An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[emilynghiem]

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

Again so what? Gays aren't supposed to fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims want to kill us somewhere else? Extremists in most fundamental monotheistic religions want to kill somebody.

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad - LA Times

Seawytch if Gays were really for equal rights, where is the support for the people who change their lifestyles
and come out heterosexual? Where is the "equal support" for spiritual healing for all people to come out as they are?

Where is the equal right to believe in traditional marriage without being harassed and demonized as "homophobic"?

What the fuck are you rambling about? I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

Don't do homophobic and bigoted things and you won't be called homophobic or bigoted.

Seawytch it may not be your intent
but that is what is happening

Businesses where someone didn't want to photograph a gay wedding
or attend a gay wedding in order to deliver a cake are SUED and FINED for wanting to exercise their freedom of choice

How is that not discrimination? to FORCE someone to attend a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs.

This has gone TOO FAR into "reverse discrimination"

You sound like a genuine compassionate person and this is not your intent,
but that's the reality of how this agenda is being pushed too far PAST neutral and into harassing people for their beliefs.

Not all the businesses who wanted to REFRAIN from participating in gay weddings
intended at all to come across as 'bigots' just because their beliefs were different.
But there were assumed and harassed as bigots which, in itself, is bigoted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

I am glad to repost the part of the thread in all of its glory- my words in Green- yours in Red


Keyes: Remember back in 2008 how people laughed at Beck when he said: "Before this man is out of office, you will look around and not recognize your country. Men will be marrying men, Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iraq will again be controlled by Islamic lunatics, as a direct result of the perverse reasoning that the Democrats have now set into the office of the President of the United States... "

Me:
Iran now has nuclear weapons?

Obama has nothing to do with the wonderful expansion of marriage equality.

Iraq? If we had not driven Hussein out of office, there would be no ISIS- but ISIS does not control Iraq.

You:
It's ironic too, that you don't mention how ISIS, as well as most of Islam, actively seek out and persecute homosexuals. But hey, it's just the Christians right? At least we don't throw them off the top of buildings.

Me:
Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

ISIS, like presumably all radical Islam, absolutely persecutes Homosexuals- homosexuals in Iraq are in far more danger now than before we drove Sadam Hussein from office and opened the door for the religious factionalism in Iraq.

Yes- that persecution is wrong- and yes- much of the worst persecution of homosexuals in the world is in Islamic countries.

Are we all in agreement that that is wrong? Or do you agree with the Muslims when it comes to homosexuals?

So are we? Or do you?

Or do you just want to keep blaming me for not saying Muslims treat homosexuals badly in the correct order for you

So, you want to cover your tracks? By all means, keep trying.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What the fuck are you rambling about? I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

 

[bodecea]

What the fuck are you rambling about? I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

For you I'm sure that is just fine.

 

[asaratis]

It only reveals your ignorance

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

It wasn't redefined when blacks could marry whites and it is not redefined because women can marry women.

One was discrimination based on race, the other gender.

There was no need to redefine it when blacks could marry whites. It was still a MAN and a WOMAN.
...as usually ends a marriage ceremony,
"I now pronounce you Husband and Wife."

Which one of you wants to be the Husband?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

It wasn't redefined when blacks could marry whites and it is not redefined because women can marry women.

One was discrimination based on race, the other gender.

There was no need to redefine it when blacks could marry whites. It was still a MAN and a WOMAN.
...as usually ends a marriage ceremony,
"I now pronounce you Husband and Wife."

Which one of you wants to be the Husband?

There's no need to 'redefine' marriage when same-sex couples marry.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as the marriage law is written now, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

 

[emilynghiem]

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

It wasn't redefined when blacks could marry whites and it is not redefined because women can marry women.

One was discrimination based on race, the other gender.

There was no need to redefine it when blacks could marry whites. It was still a MAN and a WOMAN.
...as usually ends a marriage ceremony,
"I now pronounce you Husband and Wife."

Which one of you wants to be the Husband?

There's no need to 'redefine' marriage when same-sex couples marry.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as the marriage law is written now, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

C_Clayton_Jones
If the point is the civil union and contract
then why can't that language be agreed upon?

