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

[emilynghiem]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Name one unique harm that legal same sex marriage would do to society.

So you're requiring that for a harm to be valid, the harm that such has caused needs to be 'unique; being the only harm of its kind; a harm unlike any other harm', for it to be considered?

So pedestrian 'harm', which would naturally occur as a result of redefining normality to include abnormality, would therefore not be something which would concern you?

Seems a tad subjective to me; unreasonable, distinct from any sense of the sort which serves viable citizenship... .

But, I would add that a culture that normalizes perverse reasoning, will quickly become perverse, as human history has proven repeatedly... with the landslide into decay and debauchery over the last 22 years has proven once again.

Would you care to offer a potential upside to a culture which embraces perversion?

Where_r_my_Keys and NYcarbineer

Where is the harm caused by a Cross or a Bible that an Atheist sues to remove from public property
because it promotes a belief they don't have?

If the Atheist wasn't required to provide proof of harm before Courts forced Crosses to be removed, why is this required here?

Isn't it enough to argue that it "establishes a belief" through govt that the opponent(s) don't believe in?
What works for the Atheist, should work for anyone else
unless there is a political agenda to discriminate by creed....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says who?

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Where_r_my_Keys
Creeds are protected. And people have a right to their BELIEFS equally by law.
I state my objections to you equally as I do to Seawytch and Syriusly:
not to mock or harass or deny/demean anyone for their views and beliefs that have equal protection of by law.
especially where we want our beliefs to be included and respected equally.

Where_r_my_Keys especially if we are Christians
we should
1. love our neighbor as ourselves, including forgiving our neighbors and trespasses as we wish ours to be forgiven
2. respect the same equal protection of beliefs, even those we don't agree with and don't understand "how can that
even be valid" when we are asking others to do the same who don't see how our views are valid either!

I will pray that we grow stronger in our faith and ability
to treat, respect, love and forgive our neighbors equally in Christ Jesus,
so that all truth may be established by agreement.

The secular gentiles have a special role to play in establishing the spirit of truth,
and I pray this purpose is fulfilled in keeping with God's perfect will and plans.

Yours truly, Emily

Emily, there is no potential right to advance perverse reasoning, as such is intrinsically harmful to the individual and everyone within their sphere of influence.

Yes, we can pray for the deviant, but we cannot legitimately support perverse reasoning as being equal to sound reasoning. As to do so undermines the intrinsic value of sound reasoning and adds the perception that the liability of deviancy, is an asset. And THAT Emily, is dangerous, and an invalid construct... which can only undermine all sense of equality... destroying your means to stand up for such.

I only ask that you consider this... .

Best regards,

W.R. Keyes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Where_r_my_Keys
Creeds are protected. And people have a right to their BELIEFS equally by law.
I state my objections to you equally as I do to Seawytch and Syriusly:
not to mock or harass or deny/demean anyone for their views and beliefs that have equal protection of by law.
especially where we want our beliefs to be included and respected equally.

Where_r_my_Keys especially if we are Christians
we should
1. love our neighbor as ourselves, including forgiving our neighbors and trespasses as we wish ours to be forgiven
2. respect the same equal protection of beliefs, even those we don't agree with and don't understand "how can that
even be valid" when we are asking others to do the same who don't see how our views are valid either!

I will pray that we grow stronger in our faith and ability
to treat, respect, love and forgive our neighbors equally in Christ Jesus,
so that all truth may be established by agreement.

The secular gentiles have a special role to play in establishing the spirit of truth,
and I pray this purpose is fulfilled in keeping with God's perfect will and plans.

Yours truly, Emily

Emily, there is no potential right to advance perverse reasoning, as such is intrinsically harmful to the individual and everyone within their sphere of influence.

.

You are not the authority on what is or isn't perverse.

 

[Skylar]

God conveyed this, through his design of the human species... 'THE OUTEE WILL JOIN WITH THE INEE. Whereupon he created the male, representing the OUTEE and the female representing the inee... He then gave each their respective traits... wherein the outee compliments the requirements and needs of the inee and vice-versa. What's MORE... the design not only works, it works PERFECTLY! Thus proving the viable, sustainable characteristics OF "The Design", which indisputably, we find: GOD'S WILL in terms of Human Sexuality.

But that assumes that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation. And that's demonstrably false.

As the infertile and childless couples by the millions being married or being allowed to remain married shows us, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is anyone required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to get married or stay married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that applies to no one and doesn't exist?

There is no reason.

You probably will reject that, and in so doing, expose you 'beliefs' as not only unreasonable, more importantly: UNTENABLE!

