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

[kaz]

So then why can't you come up with an example?

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Got any examples?

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Well, then why do you Republicans do that? Why can't you leave people alone to live their own lives? Why do you have to be in everyone's bedroom all the time? Stop worshiping the rich and corporations and care about people for a change

thank you for ceding the point and the argument.

You're the one who keeps insisting we have a Republican in the conversation. That means you get to be the Republican, Skippy. You sure do worship Republicans insisting their views always be represented in every discussion. Why do you love the rich and corporations so much?

 

[danielpalos]

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Got any examples?

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Well, then why do you Republicans do that? Why can't you leave people alone to live their own lives? Why do you have to be in everyone's bedroom all the time? Stop worshiping the rich and corporations and care about people for a change

thank you for ceding the point and the argument.

You're the one who keeps insisting we have a Republican in the conversation. That means you get to be the Republican, Skippy. You sure do worship Republicans insisting their views always be represented in every discussion. Why do you love the rich and corporations so much?

except; i am on the federal left. I believe our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land and federal doctrine; and not any form of republican doctrine.

 

[kaz]

Got any examples?

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Well, then why do you Republicans do that? Why can't you leave people alone to live their own lives? Why do you have to be in everyone's bedroom all the time? Stop worshiping the rich and corporations and care about people for a change

thank you for ceding the point and the argument.

You're the one who keeps insisting we have a Republican in the conversation. That means you get to be the Republican, Skippy. You sure do worship Republicans insisting their views always be represented in every discussion. Why do you love the rich and corporations so much?

except; i am on the federal left. I believe our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land and federal doctrine; and not any form of republican doctrine.

And I'm a libertarian and you keep calling me a Republican, idiot.

The founding fathers BTW were classic liberals. Today known as libertarians. You are an authoritarian leftist, you have zero in common with the founding fathers. They were liberals, you like the sound of the word liberal, that's the closest you come to them

 

[danielpalos]

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Well, then why do you Republicans do that? Why can't you leave people alone to live their own lives? Why do you have to be in everyone's bedroom all the time? Stop worshiping the rich and corporations and care about people for a change

thank you for ceding the point and the argument.

You're the one who keeps insisting we have a Republican in the conversation. That means you get to be the Republican, Skippy. You sure do worship Republicans insisting their views always be represented in every discussion. Why do you love the rich and corporations so much?

except; i am on the federal left. I believe our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land and federal doctrine; and not any form of republican doctrine.

And I'm a libertarian and you keep calling me a Republican, idiot.

The founding fathers BTW were classic liberals. Today known as libertarians. You are an authoritarian leftist, you have zero in common with the founding fathers. They were liberals, you like the sound of the word liberal, that's the closest you come to them

i keep claiming you are on the Right, (of me).

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

Any state with an anti gay marriage law is seeking to discriminate based on gender...the gender of the chosen life partner.

You know, the anti miscegenationists argued, like you, that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race.

Same bigots different decade.

Wrong. Those marriage laws apply equally regardless of gender. Any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender. You still fail to demonstrate anyone has been treated unfairly.

 

[emilynghiem]

Incorrect. There's no state law that has deprived ANYONE access to marriage.

not any more. why were there some before?

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

 

[danielpalos]

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

Any state with an anti gay marriage law is seeking to discriminate based on gender...the gender of the chosen life partner.

You know, the anti miscegenationists argued, like you, that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race.

Same bigots different decade.

Wrong. Those marriage laws apply equally regardless of gender. Any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender. You still fail to demonstrate anyone has been treated unfairly.

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause. there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. there can be no appeal to ignroance of the law in favor of any public policy exception for any State that may distinguish based on gender, upon appeal to the general government and Article 4, Section 2.

 

[emilynghiem]

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

Any state with an anti gay marriage law is seeking to discriminate based on gender...the gender of the chosen life partner.

You know, the anti miscegenationists argued, like you, that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race.

Same bigots different decade.

Wrong. Those marriage laws apply equally regardless of gender. Any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender. You still fail to demonstrate anyone has been treated unfairly.

Yes and no. saintmichaeldefendthem
They can marry their partners in church, but it is unconstitutional to force anyone else to recognize terms of gay marriage through PUBLIC GOVT where there are differences in belief. [Same reason it is unconstitutional only to establish traditional marriage terms if people don't believe in that either, and are discriminated against on the basis of creed. If people don't agree on TERMS of marriage laws, which are faith based, it is only fair to all sides to remove from govt all together, and impose NEITHER one in order to equally protect both beliefs.]

Same with how atheists and secularists sue to remove God and Christmas from public institutions because they don't believe in those.

You should still be able to have these in private, and it is wrong to ban churches and private groups and individuals from practicing their free exercise of religion. So the laws that went too far and banned gay marriage were as wrong as the laws going to far by establishing gay marriage, because in both cases, there were people of opposing beliefs left out of state laws.

These should be kept in private, and keep the public laws NEUTRAL like using NEUTRAL terms for civil unions,
domestic partners, primary beneficiaries, etc. that do not mention gender or relationship other than the
financial or legal contracts and terms. Nothing faith-based or personal, just the fiduciary, financial legal custodian or guardian terms, which can be governed by the state.

