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

[danielpalos]

What do you mean by "beliefs"?

 

[Seawytch]

Because there were written property laws, Jim Crow, poll tax and segregation laws ENFORCED by govt, even treating negroes as stolen property to be returned to owners, then it was legally necessary to implement written laws to reverse that trend.

Explain the inclusion of color, religion and national origin in Title II of the CRA. Explain Veteran status or married status or parenting status, etc in some states PA laws.

 

[RosieS]

The SCOTUS had to redefine marriage as OK between two adults of different races. It could not be left to the states.

The same thing needs to take place as to SSM. SCOTUS must approve it as a civil right......just as interracial marriage is.

End of story.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What do you mean by "beliefs"?

She's referring to those things which you profess, but which you have no means to sustain..., which is to say those things which are not real, thus are not true..., those things which exist only in the perverse reasoning of the disordered mind.

An example would be the 'belief' that homosexuality does not deviate from the human physiological norm... and that a need on your part represents an obligation on the part of another to part with their property, that your right to speak freely, in no way obligates you to speak only of that which you can sustain through soundly reasoned constructs, and other such nonsense as that.

 

[danielpalos]

What do you mean by "beliefs"?

She's referring to those things which you profess, but which you have no means to sustain..., which is to say those things which are not real, thus are not true..., those things which exist only in the perverse reasoning of the disordered mind.

An example would be the 'belief' that homosexuality does not deviate from the human physiological norm... and that a need on your part represents an obligation on the part of another to part with their property, that your right to speak freely, in no way obligates you to speak only of that which you can sustain through soundly reasoned constructs, and other such nonsense as that.

I try to resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause simply to be faithful to my State motto: Eureka! regarding discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, as a moral obligation.

How does your line of reasoning account for the common Defense of that Union by the Spartan contingent at Thermopylae?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because there were written property laws, Jim Crow, poll tax and segregation laws ENFORCED by govt, even treating negroes as stolen property to be returned to owners, then it was legally necessary to implement written laws to reverse that trend.

Explain the inclusion of color, religion and national origin in Title II of the CRA. Explain Veteran status or married status or parenting status, etc in some states PA laws.

Now, which of those statuses apply to one's BEHAVIOR? Is the color of one's skin BEHAVIOR? Is one's religion BEHAVIOR? Is One's National Origins, BEHAVIOR? Veteran Status... Any of THAT BEHAVIOR?

Now can you cite any law wherein the culture determines what is RIGHT Behavior and what Behavior is WRONG, thus forbidden and penalties set for those found engaging in that BEHAVIOR?

Now of those BEHAVIORS, is there any evidence which can reasonably be recognized as being resultant from mental disorder?

(Here's a clue... ALL BANNED BEHAVIOR IS A FUNCTION OF MENTAL DISORDER. Just as Homosexuality is a function of mental disorder.)

What you're demanding is that we NORMALIZE MENTAL DISORDER. And FTR: what's happening in Baltimore, from the riots to the government which tolerated that BEHAVIOR... is a demonstration of the SAME MENTAL DISORDER AS HOMOSEXUALITY... and that mental disorder is OKA: EVIL!

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I try to resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause simply to be faithful to my State motto: Eureka! regarding discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, as a moral obligation.

How does your line of reasoning account for the common Defense of that Union by the Spartan contingent at Thermopylae?

My reasoning provides that one cannot find reason in unreasonable people or circumstances.

But if you find a means to breakout, what it is you're trying to convey from the above string of non-sequiturs, you be sure to get back to me, scamp.

 

[danielpalos]

I try to resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause simply to be faithful to my State motto: Eureka! regarding discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, as a moral obligation.

How does your line of reasoning account for the common Defense of that Union by the Spartan contingent at Thermopylae?

My reasoning provides that one cannot find reason in unreasonable people or circumstances.

But if you find a means to breakout, what it is you're trying to convey from the above string of non-sequiturs, you be sure to get back to me, scamp.

