Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sbiker]

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )

How racist of you.

Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...

I see history isn't your fine point.

.. saying you, continuing to translate VERY strange "historical" info...

The emperor was only in power until age 22.

WHICH emperor? For example, August became an emperor in the age of 36... What did you had to say?
And... just read it - Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Killed The Roman Empire - Joe.My.God. )

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )

Psaking? That's not a word in any language.

Really? Wanna link? Blog: Psaking it to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki

You can have opinions. You are claiming them as fact.

Stop and point, where I claiming it I see, in your dreams I attacking all and everyone, for the meat eating, for the wrong religion, for the race... In reality - you attacking me, using periodically distorted info and being angry, when I'm trying to point on it, asking simple question. You saying, I don't have any education. Perfect, but if you don't able answer on my simple questions, referring on indefinite "22 age emperors" and claiming that "shawarma was invented in Turkey, so no one else can eat it" - do YOU really educated?

Apparently you are quick to make generalities about all Muslims

You're saying it, after YOU generalized all Muslim world as traditional marriage forcers (and I just offered to divide all this Muslim world at least on muslims and islamists). Wonderful! Now I see, why you don't want "to recognize" the word "psaking"...

if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
, all Gays, other religious, ethnic, sexual or social groups. The very definition of bigotry. The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.

Sorry, only in your wet dreams...

I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

 

[emilynghiem]

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.]

There are only two parties to the marriage contract.

Who is being forced to change the terms of the marriage contract?

If two gay men decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
If a man and a woman decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.

But- the man and the woman do not get to prevent the contract between the gay men because the man and woman are not party to their contract.

Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.

But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.

Why would you want that?

Dear Syriusly
I'm talking about the state and federal laws and rulings GOVERNING the marriage laws and social benefits/taxes related.

All citizens are parties to the laws as a contract.
so we all demand equal say in laws that affect us.

 

[Sbiker]

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years

And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...

I think the lesson is clear......

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great! But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!

Civil marriage is already secular.

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

^ this is where I got the impression that you saw people who see the words and laws differently
as being "deluded" with "hallucinations" Faun

Now i get you weren't TRYING to "discriminate" against other beliefs and were including them in how you saw the solution.
but if other people don't see it the same way you and I do as secular,
it's still leaving them out because their inherent belief system is different.

So I'm trying to go broader than that, and find a way to include
even the different belief systems people are coming from
that are the reason we don't see the laws the same way.

We need to include the broader context of where people are coming from,
if we are going to form laws that truly communicate to and represent all the public.

Not just people who can see it as secular as you and I can do.
I can try to accommodate both views. Most people take one side or the other
and wonder why the other side is arguing that's leaving them out and imposing!

 

[Syriusly]

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years

And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...

I think the lesson is clear......

So you admit that Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.

And that the Roman Empire existed for 2,000 years while practicing sexual perversions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.

Dear Faun
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com

You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.

Yes Faun
when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
you are dictating beliefs for people.

You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
Well, that's what some people say about
*atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
* LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!

They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.

So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.

You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"

So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.

You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!

How contrary is that Faun???

I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!

And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!

They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!

You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.

And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
or it's discriminating by creed.

I said, "civil marriage is already secular," which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.

And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.

Again Faun just because you and I can frame and talk about this as secular
doesn't mean other people who can't or don't want to are delusional.

I can talk about God Jesus and the Bible in completely secular terms.
Not all people can even follow that! But I offer it as a CHOICE, though nobody can IMPOSE it.

that doesn't make either of us delusional, but different.

 

[Syriusly]

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.]

There are only two parties to the marriage contract.

Who is being forced to change the terms of the marriage contract?

If two gay men decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
If a man and a woman decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.

But- the man and the woman do not get to prevent the contract between the gay men because the man and woman are not party to their contract.

Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.

But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.

Why would you want that?

Dear Syriusly
I'm talking about the state and federal laws and rulings GOVERNING the marriage laws and social benefits/taxes related.

All citizens are parties to the laws as a contract.
so we all demand equal say in laws that affect us.

No- Emily we are not.

A law is a law- it is not a contract. A contract has to have the agreement of all parties- a law does not.

As citizens we elect representatives who propose laws and vote on laws. Some of us will agree, and some of us will not agree- that is what happens.

A contract is between parties who agree to be bound by the contract- such as a marriage contract.
Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.

But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.

Why would you want that?

 

[Syriusly]

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )

How racist of you.

Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...

I see history isn't your fine point.

.. saying you, continuing to translate VERY strange "historical" info...

The emperor was only in power until age 22.

WHICH emperor? For example, August became an emperor in the age of 36... What did you had to say?
And... just read it - Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Killed The Roman Empire - Joe.My.God. )
.

Ben Carson apparently was a brilliant surgeon.