(That means your 'beliefs' are proven, through the rejection of irrefutable truth, to be indefensible... thus unsustainable. I encourage you to look up the words you feel don't 'work' for you... and perhaps in that, you'll find some glint of reality, which if you're lucky will set you on some path toward an epiphany [a glimpse of the truth].

Laughing......you do realize that arbitrarily declaring disagreement with you to be 'untenable' doesn't actually make it so, right?

You aren't 'infallable truth'. You're offering us a veritable legion of Appeal to Authority fallacies, where you insist that your subjective opinion must be accepted as objective truth without question. Even when your subjective opinion is based on demonstrable fallacies, inaccuracies, and baseless conjecture.

Um, nope.

Back in realilty, you're making the same mistake with marriage that you do with sex: assuming it has only one possible purpose. Which is simple foolishness. Sex can be used to procreate. It can also be used for enjoyment. Or exercise. Or bonding. Or relaxation. Or as entertainment. Or a litany of other purposes defined by the individual. Yet you fallaciously insist there can be only one.

It would be as silly as insisting that the only 'valid' purpose in eating is to fuel the body. And that enjoying the flavor of food, having dinner with friends, wanting to try a new dish, or you're just in the mood for a hamburger were all 'invalid'. Its nonsense. There is no mandate of exclusivity. There can be many possible purposes. And you don't define any of them for any one but yourself.

Your reasoning fails again.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Where_r_my_Keys
Creeds are protected. And people have a right to their BELIEFS equally by law.
I state my objections to you equally as I do to Seawytch and Syriusly:
not to mock or harass or deny/demean anyone for their views and beliefs that have equal protection of by law.
especially where we want our beliefs to be included and respected equally.

Where_r_my_Keys especially if we are Christians
we should
1. love our neighbor as ourselves, including forgiving our neighbors and trespasses as we wish ours to be forgiven
2. respect the same equal protection of beliefs, even those we don't agree with and don't understand "how can that
even be valid" when we are asking others to do the same who don't see how our views are valid either!

I will pray that we grow stronger in our faith and ability
to treat, respect, love and forgive our neighbors equally in Christ Jesus,
so that all truth may be established by agreement.

The secular gentiles have a special role to play in establishing the spirit of truth,
and I pray this purpose is fulfilled in keeping with God's perfect will and plans.

Yours truly, Emily

Emily, there is no potential right to advance perverse reasoning, as such is intrinsically harmful to the individual and everyone within their sphere of influence.

Yes, we can pray for the deviant, but we cannot legitimately support perverse reasoning as being equal to sound reasoning. As to do so undermines the intrinsic value of sound reasoning and adds the perception that the liability of deviancy, is an asset. And THAT Emily, is dangerous, and an invalid construct... which can only undermine all sense of equality... destroying your means to stand up for such.

I only ask that you consider this... .

Best regards,

W.R. Keyes.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.
In fact, it STRENGTHENS the arguments AGAINST promoting them in public
by supporting the FREEDOM to exercise this in private which is consistent law enforcement.

(If you keep rejecting "having such beliefs altogether" it creates the opposite effect of
increasing the NEED to defend it legally, so it goes in vicious cycle.)

How can we argue to treat our beliefs equally if we don't treat people equally by law.
We must be consistent in order to invoke rights consistently for us. If we stick to points
where we agree, by defending law consistently, God will help us enforce those.

2. We have not yet proven scientifically which cases are unnatural.
So again, we must enforce the same standards of law that we invoke.

If we don't believe we should "have to prove" to them any harm was caused,
we shouldn't base our arguments on perversion that "isn't proven to them" either.

It should be ENOUGH to state that "we don't believe in that"
so that this standard equally includes their right to what they believe as well,
and where these agree we can keep that in public policy.

3. Note if it is any comfort to you, the spiritual healing process that can be proven
to heal homosexual issues, also heals the relationships and conflicts around
the issue. So the real purpose behind this may be to bring out spiritual healing to resolve
all other surrounding problems, and will naturally address anything causing perversion.

So your concern about perversion and sickness CAN and SHOULD be addressed *Scientifically,* by pursuing research into the spiritual healing that diagnoses and cures the conditions that are cureable, and this CAN and SHOULD be documented and developed as part of medical and mental health treatment. Proving and implementing treatment Scientifically is the legal and public way to go about addressing such cases of sickness. We can do this.

Take care!

 

[Skylar]

Skylar 1. People have testified that they were healed of their homosexual attractions
and orientation through spiritual prayer and therapy, and will explain this was not natural for them.

Many people have indicated that such therapy didn't work. In fact, most that have tried it. For those it does work for who want to do it, whatever melts their butter. For those who it doesn't work for or who don't want to try it, there's a perfectly legitimate path for them too.

