What Obama (and now this former Senator) are missing about Same Sex Marriage

[Norman]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

 

[rightwinger]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

Maybe you missed the part...."in America"

 

[emilynghiem]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

 

[Seawytch]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

Yes, that happened in another country, not in the United States. I live in the United States where Evangelical Christians speak more about killing gays than Muslims do.

Pastor Calls for the Execution of Gays

And when American Christians can't get the gays killed here, they outsource their hate to countries like Uganda

How Anti-gay Christians Evangelize Hate Abroad

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

Think Progress only put the data into a chart. The data itself came from The Public Religion Research Institute.

Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage by Religion

 

[Norman]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

Maybe you missed the part...."in America"

My initial posting was about Islam in general. Just to refresh your antiquated mind, regressives just can't stop cheering for Islam wherever it is practiced, not just America, you tool.

But now that you brought it up, yes it is a problem in the USA as well:

And who was it again that committed the latest terrorist attack? For some reason terrorism just seems to center itself to this one ideology... Anyway I would agree that the CURRENT OLD GENERATION muslims in USA are not nearly as bad as the others seem to be. But don't for a second pretend that these are the only people the regressos view as their heroes.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

Dear Norman
Extremists Jihadists are not the same as secular Muslims who don't believe in this.
The secular Muslims are taught to respect civil authority, not to take justice in their own hands.

Some of the politicized groups believe in taking back justice, and you'll see this is the Nation of Islam,
the Black Panthers, and some other groups where some members or side groups "cross the line"
and believe in things like the protests that went too far and start justify breaking the law.

I would recommend designating three different practices that may cite Mohammad and Islam but
are not politically the same at all to each other:

A. Extreme Jihadists who do take over govt and claim all three powers of judge, jury and executioner
to act without check and balance, due process, or consent/representation by the people they affect and impose on
B. Islamist or Islamic cultures where the religious traditions are cited and embedded into govt,
but not to the extreme of Jihadists. The difference is if these people respond to checks and balances,
and democratic opposition and petitioning to redress grievances and reform laws. If they do work democratically with the people I would call this Islamic or Islamist if the terms/principles from Islam are embedded into govt and public laws; if they censor or oppress the people undemocratically I would call that Jihadist.
C. Muslim belief and practice where I would keep this term neutral and use it for the private practice by members who respect the civil laws authority and govt of the nation and state they live in, do not seek to overthrow or superimpose their own laws above the given public authority, and who respect the democratic principles of natural laws given by both the American founding fathers, the European precedents, and even Mohammad himself who also cited natural laws as given by God first. The test is if people respect each other by Constitutional protections of due process and right to petition, equal protections and representation, and checks and balances on govt.

That is another reason I try so hard to establish this standard equally among Christians and conservative Constitutionalists as among fellow liberals and progressives. We'd all have to agree to follow the same standards ourselves if we are going to hold govts (and other political groups) to the same consistently.

but if we continue to run around accusing and condemning each other without due process to prove what points are right, wrong or need to be corrected, we lose ability and authority to check political groups and govt.

If we live by the principles we demand of govt, we are more effective in asking for corrections and petitioning to redress grievances than if we are hypocrites asking people to do one thing while we violated that code of conduct. see code of ethics for govt service (and the Bill of Rights plus Fourteenth Amendment) I recommend to all people in redressing grievances as equal petitioners under one law: ethics-commission.net

 

[emilynghiem]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

Yes, that happened in another country, not in the United States. I live in the United States where Evangelical Christians speak more about killing gays than Muslims do.

Pastor Calls for the Execution of Gays

And when American Christians can't get the gays killed here, they outsource their hate to countries like Uganda

How Anti-gay Christians Evangelize Hate Abroad

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

Think Progress only put the data into a chart. The data itself came from The Public Religion Research Institute.

Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage by Religion

Dear Seawytch Do you agree that the hate and blame projected on Christians who AREN'T guilty
is equally unfair and unfounded?

