Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[Skylar]

Right, laws are based on consent of the governed. They are based on people AGREEING on beliefs
of truth, justice and protecting freedom, peace and security.

With that consent expressed by the majority. And we live in a republic where the people's collective authority is tempered by the rights of the individual. And a law is valid even if some people disagree with it. Universal unanimity isn't the basis of our laws. Majority judgement tempered by our constitution is.

And when people don't agree, you have no method of conflict resolution. Your solution for resolving conflict is that we 'resolve conflict'. But you have no how. No useful suggestions on how to come to consensus on issues we don't agree on.

Which renders your perspective meaningless in any practical sense. As it doesn't actually solve any problem.

I'm not putting "faith based beliefs above others" I'm saying that all faith based creeds should be treated equally.

Equally to what? Again, virtually no belief allows you to invalidate our laws. So if religion is 'equal' to other beliefs, then religion isn't a valid basis for ignoring the law.

Again, 'belief' - your currency of authority and legitimacy....isn't. Its not the basis of our laws. Or invalidating them. We don't give the religious a blank check to ignore any law they don't 'feel' they should have to follow. Nor do we give those with any random belief a similar power to ignore any law they don't like.

Nor have we ever.

The Constitutional laws specify that govt cannot establish religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Again, you're putting religious belief at a premium. So lets be honest. Its not belief you weight so heavily. Its RELIGIOUS belief that you weight so heavily. As its the only basis of belief that you've argued should be allowed to invalidate any law.

And that's not our system of government either, nor ever has been. If such were the case, we've live under Sharia right now. As Muslim 'religious beliefs' would trump all civil law. And anyone could ignore any law by simply claiming a religious basis.

Which again is the religious based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and at the discretion of the individual. Which isn't our law nor ever has been. The founders never followed this.

No one has. As its religiously justified anarchy.

If anything, I am interpreting the laws to the broadest most inclusive extent possible,
by including secular and political beliefs equally as religious ones, and saying NO CREEDS should be discriminated against.

So using any political or secular belief......you can ignore any law? I mean, if religion can is such a basis and any political or secular belief is equal to religion.......

.....your argument sounds like a voluntary legal system. Void of any practical enforcement. If not, why not?

Sorry Skylar we are talking about two different scenarios.

A. I am talking about treating people's secular beliefs with the same respect
as religious beliefs. NO, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are not up to federal govt to pass laws.
So I'm saying that these beliefs are NOT up to majority rule either! They are still BELIEFS.

And 'beliefs' aren't a valid basis for ignoring the law. Again, you keep using the word 'belief' like its some magic ticket that invalidates any law, exempts you from any rule, establishes constitutionality, morality and also makes julienne fries.

It isn't. Its just an opinion. You don't get to ignore any law because of it.

B. as for "anarchy or lawlessness"
when you violate the same laws you claim to enforce,
that causes disrespect for the law.

Violate the 'same law' according to who? You. Citing yourself. You're offering us your beliefs as evidence again. And they're not. They're just opinions. You don't get to ignore tax laws because you have a 'belief'. You don't get to ignore speeding laws, employment law, any generally applicable law because you have a 'belief'.

'Beliefs' simply don't do what you pretend they do.

So if one group is saying we want separation of church and state,
and to remove any faith based beliefs from govt that we don't share,
then turns around and pushes FEDERAL legislation imposing
* beliefs in health care as a right over belief in free market choices
* beliefs in gay marriage and faith-based beliefs in homosexuality as natural
for the public to accept as "equal accommodations"
that is DISCRIMINATORY when the SAME groups or parties
seek to BAN expressions of Christian beliefs as outside what govt can endorse.

According to who? Again, 'one group' can say whatever it wants. That doesn't mean its claims are valid, enforcible, or consistent with the constitution. You're once again offering us the self validating belief as the basis of your entire argument. Where your beliefs are valid for no other reason than they exist.

Um, no. They aren't. That you believe you should be exempt from any law you disagree with doesn't mean you are. Or should be.

When you impose things against the natural laws of human free will,
this creates disruption, dissension and uprising in protest of imposition by govt
in areas that are outside govt jurisdiction. And areas of BELIEFS is one of these.

The 'natural law of human will'? Now your beliefs are laws?

Nope. Its the same fallacy rewarmed and re-served over and over. Beliefs are not self validating. They are not all equally correct. Thus, just because you have a believe doesn't mean its validates any action by anyone. You merely assume it does. And you're quite simply wrong.

Worse, your entire system of 'free choice' breaks the moment ONE person disagrees. Without universal agreement on every issue, your entire system collapses. And we don't have universal agreement on any issue. Nor can your proposals resolve any conflict, as its sole method of dealing with disagreement is to imagine it doesn't exist.