The problem with the logic being offered is the concept of exclusivity. Where there is only ONE possible purpose, ONE possible path, ONE kind of sexuality. And that everything else is invalid. That's obvious nonsense. There are many. Marriage, sex, sexuality....can serve many purposes. And its this plurality of purposes that just destroys the exclusivity argument.

Some folks responded to your 'therapy'. Others didn't. There is room for both.

2. Many gay people do not need to have marriage through state laws to feel equal.

And many don't. The beauty of gay marriage is that its completely voluntary. If you don't feel the need to get married, you don't have to. For those who do want the rights and protections of marriage, they have that option.

Again, the beauty of plurality. There's no need for the 'one size fits all' mentality. The law can be inclusive.

So this shows that it is only a biased viewpoint that is being pushed, and is not legally necessary for all people as a class
as claimed.

It demonstrates that many gays and lesbians want the option to choose whether or not to enter into the protections and obligations of marriage themselves. Rather than have the state choose for them. And that's a completely reasonable position.

It is faith based, so that cannot be pushed by law against the equally defensible beliefs and faith of others.

Its a desire for equal access to marriage. And it doesn't effect you. Its not like marriage is a finite resource and if gays are married there won't be enough for straight folks. There's plenty for both gays and straights. There's simply no reason to deny gays and lesbians access to same sex marriage.

It benefits them, benefits their children, benefits their families. And harms no one.

You can believe as you wish. Its access to legal rights and protections that gays and lesbians are looking for.

 

[Skylar]

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Where_r_my_Keys
Creeds are protected. And people have a right to their BELIEFS equally by law.
I state my objections to you equally as I do to Seawytch and Syriusly:
not to mock or harass or deny/demean anyone for their views and beliefs that have equal protection of by law.
especially where we want our beliefs to be included and respected equally.

Where_r_my_Keys especially if we are Christians
we should
1. love our neighbor as ourselves, including forgiving our neighbors and trespasses as we wish ours to be forgiven
2. respect the same equal protection of beliefs, even those we don't agree with and don't understand "how can that
even be valid" when we are asking others to do the same who don't see how our views are valid either!

I will pray that we grow stronger in our faith and ability
to treat, respect, love and forgive our neighbors equally in Christ Jesus,
so that all truth may be established by agreement.

The secular gentiles have a special role to play in establishing the spirit of truth,
and I pray this purpose is fulfilled in keeping with God's perfect will and plans.

Yours truly, Emily

Emily, there is no potential right to advance perverse reasoning, as such is intrinsically harmful to the individual and everyone within their sphere of influence.

.

You are not the authority on what is or isn't perverse.

In his mind, he is. Its essentially the beginning and end of Keye's argument: that anything he believes is infallible, objective, absolute truth. On any topic.

And without our acceptance of his opinion as fact, he's got nothing. As his arguments are entirely subjective.

 

[emilynghiem]

Skylar 1. People have testified that they were healed of their homosexual attractions
and orientation through spiritual prayer and therapy, and will explain this was not natural for them.

Many people have indicated that such therapy didn't work. In fact, most that have tried it. For those it does work for who want to do it, whatever melts their butter. For those who it doesn't work for or who don't want to try it, there's a perfectly legitimate path for them too.

The problem with the logic being offered is the concept of exclusivity. Where there is only ONE possible purpose, ONE possible path, ONE kind of sexuality. And that everything else is invalid. That's obvious nonsense. There are many. Marriage, sex, sexuality....can serve many purposes. And its this plurality of purposes that just destroys the exclusivity argument.

Some folks responded to your 'therapy'. Others didn't. There is room for both.

2. Many gay people do not need to have marriage through state laws to feel equal.

And many don't. The beauty of gay marriage is that its completely voluntary. If you don't feel the need to get married, you don't have to. For those who do want the rights and protections of marriage, they have that option.

Again, the beauty of plurality. There's no need for the 'one size fits all' mentality. The law can be inclusive.

So this shows that it is only a biased viewpoint that is being pushed, and is not legally necessary for all people as a class
as claimed.

It demonstrates that many gays and lesbians want the option to choose whether or not to enter into the protections and obligations of marriage themselves. Rather than have the state choose for them. And that's a completely reasonable position.

It is faith based, so that cannot be pushed by law against the equally defensible beliefs and faith of others.

Its a desire for equal access to marriage. And it doesn't effect you. Its not like marriage is a finite resource and if gays are married there won't be enough for straight folks. There's plenty for both gays and straights. There's simply no reason to deny gays and lesbians access to same sex marriage.