The rest depends on public agreement, or else leave that out.

 

[danielpalos]

not any more. why were there some before?

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

Any state with an anti gay marriage law is seeking to discriminate based on gender...the gender of the chosen life partner.

You know, the anti miscegenationists argued, like you, that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race.

Same bigots different decade.

Wrong. Those marriage laws apply equally regardless of gender. Any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender. You still fail to demonstrate anyone has been treated unfairly.

Any race could once marry their same race, or religion, and all was equal, only it wasn't. Same thing in this case.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender."

Is this a joke?

 

[emilynghiem]

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

danielpalos

Both sides violate equal religious freedom when they push
* prochoice or prolife beliefs at the EXCLUSION of the other
* pro or anti gay marriage instead of a consensus or separation
* mandated govt insurance OR prohibiting public option instead of leaving BOTH voluntary to opt in or opt out

We'd like to see all people respect the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
But as long as Parties are abused to push one group's agenda or BELIEFS
over the other by majority or by court ruling, this violates Constitutional laws
by discriminating on the basis of creed. ie whoever happens to be in the
group that wins the 50/50 battle, gets THEIR beliefs endorsed, established and protected by govt,
while the group in the minority gets their religious freedom confiscated until and unless they sue and win.
So in the meantime, they don't have equal protection of the laws, and have lost
liberty without committing an offense or going through any due process. They
are forced to go through additional democratic process to restore rights they lost.

* The pro gay marriage believers lost their rights when the DOMA acts were passed
and later found unconstitutional.

* The pro free choice in health care lost their rights when the ACA mandates were passed
and approved through Courts, and have yet to be amended to be voluntary in order to be constitutional.
(this hasn't even been established yet through the democratic process, so people have lost rights
and freedom in the meantime who committed no crime and didn't go through any due process before losing liberties)

These violations still happen, because we discriminate against religious beliefs
in favor of secular beliefs that are allowed to pass through govt by majority rule.

This needs to be corrected, or both sides keep losing their equal freedom from
others pushing their political beliefs through govt. Nobody wants this, but keeps
fighting this way until we agree to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs.

 

[danielpalos]

"any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender."

Is this a joke?

it is as least frivolity as the Right can muster, sometimes.

 

[danielpalos]

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

danielpalos

Both sides violate equal religious freedom when they push
* prochoice or prolife beliefs at the EXCLUSION of the other
* pro or anti gay marriage instead of a consensus or separation
* mandated govt insurance OR prohibiting public option instead of leaving BOTH voluntary to opt in or opt out

We'd like to see all people respect the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
But as long as Parties are abused to push one group's agenda or BELIEFS
over the other by majority or by court ruling, this violates Constitutional laws
by discriminating on the basis of creed. ie whoever happens to be in the
group that wins the 50/50 battle, gets THEIR beliefs endorsed, established and protected by govt,
while the group in the minority gets their religious freedom confiscated until and unless they sue and win.
So in the meantime, they don't have equal protection of the laws, and have lost
liberty without committing an offense or going through any due process. They
are forced to go through additional democratic process to restore rights they lost.

* The pro gay marriage believers lost their rights when the DOMA acts were passed
and later found unconstitutional.

* The pro free choice in health care lost their rights when the ACA mandates were passed
and approved through Courts, and have yet to be amended to be voluntary in order to be constitutional.
(this hasn't even been established yet through the democratic process, so people have lost rights
and freedom in the meantime who committed no crime and didn't go through any due process before losing liberties)

These violations still happen, because we discriminate against religious beliefs
in favor of secular beliefs that are allowed to pass through govt by majority rule.

This needs to be corrected, or both sides keep losing their equal freedom from
others pushing their political beliefs through govt. Nobody wants this, but keeps
fighting this way until we agree to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs.

I am not sure what you are referring to; there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in favor of any religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

"any unrelated adult of the opposite sex regardless of gender."

Is this a joke?

No, it is a technical legality that no gay person is banned from getting
married as long as it is a male-female pairing.

Technically, four people can arrange to get married in heterosexual pairs,
while the two gay men are partners and the two lesbian women are partners.
So they can get "married" Legally.

Like when Conjoined Twins get married, they can get married in a double wedding ceremony,
and have to accommodate both spouses in their arrangements.

The question of social/spiritual marriage and who is bonded to whom
is a personal issue and should remain outside the govt anyway, as that is private business.

We've gotten away with marriage under the state, because nobody challenged it before this.
Now that it's being challenged, it can be outted as a private, religious, or spiritual issue
and removed from the govt that has no business mandating terms of religious, spiritual or private practice or beliefs.

The problem is instead of REMOVING marriage from govt,
the pro gay rights want to add or change conditions of marriage that other people don't believe in.
They should have argued to remove it altogether.

If this passes through Court, it destroys the Left's mantra of separation of church and state.

It opens up doors for OTHER minority beliefs to sue for political discrimination, and start allowing prolife
groups to push their beliefs through the state for protection against harassment and exclusion.