People are going to disagree on fundamental issues. Your system requires that none ever do else we 'impose things against the natural law of human will'.

Nope. Our society is not nor ever has been based on universal agreement to enact a policy. And consent of the governed is expressed by the will of the majority tempered by the rights of the individual. Not by any random person having any random 'belief' about whatever they choose to imagine.

Sorry you don't understand human nature, but that is what our
Constitutional laws and process were drawn from -- natural laws
on human behavior. Not unnatural desire to justify and validate
a person's beliefs by abusing govt to seek public validation;
and then turn around and object if Christians or others impose their beliefs through govt.

[/quote]

On the contrary, its your child like premise of 'no disagreement ever' that demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of human nature. There will always be disagreement. And the moment it occurs, your system breaks. As your system can permit no law on any topic that anyone ever disagrees with. The moment any such law exists, 'natural law' is violated in your estimation.

You're arguing for nothing less than a completely voluntary legal system in which no law is ever enforced if any one ever disagrees with it for any reason.

No. We're not doing that. That's not our system of laws. Its never been our system of laws. And its never been natural law. Your proposals are quite simply worthless the moment we apply them to people. As all of the assumptions that your theories require don't exist. Belief is not reality. Not all beliefs are equally valid. And there is no universal agreement. On anything.

 

[Skylar]

1. Yes and no. If people in a state don't agree, then I would leave it to the people of that state to work out the terms by which they would agree.

So the tyranny of the majority. Where any decision made by the majority is valid, no matter what violations of individual rights it creates.

You can't have it both ways. The majorities' will can't be limited by your beliefs when they disagree with you, but more than powerful enough to violate someone else's beliefs when they agree with you. Even by your own standards, your claims are self contradictory gibberish.

Worse, you violate your own principles. As you claim its the 'violation of the laws of human will' that create conflict. Where people are forced to abide laws that they don't agree with. And yet in your very next post you call on exactly what you've railed against: the majority imposing its will upon the minority, stripping them of their rights.

Which, per your own argument, would violate the laws of nature. And demonstrate a misunderstanding of human nature. If not for double standards, your claims would have no standards at all.

2. Personally for me, but I cannot impose my beliefs on anyone else,
I would rather all marriages be left to private individuals churches and institutions
(even dividing by party if that works best) and just have civil unions and contracts through the state. I find that more consistent with keeping any beliefs out of the public sector unless all people of that state AGREE with how the laws are written and applied.

How is some ELSE getting married 'imposing their beliefs on you or anyone else? You're not being forced to marry someone of the same sex. Or anyone at all. Their marriage doesn't effect you.

Worse, why would we invalidate every marriage and every marriage certificate in every state just because a minority of folks don't want gays to be able to join the union? Its ridiculously complicated and demonstrates yet again how uselessly impractical the institution of your proposals are. As they empower ANY belief, no matter how baseless or invalid, requiring us to take sweeping, nation wide steps to accommodate anything they choose to believe.

Um, nope. We're not doing that. Gay marriage opponents have an invalid belief. Says who? Says the majority of Americans and 44 of 46 federal rulings. And invalid beliefs should lose. While valid beliefs should win.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not in 37 of 50 States it isn't. Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Its our invention. As there is no marriage in nature.

 

[emilynghiem]

And 'beliefs' aren't a valid basis for ignoring the law. Again, you keep using the word 'belief' like its some magic ticket that invalidates any law, exempts you from any rule, establishes constitutionality, morality and also makes julienne fries.

It isn't. Its just an opinion. You don't get to ignore any law because of it.

NO, I'm NOT saying to exercise beliefs to the point of violating the law.
I'm saying that you can't enforce laws protecting beliefs to the point
of VIOLATING the beliefs of others, because you would be violating the
very law you seek to enforce.

I think you are saying the same thing, but from the other side.

* you seem to be defending the equal rights of the gay marriage side
from people on the traditional marriage side "going too far" and abridging
the rights and beliefs of others.

* I am trying to say BOTH sides are either guilty or at risk of going too far.

A. if either the gay marriage side pushes their beliefs "too far" where it violates
the beliefs of those who believe in traditional marriage only
B. or the traditional marriage side pushes their beliefs "too far" where it
violates or excludes the beliefs of those who believe in gay marriage

I think we BOTH agree that either include all marriage beliefs if you are going to have any.

Where we disagree is what to do if people in a state can't agree to that.

You seem to believe it is acceptable for the state or federal govt/courts
to decide FOR the people of that state, and the entire nation.

I am saying that either way, if the federal govt takes one side over the other,
that is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY establishing one belief in favor over another.

Skylar as for what I cited about natural laws on human free will,
NO, this is still a FREE CHOICE and has to be proven to people,
and remains FAITH BASED.

