Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Dear Delta4Embassy
1. You cannot compare RACE with ORIENTATION.
There are people who have gone through therapy and healing to come out
gay, straight, transgender, etc. and admitted their previous identity or orientation was not the real them.

I have never seen ANYONE magically change their RACE after going through spiritual healing.

These are not the same level

2. If YOU NOTICE:
people DON'T agree to fund public schools because of religious differences
people DON'T agree to marriage laws because of religious differences.
This has NEVER BEEN RESOLVED

Just because you override the dissenting beliefs of others does NOT solve the problem.

We still need to separate funding, and/or shift these institutions back to people,
because they DON'T all agree to laws forcing them to fund and endorse beliefs they are opposed to.

Did you see the discussion with Anonymous and either Nation of Islam or other Black power groups: they WANT to segregate away from the White institutions and be separate from govt.
This issue to segregate and secede from federal govt is STILL going on today,
why, because the core issues were never addressed and resolved.

The govt IS abused to push the majority agenda over the beliefs and creed of others,
and this goes against human nature that naturally defends free will, whether you call that
right to choose, civil liberty, or religious freedom.

Delta, you keep pointing out that Christianity is abused to make women subjugate to men.

When are you going to wake up and admit that government is also abused
to make people submit to majority rule AGAINST their beliefs and consent.

You are even justifying imposing MORE rules against consent "because people got over it last time"

This is like raping someone claiming they agreed to sex last time, so they have to agree all the time?
Dangerous precedent.

No, people have NOT agreed to public schools pushing agenda through the state,
and have NOT agreed to social security and govt welfare and health care.

They tolerate it but they do NOT agree.

 

[Avatar4321]

I find it so odd that people want to pretend they have no choice on who they have sex with. It's not like one can just trip by accident and start having sex with someone.

And these are often the same people who claim they take responsibility for their actions and claim Christians don't. How do you take responsibility for your actions by denying you control them?

And you can also tell they don't understand the message of the gospel. The good news of the gospel is that because of Jesus Christ we have the power to change our lives and become new people. That Jesus can give us power over our fallen nature. He literally changes our nature.

And I know from experience that He does.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Just because you think something is stupid doesn't mean it is. That's the problem with so many. They've decided something is stupid and demand everyone else do the same.

The problem is they they don't have the necessary.understanding to determine what is stupid

Dear Avatar4321
I was beginning to think this thinking is inherent as part of their BELIEFS.
Some atheists are not just being adverse, they really CANNOT see or perceive of this personal God concept.
It may not be within their ability to believe or perceive because their perception is different.

I read that there were studies done on the liberal brain that showed differences.
Has there been any studies done on these secular beliefs?

Why is there such a pronounced bias
against prolife Christians, against Christian Crosses and prayers, against traditional marriage.

When I ask prochoice liberals about the ACA mandates that restrict, regulate and penalize free choice
I either find people defending it just to oppose the opposition, who don't really want to pay for this but want everyone else to be forced to, or I find people ignoring the issue and just letting Republicans fight it out.

I don't find other prochoice advocates, besides myself, arguing that this sets a dangerous precedent of overriding free choice in order to justify saving more lives or more money by pushing restrictive mandates.

Can this be proven to be a political belief that is causing this bias?
Not only are the laws being pushed in a biased way,
but people aren't even "able to see" they have a bias, they seem so conditioned by
their beliefs. They really see right to health care and right to marriage as "inherent" rights
that are supposed to be established through govt as the "only way" to make these equal.

????

Isn't that belief? Any studies on this as a political belief or religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

Right Delta4Embassy and likewise with the gay marriage being the beliefs and opinions of supporters.
So all these beliefs about marriage belong in private. Only where we AGREE on laws should those be public.

Let's be consistent here.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

 

[Avatar4321]

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Just because you think something is stupid doesn't mean it is. That's the problem with so many. They've decided something is stupid and demand everyone else do the same.