If Christians blame all homosexuals and supporters as promoting "pedophilia" and/or other sickness,
that is unfair to punish ALL people even those who are innocent, just because there ARE homosexual predators who are caught abusing children or committing other forms of rape.

If it is wrongful to judge a whole class based on the crimes of SOME,
isn't it just as wrong to blame all Christians and their beliefs?

That is the problem I am finding with discrimination.
It is happening on both sides, so it can't be solved by just blaming one side.

 

[Seawytch]

My initial posting was about Islam in general. Just to refresh your antiquated mind, regressives just can't stop cheering for Islam wherever it is practiced, not just America, you tool.

But now that you brought it up, yes it is a problem in the USA as well:

And who was it again that committed the latest terrorist attack? For some reason terrorism just seems to center itself to this one ideology...

"Cheering" for Islam? Saying to Islamaphobes "hey assholes, stop blaming an entire religion for what a minority of it's followers do" isn't cheering.

Non sequitur much? What does TANF have to do with anything? Do you have statistics on non middle eastern refugees? Do they receive roughly the same amount of assistance? They're refugees, not immigrants. They need help getting started.

Who was it that committed the last terrorist attack? Where? Here in the US? From Wiki:

• June 17, 2015: Charleston church shooting: a mass shooting took place at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina. The church is one of the United States' oldest black churches and has long been a site for community organization around civil rights. Nine people were killed, including the senior pastor, Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator. A tenth victim was also shot, but survived. 21-year old Dylann Roof was arrested and later confessed that he committed the shooting in order to initiate a race war.
• July 16, 2015: 2015 Chattanooga shootings: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He first committed a drive-by shooting at a recruiting center, then traveled to a naval reserve center and continued firing. He was killed by police in a gunfight. Four Marines were killed immediately, and another Marine, a Navy sailor, and a police officer were wounded; the sailor died from his injuries two days later. The motive of the shootings is currently under investigation.[97]
• August 30, 2015: Hospital Bomb Threat in Mississippi: An Iranian national was arrested in Hancock County for allegedly making terrorist threats and assaulting two sheriff's deputies. His actions and threats led to a two-hour closure of the I-10 Interstate near Louisiana state line. Subsequently, the subject was taken to a local hospital, where he's still threatening to kill anyone who isn't a member of Islam or Muslim.[98]
• November 27, 2015: Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting: Robert L. Dear, armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthoodclinic. Two civilians and one police officer were killed, and four civilians and five police officers were wounded before the suspect surrendered. Dear told police "No more baby parts" after being taken into custody.[99]
• December 2, 2015: 2015 San Bernardino attack: A mass shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, with 14 dead and 22 injured. Two suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, fled in an SUV, but were later killed.[100][101][102][103]

 

[emilynghiem]

My initial posting was about Islam in general. Just to refresh your antiquated mind, regressives just can't stop cheering for Islam wherever it is practiced, not just America, you tool.

But now that you brought it up, yes it is a problem in the USA as well:

And who was it again that committed the latest terrorist attack? For some reason terrorism just seems to center itself to this one ideology...

"Cheering" for Islam? Saying to Islamaphobes "hey assholes, stop blaming an entire religion for what a minority of it's followers do" isn't cheering.

Non sequitur much? What does TANF have to do with anything? Do you have statistics on non middle eastern refugees? Do they receive roughly the same amount of assistance? They're refugees, not immigrants. They need help getting started.