It benefits them, benefits their children, benefits their families. And harms no one.

You can believe as you wish. Its access to legal rights and protections that gays and lesbians are looking for.

Hi Skylar 1. I agree there are both cases going on, and I am glad to see I am not the only one who knows this.
Do you agree this shows that there is room for diverse beliefs that homosexuality is natural, unnatural, and/or both cases.
Just because this is proven to you and me, doesn't mean it is proven to others, and will always remain faith based.

2. I don't think you can assert that "it harms no one" because that is not proven and some people believe otherwise.
Since it is not proven either way, all these beliefs remain faith-based.

We all have the right to them, but govt cannot be abused to force any of us to change our beliefs. Do you agree?
That any arguments this way or that, are all faith-based because none of these beliefs are proven except to ourselves?

3. Not everyone has to agree to a right to marriage. That is not proven to be a universal belief everyone agrees with, and/or not under the same terms.

People have the right to contest that, the same way people like you contest the policy of traditional marriage only.
If people can take that law and change it, so can people take the right to marriage as you define it and change it.

This will continue to go on because people will not stop defending their beliefs, religious or political.

Since taxpayers have to pay for courts and legislature costs every time these battles come up,
it will get to the point where mediation may be required to prevent any further costs to the public.

If a policy is decided by consensus, where it is written so clearly and agreeably that it is no longer contested,
then that will resolve issues on all sides and stop any more need and cost to fight.

There is a responsibility to taxpayers to represent and include all views, especially where religions are concerned that govt is not even supposed to regulate, and to save resources.

We'll see which states settle out, and which may require separate systems if they just can't agree on this.
I don't expect Texas to settle for majority rule telling either side whether their belief will dominate or the other will.
That's not fair to the beliefs of the other, so these fights really should be resolved by consensus to save resources.

It's ridiculous to me, to know that Hindus and Muslims are not going to change their views, so why put them up to a fight by majority rule to dominate each other? To me that is cruel, and that's what I see going on with political beliefs between the parties. So from what I see here, I will likely recommend to my party leaders and state officials to mediate these conflicts, keep them out of the state to save money, and prepare to set up separate systems by party for managing health care and marriage/family benefits where the parties' beliefs just don't agree.

People have their own private school systems, why not have their own private health care and social benefits and quit fighting through govt over social differences in beliefs. Ridiculous, when we could be pouring all that campaign money and donations collected *directly* into building the programs those party members want anyway! So why not do it?

Will propose that to fellow Democrats with respect to Constitutional limits on govt,
and having more control over social legislation if we handle it ourselves by party. This would also create systems for TRAINING future leaders in govt by using these administrative systems to gain experience and show leadership skills that can transfer to govt positions later.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are not the authority on what is or isn't perverse.

As a person of sound reason, I am indeed an authority on what is and is not perverse... .

Sadly, the only human beings who are not such authorities... are those who are saddled with a disordered mind, as such limits the scope of their reasoning to that which serves their own subjective, perverse needs.

While you'll be incapable of understanding, due to the aforementioned reasons, it's not a complex process... and it begins where all such equations begin, with the meaning of the words which are used to convey the concept:

Perverse: of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences; contrary to sustainable normality, against the standard...; perverted... .

Perverted: having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state; "to Fundamentally Change" from a sound integral core; shifting from a well-founded center.

See how that works? And how FAMILIAR it is... .

 

[emilynghiem]

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Where_r_my_Keys
Creeds are protected. And people have a right to their BELIEFS equally by law.
I state my objections to you equally as I do to Seawytch and Syriusly:
not to mock or harass or deny/demean anyone for their views and beliefs that have equal protection of by law.
especially where we want our beliefs to be included and respected equally.

Where_r_my_Keys especially if we are Christians
we should
1. love our neighbor as ourselves, including forgiving our neighbors and trespasses as we wish ours to be forgiven
2. respect the same equal protection of beliefs, even those we don't agree with and don't understand "how can that
even be valid" when we are asking others to do the same who don't see how our views are valid either!

I will pray that we grow stronger in our faith and ability
to treat, respect, love and forgive our neighbors equally in Christ Jesus,
so that all truth may be established by agreement.

The secular gentiles have a special role to play in establishing the spirit of truth,
and I pray this purpose is fulfilled in keeping with God's perfect will and plans.

Yours truly, Emily

Emily, there is no potential right to advance perverse reasoning, as such is intrinsically harmful to the individual and everyone within their sphere of influence.

.

You are not the authority on what is or isn't perverse.

