins says?

In 1964 the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's law against mixed race marriage- ruling that such laws were unconstitutional.

At the time, most Americans were firmly against mixed race marriages. It would be about 30 years before the majority of Americans supported mixed race marriages- and yet- the Supreme court did have the final say.

BTW Syriusly
As stated before
* Race which is proven as genetic
is not the same level as sexual orientation which is faith-based.
Unlike race, sexual orientation has been shown to change after a person undergoes spiritual healing and resolves inner conflicts. But nobody has ever changed race after going through spiritual healing because race is physical and orientation is spiritual and people don't agree because their views on what is spiritual are all FAITH BASED.

* As for the message about allowing Wicca or Satanic or other beliefs to be displayed on public property if Christian symbols and faith can be displayed.

I hate to tell you this, but science and case studies CAN BE USED
to prove that the negative energy used in OCCULT and dark practices
is unhealthy disruptive and even dangerous because it clashes with
the positive energy in Christian spiritual prayer and healing (while
natural practices such as Buddhism and some Pagan maybe neutral
or positive, as long as they are natural and don't rely on unnatural witchcraft or "spiritism"

Yet it is still up to people's FREE CHOICE, even if science proves that some practices involve negative dark energy, and this is harmful compared to positive life giving and healing energy in NATURAL Christian healing methods (not the false fraudulent faith healing which is different and can be dangerous where it causes abuse, harm or denies medicine).

If you really want to make that argument that all faiths should be endorsed equally,
some can be shown to be harmful while others are beneficial natural and healthy.

With homosexuality, the people who condemn all cases as unnatural have to exclude cases of people who are naturally and spiritually born that way, while the people who argue that all cases are natural and not a choice have to exclude cases where people received healing therapy to change their orientation.

So both beliefs about homosexuality remain faith-based and not proven all one way or another.

You could argue that since not all cases can be shown to be unnatural,
and none can be proven to be sick or mental illness, then no homosexuals can be discriminated against by assuming this, and I would agree, because that is faith-based.

But likewise, neither can you argue that all homosexuals are natural and cannot be changed; if you want to force all people to accept all homosexuality as natural,
why not let opponents force all people to undergo spiritual healing to prove they are natural (including both heterosexual and homosexual so all people are treated equally).

I think the prolife Christians might go for that.
If you want to mandate acceptance of homosexuality as natural,
why not mandate Christian spiritual healing since that is natural, too!

 

[emilynghiem]

??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?

Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?

No- I am not.

Are you saying that allowing gay people to marry means that Christians should be allowed to marry ponies?

Or should we address my actual post rather than hysterical fictionalized speculation?

Even though I'm not saying those works,
my proposal still works in extreme cases:
that "Christians can marry ponies in a private ceremony and so can gays" (as long as nobody is doing anything
illegal such as abusing ponies or abusing people)

And neither has to be imposed as endorsed or implemented through the state.

As for your argument, you were saying that by OPENING THE DOOR to nativity scenes in public,
then can gay scenes be displayed. So you were saying NO BELIEFS AT ALL in public.

1. by your way, beliefs about gay marriage should not be in public either! If you are going to ban
any beliefs that not everyone shares, then gay marriage is not something everyone believes in endorsing publicly either
2. by my way, people can agree on their own what to do in private and how much to allow in public.
So if they don't agree to have gay marriage or have nativity scenes or whatever, they decide by consensus
how to resolve the conflict. And if you are going to say nativity scenes or gay scenes can be displayed in private,
well so can gay marriage, traditional marriage and all marriages be conducted in private and leave just civil unions
and secular contracts to the public institutions. And leave all other beliefs out so that remains private.

Emily- I frankly can't follow whatever it is you think you are saying.

a) religion on the public square- if government allows religious displays on public grounds it must allow all religious- and non-religious displays- the government can set standards(no nudity, no guns, whatever) but cannot say "must be religious" because that would violate the establishment clause'

b) gay marriage on the public square- if marriages are performed on public space than any marriage gay or not must be allowed on public space.