 

[asaratis]

It only reveals your ignorance

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

I am not saying that they are the same- I am saying that rational for either being against the law is the same.

In the states that outlawed mixed race marraiges, the definition of marriage excluded opposite race couples- that changed.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just thee same as my wife and I are legally treated.

...and I think homosexual couples should be treated legally the same way my wives and I were legally treated. They just don't NEED to be called "married". At least not in the sense that the government benefits are concerned.

Yet the drive is to make society accept the redefinition by having the government pass a law concerning morality. You can't legislate morality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'.

They want legitimacy, personally, individually; as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT NEEDS IT, because the goal of the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

 

[Gadawg73]

To date I have not heard any vaild arguments for banning gay folk that happen to fall in love with each other from a marriage license. Not one. Religious arguments? OK, I respect that. Do not marry a gay person. Mind your own business.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

 

[emilynghiem]

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

Then make it the SAME. If Nobody endorses their marriage through the State,
then it's equal. Just stick to civil contracts, keep it secular.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

1. where I find these can be treated equally is as BELIEFS.
BELIEFS can be exercised freely and equally in private. If you want to endorse a BELIEF in public laws
there must be AGREEMENT on these BELIEFS or it is imposing; and imposing through govt is unconstitutional.

2. Seawytch if people who believe in traditional marriage DO NOT agree to expand state laws to include gay marriage,
would you agree to REMOVE marriage from the state level and just keep it equally accessible and exercised in private?

in other words, is the "only way you agree to fix the problem" to impose YOUR belief as the state law?
or are you open to making the state laws NEUTRAL and neither establishing nor banning gay marriage.

From what I know of natural laws and how everyone is under them,
you get what you give. What comes around goes around.
A. if the ONLY solution you believe in is "pushing gay marriage by state laws," then the people who ONLY believe in "pushing traditional marriage by state laws" will continue to oppose and obstruct you in order to defend their beliefs. You will get the equal reaction to what you exert.
B. if you would agree to defend your beliefs in private and leave the state laws NEUTRAL,
then other people can be held to the same standards of keeping their beliefs private and leaving the state laws NEUTRAL

Knowing that people will defend their beliefs and will not compromise,
I see this battle going on until the laws are finally written to be NEUTRAL and don't exclude either beliefs.
So why not focus there, on writing the state laws to be NEUTRAL where nobody is excluded or imposed upon.

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

Yeah Emily... the problem with that is, that it yields to the false premise. That the culture has no legitimate reason to promote marriage, and discourage promiscuity, hedonism, debauchery, etc... . By accepting such, the government then becomes, axiomatically, a proponent of such.

But let's not get bogged down in that...

I think it's entirely reasonable to offer the incorporation of 'Civil Union' for 'non-traditional unions', where marriage is inappropriate.

You will have no problem with anyone but THE ADVOCACY TO NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.

Because... and it pains me to say it, but they aren't interested in equal rights under the law. They want LEGITIMACY... "Equality of circumstances"... they want; no, they DEMAND that I recognize them as Normal... the same as me and everyone else. They 'BELIEVE' that where the courts give them the means to pretend that they're married, that I will have no choice but to admit such.

Which, I am perfectly prepared to do, the instant that they turn from their illegitimate behavior, thus rendering them legitimate, just like me.

I don't really see that as too much to ask... I want them to comport themselves with the laws of nature; with reality... but that for them, is too much to ask. So, we're right back where we started.

In truth, what provides Marriage the Legitimacy they crave, are the standards that define marriage.

As the old saw goes: "I'd never sink to joining ANY GROUP that would allow me to join."

The instant that Marriage is stripped of the standards that sustain its legitimacy, thus allows the illegitimate... such evaporates into the ether. Marriage simply becomes analogous with flat bed trailers and hideous feminized males in ass-less chaps.

And another pillar of viability vanishes from the US Culture... .

Which means that not only do they fail to acquire what they seek, they undermine the culture upon which they depend to simply 'here and queer'.


It's insanity on a massive scale. Or, as a science knows them: A perverse strain of human reasoning... OKA: A mental disorder.