Who was it that committed the last terrorist attack? Where? Here in the US? From Wiki:

• June 17, 2015: Charleston church shooting: a mass shooting took place at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina. The church is one of the United States' oldest black churches and has long been a site for community organization around civil rights. Nine people were killed, including the senior pastor, Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator. A tenth victim was also shot, but survived. 21-year old Dylann Roof was arrested and later confessed that he committed the shooting in order to initiate a race war.
• July 16, 2015: 2015 Chattanooga shootings: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He first committed a drive-by shooting at a recruiting center, then traveled to a naval reserve center and continued firing. He was killed by police in a gunfight. Four Marines were killed immediately, and another Marine, a Navy sailor, and a police officer were wounded; the sailor died from his injuries two days later. The motive of the shootings is currently under investigation.[97]
• August 30, 2015: Hospital Bomb Threat in Mississippi: An Iranian national was arrested in Hancock County for allegedly making terrorist threats and assaulting two sheriff's deputies. His actions and threats led to a two-hour closure of the I-10 Interstate near Louisiana state line. Subsequently, the subject was taken to a local hospital, where he's still threatening to kill anyone who isn't a member of Islam or Muslim.[98]
• November 27, 2015: Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting: Robert L. Dear, armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthoodclinic. Two civilians and one police officer were killed, and four civilians and five police officers were wounded before the suspect surrendered. Dear told police "No more baby parts" after being taken into custody.[99]
• December 2, 2015: 2015 San Bernardino attack: A mass shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, with 14 dead and 22 injured. Two suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, fled in an SUV, but were later killed.[100][101][102][103]

Dear Seawytch Do not leave out the Fort Hood Shooting where the govt declared it to be WORKPLACE VIOLENCE instead of a terrorist attack, in order to deny benefits to the military families who lost 13 members.

 

[Seawytch]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.

I don't know, shall I provide you with some clips of beheadings or gays being thrown down from roof tops? Perhaps seeing it in video from would convince you since nothing else seems to work?

Or will you just take my word for it? Islamic State marks gay marriage ruling by throwing 4 gay men off a roof

Yes, that happened in another country, not in the United States. I live in the United States where Evangelical Christians speak more about killing gays than Muslims do.

Pastor Calls for the Execution of Gays

And when American Christians can't get the gays killed here, they outsource their hate to countries like Uganda

How Anti-gay Christians Evangelize Hate Abroad

"ThinkRegress", lol... the Islam apologists of the highest order. What a useful regressive tool.

Think Progress only put the data into a chart. The data itself came from The Public Religion Research Institute.

Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage by Religion

Dear Seawytch Do you agree that the hate and blame projected on Christians who AREN'T guilty
is equally unfair and unfounded?

Sure...if you can cite the "hate and blame" that is projected on ALL Christians. I'd like to see the threads here that talk about banning Christians from entering the US.

If Christians blame all homosexuals and supporters as promoting "pedophilia" and/or other sickness,
that is unfair to punish ALL people even those who are innocent, just because there ARE homosexual predators who are caught abusing children or committing other forms of rape.

Gee, you think you're clever don't you? Weaseling in a "gays are pedophiles" reference...despite the fact the most pedophiles are self identified heterosexual males that fuck their own relatives. Very cute.

If it is wrongful to judge a whole class based on the crimes of SOME,
isn't it just as wrong to blame all Christians and their beliefs?

It is! Of course, please show me where I blame all Christians for the actions of a small minority. I don't think all Christians are Fred Phelps. Most of the people I know and love ARE Christians. You do realize that Christians are not an oppressed minority in America, right? They comprise like 70% of this country? Nobody is trying to pass laws that would take away rights from Christians. Nobody is suggesting that Christians should be barred entry into the US. Show me where Christians are discriminated against.

 

[Seawytch]

My initial posting was about Islam in general. Just to refresh your antiquated mind, regressives just can't stop cheering for Islam wherever it is practiced, not just America, you tool.

But now that you brought it up, yes it is a problem in the USA as well:

And who was it again that committed the latest terrorist attack? For some reason terrorism just seems to center itself to this one ideology...

"Cheering" for Islam? Saying to Islamaphobes "hey assholes, stop blaming an entire religion for what a minority of it's followers do" isn't cheering.

Non sequitur much? What does TANF have to do with anything? Do you have statistics on non middle eastern refugees? Do they receive roughly the same amount of assistance? They're refugees, not immigrants. They need help getting started.

