Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

It will be eventually directly added, watch and see.
Furthermore, equal treatment is already enshrined in the constitution via the IV amendment

And again — even if it never is. Rights once granted are virtually impossible to remove and popular approval pays a huge part.
The more people see their neighbor, co-worker, friend, family members married in a same sex union the more people will support it — there is a very good reason why approval has pretty much gone up every single year — the propaganda is failing.

Still waiting on your source from this decade...
Let me guess, cannot find one can you?

 

So you’re asserting that Jesus meant for people who were impotent not to marry?

 

I started a whole thread on this. By your logic, we must legalize murder. Many people view murder as wrong based on their religious teachings.

 

I am not asserting anything — I am using biblical researchers as the experts on the subject.
What I take from the bible is an overall allegory.

It doesn’t mean homosexuality though — at least nothing points to that; but feel free to reenforce your narrative how you see fit.
Even if it is twisting the words of Jesus Christ.

 

Murder has a secular argument, it deprives another of life.
Try again.

 

Long before there was an "assignment", as in creating a record, of whether a person is male or female it was always based on seeing the person's genitals and people had no idea what a chromosome or a gene was. Mothers looked at their newborn infant and said, "It's a boy," or, "It's a girl!" That was pretty universal.

In fact, I am going to start referring to men who have their genitals surgically removed as eunuchs because that's what they are. That's the only thing they can ever be. They're no more woman than is a blow-up doll.

 

No it won’t. Because the only way to do so would be to amend the constitution which will never happen in this regard because you’ll never have enough support. Hence why you folks never want to take a vote on the issue because you know you’ll get destroyed in a voting booth.

And will I find a study that asserts that males who have sex with young males are actually heterosexual? Lol no probably not because it’s an absurd premise. As soon as I finish with CrossFit though I’ll be happy to fine a more recent study. Which is pretty ironic given that your sources ranged from 1948-1994. But nevertheless. I’ll be happy to prove you wrong again.

 

You mean like abortion?

 

Then you admit that the exclusion of arguments that stem from religion is not a valid argument. When you debate right and wrong, leave religion out of it.

 

You must have that new, living, version of the Constitution. I only have the First Edition, with Amendments so I can't find that "freedom from religion" reference. Can you provide the quote?

 

I wouldn’t hold my breath

 

Correct, just like abortion.

 

You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. If you didn’t have freedom from religion then a dominant religion — think Islam — could come in and demand the death of all non-belivers.

 

If you are asking if laws should be based on secular points then yes, I agree. Religion should be something that is personal — not forced unto others.

 

The ONLy thing the constitution says about religion is that CONGRESS... let me say it again... CONGRESS cannot enact legislation prohibiting or establishing religion.

How do you come to the conclusion that means ANYTHING other than CONGRESS, not local or state give, not schools, not orgs that take state money... cannot create a law which establishes or prohibits a religion?

 

We will have to agree to disagree then. Constitutional amendments do not require votes btw.

Let me try and explain why your data is invalid from the moment it begins.

Lets assume you have 1000 men in the study, 50 of those men identify as homosexual and the remainder identify as heterosexual (there would be some bisexual’s in the group statistically but we will eliminate them as a variable.) Lets say all 50 men that identify has homosexual have harmed a male child — so that is an incident rate of 100%. Lets then say that 100 of the men that identify as heterosexual have harmed a male child.

In all of your studies, the men that identify as heterosexual would be added to the homosexual group without increasing the self identified homosexual population group itself. Meaning you now have an incident rate of 300% — this figure is not possible.

That is the issue with all of these studies, they assume 2% - 4.5% are homosexual but then lump all men that identify as heterosexual into the group. It is a variable bias — which means the entire study is invalid. Even if you have the same group above and 0 homosexuals have abused a male child but 50 heterosexuals have abused a male child, your results would still arrive at a 100% incident rate that homosexual men have abused a child — which is false.

Further complicated is that self assessment is a relatively poor method for determining how many people exist in a population group that faces significant stigma.

 

The courts disagree — https://www.learnreligions.com/does-the-first-amendment-apply-to-states-249667 as do most religious organizations as they would immediately be shut down or taxed in numerous states.

 

You can tax them but then you have to allow them to advocate for one party or another as well as participate in lobbying. Which I promise you don’t want to do.

But regardless, I’m fully aware of what the courts said. I want to know how you extrapolate out “the entire government and any entity that takes government funding” from the word CONGRESS. opinions from the court can be overturned if there’s not constitutional justification for their position. Which there is none.

 

As someone that was raised southern baptist — they already do.
Didn’t trump just hold a rally at a mega church?

If the states must comply with religious protections then they also have the same limitations.

 

Constitutionally they have no obligation to do so unless their state constitution says otherwise.

 

Oh and you folks don’t have any problem with using the churches for voting stations do ya?

 

Original intent was that states were sovereign and, other than the explicit limitations in the US Constitution, can do what they choose. If you don't like the laws in your state, either move or work to change them.

 

So it's not in your living Constitution, either?

No national religion is not the same as freedom from religion. If you're protected from seeing a church or a church's cross on the side of the highway, then I should be protected from your anti-religion speech. The Constitution protects neither of us from that.

Since there can be no national religion created by Congress, and who else could have the authority to do such a thing if it weren't blocked in the Constitution, then no religion can come in and demand death from infidels. Other laws, such as those against murder, already prevent any religion from coming in and demanding the death of all non-believers.

Freedom from religion is a nonsensical concept not supported in any way by the Constitution.

 

Is the earth flat? Actually, the term scientific theory is exactly my point. Science doesn't know Schiff.

I think of Men in Black and the "Universe" that was on a necklace the dog wore. Prove there isn't such a thing. Prove that our universe isn't a piece of an electron on someone else's atom in their universe... I'm not saying that such a thing is true, of course, but we actually know so little about physics and the big-picture universe that any claim of science holds about as much sway as a claim that "the supreme court said". Think of how we went from a "universe" to now the "multiverse" because scientists finally admitted there has to be something even more. How about a billion trillion universes?

Science does continuously learn - what it learns is how wrong it was previously. What it will continue to learn is how wrong it was today.

I get it. It's great stuff when it works for us and our theories yield a lot of reproducible results that we take advantage of to the benefit of mankind. But it's still just theories.

 

Once again, show any example of oral homosexual or anal homosexual sex other than in humans. It doesn't happen in nature.