Roy Moore stands with homophobic supporters

People have the right to believe as they want to or as there religion dictates. If you don't like it ,so what? Standards within society change, and people have the right to fight such change. Now you can jump up and down and try to dismiss their right because to you it is hatred, but that is just your opinion. The trouble arises when you try to tell others what they should believe, which is what you believe, and force those beliefs on them. You have no right to do that nor does anyone else. Both sides do this. Yet the other side has a right to be represented and this is what you have a problem with. Tough shi*t.

 

Its not dismissed because its hatred (willreadmore says the right to hate is respected) , its dismissed because it is blatant discrimination that corrupts both the equal protection and due process rights of a class of citizens.

 

Pretty much like it does today.

Ignore it if you don't like it.

 

Good!

Allowing same sex couples to marry has nothing to do with "forcing" "beliefs" on you. So, we don't have to worry about that. You can marry members of different races, colors, genders, etc.

I may not like or respect what goes on in your head, but as long as it doesn't impact the rights of others, fine.

OK?

 

Marriage isn't there, either.

Because SCOTUS ruled and we're a nation of laws.

 

And this is what I was saying. I can believe that gay marriage is a sin. I have that right. And pro gay marriage people cannot force their belief on me. And I have a right to speak out against it, and even elect someone who believes as I do. This is the democratic process and a republic But we all obey the law of the land, regardless if we like it or not. Render unto Caesar...

 

Sure it does, throughout this countries history marriage was always between a man and women until progressives perverted it.

 

Well, what if folks believe the wrong things? Shouldn't we have a Federal Ministry of Truth to make sure folks don't start believing things that aren't true?

And we can have them rate our candidates for high office, you know, against how closely their beliefs conform with true beliefs.

Hillary for example, she knew all the true stuff!

 

They are not impeding according to the Trump administration. ICE can continue in investigate, detain and deport in these cities. Matter of fact the Trump administration promises more vigorous enforcement in these cities. Its all good. The cities and states are refusing to be conscripted as agents of the federal government.

 

nope. It forces government licenses to be issued regardless of belief, just as it does with interracial marriage, but it does not force beliefs at all. Trust me, plenty of folks successfully believe a white man and a black woman should not marry, and homosexuals cannot be really married. Social and legal change happens in societies. Once upon a time folks said "throughout this countries history voting was a mans right, and throughout this countries history a contract to sell a slave was honored.

 

True.

Of course, those you elect also have no right to restrict the behavior of others without having a justification that passes judicial review.

There is still a lot to do. More than half of the 10-c and ALL of the "Seven Deadly Sins" are not enforced by law.

Christians have a LOT to promote if they should choose to.



What I don't understand is that Christians in Alabama seem to hold partisanship above their very own laws against sexual predators.

 

Like we "perverted" the law on slavery to be counter to what was accepted in the bible?

NO, we should celebrate the fact that our society moves toward the ideals set forth by our constitution.

 

Which, of course, was law. Just because it is law doesn’t mean it is right.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure they're aware of the immigration status of those they're deliberately inviting into their jurisdictions by illegally declaring them "Sanctuaries".

And why exactly would I do that, when my claim relates not to court cases, but to federal law? Hmmmm?

I have absolute faith in your ability to assume whatever keeps your conceits alive.

 

Suppose I don't agree with the laws regarding murder; does that mean that the laws on murder don't have to be upheld by people who don't agree with them?

 

If you don't agree with the law, then work to change it to your working.

 

Of course, what's that got to do with immigration?

 

First of all kudos for posting the defintion in the dictionary. You are the first liberal I've ever seen do it.

Now let's read what the definition says:

existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)

Homosexuality is not formed by nature. There is zero genetic evidence to support such a claim. Homosexuality exists in nature but not formed by nature. You gotta read the entire line of the definition bro.

If you are claiming that its mere existence in nature which isn't the entire definition is enough then you must think rape, incest, cannibalism, etc are also natural. Do you? Because that would be a requirement based on your understanding of that definition.

Let's read Merriam Webster for a more precise definition of nature as it references homosexuality:


Definition of nature
1a :the inherent character or basic constitution (see constitution 2) of a person or thing :essence

• 
  
  
  • the nature of the controversy

b :disposition, temperament

• 
  
  
  • it was his nature to look after others
  • —F. A. Swinnerton

• 
  
  
  • her romantic nature

:a creative and controlling force in the universe:an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual
3:a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics

• 
  
  
  • documents of a confidential nature

• 
  
  
  • acts of a ceremonial nature

4:the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially :an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature
:a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
:the external world in its entirety
:humankind's original or natural condition
b :a simplified mode of life resembling this condition

• 
  
  
  • escape from civilization and get back to nature

8:the genetically controlled qualities of an organism

• 
  
  
  • nature … modified by nurture
  • —E. G. Conklin

9:natural scenery

• 
  
  
  • enjoyed the beauties of nature

This is the real reference when making the argument about homosexuality being natural.

The existence of something in nature does not make it natural any more than you throwing a ball in nature makes it a natural act.

We are talking about a psychological condition of a person not a biological state of being.

 

When they pass a law saying you have to turn in all your guns you'll be the first one doing just that, right?

 

What rights? Do you believe marriage is a right for all people? Answer the question.

 

Irrelevant post dismissed

 

Now you get it.

 

Solid logic.

 

Well, you still haven't - I am not a lib or a con.

Then neither is heterosexuality. If you are arguing that a psychological condition is not natural...then heterosexuality is not natural as it is a psychological condition.

Word of advice, you should never say 'there is zero evidence' because it is IMPOSSBILE for you to know all of the evidence in the entire world about something. If I say I think homosexuality is natural...that IS evidence. It is not great evidence. But it IS evidence.

Then neither is heterosexuality.

You are the one who - I assume - is claiming heterosexuality is natural. But if homosexuality - which DOES exist in nature between animals - is not natural because it is a 'psychological condition' and not a 'thing'. Than - by your own argument - neither heterosexuality OR homosexuality exists in nature.

I am not saying I agree that both do not exist in nature...but for arguments sake, I will go with it.

I will give you credit, though for your response...unemotional and logical (if flawed, IMO). Rather rare around here.

 

I don't don't doubt you can quote some statutory language. I was hoping that what you had was binding appellate decisions upholding that statutory language that you want to quote, as constitutionally compelling state and municipal employees to do squat, or report squat to ICE. Its not the words I want, its the court decision affirming them as binding on those state government entities.