Who was it that committed the last terrorist attack? Where? Here in the US? From Wiki:

• June 17, 2015: Charleston church shooting: a mass shooting took place at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina. The church is one of the United States' oldest black churches and has long been a site for community organization around civil rights. Nine people were killed, including the senior pastor, Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator. A tenth victim was also shot, but survived. 21-year old Dylann Roof was arrested and later confessed that he committed the shooting in order to initiate a race war.
• July 16, 2015: 2015 Chattanooga shootings: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He first committed a drive-by shooting at a recruiting center, then traveled to a naval reserve center and continued firing. He was killed by police in a gunfight. Four Marines were killed immediately, and another Marine, a Navy sailor, and a police officer were wounded; the sailor died from his injuries two days later. The motive of the shootings is currently under investigation.[97]
• August 30, 2015: Hospital Bomb Threat in Mississippi: An Iranian national was arrested in Hancock County for allegedly making terrorist threats and assaulting two sheriff's deputies. His actions and threats led to a two-hour closure of the I-10 Interstate near Louisiana state line. Subsequently, the subject was taken to a local hospital, where he's still threatening to kill anyone who isn't a member of Islam or Muslim.[98]
• November 27, 2015: Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting: Robert L. Dear, armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthoodclinic. Two civilians and one police officer were killed, and four civilians and five police officers were wounded before the suspect surrendered. Dear told police "No more baby parts" after being taken into custody.[99]
• December 2, 2015: 2015 San Bernardino attack: A mass shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, with 14 dead and 22 injured. Two suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, fled in an SUV, but were later killed.[100][101][102][103]

Dear Seawytch Do not leave out the Fort Hood Shooting where the govt declared it to be WORKPLACE VIOLENCE instead of a terrorist attack, in order to deny benefits to the military families who lost 13 members.

I listed the most recent since that's what Norman referenced. Why are you derailing your own thread? Start a new one on the topic. Geez.

 

[rightwinger]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Seawytch
When it comes to beliefs, even if people agree 100% on a belief,
the public would still need to agree to what extent to allow this into govt.

For example, just because the majority of people agree that Christian charity is good in helping homeless,
doesn't mean that Christian practices should be embedded into govt and funded because they are good.

There is still the principle of separating beliefs and faith-based practices from govt
instead of govt endorsing and establishing these for the entire public to recognize.

Another example I cite is spiritual healing.
Just because that it causes no harm, cannot be forced against anyone's will but is completely
voluntary and natural, it is consistent with science and medicine it can
SAVE LIVES from cancer, addiction, abuse, PTSD, suicidal or homicidal sickness,
and other types of physical and mental disease, even criminal illness.
DOES NOT MEAN GOVT CAN IMPLEMENT THIS AS A POLICY FOR ALL PEOPLE.

It must remain a free choice because it is faith based.
No matter how many lives can be saved.
No matter how many lives are lost or ruined for lack of access or knowledge of spiritual healing.

So if you think same sex marriage is legally necessary for people to be equal,
I have found knowledge of spiritual healing is necessary.

So if that must remain a free choice, that should be true across the board
for all faith based beliefs and issues.

Not selectively choosing some and not others,
which is discriminating on the basis of creed while DENYING the same to others!

The difference between you and me, Seawytch, is am WILLING
to treat the choice to agree on points as up to the person's FREE WILL AND CONSENT,
to prove it first where someone AGREES freely before changing their minds.

I don't abuse govt to FORCE a policy just because I believe it is right
and the other person is wrong.

When it comes to a FAITH BASED belief, I believe it should be decided by free choice
of each individual and not imposed by govt.

I'm sorry to find that you and other liberals do not respect free choice
and separation of church and state when it comes to your own beliefs
you are not willing to prove and allow people free choice to adopt.

I find this politically dangerous to contradict one's own
prochoice policies in violating separation of church and state,
regardless of the good one thinks is being accomplished.

As many PROLIFE Christians believe that making abortion illegal
would save more women and children from suffering.
But as long as their arguments are FAITH BASED then govt cannot
implement those without consent of the people.