As a person of sound reason, I am indeed an authority on what is and is not perverse... Sadly, the only human beings who are not, are those who are saddled with a disordered mind, as such limits the scope of their reasoning to that which serves their own subjective, perverse needs.

While you'll be incapable of understanding, due to the aforementioned reasons, it's not a complex process... and it begins where all such equations begin, with the meaning of the words which are used to convey the concept:

Perverse: of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences; contrary to sustainable normality, against the standard...; perverted... .

Perverted: having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state; "to Fundamentally Change" from a sound integral core; shifting from a well-founded center.

See how that works? And how FAMILIAR it is... .

Dear Where_r_my_Keys I think you are missing the point.
the point is to prove it using NYcarbineer's standards and understanding
or else your claims still come across as faith based since these are not proven to THAT person.

All these beliefs are private. Until we use science, or get everyone to agree to go through spiritual healing
to prove who is cured of adverse issues or not, our beliefs remain valid for us but unproven to others.

I see us as equal in this, and that's why I am going to defend consensus on policies
as the standard that would be fair to all, since all our beliefs are different and all protected equally by law.

I support using SCIENCE to address the cause and cure of the perverse conditions,
so I'm with you on that. I will PM you later about how to seek research and support
through the State, maybe UTMB in Galveston or TX Med Ctr in Houston to follow up on proper medical studies.

That would be the correct venue, to go through the medical sciences, and then that IS tangible proof
that can be used for legal and legislative purposes.

Arguing about our beliefs on a faith level is already not necessary because our beliefs are protected by law.
If we want to implement them in public policy, this requires proof of criminal threat or abusive conditions
that require treatment which is a medical issue. I believe this is the key to solving problems with criminal illness,
so this research into spiritual healing for diagnosis and treatment is needed anyway.

Thanks, W.R.
Have a wonderful weekend and let's work on that research to back the arguments
you are making about stopping perversion that is a danger to people and society.
I believe that part can be proven by science, and the spiritual healing methods for it can change society.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar 1. People have testified that they were healed of their homosexual attractions
and orientation through spiritual prayer and therapy, and will explain this was not natural for them.

Many people have indicated that such therapy didn't work. In fact, most that have tried it. For those it does work for who want to do it, whatever melts their butter. For those who it doesn't work for or who don't want to try it, there's a perfectly legitimate path for them too.

The problem with the logic being offered is the concept of exclusivity. Where there is only ONE possible purpose, ONE possible path, ONE kind of sexuality. And that everything else is invalid. That's obvious nonsense. There are many. Marriage, sex, sexuality....can serve many purposes. And its this plurality of purposes that just destroys the exclusivity argument.

Some folks responded to your 'therapy'. Others didn't. There is room for both.

2. Many gay people do not need to have marriage through state laws to feel equal.

And many don't. The beauty of gay marriage is that its completely voluntary. If you don't feel the need to get married, you don't have to. For those who do want the rights and protections of marriage, they have that option.

Again, the beauty of plurality. There's no need for the 'one size fits all' mentality. The law can be inclusive.

So this shows that it is only a biased viewpoint that is being pushed, and is not legally necessary for all people as a class
as claimed.

It demonstrates that many gays and lesbians want the option to choose whether or not to enter into the protections and obligations of marriage themselves. Rather than have the state choose for them. And that's a completely reasonable position.

It is faith based, so that cannot be pushed by law against the equally defensible beliefs and faith of others.

Its a desire for equal access to marriage. And it doesn't effect you. Its not like marriage is a finite resource and if gays are married there won't be enough for straight folks. There's plenty for both gays and straights. There's simply no reason to deny gays and lesbians access to same sex marriage.

It benefits them, benefits their children, benefits their families. And harms no one.

You can believe as you wish. Its access to legal rights and protections that gays and lesbians are looking for.

Hi Skylar 1. I agree there are both cases going on, and I am glad to see I am not the only one who knows this.
Do you agree this shows that there is room for diverse beliefs that homosexuality is natural, unnatural, and/or both cases.
Just because this is proven to you and me, doesn't mean it is proven to others, and will always remain faith based.

Sure. You can believe whatever you'd like. I don't know of any one that has argued otherwise.

But faith is inherently subjective. Its personal proof, something that others can't verify independently. They can only have their own faith. The entire process begins and ends within each individual.

Meaning faith isn't an objective standard. But an intensely personal, subjective one. One I don't think should be the basis of our laws.

2. I don't think you can assert that "it harms no one" because that is not proven and some people believe otherwise.
Since it is not proven either way, all these beliefs remain faith-based.

There's no evidence of such harm. If a gay couple gets married, how does it effect your marriage? I can't think of a rational or logical way it could.

And we can apply logic and reason to a situation to glean likely outcomes. In fact, that's the way we interact with virtually every future event. Assessing the likelihood of future events based on past experience.

And the marriage of people I don't know hasn't effected me so far. So why would it if they were gay?

We all have the right to them, but govt cannot be abused to force any of us to change our beliefs. Do you agree?

How is the government forcing you to 'change your beliefs'?

3. Not everyone has to agree to a right to marriage. That is not proven to be a universal belief everyone agrees with, and/or not under the same terms.

People have the right to contest that, the same way people like you contest the policy of traditional marriage only.
If people can take that law and change it, so can people take the right to marriage as you define it and change it.

This will continue to go on because people will not stop defending their beliefs, religious or political.

If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three standards set by the USSC on the matter. So legally speaking, they have no valid legal basis.

The standards of exclusion themselves must be valid. When interracial marriage bans were in effect, it was argued that they were 'equal' because they applied equally to whites and blacks. But the ban itself had to be constitutional. There had to be some requirement of marriage that these couples couldn't otherwise meet. And there was none.

Similarly, same sex marriage bans themselves must have a valid reason. And there's no requirement of marriage that these couples couldn't otherwise meet. As *no one* is required to procreate or be able to in order to get married. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, and then apply it exclusively to gays?

No reason I can think of.

If a policy is decided by consensus, where it is written so clearly and agreeably that it is no longer contested,
then that will resolve issues on all sides and stop any more need and cost to fight.

There is a responsibility to taxpayers to represent and include all views, especially where religions are concerned that govt is not even supposed to regulate, and to save resources.

I disagree. I don't consider all views to be equally valid. If someone felt that all mosques should be burned and all korans destroyed in the US (and they exist on this board), I don't believe the government should represent and include that view.

In a true democracy, they probably would. But we're a democratic constitutional republic. We use democratic processes to elect our representatives and occasionally to pass laws directly. But the power of the people is tempered with the rights of the individual. So if the people want to say, deny Jews the right to build synagogues.....this view is inconsistent with the individual rights we recognize and protect. The rights of the individual trumps the authority of the State save in specific circumstances:

That a law have a good reason. That it serve a legitimate state interest. And that it have a valid legislative end. In many cases, its also required that there's no other reasonably plausible way the same interests and ends can be met save through such legislation.

And there's no such mandate with gay marriage bans. They fail every such criteria. Meaning that constitutional guarantees are left supreme over state marriage laws. And should be.

 

[Skylar]

Dear Where_r_my_Keys I think you are missing the point.
the point is to prove it using NYcarbineer's standards and understanding
or else your claims still come across as faith based since these are not proven to THAT person.

And you've just honed in on the fundamental problem with Keyes methodology. He presents his private and personal beliefs as external, universal truths that cannot be denied or questioned. Based on some very inconsistent and self contradictory logic.

If you don't accept Keyes as speaking directly for God (or nature, or universal truth, or objective morality, or the dictionary, etc), then he's got nothing. Its the reason his argument lacks any capacity to persuade. As it offers nothing but personal opinion to someone who doesn't already agree with him.

 

[Skylar]

As a person of sound reason, I am indeed an authority on what is and is not perverse... Sadly, the only human beings who are not, are those who are saddled with a disordered mind, as such limits the scope of their reasoning to that which serves their own subjective, perverse needs.

But your not a person of sound reasoning. Virtually the whole of your argument is Appeal to Authority fallacies. Where you cite your 'reason' or 'God', or 'nature', or 'natural law' or 'biology' as irrefutable proof of your claims.

Claims you can't back logically or rationally. And you yourself have admitted that an Appeal to Authority fallacy is only valid if the premise it is used to support can be supported independently by logic and reason. And your claims can't be.

That you consider gays to be 'perverse' and 'despised' and 'loathed' and 'abhorred' and whatever other colorful labels you choose to apply doesn't actually stand as evidence of your claims. Only evidence that you possess a personal, subjective opinion.

And we're not stripping gays of their civil rights because of your subjective opinion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

In fact, it STRENGTHENS the arguments AGAINST promoting them in public, by supporting the FREEDOM to exercise this in private which is consistent law enforcement.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

(If you keep rejecting "having such beliefs altogether" it creates the opposite effect of increasing the NEED to defend it legally, so it goes in vicious cycle.)

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Where we simply take the position that you're advising (and please understand, I recognize your point. I am simply disagreeing with the wisdom of some aspects of it) we certainly would promote, if not fully establish a false perception, that behavior with which we disagree, has found our approval.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

How can we argue to treat our beliefs equally if we don't treat people equally by law.