Here is the relevant context, for your ease and convenience:

Both ancient and modern writers have used the Battle of Thermopylae as an example of the power of a patriotic army defending its native soil. The performance of the defenders at the Battle of Thermopylae is also used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain as force multipliers and has become a symbol of courage against overwhelming odds.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

How does your line of reasoning account for the common Defense of that Union by the Spartan contingent at Thermopylae?

 

[emilynghiem]

Because there were written property laws, Jim Crow, poll tax and segregation laws ENFORCED by govt, even treating negroes as stolen property to be returned to owners, then it was legally necessary to implement written laws to reverse that trend.

Explain the inclusion of color, religion and national origin in Title II of the CRA. Explain Veteran status or married status or parenting status, etc in some states PA laws.

1. For status, these terms can be changed to recognize Partners in "civil unions" or Beneficiaries in general if that will settle the issue over "marriage".

What if a couple doesn't want to get married? Can't that person name their Partner as a Beneficiary?

So YES the laws can be revised and expanded, but NOT require overstepping into redefining "marriage" if people don't agree to that religiously. Different terms can be used instead, such as Beneficiary or Primary Partner and have no reference at all to gender, orientation or relationship.
As long as you name that person as your Primary Beneficiary (just like on an Life Insurance form where you can name ANY PERSON) then there is NO RESTRICTION.

You bring up good points, these can and should be corrected.

2. As for inclusion of RELIGION, again, this brings up the point that when you apply these PA laws, you cannot go so far as to start imposing on the beliefs of other people!

So not just YOUR beliefs are protected, but so are the beliefs of the other people affected.

3. In general, Seawytch, you convince me MORE and MORE why SOCIAL LEGISLATION should NOT be in Federal Govt, because it leads to Micromanaging all these PERSONAL details.

Govt was NEVER designed to micromanage people's personal lives.

And all that you point out shows all the more why these personal affairs should be left to the private individuals and OUT of the hands of govt. It is NOT public business, but should be your own personal business who you want to draw up a contract with and what details and arrangements you want to make.

If liberals want to use govt to micromanage all their personal business, I think it is high time the Democrats set up their own registration system for enrolling all their members if this is what you want your leaders to do for you. Set up your health care, benefits, choices of health care and birth control and all the things you want to manage through a universal central account, and have at it.

But LEAVE everyone else OUT OF YOUR LOOP
who DOESN'T want Govt micromanaging all these personal details and choices.

Thanks Seawytch

You have convinced me that these SOCIAL systems need to be separated by PARTY.

So yes, you can manage all the administrative controls through govt of your personal lives, finances, choices of health care and reproduction through whatever policies you believe in.

That would make sense.

If this were separated by party, then members would agree with their own party and quit fighting with the different systems of other parties. They could each have their own.
And LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE!

Thank you very much, I see this is legally necessary
if people LIKE YOU just cannot manage your choices without govt being in control.

 

[emilynghiem]

What do you mean by "beliefs"?

She's referring to those things which you profess, but which you have no means to sustain..., which is to say those things which are not real, thus are not true..., those things which exist only in the perverse reasoning of the disordered mind.

An example would be the 'belief' that homosexuality does not deviate from the human physiological norm... and that a need on your part represents an obligation on the part of another to part with their property, that your right to speak freely, in no way obligates you to speak only of that which you can sustain through soundly reasoned constructs, and other such nonsense as that.

This is pretty close, but I would have used the neutral terms
"faith based" or things that aren't proven.

And I would try to treat BOTH sides' beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage
as equally "faith based and unproven" and not pass judgment on the content of those beliefs.

Just the fact they aren't proven, and can't be forced on other people through govt,
is enough to defend FREE CHOICE and not to penalize people for their beliefs.

Now, as Seawytch is pointing out, there are areas where people with same sex partners AREN'T able to access the same benefits as people with heterosexual partners.

I would also add that even heterosexual partners who either aren't married or 'don't believe in getting married' ALSO are denied the same benefits as partners who do get married.

So to fix this disparity WITHOUT changing the definition of marriage,
why not change the benefits to allow people to NAME a primary partner or beneficiary where it DOESN'T require them to be married to that person?

With life insurance, you can name any person to be the primary beneficiary.
So why not use "primary partner" or "primary beneficiary" instead of spouse?