Your consent and mine is respected when it comes to prolife
beliefs kept out of govt due to faith based arguments.

I think it is only fair to apply the SAME standards to
beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage
that are equally faith based and not yet proven to be protected other ways
besides the means taken to force these through govt.

Sorry but I disagree on principle and find this
discrimination by creed to be so dangerous as to jeopardize
the prochoice arguments and standing of the Democratic Party.

 

[HappyJoy]

Entertaining thread.

 

[Rustic]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

 

[emilynghiem]

My initial posting was about Islam in general. Just to refresh your antiquated mind, regressives just can't stop cheering for Islam wherever it is practiced, not just America, you tool.

But now that you brought it up, yes it is a problem in the USA as well:

And who was it again that committed the latest terrorist attack? For some reason terrorism just seems to center itself to this one ideology...

"Cheering" for Islam? Saying to Islamaphobes "hey assholes, stop blaming an entire religion for what a minority of it's followers do" isn't cheering.

Non sequitur much? What does TANF have to do with anything? Do you have statistics on non middle eastern refugees? Do they receive roughly the same amount of assistance? They're refugees, not immigrants. They need help getting started.

Who was it that committed the last terrorist attack? Where? Here in the US? From Wiki:

• June 17, 2015: Charleston church shooting: a mass shooting took place at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina. The church is one of the United States' oldest black churches and has long been a site for community organization around civil rights. Nine people were killed, including the senior pastor, Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator. A tenth victim was also shot, but survived. 21-year old Dylann Roof was arrested and later confessed that he committed the shooting in order to initiate a race war.
• July 16, 2015: 2015 Chattanooga shootings: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He first committed a drive-by shooting at a recruiting center, then traveled to a naval reserve center and continued firing. He was killed by police in a gunfight. Four Marines were killed immediately, and another Marine, a Navy sailor, and a police officer were wounded; the sailor died from his injuries two days later. The motive of the shootings is currently under investigation.[97]
• August 30, 2015: Hospital Bomb Threat in Mississippi: An Iranian national was arrested in Hancock County for allegedly making terrorist threats and assaulting two sheriff's deputies. His actions and threats led to a two-hour closure of the I-10 Interstate near Louisiana state line. Subsequently, the subject was taken to a local hospital, where he's still threatening to kill anyone who isn't a member of Islam or Muslim.[98]
• November 27, 2015: Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting: Robert L. Dear, armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthoodclinic. Two civilians and one police officer were killed, and four civilians and five police officers were wounded before the suspect surrendered. Dear told police "No more baby parts" after being taken into custody.[99]
• December 2, 2015: 2015 San Bernardino attack: A mass shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, with 14 dead and 22 injured. Two suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, fled in an SUV, but were later killed.[100][101][102][103]

Dear Seawytch Do not leave out the Fort Hood Shooting where the govt declared it to be WORKPLACE VIOLENCE instead of a terrorist attack, in order to deny benefits to the military families who lost 13 members.

I listed the most recent since that's what Norman referenced. Why are you derailing your own thread? Start a new one on the topic. Geez.

Dear Seawytch
I started this thread on what is being missed on the same sex marriage arguments.
If that leads to what is being missed on other issues of perceptions and DISCRIMINATION
when it comes to religious groups, that is part of the discussion and exploration.

The same biases against Christian groups are going to come up in any number of areas
if that is the cause.

So this isn't derailing the thread by trying to pinpoint where the bias is coming from.

And it seems to come from the bias against Christian groups in general,
and/or the equivalent bias that Christians have against nonchristian groups they exclude and treat differently.

Would that explain the division?

If Christians have traditionally excluded Muslims and nonchristians and gays,
then this is the backlash where they feel excluded and discriminated against?

If so, that explains the bias but doesn't make it right.
Two wrongs don't make anything right.

So both sides are still wrong if they discriminate by group
and punish/deprive people of equal rights by affiliation regardless if they were guilty or not.