But on the other hand, neither can you abuse govt to PRECLUDE
and PROHIBIT the free exercise of beliefs in natural laws as governing
free will of all people in balance with govt laws that people AGREE to contract under.

Again, I don't believe I have the right to impose MY beliefs about "consent of the governed" on other people or else that violates my own principles about consent!

I don't believe in coercion.

If you BELIEVE that govt has the right to COERCE people to accept beliefs,
you don't have the right to impose that belief on me, and I don't have the
right to impose my belief on you.

The irony Skylar is that I respect your right to your beliefs, and allow you to believe in coercion if that's what you believe in. I don't deny you that right to be coerced by govt.

But you are saying I don't have the right to defend others who believe in free will.
So you are excluding my views of consensus and noncoercion,
while I let you and others have your beliefs imposing on each other through govt.

It's just that you contradict yourself, you don't want other people imposing
their beliefs on you, but you turn around and support imposing your beliefs on them.

I don't believe in that, but believe in consensus and free choice when it comes to beliefs.

So the most i can do Skylar is point out that you are contradicting your own arguments by imposing beliefs while you are saying beliefs cannot be imposed on you.

It is up to your free choice to correct your own contradiction.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not in 37 of 50 States it isn't. Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Its our invention. As there is no marriage in nature.

Thus do you admit that marriage is faith based.

And if it is based on what the people believe it should mean or not mean,
then how can govt impose one set of beliefs about marriage in favor over another?

Skylar I think you recognize that imposing traditional marriage
is unfair when it imposes on people who believe in gay marriage.

Why can't you equally see that if traditional marriage don't agree with gay marriage
then NO marriage should be endorsed by the govt since people don't agree.

Just like if people don't all agree on one religion, no one standard or terms of
religion can be endorsed by govt.

You and I both agree that either include all marriages if you are going to include any.

Are you okay with not including
ANY marriage under govt in order not to favor one set of beliefs over another?

 

[Skylar]

And 'beliefs' aren't a valid basis for ignoring the law. Again, you keep using the word 'belief' like its some magic ticket that invalidates any law, exempts you from any rule, establishes constitutionality, morality and also makes julienne fries.

It isn't. Its just an opinion. You don't get to ignore any law because of it.

NO, I'm NOT saying to exercise beliefs to the point of violating the law.
I'm saying that you can't enforce laws protecting beliefs to the point
of VIOLATING the beliefs of others, because you would be violating the
very law you seek to enforce.

And how is that different that exempting you from the law? Take....Public Accommodation laws. They forbid you from discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Lets say you believe you should be able to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.

How then does your proposal work WITHOUT you ignoring the law based solely on your belief? And if you can ignore that law based solely on your own beliefs, what laws couldn't you ignore? And why?

What laws couldn't I ignore based on my own beliefs? As remember, you've already denounced anyone having to 'prove' their beliefs. So law would apply to me only if I SAID it did. As I have to offer nothing to prove my belief. And any law I disagree with that is imposed upon me is a 'violation of the laws of human will'.

If not, why not? Explain it to us. Because your description sounds EXACTLY like sovereign citizen bullshit, with a christian twist.

It's just that you contradict yourself, you don't want other people imposing
their beliefs on you, but you turn around and support imposing your beliefs on them.

I don't believe in that, but believe in consensus and free choice when it comes to beliefs.

And your method for building consensus is to 'build consensus'. Just like your method for resolving conflict is to 'resolve conflict'. But when we ask HOW, how do you build consensus, how do you resolve conflict.....you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Apparently we do it with rainbow kisses and unicorn farts. Or just wish the conflict away while clapping our hands.

That's not a solution. As it doesn't actually describe how ANY problem is actually solved. It just pretends that the problems all go away on their own.

Which they don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not in 37 of 50 States it isn't.

It actually is... If you haven't noticed the trend is for states wherein the Federal Judiciary has overturned the law passed by the vast Majority of the Legislators which were elected by the vast Majority of the people; laws which stemmed from bills which were long debated in the open forums of the vast majority of the State Legislatures and signed INTO LAW by the vast Majority of the Governors... to ignore the decision of the Federal judiciary regarding such decisions.

But in their defense, that is because Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not in 37 of 50 States it isn't. Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Its our invention. As there is no marriage in nature.

Thus do you admit that marriage is faith based.

Huh? Where does the word 'faith' appear in anything I just posted? Do I even need to be here for this? Or can I just type any random sequence of random letters and numbers and you'll just imagine whatever you'd like?

Reread what you just responded to. Then address what I'm actually saying. Rather than whatever bizarro 'faith based' red herring you just imagined.

And if it is based on what the people believe it should mean or not mean,
then how can govt impose one set of beliefs about marriage in favor over another?