That would not only solve the disparity with same sex partners, but also hetero partners who would be denied benefits just because they aren't married.

This is just a Hypothetical example, but see how that works, Seawytch ?

It is possible to fix the breach without imposing beliefs on others about marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Em... I can't join you in that.

I would no more treat the Advocacy to the Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Abnormality as valid, than I would the Advocacy to Flap One's Arms and Fly like a Bird.

As neither is valid... as neither are founded in anything remotely akin to reality, OKA: the truth.

 

[emilynghiem]

Em... I can't join you in that.

I would no more treat the Advocacy to the Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Abnormality as valid, than I would the Advocacy to Flap One's Arms and Fly like a Bird.

As neither is valid... as neither are founded in anything remotely akin to reality, OKA: the truth.

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
You have the right to your beliefs, because the others are not proven and may never be able to be proven. Beliefs about homosexuality are faith based.

So by my respecting all beliefs on these issues equally, I do not have to be in the business of passing judgment on the content or reasons behind each person's beliefs.

I can just enforce the blanket standard that all people have the right to their own beliefs, and to change them by free choice, not by force of government.

And by tolerating differences, I encourage people to do the same, and to avoid imposing their beliefs on others if they want their beliefs to be respected; the point is to enforce the same standards we want enforced for us which is respect and inclusion!

I believe this position allows me to treat all people fairly, and not discriminate on the basis of creed. And it will better encourage and enforce the same respect among others.

Where people disagree, I advise them to mediate to resolve as much as possible by consensus, and to agree to separate on the rest that they cannot resolve.

That is as fair as I can be, in keeping with Constitutional beliefs of inclusion, equal protection and free exercise of religion for all people.

Thank you

 

[danielpalos]

Em... I can't join you in that.

I would no more treat the Advocacy to the Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Abnormality as valid, than I would the Advocacy to Flap One's Arms and Fly like a Bird.

As neither is valid... as neither are founded in anything remotely akin to reality, OKA: the truth.

This is our mission statement, punkin:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

it is the Cause and here is the Effect in Judicial venues whenever we may advance the federal Cause:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[emilynghiem]

Em... I can't join you in that.

I would no more treat the Advocacy to the Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Abnormality as valid, than I would the Advocacy to Flap One's Arms and Fly like a Bird.

As neither is valid... as neither are founded in anything remotely akin to reality, OKA: the truth.

This is our mission statement, punkin:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

it is the Cause and here is the Effect in Judicial venues whenever we may advance the federal Cause:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Yes danielpalos
1. So the beliefs of both the traditional marriage and gay marriage should be treated equally by law

2. And if they cannot agree, then why not Remove ALL marriage from the govt and just keep civil unions and contracts (and designated Primary Beneficiaries) for ALL couples, gay or straight, so ALL COUPLES ARE TREATED THE SAME.

That would allow for equal rights for all, but WITHOUT imposing or forcing anyone to change their beliefs about marriage which can be kept out of the equation.

3. You could even go further, and allow Primary Beneficiaries to be unmarried partners, so those people aren't discriminated against either!

If you are going to say that heterosexual married partners have benefits that gay partners want to have as married, why stop there?

Why not let ANY partners have the ability to designate themselves as Primary Beneficiaries or Guardians, and not discriminate against UNMARRIED people either?

Why should a couple have to believe in getting married in order to get the same rights?

Why can't they just CHOOSE to designate themselves as beneficiaries legally?

 

[danielpalos]

Em... I can't join you in that.

I would no more treat the Advocacy to the Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Abnormality as valid, than I would the Advocacy to Flap One's Arms and Fly like a Bird.

As neither is valid... as neither are founded in anything remotely akin to reality, OKA: the truth.

This is our mission statement, punkin:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

it is the Cause and here is the Effect in Judicial venues whenever we may advance the federal Cause:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Yes danielpalos
1. So the beliefs of both the traditional marriage and gay marriage should be treated equally by law

2. And if they cannot agree, then why not Remove ALL marriage from the govt and just keep civil unions and contracts (and designated Primary Beneficiaries) for ALL couples, gay or straight, so ALL COUPLES ARE TREATED THE SAME.