 

[emilynghiem]

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

danielpalos

Both sides violate equal religious freedom when they push
* prochoice or prolife beliefs at the EXCLUSION of the other
* pro or anti gay marriage instead of a consensus or separation
* mandated govt insurance OR prohibiting public option instead of leaving BOTH voluntary to opt in or opt out

We'd like to see all people respect the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
But as long as Parties are abused to push one group's agenda or BELIEFS
over the other by majority or by court ruling, this violates Constitutional laws
by discriminating on the basis of creed. ie whoever happens to be in the
group that wins the 50/50 battle, gets THEIR beliefs endorsed, established and protected by govt,
while the group in the minority gets their religious freedom confiscated until and unless they sue and win.
So in the meantime, they don't have equal protection of the laws, and have lost
liberty without committing an offense or going through any due process. They
are forced to go through additional democratic process to restore rights they lost.

* The pro gay marriage believers lost their rights when the DOMA acts were passed
and later found unconstitutional.

* The pro free choice in health care lost their rights when the ACA mandates were passed
and approved through Courts, and have yet to be amended to be voluntary in order to be constitutional.
(this hasn't even been established yet through the democratic process, so people have lost rights
and freedom in the meantime who committed no crime and didn't go through any due process before losing liberties)

These violations still happen, because we discriminate against religious beliefs
in favor of secular beliefs that are allowed to pass through govt by majority rule.

This needs to be corrected, or both sides keep losing their equal freedom from
others pushing their political beliefs through govt. Nobody wants this, but keeps
fighting this way until we agree to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs.

I am not sure what you are referring to; there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in favor of any religion.

I am saying in practice, danielpalos ,
people violate their own beliefs by violating Constitutional laws,
even if they claim not to be seeking ignorance or willful ignorance.

Both sides get so caught up in pushing their agenda,
they do push biases that override and exclude other beliefs
and information, and end up violating Constitutional equal protections.

They don't MEAN to do this. They BOTH think they are standing for truth
and doing the right thing. But just because Christianity is the right thing
doesn't mean you can abuse govt to mandate it or favor it with laws;
or it violates the First Amendment against establishing religion or faith based laws.

And same with the left pushing tolerance for homosexuality, or pushing for the OPTION of public health care,
but going too far and punishing people of other beliefs who can't be forced by govt to compromise,
change or violate their beliefs without violating the Constition.

Both sides going into their arguments "assuming" the other side is wrong
and therefore usurping the right to overrule their beliefs by govt.

This is a violation of religious freedom and equal protection from discrimination by creed.
Neither side INTENDS that, and that is part of the ignorance.
They do not even see they are breaking the very laws they claim to enforce.

 

[danielpalos]

It should be considered immoral to bear false witness to our Commerce Clause in favor of the morals of Religion, on a for-profit basis.

why don't religionists simply prove their subscription to their Faith and go not-for-profit as "merchants" in Commerce over Religion.

 

[kaz]

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

You don't understand our laws

 

[danielpalos]

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

You don't understand our laws

i must since i am the one resorting to the fewest fallacies and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[kaz]

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Agreed danielpalos that it goes both ways

1. some on the right can be just as ignorant (that there are some gay people who cannot change, and it isn't a choice)
as there are those on the left even willfully ignorant that some people HAVE changed orientation or given up their transgender leanings after going through NATURAL spiritual healing VOLUNTARILY by free choice, ie not coercion abuse or denial/fraud.

Where BOTH sides keep pushing their BELIEFS as covering "all cases without exception"
they are BOTH guilty of imposing their beliefs by ignorance, and not accounting for people
with beliefs or PROOF otherwise. I have found there are people who follow both cases
A. those who have changed orientation
B. those who cannot

2. both left and right should be stopped from imposing beliefs through govt,
except by consent of the public. Beliefs and faith-based issues are NOT the same
as other issues that can be decided by majority rule or court ruling.

This needs to be addressed on BOTH sides.

NOTE: Judicial review brought up the point he doesn't believe in "separation of church and state" as a concept in Constitutional laws and govt.
But you don't have to believe in Christianity to expect Christians to enforce their own laws.
Likewise, as long as secularists believe in separation of church and state,
you don't have to AGREE with that to hold them to enforce it.

The problem with both sides is because they feel powerless to hold the other to their own standards,
they both depend on GOVT or party to do that by coercion.

The key is for both parties to be held to their OWN beliefs.

So if rightwing Christians believe in Constitutional protections of free exercise of religion,
then Muslims and Atheists cannot be targeted, and must go through due process before losing liberties,
and people with prochoice or progay beliefs must be represented in laws and cannot be banned or overruled
using Faith-based arguments they don't believe in.

Likewise, the prochoice liberals must respect free choice in health care, and change the insurance mandates
to voluntary if they want to claim to be prochoice; and separate church and state when it comes to their secular
beliefs in gay marriage as a right or govt health care as a right. These should be choices but not mandated
through govt if others do not believe in sanctioning this through govt.

Both sides should be held to their OWN standards,
and you don't have to agree to those standards to ask people and parties to be consistent.

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in any favor of any religion.

You don't understand our laws

i must since i am the one resorting to the fewest fallacies and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.

You are the one who keeps pointing to the wrong section of the Constitution