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

[danielpalos]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

why do you believe i am quoting Article 4, Section 2 out of context?

 

[kaz]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Is this a joke?

No. You are.

 

[danielpalos]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

 

[kaz]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

This coming from the idiot who can't demonstrate how the INTERSTATE commerce clause empowers the federal government to regulate every transaction between private parties and even force businesses to offer a service.

 

[danielpalos]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

 

[kaz]

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

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

 

[danielpalos]

did you know that simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance when you don't have a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion?

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

 

[kaz]

From you? Is this a joke?

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

What you are is an idiot

 

[danielpalos]

from you; it is even more of a joke. i already know you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. everybody knows that now.

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

What you are is an idiot

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

 

[kaz]

Wow, now you have an army of people hanging on your every word that you speak for? You aren't man enough to have your own opinion, it has to be validated by others? So even you think your opinion is worthless, no surprise. It is

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

What you are is an idiot

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

 

[danielpalos]

still no Thing but fallacy; Person on the Right?

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

What you are is an idiot

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

 

[kaz]

Yes, you Republicans are what's wrong with our system. You take for yourself and give nothing back. Go start a war or something and stop wasting my time

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

What you are is an idiot

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear danielpalos
But by the SAME token, nor can the State discriminate by CREED.
If some people believe in gay weddings and some people don't,
and for some it's even AGAINST their beliefs like abortion is,
then the State cannot constitutionally endorse such a practice,
any more than dictating if Wiccan's can chant this or that at their weddings.
That should remain a private practice and not written EITHER WAY into state laws,
neither establishing it nor prohibiting it by Amendment One.

If there is a religious issue of bias, like how some Christians reject Buddhism and some don't,
that's up to Buddhists and Christians to work out with each other and resolve those conflicts in teaching.

It is not for the state to endorse Buddhist weddings, Christians weddings etc.

Some of the Left opponents are just as ignorant that these beliefs in traditional marriage
count as a belief.

They see their belief as "what is right anyway" and the other beliefs as wrong.
But they get mad if Christians push their beliefs as right anyway, and other beliefs are wrong.

Beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage are still beliefs.
These are faith based, unproven, and up to the free choice of the individual.

it is as WRONG to discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is natural and to be accepted,
as it is to discriminate against people who believe homosexual is unnatural and to be avoided or corrected.
And if people don't agree, then you stay away and don't do business with such people.

The left wants to stay away from Christians and keep that out of the govt.
Why can't the same be done when it comes to THEIR beliefs?
Why the double standard?

how is that NOT violating Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the laws
from discrimination by creed? especially if you are going to say it is wrongful
to discriminate against pro-gay beliefs, the same law says it is wrongful to discriminate against beliefs against gay marriage.

You can't make people believe in that, or make people endorse something through the PUBLIC LAWS AND GOVT
.without violating
1. establishment clause of the First Amendment
2. Equal protection of the laws by the Fourteenth Amendment
3. protection against discrimination by CREED (loosely worded under Civil Rights Act)
4. Liberals and Democrats own principles of "separation of church and state"

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Nope PaintMyHouse
Race is NOT the same thing as Orientation.
Race can be traced to genetics, right down to the HLA compatibility that
is even matched by nationality.

Orientation can be described as Spiritual
and people have reported CHANGING their orientation or even transgender identity
after spiritual healing. After counseling/therapy,
some come out as straight, others gay, bisexual, transgender or birth gender.

You will not see anyone spiritually changing their physical Race
after going through spiritual healing. But people HAVE changed their orientation!

These are not the same. Sorry.
The idea of cross-Orientation or cross-Gender
being determined GENETICALLY at birth remains "faith based."
While Race has been scientifically shown to be genetically inherited from parents..

The genetics show that identical twins
have a 47-53% probability of being the same orientation,
so this is NOT 100%. So it is NOT proven to be genetic.

Because some studies show slightly MORE than 50%
there can be agreement there is a TENDENCY,
but this cannot be proven or disproven to be a choice
or to be changeable or unchangeable, which depends on each person.
Thus it remains FAITH-BASED and the state cannot assume one side over the other.

The most I can see people agreeing on both sides
1. that gender/orientation involves spiritual factors
2. these may or may not change (some people believe it's all natural, all unnatural, none can change,
or all could change, but statistics will show that BOTH types of cases occur of people reporting changing or not changing)
3. that people have different BELIEFS about this

Even if we can't agree on the CONTENT or justification/reasons for our beliefs,
even if we can never completely prove one side or the other,
we CAN agree that both sets of beliefs are equally valid under law,
since NEITHER can be 100% proven or not proven but BOTH remain faith based,
so that the state must remain neutral and write laws in ways that are biased
NEITHER for OR against one side's beliefs or another''s.

On issues like this that touch on people's Personal beliefs that remain faith-based/unproven,
If people can't agree how to write laws neutrally, then don't pass laws at all. keep beliefs in private.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you are referring to; Person with ambiguous political paradigms. i am on the federal left as clearly indicated for your political ease and convenience.

What you are is an idiot

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

 

[Misty]

I believe in equality.

There is no such thing as equality. If there were we would all be rich and gorgeous.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear danielpalos
But by the SAME token, nor can the State discriminate by CREED.
If some people believe in gay weddings and some people don't,
and for some it's even AGAINST their beliefs like abortion is,
then the State cannot constitutionally endorse such a practice,
any more than dictating if Wiccan's can chant this or that at their weddings.
That should remain a private practice and not written EITHER WAY into state laws,
neither establishing it nor prohibiting it by Amendment One.

If there is a religious issue of bias, like how some Christians reject Buddhism and some don't,
that's up to Buddhists and Christians to work out with each other and resolve those conflicts in teaching.

It is not for the state to endorse Buddhist weddings, Christians weddings etc.

Some of the Left opponents are just as ignorant that these beliefs in traditional marriage
count as a belief.

They see their belief as "what is right anyway" and the other beliefs as wrong.
But they get mad if Christians push their beliefs as right anyway, and other beliefs are wrong.

Beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage are still beliefs.
These are faith based, unproven, and up to the free choice of the individual.

it is as WRONG to discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is natural and to be accepted,
as it is to discriminate against people who believe homosexual is unnatural and to be avoided or corrected.
And if people don't agree, then you stay away and don't do business with such people.

The left wants to stay away from Christians and keep that out of the govt.
Why can't the same be done when it comes to THEIR beliefs?
Why the double standard?

how is that NOT violating Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the laws
from discrimination by creed? especially if you are going to say it is wrongful
to discriminate against pro-gay beliefs, the same law says it is wrongful to discriminate against beliefs against gay marriage.

You can't make people believe in that, or make people endorse something through the PUBLIC LAWS AND GOVT
.without violating
1. establishment clause of the First Amendment
2. Equal protection of the laws by the Fourteenth Amendment
3. protection against discrimination by CREED (loosely worded under Civil Rights Act)
4. Liberals and Democrats own principles of "separation of church and state"

You seem to missing the point about Commerce; it is not any form of Religious belief. For-profit Firms are required to justify a profit; unlike not for profit Firms.

There can be no appeal to ignorance 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. States have their State equivalents.

 

[kaz]

What you are is an idiot

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost