Edgetho
Platinum Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 15,986
- 7,215
You posted without swearing
I didn't know you had it in you.
Actually, she had it in her......
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You posted without swearing
I didn't know you had it in you.
How did you possibly not get that?2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]
Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
How did you possibly not get that?2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]
Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
Voting and a judiciary that acts as a stop gap against the tyranny of the majority.
Not all beliefs are equally compatible with the will of the electorate or the constitution. Those that are are enforced. Those that aren't are discarded. Says who? Says us. Either directly or through our representatives.1. Well what if "us" is divided by BELIEF: such as right to life wanting to impose that through govt instead of free choice,
or right to health care wanting to impose that through govt instead of free choice.
Wouldn't the more inclusive policy that ALLOWS FREE CHOICE of both ways be the moire universal?
The same way we allow PROCHOICE to be the law because it still allows people to practice prolife and prevent abortion,
why can't FREE MARKET be the law because it still allows people the choice to set up their own mandated programs
if they want to mandate insurance for their members under that track.
And as for marriage, wouldn't civil unions and secular contracts be the most inclusive means of covering all cases through the states, and allowing the equal and free exercise of people who believe in either gay marriage, traditional or both on a private level without imposing on anyone's beliefs on a state level.
Wouldn't the public level be the most neutral that allows all other beliefs to be practiced in private, and not favor one over others.
2. As for personal beliefs that are a choice, such as religion and now beliefs about marriage, health care, etc.
These are NEVER the jurisdiction of federal gov to dictate.
The problem we have is certain beliefs are about govt itself, thus impossible to "separate belief,
s from govt."
Since they cannot be separated, then I am saying to either AGREE how to write the laws where they accommodate
BOTH beliefs; or else separate by party where they can be implemented on a national level similar to federal, but
through separately funded and administrated private programs so nobody's beliefs are imposed on others of the other group.
2.skylar said:Sure it is. As 'contesting' something doesn't mean what they are claiming is accurate. You're accepting any belief as factually valid. And the basis of changing our laws. You've imagined mere belief of any individual on any topic to be the supreme arbiter of all law and constitutionality.
That's simply not the case. Nor ever has been. Not in our era, not in the era of the founders.1. I was saying they have the right to petition and to defend their beliefs and representation.
I agree this should NOT be abused or "assumed" to mean any belief is endorsed by law!
That's not what I am implying at all.
In fact, if all groups, dissenters and their objections are heard, this PREVENTS any one belief from being imposed
because the other objections/dissension will be taken into account to check and balance that.
So if democratic processes are facilitated correctly, these conflicts are resolved. and abuses are prevented.
2. However I will still hold that NOBODY should be required to prove their personal beliefs in order to be protected.
You should not have to PROVE what you believe about gay marriage or traditional marriage in order to DEFEND
your right to practice that in private. It's only when this was pushed in public, that both sides started trying to discredit or demean the other, when they are EQUALLY FAITH BASED, and should be treated as private without having to justify why someone believes in that or not.
skylar said:The first amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress. It doesn't guarantee that any charge, belief or allegation will be accepted and any resolution demanded will be provided. You're equating the government rejecting an allegation as invalid as being the same as the government refusing to hear a petition.
They aren't the same thing. And its only the latter that is constitutionally valid. Which is why your argument doesn't work.
This is a major problem with govt.
This is too easily abused to censor petitions, so it's like the saying justice delayed is justice denied.
By my First Amendment beliefs in isonomy, I hold that people are the govt, so we share responsibility for
redressing our own grievances. This ensures equal protection of the laws to empower all people on that level.
I may not be able to enforce this interpretation except where people accept equal responsibility for govt.
But I can argue that FAILING TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Because it would allow one party protection of the laws, while the other is denied protections while they petition!
So if corporate abuse of govt resources and authority destroys a historic district, and gets away with it while the residents are still "trying to petition" to defend their historic churches destroyed and
campus plans censored by abuse of taxpayer money,
then that is STILL VIOLATING THEIR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS to equal protection of the laws.
They can petition "after the fact" or try to "prove in advance that harm would be caused" but this requires
LEGAL RESOURCES on the same level of the influence that corporate interests have with govt.
So I am arguing it is NOT enough just to say someone has the right to petition.
That is NOT ENOUGH to protect people equally under law where corporate developers have more legal and political influence than individuals without equal legal resources to defend their consent and interests.
That is why I push for CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED to be the standard of enforcing law,
so that the "due process" is not hijacked, skewed, abused, manipulated, obstructed or censored
by people who are deliberately seeking to violate the consent of others.
Because this level of law enforcement, by its nature, must be consented to in order to be consistent with its
own arguments, it requires public education so people can make the choice of consent as the standard.
Otherwise, the system as is can always be abused to oppress others by skewing due process to violate equal
rights and consent of others. If consent is the standard, then all grievances and complaints should be addressed
and resolved to prevent any such abuses. That is the standard I find more consistent, which I recommend to others.
ethics-commission.net
As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage
I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this
Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?
Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.
Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.
But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!
How did you possibly not get that?2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]
Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
You posted without swearing
I didn't know you had it in you.
Actually, she had it in her......
HappyJoyHow did you possibly not get that?2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]
Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
Free expressions of religion are already legal.
If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.
See how that works?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.
See how that works?
Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't
How did you possibly not get that?2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]
Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.
Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.
Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.
I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.
And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
Ok guno so why doesn't the establishment clause applyI am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Yes the establishment clause applys
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Yes the establishment clause applys
I believe in equality.
Can equality be established in more than one way:
1. letting all citizens have civil unions, custody and estate contracts through the state
while letting marriages be kept in private so people are free to exercise their beliefs at will without political interference
2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).
If there is equality for homosexuality and gay marriage included in public policy,
is there equality for Christianity and the Christmas culture included in public policy?
Are you for equality for everyone's beliefs, or just your own Luddly Neddite