Emily, I am not arguing for my beliefs to be treated equally. I am arguing that all beliefs are not equal and should be set within the scope of the value they reasonably represent.

And I am prepared to fight, to suppress inferior beliefs, the holders of which demand to be seen as equal.

And we're not talking minor degrees of separation wherein we consider if the local highway should be 4 lanes or 8... we're talking about the GULF between the RIGHT to murder the innocent child in the womb, wherein there is truly NO potential for such a right to exist and 'the right for a man to marry another man, when marriage is the joining of one man and one woman; thus where there is no potential for such a right to exist.

We must be consistent in order to invoke rights consistently for us.

On that we agree... and consistency is found in understanding the principles which define the issues at hand.

Again, thank you for your time in considering my perspective.

Best regards,

W.R. McKeys.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As a person of sound reason, I am indeed an authority on what is and is not perverse... Sadly, the only human beings who are not, are those who are saddled with a disordered mind, as such limits the scope of their reasoning to that which serves their own subjective, perverse needs.

But your not a person of sound reasoning....[sic]

Straw reasoning ...

That you consider gays to be 'perverse' and 'despised' and 'loathed' and 'abhorred'

Yet another argument fabricated from intellectual straw, as I've not made such an argument; thus your perspective is an axiomatic disqualification from consideration by reasonable people. So once again you yield from the standing points, therein conceding to the points from which you sought to deflect.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(The Reader should understand that my argument is that homosexual behavior, not only deviates from the human physiological standard, which establishes human physiological normality, homosexual behavior deviates as FAR FROM THAT STANDARD as is humanly possible. What's more the demand that such deviancy is in alignment with the standard is FALSE. And where a person advances that which they know to be false, they're known as a LIAR... .

Of course, the contributor would have you believe that they do not 'know' that Homosexuality deviates from the human physiological design... which sadly, > if < that is truly her understanding, she suffers from an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by reality and the evidence common to rational argument; presenting her as being symptomatic of mental disorder.)

 

[Skylar]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

 

[Skylar]

As a person of sound reason, I am indeed an authority on what is and is not perverse... Sadly, the only human beings who are not, are those who are saddled with a disordered mind, as such limits the scope of their reasoning to that which serves their own subjective, perverse needs.

But your not a person of sound reasoning....[sic]

Straw reasoning ... an axiomatic disqualification from consideration by reasonable people. So once again you yield from the standing points, therein conceding to the points from which you sought to deflect.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Its only straw reasoning if the points I've raised aren't valid. And of course, they are. You lean almost exclusively on Appeal to Authority fallacies. 'God', your 'reason', 'nature', 'natural law', 'biology' and the like. But you ignore any part of those sources that contradict what you don't like.

For example, you claim that through observing nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when predation of the old, the sick and the very young is demonstrated in nature constantly, do you incorporate that observation into natural law and god's law?

Of course not. Predation on the old, very young and the ill doesn't jibe with what you already believe. So you ignore nature and any other observation that contradicts what you want to believe. Demonstrating that your 'authority' isn't nature....its your own beliefs. Where you only cite nature if it agrees with you, and ignore it if it doesn't.

That's the Confirmation Bias fallacy. Another classic logic blunder. And a demonstration that your claim to 'sound reasoning' is provably false. As you're constantly using Appeal to Authority and Confirmation Bias fallacies to support an argument that can't stand logically or rationally.

If you were using sound reasoning, none of these fallacies would be necessary. But your argument relies on them.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we are not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

I say: 'we are not talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it." And you run to imply that I said exactly the opposite of that.

That should tell the reader that the contributor, as noted earlier is not an honest broker, her reasoning shows a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable... which is to say that her reasoning is perverse; it demonstrates, unavoidably, idiosyncratic "beliefs" which are firmly maintained despite being contradicted by the record of this very thread... such which is typical of a mental disorder.

Remember that until the American Psychiatric Association was inculcated with Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, Homosexuality was recognized as a mental disorder and conclusion was altered NOT be any medical science, but by the simple vote of individuals who NEED the public to BELIEVE that such is true.

Yet... here we find in our own humble forum, evidence of the incontrovertible variety, a professed homosexual member presenting symptoms of a mental disorder.

Now, the Reader has seen this demonstrated by other homosexual members, time and again... demanding things to be true, when the very discussion in which the assertion was advanced establishes as fact, that such is FALSE.

So we see, in real terms, from a member of our own tiny community... advancing deceit, directly underneath evidence which refutes her public profession; which, as noted above, is the definition of delusion, a profound example of mental disorder.