Easy. Majority rule tempered by individual rights. Remember, I'm not the anarchist. You are. I believe in law.

You're the one arguing that no law can be enforced if the person its being enforced upon disagrees with it.

Why can't you equally see that if traditional marriage don't agree with gay marriage
then NO marriage should be endorsed by the govt since people don't agree.

Because I don't recognize all beliefs as equally valid. Nor do I recognize mere 'belief' as this ultimate trump card that supersedes any law, all marriage certificates, and defines the constitution as you do. Nor does our law. Nor has it ever.

You do. And you're wrong. That people disagree doesn't mean that they're both right. Or that either one of this is. Its entire possible for someone to believe something and be completely wrong. Your perspective can't deal with this.

My perspective most definitely can. As can our legal system. It has an actual system for conflict resolution. Yours doesn't. The moment anyone disagrees with anything, your entire system shatters. Demonstrating how useless it is. While in our law, people can disagree and resolutions can be come to.

Which is why our system of law endures. And your useless proposals are irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not in 37 of 50 States it isn't.

It actually is... If you haven't noticed the trend is for states wherein the Federal Judiciary has overturned the law passed by the vast Majority of the Legislators which were elected by the vast Majority of the people; laws which stemmed from bills which were long debated in the open forums of the vast majority of the State Legislatures and signed INTO LAW by the vast Majority of the Governors... to ignore the decision of the Federal judiciary regarding such decisions.

Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. And in 44 of 46 cases gay marriage bans have been found to be in violation of the constitution. The constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The States can't supersede it or violate it.

Marriage in 37 of 50 States is one man and one woman. Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. So what? Our law isn't based on your subjective personal opinion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because I don't recognize all beliefs as equally valid.

The first thing we have found to agree upon.

For instance, the 'belief' that sexual deviancy is a function of non-deviant reasoning.

Homosexuality is a behavior which is the consequence of rationalizations which justify deviancy as a result of personal need. It is a function of a disorder of the mind.

And it is the same mental disorder that rationalizes that the property of other people can be justly confiscated because of their own personal NEED..., it's the same mental disorder that causes one to ramble through the streets and beat upon innocent people, to destroy property to which they have no claim.

We call this mental disorder 'Delusion', in other terms, its a function of Relativism... and overall, it is the reasoning which manifests as plain old EVIL.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... gay marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

... gay marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Spam.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

... gay marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

In your subjective and irrelevant opinion.

And however many times you post this, it will remain just as subjective and irrelevant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Spam.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Spam.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The law is on my side. Your side has nothin'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... gay marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

In your subjective and irrelevant opinion.

And however many times you post this, it will remain just as subjective and irrelevant.

Yet... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman...

This a function of the human physiological design, wherein the species is designed with two distinct but complimenting genders... of which Marriage is the essential component, OKA: The Nucleus of Human CIVILIZATION.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Spam.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The law is on my side. Your side has nothin'.

LOL! No... No its not.

Because WHEN the law lands on your side, "The Law" will then be recognized as irrelevant, and we; the Americans, will annihilate you and your cult.

And once again... as has happened throughout human history, Homosexuality will return to it's traditional place in the dark recesses of the closet.

 

[Skylar]

Because I don't recognize all beliefs as equally valid.

The first thing we have found to agree upon.

For instance, the 'belief' that sexual deviancy is a function of non-deviant reasoning.

Keyes, I don't consider your beliefs to have much validity. As your processes are self contradictory crap. You claim 'nature' as the basis of your beliefs. But you ignore any part of nature that doesn't affirm what you already believe. Demonstrating elegantly that its not 'nature' that the basis of your beliefs.

But you. You're the walking talking avatar of confirmation bias. Your entire belief system is predicated on a logical fallacy.

No thank you.

We call this mental disorder 'Delusion', in other terms, its a function of Relativism... and overall, it is the reasoning which manifests as plain old EVIL.

Yawning.....this 'relativist' schtick again? We've been through this. You're a relativist. Your belief system is a product of your personal context, your culture, your society, your history. You *imagine* that your beliefs are objective truth. Citing yourself. Literally citing a subjective source as the basis of objective truth.

Um, subjective is not objective. This simple axiom destroys your entire argument. And you know it does. As every time we discuss this issue, you run. And you'll run again. As logic and reason cannot support your premise of you being a font of 'objective truth'. While logic and reason can support my premise that you're a hopeless relativist.

And you know that too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Spam.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The law is on my side. Your side has nothin'.

LOL! No... No its not.

Because WHEN the law lands on your side, "The Law" will then be recognized as irrelevant, and we; the Americans, will annihilate you and your cult.

And once again... as has happened throughout human history, Homosexuality will return to it's traditional place in the dark recesses of the closet.

You are a child, who lives in a child's world listening to his child's mind...