I find it very disturbing

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

You truly are ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

We don't vote on rights. We are not a direct democracy. Our Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

But James Madison warned against the minority controlling the majority, or factionalism. Read Federalist #10 if you want more.

Read Constitutional jurisprudence if you want to know the law.

 

[Plasmaball]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

yeah, its really not one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's the thing..they moved heaven and earth to declare that they could get married in the eyes of the state..and now they expect us to act like it's the same as a sacrament.

Isn't going to happen. It's not the same, and we cannot treat it the same.

Here's the thing, you're a nitwit.


This is a matter of law only, having nothing to do with your ridiculous religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

Another nitwit.

The cases before the Court have nothing to do with religion or religious expression.

 

[emilynghiem]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

We don't vote on rights. We are not a direct democracy. Our Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

But James Madison warned against the minority controlling the majority, or factionalism. Read Federalist #10 if you want more.

You have no idea what "faction" is.

We don't even agree what constitutes a protected "belief or creed" under free exercise of religion (including if secular beliefs
count equally as religions)
and whether contracts and laws should be formed by "consent of the governed", how that is determined,
and where it is still unconstitutional even if govt processes are used to decide a policy issue.

So of course we are divided into factions.
You can even see that here.

You don't know what Madison meant by the term "faction" either do ya?

I don't even need Madison or the term faction, if you are going to get legalistic about it.

Let's drop it then and stick to the issue:
Do you agree the issue behind these conflicts
is that people have different beliefs or creeds,
and we disagree with opposing parties abusing govt to endorse their beliefs
that exclude, discriminate or otherwise demean our own beliefs and treat them UNEQUALLY.

Do we agree THAT is causing conflicts, yes or no?
And all these different issues (marriage laws, health care laws,
gun rights, immigration and amnesty, death penalty etc.)
are different FORMS of the same conflict between the
beliefs of one person or party versus another, and WHICH belief the govt endorses over the other.

Do we AGREE that we don't want our beliefs discriminated against
politically by govt, and we want Equal Protection of our beliefs? Yes or no?

if you don't use these terms to describe the problem,
what terms do YOU use. I'm not here to "haggle over terms"
I want to address this issue, and want to know what people call it so we can talk it out! thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's the thing..they moved heaven and earth to declare that they could get married in the eyes of the state..and now they expect us to act like it's the same as a sacrament.

Isn't going to happen. It's not the same, and we cannot treat it the same.

Here's the thing, you're a nitwit.


This is a matter of law only, having nothing to do with your ridiculous religion.

C_Clayton_Jones
Sure if the laws are written so secularly and neutrally
that they bring up NO religious objections and don't violate ANYONE's beliefs, values and creeds.

That is the common goal. So why not listen to objections and make sure those are answered?

If you don't like Christians overriding objections because they don't see them as valid points,
why would you treat someone else that way?

Unlike you, I am a Constitutionalist who believes in equal inclusion.
If someone like koshergrl voices an objection, I RECOGNIZE that
as part of the right to petition and due process.

Unlike you, I believe we the people get the government we enforce ourselves,
so if I want govt to recognize my petitions and objections, it only makes sense
that I recognize others when they object and express either consent or dissent.

Sorry you don't believe in upholding the same standards you seek to enforce.
I believe we will be a much more consistent and effective influence in law
enforcement and govt if we start with ourselves, and petition to redress grievances directly

C_Clayton_Jones
I cannot force you to hear what koshergrl is objecting to and why.
If you are like JakeStarkey and don't see there is any issue to address, that's how you see it.
But what I can warn you and Jake about:
is if you CANNOT see and work with conflicting views or groups, to form your own conclusion by consensus,
then you are empowering "third parties" to step in and intervene and decide FOR you.

So the more you ignore, divide, reject and exclude others,
you disempower yourself and leave yourself open for other people to govern over
you in order to cover both groups.

If you are content with "depending on others" and being LESS than equal,
I cannot make that decision for you.

Just be careful who you authorize to make decisions for you.
If you choose the path of bullying, then you can get bullied, too, out of what you want.