But apparently is ignorant on history

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

 

[Sbiker]

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years

And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...

I think the lesson is clear......

So you admit that Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.

Nope. I admit, Rome fell after continuing ot practice sexual perversion. And if you speaking about Roman Empire

And that the Roman Empire existed for 2,000 years while practicing sexual perversions.

so, I said "After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years". Constantinople was a capital of Roman Empire for a centuries, when Rome fell. Have you got this fact during your education?

 

[emilynghiem]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.

Faun I'm not asking for that
I'm basically asking help to sue Democrats to create a separate internal govt to practice those political beliefs without imposing on beliefs of others!

Right to health care, right to marriage, no death penalty, reproductive freedom, all these can be exercised through social programs directed and funded by liberal and Democratic party leaders with the funds already spent on lobbying and campaigns.

I'd further argue that reimbursement already owed to taxpayers for contested war contracts and ACA corporate payouts in the trillions could set up sustainable health care by reforming prisons into medical programs for early diagnosis screening and treatment of both physical and mental illness especially criminal disorders or other dangerous diseases that threaten public health and safety.

If Statists want to impose political beliefs by majority rule, have a separate govt that believes in that.

As for me I believe in consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, due process of laws before depriving people of rights and freedoms, and either consensus or separation on areas involving faith based beliefs to ensure equal protections of the laws without discrimination by creed.

One-sided imposition of left on right or right on left is not equal.

I believe in equal inclusion and representation or else separate taxation by party so each manages their own social agenda for members of like beliefs.

Sure there can still be national govt recognizing rights people believe in. Where the public agrees these can still be through federal govt. Where parties disagree the federal taxes can be divided by party proportionally or allocate to states to work out their state or national agenda without imposing political beliefs on taxpayers who don't consent.

Except for the fact his would not be legal. Think equal protection. Think - the only way I can get assistance is to change my political affiliation? Really? If I get diagnosed with cancer, I have to change my political party to get better insurance?

No, you make sure you have access to whatever plan you want by setting it up yourself.
If this has to be done by state or by party, then do it. Medical schools, charities, businesses, Vet run programs, etc.
but if it relies on federal intervention not all citizens agree to, why make it conditioned on that which you can't control?
set it up locally and sustainable first, based on agreed policy that everyone AGREEs on as public best interest,
so there is no reason to take it away if everyone agrees to invest in making it work, then expand on that nationally.
Sneekin

 

[Sbiker]

[Q

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

 

[Sbiker]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.

Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.

Just like the gay couple that gets married.

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?

 

[emilynghiem]

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

To be like everyone else Faun
they cannot impose their faith based belief on others just because they have been persecuted for them.
Yes you can defend yourself from institutionalized discrimination.
but then if that goes TOO far and inadvertently disciriminates against beliefs of others,
that's equally wrongful and abusive.

Not all cases of LGBT orientation/identity are natural or not a choice,
not all are unnatural choice of behavior. Both beliefs are faith based
and not fully proven or disproven yet.

So like beliefs that Jesus means Justice and salvation for all people, not just people who are Christians or theists, but all people who receive forgiveness that is unconditìonal,
that "universal policy" can't be imposed through govt just because Christians have been persecuted, harassed and killed for their beliefs.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?

Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

How are the rights of any 'religious people' being taken away? No one is forcing any 'religious people' into gay marriage. No one is forcing them to have 'gay marriages' in their church.

And what about the religious gays who belong to a church that does allow gay marriage? Why would you deny them their religious beliefs?

The majority of Americans believe in marriage equality. That isn't the reason why gay couples have the right to marry each other- but it is a recognition that the majority of Americans have reached the same place as the law.

Dear Syriusly if everyone can agree that the state marriages are civil only as Faun and I seem to agree in Spirit, but not all people yet agree on the language,
then attaching all the other social conditions to marriage is what is causing the
imposition of beliefs that not all people share.

If we keep the laws secular only, and don't attach or inject beliefs into it,
there wouldn't be this fear of legislating social values through govt not all people agree to.
People on both sides want to avoid that bias that excludes what represents them.

Sorry I haven't read all the msgs, rightwinger and Sneekin also,
but trying to finish thanking them all first. because I appreciate you
asking and trying to pinpoint where we need to clarify. Thank you all!

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman

rightwinger
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

.

Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.

The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

She's not answering your question because she doesn't like the answer.

No Faun I can't get to all the messages yet by rightwinger and Sneekin also.
My point is to reach consensus, so that requires answering each and every issue objection and conflict.
it just takes time. Thanks again and please bear with me while I go back
and try to catch all your msgs. from you and 3-4 other people. That's a lot!!!

 

[Sbiker]

[Q

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.

Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.

Just like the gay couple that gets married.

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?

I don't want that I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.

But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?

So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?