So it turns out that the polled opinion of the subjective, altering recognition and respect for what is otherwise: medical certainty, has no effect on the reality that perverse reasoning, such as that which denies a profound deviation from the norm, in no way represents deviancy.

It's the product of a disordered mind and the medium exclusively used in the manifestation of evil.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its only straw reasoning if the points I've raised aren't valid. ...

Exactly!

On that we agree.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys and truly sorry to waste your time and energy
when we agree. And took up your efforts to have to explain the clarifications below, I apologize!

the only point where I disagree is in not respecting people's beliefs equally.
I KNOW what you mean that a false belief, or faith based belief which is inconsistent
is NOT going to be on the same level as a true belief and a belief that can be backed up.

That's not what I mean, as if true is just as consistent as false, no.
What I mean is UNTIL THESE ARE PROVEN, then going into the discussion and into the legal arena
these must be treated as equal beliefs, or else "other people" can also argue over YOURS and MINE
claiming some moral reason why theirs has more weight and yours is somehow deficient.

To protect yours and mine, that's why I say to base the belief based decisions on CONSENSUS.
So you and I, just on the fact that we acknowledge sorry we don't believe in that, that is ENOUGH
to protect our beliefs, and they don't have to be justified.

I guess what I mean is having equal respect for the PEOPLE with those beliefs.
If you start judging people's beliefs, that comes across as judging people which causes rejection games.
So what I really mean is including people as equally valid in their feelings and what they believe
until proven others; to be right and have rights, until proven something is wrong. so until it is proven
to them, it isn't fair to judge them for not understanding what is wrong. these are secular gentiles
and require science or natural proof. With you and me, we might can use our knowledge of God
and laws, but for them, they need to see the science behind what we are saying, not just stating it.

Now on the basis of proof, there is more tangible ways to prove the unnatural conditions.
And once people see scientific proof of those conditions and how they can be healed and cured,
then "that point proves itself."

It can be established by science and doesn't rely on faith-based arguments anymore.

Since you and I agree at heart on the most important key crux of all this,
I can only guess that we would agree on the rest, but for the limits and flaws in this online way of communicating by forum, where things come across different, and sometimes the opposite.

So if I sound like I am saying something harmful or dangerously enabling something false,
that is NOT what I mean and I apologize for miscommunicating my intent and meaning.

May I PM you this weekend to share ideas on how to go about medically proving how
homosexual addictions and abuses can be healed. I believe that point can be proven by
science and can speak for itself without having to go through these arguments defending based
on faith that not all people share. I want to encourage you, knowing that Science
resolves that issue when dealing with secular public proof, and don't want you to waste
your breath arguing based on faith with people who don't follow that, but science is the better approach.

That would save you having to argue at all. If we are going to show where information is MISSING
so that beliefs are misinformed, then we need to show the science behind it that speaks for itself!

I pray that you will be turn out to be one of the serious ones
who can form a team to prove how spiritual healing works,
not only to heal unnatural sexual conditions but others as well.
This can do a lot for the world, and any harm that you feared would come from these
gay issues going public will end up solving not only those conflicts, but many others!

So more good will come of this that will far outweigh the worst of it. All corrections will come,
and everyone will be satisfied the conflicts are resolved, and there is agreement in truth.
With much thanks and respect,
Yours truly,
Emily

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

In fact, it STRENGTHENS the arguments AGAINST promoting them in public, by supporting the FREEDOM to exercise this in private which is consistent law enforcement.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

(If you keep rejecting "having such beliefs altogether" it creates the opposite effect of increasing the NEED to defend it legally, so it goes in vicious cycle.)

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Where we simply take the position that you're advising (and please understand, I recognize your point. I am simply disagreeing with the wisdom of some aspects of it) we certainly would promote, if not fully establish a false perception, that behavior with which we disagree, has found our approval.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

How can we argue to treat our beliefs equally if we don't treat people equally by law.

Emily, I am not arguing for my beliefs to be treated equally. I am arguing that all beliefs are not equal and should be set within the scope of the value they reasonably represent.

And I am prepared to fight, to suppress inferior beliefs, the holders of which demand to be seen as equal.

And we're not talking minor degrees of separation wherein we consider if the local highway should be 4 lanes or 8... we're talking about the GULF between the RIGHT to murder the innocent child in the womb, wherein there is truly NO potential for such a right to exist and 'the right for a man to marry another man, when marriage is the joining of one man and one woman; thus where there is no potential for such a right to exist.

We must be consistent in order to invoke rights consistently for us.

On that we agree... and consistency is found in understanding the principles which define the issues at hand.

Again, thank you for your time in considering my perspective.

Best regards,

W.R. McKeys.