Then explain how it can be fair to those who are not heterosexual if they are denied equal rights under secular law.
They aren't denied anything at all. They absolutely have the right to form that relationship we're talking about, that is acknowledged, encouraged and rewarded by the state.
I hope I can assume here btw that there is no higher spiritual goal here and we're dealing with simply making the best for all, out of this one life we know we have, and we're not seeking to please gods or to conform to anyone’s doctrine.
This is paranoia, you realize.
I have never denied anyone’s right to vote, what I do object to is interested alliances (say Christians) combining forces to oppress those (gays) who don’t happen to comply with their non-secular doctrine.
Yes you have. You've consistently argued for limiting government entirely to the secular.
I disagree, by all means vote for the best secular candidate iyo but he/she should be there to do a secular job not to be used as a Trojan Horse for a non-secular doctrine.
For example.
lain:
If there are good current secular reasons to deny gays equal rights then let’s see them in a manifesto, let’s give them a mandate, then I will shut up.
You're too much to bigot to realize these secular reasons for the government denying the validity of homosexual marriage are already out there. They all over the place. You're unaware of them because you're a bigot. When someone relays these concepts you're deaf to them.
A very right wing Christian based secular majority perhaps? Who just might want to lock up and even execute gays from what I’ve been gathering, once they win the secular vote of course?
Hold on, now you're admitting there are secular arguments for denying gay marriage and even outlawing homosexual sex? :dizzy:
And if it's secular, as you say here, what's your complaint then? :liberals:
I agree. Because I support the Establishment Clause of our Constitution. Not the hyper-inflated, utterly irrational and distorted perversion of that simple concept that's poisoning your brain atm.
Then let’s see the secular reasoning as to why gays should be discriminated against and then get a mandate for it in an election, rather than sneaking it through the back door. Make it an open issue based on current secular facts not ancient scripture. :AMR:
Great. Go listen to what people are actually saying on the other side of this issue. Because they provide "secular" reasoning for that all day long. :idunno:
No sadly I don’t suppose it does for you.
The idea that it just might be possible for majorities and minorities to coexist without the majority thinking they have the God-given right to lock up minorities for what they may prefer to do in private is perhaps confusing for you?
This clearly doesn't translate that confusing quote at all. But since this is what you offer, I'll respond.
Of course it's not possible for those supporting a law and those opposing it to coexist without those breaking that law being punished. But you're being irrational to insist here that passing any particular law means all those that opposed it being passed are automatically guilty of breaking it somehow.
lain:
You seem to see nothing wrong with using a secular office to carry out non-secular doctrine. :liberals:
Again, how does this answer what you quoted? You're very confused!
No, I wasn’t saying that at all,
Yes it is. You insist government and legislation specifically must be strictly secular. That's impossible in a democracy where everyone has the right to vote as they wish.
everyone has the right to do whatever they want with their own vote imo, even vote for a homophobic bigot, but that doesn’t make homophobic bigotry any more right or just.
Hence a secular government, as you understand it anyway, being utterly impossible.
No again I’m not saying that at all and you probably know it.
If the vote was for a religious doctrine that may be one thing but on secular issues you simply don’t have the right or a mandate to impose your religious doctrine on others without your society becoming a theocracy.
Of course that's what you're saying. You just said it again immediately thereafter.
And yet that violates your secular government you keep harping about.
I don’t know how you worked that one out Mary? :liberals:
Merriam-Webster: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance"
Then explain to me with evidence exactly how discriminating against gay people is justified in a modern secular society, without referring to ancient doctrine. :sherlock:
No. Why should I? I could but that's entirely beside the point. I have the right to vote based entirely and exclusively on any old ancient doctrine I like. You don't get to tell me or anyone else that they don't.
That's the point.
Again I have never denied that anyone has the right to vote however they wish, why do you keep saying otherwise?
No, you're right. You changed your position to limiting what elected officials can do now. Because that's more reasonable and less tyrannical.
lain:
I’m actually saying that in a vote in secular society the issues are secular or at least should be. If you have secular issues with gays then let’s hear about them before the vote else you have no mandate. However simply citing religious doctrine is frankly not secular nor good enough afaic.
So you limit all issues strictly to the secular and all votes strictly to the secular. And thus you restrict the democratic voting rights of everyone. Which is tyrannical.
This is just a straw man, I’m simply talking about what the winner is mandated to do in a secular society election, not that you have to restrict your voting options in any way in how to vote, I’m not trying to tell you how to think.
:doh:
Oh, okay. So now you'll allow us to vote for whomever we like, you'll just limit what that person can do once they're voted into office.
lain:
You know what? I actually agree with this general idea. And we have that already. It's called the constitution. I'll thank you to limit yourself to that as well, rather than the tyranny you propose.
What I am saying is that just because you are in a majority who was successful in voting in a candidate with your religious leanings does not then mean you have any justification or mandate for imposing supposed diktats from your ancient scripture on gay people or others. If you really want to do that, then find some rational secular reasons for controlling what gays do, get a mandate or simply shut up and leave them alone.
Done. Already done. Those rational secular reasons are out there. They're right here on this forum. But you're blind to them because you're a bigot.
And even if they weren't, wouldn't matter. We all have the right to vote based on anything at all. We can vote based on the horoscope or tossing bones if we like. You don't get to say we can't either.
For goodness sakes Mary this was never about the right to vote it was about what could be done justifiably in a secular society after the vote, but you really don’t get it do you? Winner takes all and gets to impose on all is how you see it perhaps?
If you happen to be gay too then you will always be in the minority, just hard luck and tough I suppose, and then the fundies don't want you to have civil partnerships never mind be married, they'd rather like to lock you up though.
lain:
We have a constitution. I support that and agree with it. You're the one arguing for more and broader controls in support of your agenda. And, yes, you absolutely did argue to limit the votes of others entirely to the secular. And here again you argue for limiting the actions of those voted into government entirely to the secular. That's tyrannical.
*****
The simple fact that you should have caught onto by now is that you cannot have this secular government of yours without limiting the democratic rights of the people. You simply can't. And never mind your vague, dangerously undefined concept of what is and isn't secular or how in the world you'd ever enforce such a thing.
We have a clause in the constitution right now that prevents (or should) our government from respecting any particular establishment of religion over any other. That is all that is required.
What you propose is tyranny. Pure and simple.