That would allow for equal rights for all, but WITHOUT imposing or forcing anyone to change their beliefs about marriage which can be kept out of the equation.

3. You could even go further, and allow Primary Beneficiaries to be unmarried partners, so those people aren't discriminated against either!

If you are going to say that heterosexual married partners have benefits that gay partners want to have as married, why stop there?

Why not let ANY partners have the ability to designate themselves as Primary Beneficiaries or Guardians, and not discriminate against UNMARRIED people either?

Why should a couple have to believe in getting married in order to get the same rights?

Why can't they just CHOOSE to designate themselves as beneficiaries legally?

What do you mean, if they cannot agree? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; not even by the Establishment, if we have to "harass a Judge" to quibble about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Yes, it's all about you personally.

Interesting deflection. Can't address the point, obviously.

PA laws have been in effect since title II of the CRA. They've been challenged (the FEDERAL ones) and found to be Constitutional. You're free to challenge them or support having them challenged again. Good luck.

No deflection. I addressed your point, which was about YOU. The only correct response for that is that it's NOT about you personally, and get over yourself.

Furthermore, "they've been found Constitutional" is NOT a response to the point that leftists only give a fuck about "found Constitutional" when they agree with it.

So let's get back to the point that's actually being ignored: leftists only consider challenges to the law "settled" when they get the court decision they want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We allow people with closely held religious beliefs avoid serving in the Military, but let a baker claim that his/her closely held religious beliefs preempt him from baking a cake for a bunch of fags?

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Now, be fair. Leftists don't want people to be exempt from military service for their religious beliefs, either.

So you don't think there's a difference between required military service and voluntarily opening a business in the public sphere?

What I don't think is that there's any difference in the exercise of freedom of conscience in any sphere of endeavor whatsoever.

The law does make a distinction so far.

Make up your mind. You asked me what I thought, and I told you. "The law says" is not a response to the topic of my thoughts, which YOU brought up.

I also think the leftists are outraged by the very idea that people HAVE religious beliefs at all, let alone that such beliefs are given space for exercise.

Any supporting evidence? You know the US is like 75% Christian, right?

I listen to them talk. Sure, leftists LOVE to tell you that they're Christians too, but that doesn't stop them from treating the actual expression and exercise of religious belief in public as though it were dirty and offensive, like taking a shit on the sidewalk (unless it's a leftist Wall Street occupier taking the shit; then that's BETTER than being religious in public).

Howard Dean left his church over the "deep spiritual tenet" of a bike path, for crying out loud. Does that sound to you like someone who takes his alleged Christianity seriously?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Business is required to justify a profit (motive) for every transaction to the bottom line.

Sorry, that was a bit random. What, and who, are you addressing?

 

[danielpalos]

Business is required to justify a profit (motive) for every transaction to the bottom line.

Sorry, that was a bit random. What, and who, are you addressing?

Not random at all, if you have some clue and some Cause.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Dear Seawytch
The problem is you can't enforce PA laws in a way that violates other Constitutional protections.

In the cases of beliefs about homosexuality and orientation, there is a factor of spirituality involved which is faith based. Neither side can prove their beliefs are the truth in all cases, both sides are faith based and neither has to be proven right or wrong -- they both have equal rights to their beliefs.

Since both sides are equal, to protect both from lawsuits or discrimination, it is best to keep such people separated. It is not considered discrimination to keep Republicans from voting in a Democratic primary, or women to stay out of the men's restroom. It is agreed to keep those separated.

There is no reason not to agree to keep ppl separated from each other who have such conflicting beliefs it will cause a fight. instead of blaming either side for having conflicting beliefs, just blame the conflict for keeping them separated. That way nobody is judged, faulted or punished for their religious or spiritual beliefs.

I believe Persons of religion should file for not-for-profit status if they prefer Religion to Capitalism in public venues.

So you feel that the First Amendment protections regarding freedom and religion and the exercise thereof should be removed, or at least radically revised and restricted? Did you want to do away with any of the other provisions in that Amendment as well, or is it just religious people you want to oppress?