If you want a direct voice in decisions, that means direct responsibility to carry out
the democratic process to reach a conclusion if you want a say in the final decisions.

It's up to you.

You can keep depending on other parties to represent you, and you can choose to ignore/override
the consent or dissent of others,
but then you lose direct authority when it comes to respecting your right of consent and dissent.

I recommend that people retain their right to represent themselves and their beliefs,
and only agree to concede these when it doesn't matter either way, and they are truly ok even if they lose out.

With political and religious beliefs, I find that people DON'T agree to compromise for majority rule,
but only agree to govt authority when it matches their beliefs.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

"sacrament"

No its not. Saying that is just plain silly and ignorant.

Oh wait - its koshergrl

I still want to know when.the state decided to get back in religion?

When they decided to start shutting down businesses that won't cater sacrilegious homo *wedding* ceremonies.

Ya wanna just make a list of those YOU believe should have to abide by the law?

Luddly Neddite
If Atheists can remove the word GOD from public institutions
because of conflicting beliefs, why not remove Marriage if people can't agree on terms.

If you are trying to FORCE @koshrgrl to "change her terms or definition associated with marriage"
why not FORCE the Atheist "not to think about the word GOD to mean something religious
but FORCE the Atheist to interpret the word God to mean LIFE or PUBLIC GOOD
or some other meaning.

Do you honestly believe it is the authority of govt and public law to FORCE
people to change their religious views of marriage?

Isn't this a huge SIGN that marriage should be kept OUT of public policy
similar to God and Crosses that are seen as religious?

Atheists did not suddenly decide to "remove the word GOD from public institutions". Blame the founding fathers for that and yes, some were atheists. Its you RW nutters who want to FORCE others to conform to your version of the Constitution. You stated that at the beginning of this thread.

IMO, and with the usual caveat of consenting adults, who you choose to marry is none of my business. Who crazy koshergrl chooses to marry is none of my business.

IMO, and with the usual caveat of consenting adults, government has no place in that decision. Period.

 

[initforme]

How about letting state courts decide it, or state elections. To me, its an issue that is not a big deal.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

For those who CHOOSE to include a religion and/or a god, yes its a "sacrament".

But it means nothing - except to those people.

"Religious freedom is covered under the law" and, like it or not, it works BOTH ways. That means you don't get to force others to conform to YOUR religion.

RWs answer to every question is bigger government, more laws and more invasive laws.

MYOB

And get a job.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How about letting state courts decide it, or state elections. To me, its an issue that is not a big deal.

Why should government, at any level, have any say in who you choose to marry?

If its between consenting adults, why is your marriage the government's business?

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

"sacrament"

No its not. Saying that is just plain silly and ignorant.

Oh wait - its koshergrl

I still want to know when.the state decided to get back in religion?

When they decided to start shutting down businesses that won't cater sacrilegious homo *wedding* ceremonies.

Ya wanna just make a list of those YOU believe should have to abide by the law?

Luddly Neddite
If Atheists can remove the word GOD from public institutions
because of conflicting beliefs, why not remove Marriage if people can't agree on terms.

If you are trying to FORCE @koshrgrl to "change her terms or definition associated with marriage"
why not FORCE the Atheist "not to think about the word GOD to mean something religious
but FORCE the Atheist to interpret the word God to mean LIFE or PUBLIC GOOD
or some other meaning.

Do you honestly believe it is the authority of govt and public law to FORCE
people to change their religious views of marriage?

Isn't this a huge SIGN that marriage should be kept OUT of public policy
similar to God and Crosses that are seen as religious?

Atheists did not suddenly decide to "remove the word GOD from public institutions". Blame the founding fathers for that and yes, some were atheists. Its you RW nutters who want to FORCE others to conform to your version of the Constitution. You stated that at the beginning of this thread.

IMO, and with the usual caveat of consenting adults, who you choose to marry is none of my business. Who crazy koshergrl chooses to marry is none of my business.

IMO, and with the usual caveat of consenting adults, government has no place in that decision. Period.

No Luddly Neddite you miss my whole point about consensus by free choice.
I DON'T believe in abusing govt FORCE anything on anyone.