The problem is they they don't have the necessary.understanding to determine what is stupid

Dear Avatar4321
I was beginning to think this thinking is inherent as part of their BELIEFS.
Some atheists are not just being adverse, they really CANNOT see or perceive of this personal God concept.
It may not be within their ability to believe or perceive because their perception is different.

I read that there were studies done on the liberal brain that showed differences.
Has there been any studies done on these secular beliefs?

Why is there such a pronounced bias
against prolife Christians, against Christian Crosses and prayers, against traditional marriage.

When I ask prochoice liberals about the ACA mandates that restrict, regulate and penalize free choice
I either find people defending it just to oppose the opposition, who don't really want to pay for this but want everyone else to be forced to, or I find people ignoring the issue and just letting Republicans fight it out.

I don't find other prochoice advocates, besides myself, arguing that this sets a dangerous precedent of overriding free choice in order to justify saving more lives or more money by pushing restrictive mandates.

Can this be proven to be a political belief that is causing this bias?
Not only are the laws being pushed in a biased way,
but people aren't even "able to see" they have a bias, they seem so conditioned by
their beliefs. They really see right to health care and right to marriage as "inherent" rights
that are supposed to be established through govt as the "only way" to make these equal.

????

Isn't that belief? Any studies on this as a political belief or religion?

I'm not sure any of us are really knowledgeable enough to determine what stupid is. Though racism is probably one of the clearest examples of something stupid.

You cannot have a right to anything that requires another person's labor.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

 

[Conservative65]

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Just because you think something is stupid doesn't mean it is. That's the problem with so many. They've decided something is stupid and demand everyone else do the same.

The problem is they they don't have the necessary.understanding to determine what is stupid

Dear Avatar4321
I was beginning to think this thinking is inherent as part of their BELIEFS.
Some atheists are not just being adverse, they really CANNOT see or perceive of this personal God concept.
It may not be within their ability to believe or perceive because their perception is different.

I read that there were studies done on the liberal brain that showed differences.
Has there been any studies done on these secular beliefs?

Why is there such a pronounced bias
against prolife Christians, against Christian Crosses and prayers, against traditional marriage.

When I ask prochoice liberals about the ACA mandates that restrict, regulate and penalize free choice
I either find people defending it just to oppose the opposition, who don't really want to pay for this but want everyone else to be forced to, or I find people ignoring the issue and just letting Republicans fight it out.

I don't find other prochoice advocates, besides myself, arguing that this sets a dangerous precedent of overriding free choice in order to justify saving more lives or more money by pushing restrictive mandates.

Can this be proven to be a political belief that is causing this bias?
Not only are the laws being pushed in a biased way,
but people aren't even "able to see" they have a bias, they seem so conditioned by
their beliefs. They really see right to health care and right to marriage as "inherent" rights
that are supposed to be established through govt as the "only way" to make these equal.

????

Isn't that belief? Any studies on this as a political belief or religion?

I'm not sure any of us are really knowledgeable enough to determine what stupid is. Though racism is probably one of the clearest examples of something stupid.

You cannot have a right to anything that requires another person's labor.

I beg to differ about having the knowledge to determine what stupid is.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Just because you think something is stupid doesn't mean it is. That's the problem with so many. They've decided something is stupid and demand everyone else do the same.

The problem is they they don't have the necessary.understanding to determine what is stupid

It's somewhat easy to see someone do something and determine it was stupid. The problem is that too many make the determination based upon whether or not they agree with it rather than WHAT was done.

 

[Conservative65]

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

 

[Conservative65]

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

So you based that they weren't married on what?

 

[PratchettFan]

If the Government legalizes same sex marriage, that is imposing it's will on those who do not support same sex marriage. If those who oppose same sex marriage should win the debate, then, yes, they are imposing their will on the supporters of same sex marriage. That's how Government works.