That is very related to the topic! the backlash against Christians
as what is motivating the push for reforms that go too far and
constitute a similar imposition of beliefs through govt that are faith based
and not first proven or accepted by free choice as is the criteria for religious beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

^^^ That ^^^

 

[emilynghiem]

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

[/QUOTE]

Dear Rustic
1. You missed my first point when I said I did NOT agree with the Christian viewpoint to exclude same sex marriage. You addressed me as this when my views as a liberal Constitutionalist are NOT one side or the other.
I am saying NEITHER Side has the right to impose their beliefs on the other or deny the protections to the other.

That is a different third angle that is not being represented here,
so i am trying to explain and defend it.
Do you see how my views are different?

2. The choice I am arguing against is NOT about same sex marriage
but whether GOVERNMENT can decide the conflict for people.

That is what I am objecting to.

3. you assume that the policy is NOT imposing anything through govt.
but the objectors are objecting to it.

I do not agree with their arguments per se as for CONTENT.

I disagree on the basis of PRINCIPLE
that as long as their beliefs and consent are excluded and imposed upon,
then govt SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED the people to
REVISE the laws until consensus was reached! Not make a decision favoring one side or the other!
But resolve the conflicts first so there is CONSENSUS on law and both sides AGREE it is corrected.

That is a DIFFERENT argument than arguing on the actual content of the law and subject.

I am saying the FORMAT of the written laws should be AGREED UPON
BY THE PEOPLE BECAUSE FAITH BASED BELIEFS ARE AFFECTED ON BOTH SIDES.

Rustic Seawytch Syriusly
Do you see the difference?

 

[Rustic]

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

Dear Rustic
1. You missed my first point when I said I did NOT agree with the Christian viewpoint to exclude same sex marriage. You addressed me as this when my views as a liberal Constitutionalist are NOT one side or the other.
I am saying NEITHER Side has the right to impose their beliefs on the other or deny the protections to the other.

That is a different third angle that is not being represented here,
so i am trying to explain and defend it.
Do you see how my views are different?

2. The choice I am arguing against is NOT about same sex marriage
but whether GOVERNMENT can decide the conflict for people.

That is what I am objecting to.

3. you assume that the policy is NOT imposing anything through govt.
but the objectors are objecting to it.

I do not agree with their arguments per se as for CONTENT.

I disagree on the basis of PRINCIPLE
that as long as their beliefs and consent are excluded and imposed upon,
then govt SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED the people to
REVISE the laws until consensus was reached! Not make a decision favoring one side or the other!
But resolve the conflicts first so there is CONSENSUS on law and both sides AGREE it is corrected.

That is a DIFFERENT argument than arguing on the actual content of the law and subject.

I am saying the FORMAT of the written laws should be AGREED UPON
BY THE PEOPLE BECAUSE FAITH BASED BELIEFS ARE AFFECTED ON BOTH SIDES.

Rustic Seawytch Syriusly
Do you see the difference?[/QUOTE]
?

 

[Norman]

According to this list:

Terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most recent one is Sen Bardandino attack, which was perpetuated by muslims, as are overwhelmingly the most terrorist attacks. I was referring to this terrorist strike.

And while we are at it let's review some stats from Europe. Since the regressive leftists are all about immigrating these muslims to their vote plantations, be it in USA or Europe, or wherever. The results of this cultural enrichment are in:

• About 60 % of the prison population in France, while they are less than 8 % of the population.
• 77 % of rapes are committed by 2 % of muslim population in Sweden.
• Brussels: 90 % of Muslim teens call jihad murderers heroes.
• Only 33 % of muslims in India work (not uncommon).
• Germany: statistics show majority of muslims will never work

Sweden: est 77% of rapes committed by 2% Muslim male population – Crime statistics


You can look through these stats all day - and they are ugly as the regressive ideology itself. Totally worth it to sacrifice your country over just a few votes. And this is why, no one can take you guys seriously when you actively support the ideas these people have. They will have you killed over a cartoon of all things.