My whole argument about beliefs is they are inherently protected, by human nature and free will we naturally have.
My whole argument is to quit abusing govt to try to impose "one belief over another."

That's why I have been emphasizing conflict resolution and consensus among people DIRECTLY by our free choice.
And this keeps conflicting beliefs OUT OF GOVT. Get it? Is this more clear now?
I can only OFFER my interpretation that empowers and recognizes the rights of people we inherently have by nature.
But it remains each person's free choice to exercise those rights, and resolve conflicts/grievances directly.
By FREE CHOICE and respecting each other's free will as equals, instead of abusing parties or govt to bully each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

For those who CHOOSE to include a religion and/or a god, yes its a "sacrament".

But it means nothing - except to those people.

"Religious freedom is covered under the law" and, like it or not, it works BOTH ways. That means you don't get to force others to conform to YOUR religion.

RWs answer to every question is bigger government, more laws and more invasive laws.

MYOB

And get a job.

Luddly Neddite we agree on the above
with the only clarification that the right
also sees the LEFT as "imposing LEFTIST beliefs about bigger govt with more invasive laws"

Both seem to object to the same imposition
and the only difference is they see the other as doing it while they don't see themselves as imposing beliefs

If we can agree that both sides object to the same problems,
we have a chance to work together to prevent that imposition, regardless where it occurs.
We are wasting energy fighting over which side is doing it worse, in which case,
when we could focus on getting rid of ALL impositions on ALL sides and ALL cases.
And invest resources in implementing our own policies in private, and only
public policies that all sides AGREE on as NOT imposing as you describe above.
We could get everything done without objection, if we stick to what we all agree on
as public, and quit fighting over things that aren't universally agreed upon and develop
those programs independently where it does not rely on forcing it on others through govt.

 

[Siete]

I don't give the gay community a second thought. They don't give me a second thought. We're both happy.

If the damn RW's would follow suit and quit trying to run other peoples lives everything would work out just fine

The End.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't give the gay community a second thought. They don't give me a second thought. We're both happy.

If the damn RW's would follow suit and quit trying to run other peoples lives everything would work out just fine

The End.

and they say the same about the LW.

it's amazing how everyone would get along if we reserved govt for just the areas
that everyone agrees are govt jurisdiction, authority and duty. We would restore
checks and balances, and accountability to taxpayers,
and would not have tons of bureaucracy, waste and abuse
that exceeds govt capacity to check and correct.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ultimate decision power rests with one court. If someone in the country can't live with that, there are lots of airports.

Ultimate decision power rests with the individual.

Sure it does. Like the two gay individuals who want to get married, right?

Don't expect him or any of the other phobes to admit to their own hypocrisy

 

[emilynghiem]

Ultimate decision power rests with one court. If someone in the country can't live with that, there are lots of airports.

Ultimate decision power rests with the individual.

Sure it does. Like the two gay individuals who want to get married, right?

Don't expect him or any of the other phobes to admit to their own hypocrisy

After you Luddly Neddite
and other prochoice proclaimers who believe in federal regulations on free choice with tax penalties

 

[RosieS]

If we relied on free choice there still would be slavery in some states and segregation in others.

Civil rights are civil rights. You don't get to vote on someone else's civil rights.

The right to marry is a civil right. If it is unfettered for one group of people, it must be unfettered for all.

You all affirm such every time you pledge allegiance.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ultimate decision power rests with one court. If someone in the country can't live with that, there are lots of airports.

Ultimate decision power rests with the individual.

Sure it does. Like the two gay individuals who want to get married, right?

Don't expect him or any of the other phobes to admit to their own hypocrisy

After you Luddly Neddite
and other prochoice proclaimers who believe in federal regulations on free choice with tax penalties

Emily, you are always all over the place.

I'm not sure if you're trying to drag abortion into this thread or if this is another attempt to derail it to ACA.

Either way, my position stays the same - who YOU choose to marry is YOUR business. Period.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

And nobody is taking that away. You can consider it anything you like. You just can't tell others how they will consider it.