Please stop saying what I am saying- my words are what I am saying- not what you say I am saying.

OKAY
1. since if traditional marriage are allowed then gay marriages should be allowed.
2. And if gay marriage is not approved but contested then all marriage could be removed
from the state so at least all people's beliefs are treated equally, and NONE given preference.

REMOVE ALL marriages or allow ALL beliefs about marriages.
Since people don't agree to include them all, then that's why Oklahoma pushed to have all marriage REMOVED.

Same with removing nativity scenes if you don't agree to have all types up there.
Remove all marriages from the state, then.

I agree with #1

Okay Syriusly
So if not everyone agrees to include gay marriage
do you agree to remove all marriage and leave it to private choices?

Similar to if not everyone agrees to Satanic displays in public
then agree to remove all such displays and not have Christian either.

 

[emilynghiem]

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

Why would they have to do that?

How could they prevent it? No establishment of religion means that no religion can be given any preference- Chrisitians don't get special "Religion of America" status.

Personally I think that banning religious displays on public grounds is better for those who are religious- because if you are a Christian do you really want every religion under the sun shown on the public square- or even worse- the government deciding which religion is good enough for the public square?

Okay Syriusly so how can you justify favoring gay marriage established through the state
instead of no marriage through the state and all of the beliefs of marriage left to the private sector?

When did I try to justify whatever it is you are saying?

As long as the government licenses marriages then a gay couple should be able to be legally married exactly as my wife and I are legally married.

Do you agree with that or not?

1. Yes and no. If people in a state don't agree, then I would leave it to the people of that state to work out the terms by which they would agree.

2. Personally for me, but I cannot impose my beliefs on anyone else,
I would rather all marriages be left to private individuals churches and institutions
(even dividing by party if that works best) and just have civil unions and contracts through the state. I find that more consistent with keeping any beliefs out of the public sector unless all people of that state AGREE with how the laws are written and applied.

The same way with the dealth penalty.
Although I personally believe in restitution and consensus if the death penalty is applied, most people do not agree with me and I cannot impose my beliefs on them.

Thus I recommend separating the policies and letting people who don't believe in funding the death penalty pay for alternatives; people who believe in it be responsible for those costs; and people like me who believe in consensus pay for that alternative.

 

[kaz]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

Have you done anything to actively eliminate government marriage yet? I mean, really besides posting on the internet?

I have gotten a lot of comments that I've made people think about things they have never questioned before. You are a mindless liberal drone who parrots what every other mindless liberal drone says. I have been far, far more effective than you have

 

[kaz]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

You said that with a straight face, didn't you?

Haven't seen your counter example yet, Seawytch keeps whiffing on that too. So do Clayton, Syriusly, Skylar, ...

 

[kaz]

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I'm sorry, public property is

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

How does a nativity scene at Christmas prevent anyone from freely expressing their own religion?

How many of you leftists who think it does show up on December 25 at work?

So...you wouldn't mind if your tax dollars paid for my religious symbols on public property during Winter Soltice.

Was that supposed to make sense? Who talked about "tax dollars?" You violated the logical fallacy known as you pulled it out of your ass and you reek

 

[kaz]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

This is unsurprisingly ridiculous and ignorant.

State governments write the contract law that is marriage, administered by state courts, just as is the case with other aspects of contract law.

There's nothing to be 'gotten rid' of, as government and marriage contract law are one in the same.

And same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, in accordance with their states' laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

Got anything related to my post? Or was it just a chance for you to listen to your own voice that you are so deeply in love with?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Stop it with the spam.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
Do you agree with keeping civil unions and secular contracts through the state for
everyone, for all couples regardless of orientation or status,
and leaving "marriage" to the churches or private individuals if people cannot
agree on the terms of "marriage." Would you agree on that solution?