Now, why don't we allow each State to determine if they want to oppose or support same sex marriage, rather than the Federal Government? Each side has the right to petition for their beliefs, and the outcome will always be that one side wins, and one side does not. Either way, the will of one will be imposed on the will of the other.

Because the issue is Constitutional and everyone is entitled to the same protection under the Constitution regardless of what state they live in. That is how our government works.

Imposing means that your are either being required to do something you don't want to do or denied the ability to do something you do want to do. I can see how not allowing SSM is imposing. I don't see how allowing it does. Aside from the ability to impose, how are those opposed to SSM being imposed upon?

 

[emilynghiem]

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Conservative Avatar4321 Delta4Embassy
He avoids the issue that gay marriage rights are beliefs also.
He can't argue with that, so he argues with Avatar and ignores the other
point that treats BOTH beliefs as equal. Because nobody can argue with that. They are both beliefs.
So endorsing one by law over the other is Unconstitutional by the Fourteenth Amendment.

All arguments amount to issues of private beliefs, so those should remain in private and stay out of govt.

Only if there is consensus then people can agree to pass laws on marriage that don't violate anyone's beliefs.
Good luck, because neither side will budge. Both will eventually have to understand they have different beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

If the Government legalizes same sex marriage, that is imposing it's will on those who do not support same sex marriage. If those who oppose same sex marriage should win the debate, then, yes, they are imposing their will on the supporters of same sex marriage. That's how Government works.

Now, why don't we allow each State to determine if they want to oppose or support same sex marriage, rather than the Federal Government? Each side has the right to petition for their beliefs, and the outcome will always be that one side wins, and one side does not. Either way, the will of one will be imposed on the will of the other.

Because the issue is Constitutional and everyone is entitled to the same protection under the Constitution regardless of what state they live in. That is how our government works.

Imposing means that your are either being required to do something you don't want to do or denied the ability to do something you do want to do. I can see how not allowing SSM is imposing. I don't see how allowing it does. Aside from the ability to impose, how are those opposed to SSM being imposed upon?

Dear PratchettFan
They are imposed upon by political discrimination by creed, Fourteenth Amendment.

When Atheists sue to remove a Cross that stands for beliefs they don't have,
they don't have to show they were imposed upon. Religious freedom groups have sued from
across the country to remove a cross on public school grounds on principle alone. They don't
even see this cross and they get it removed.

So the same standard should be afforded to people who don't believe in gay marriage.

To enforce a double standard is causing harm.

It is establishing the belief of one group over another, using a double standard they don't have to follow.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

 

[PratchettFan]

If the Government legalizes same sex marriage, that is imposing it's will on those who do not support same sex marriage. If those who oppose same sex marriage should win the debate, then, yes, they are imposing their will on the supporters of same sex marriage. That's how Government works.

Now, why don't we allow each State to determine if they want to oppose or support same sex marriage, rather than the Federal Government? Each side has the right to petition for their beliefs, and the outcome will always be that one side wins, and one side does not. Either way, the will of one will be imposed on the will of the other.

Because the issue is Constitutional and everyone is entitled to the same protection under the Constitution regardless of what state they live in. That is how our government works.

Imposing means that your are either being required to do something you don't want to do or denied the ability to do something you do want to do. I can see how not allowing SSM is imposing. I don't see how allowing it does. Aside from the ability to impose, how are those opposed to SSM being imposed upon?

Dear PratchettFan
They are imposed upon by political discrimination by creed, Fourteenth Amendment.

When Atheists sue to remove a Cross that stands for beliefs they don't have,
they don't have to show they were imposed upon. Religious freedom groups have sued from
across the country to remove a cross on public school grounds on principle alone. They don't
even see this cross and they get it removed.

So the same standard should be afforded to people who don't believe in gay marriage.

To enforce a double standard is causing harm.

It is establishing the belief of one group over another, using a double standard they don't have to follow.

How are they imposed upon? What is they can do now they will not be able to do later?

I do agree enforcing a double standard causes harm. That is why I would like for us, as a nation, to stop doing it.