Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

[emilynghiem]

Sorry again, PeePee but NO. Would you hire a person with a social degree for an engineering position? No! Is that discrimination? No, it is simply common sense. For THOUSANDS of years, "marriage" was defined as a legal union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the express purpose of trying to have a family and bring young ones into this world. Each parent lent an aspect to the guidance and upbringing of the children; the masculine influence as well as the feminine. One was nurturing/protective while the other taught how to go out and battle the world.

Only within the past few years has the term marriage been perverted and devalued to mean any two fucking idiots who want to live together just because they have an emotional bond. Gay people don't need marriage to have a legal civil bond, but whatever changes made to the semantics of the laws you can NEVER be truly "married," you will never have children of your own nor ever raise a family.

Your whole complaint seems based on the "unfairness" of this or that situation; life was never meant to be fair: I can't give birth, I'll never be an athlete. I can't dance, and a whole lot of other things. You are a square peg bitching that you can't fit into the round holes of the world. Sorry, but not all holes (ahem) were meant for you. That isn't discrimination, that is merely life.

Nice rant based on nothing but logical fallacies such as an appeal to tradition and a false dichotomy not to mention an appeal to ignorance. One could drown the pile of horseshit. An there is absolutely no legal basis for your so call argument.

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

The notion of marriage as a sacrament, and not just a contract, can be traced to St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth-century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance didn't exist until medieval times and the troubadours.

Pope Nicholas I declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void." This shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of both church teaching and marriage laws through the years.

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

Leviticus 18 universally outlaws men laying with men as with women, with this being a capital crime, (Lv. 18:22; 20:13), with an additional separate prohibition evidently forbidding homosexual religious prostitution. Homosexual behavior was especially manifest in Rome and Greece at that time, but which was and is a historical constant among all peoples, in differing but deleterious forms, and with different degrees of moral degeneration being realized. For the follower of the Bible therefore, homosexuality is not new, nor unexpected, but neither is it justified, rather it is unequivocally condemned, while God is revealed as giving man grace to resist and overcome sin. (Gn. 4:7; Ja. 1:12-15' 1Cor. 6:9-11)

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

And likewise TheProgressivePatriot
we can keep all the LGBT beliefs out of govt and public policy as well.
By keeping those beliefs as personal individual choices instead
of mandating beliefs as required public policy for everyone regardless
if their beliefs are different or in conflict. Sorry you cannot see
that both sets of beliefs are equally faith based creeds. And Govt
should NEVER be abused to discriminate against one creed or another!

Both sides should either AGREE to INCLUDE both their "gobbledy gook arguments"
in public policy, or AGREE these DON'T BELONG in Govt and remove BOTH.

But to implement one while denying the other is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

If you can't handle both equally, then agree to REMOVE BOTH.
and spare me all the gobbledy gook arguments back and forth
that aren't going to change anyone's mind from one belief to the other.
Govt cannot compel people to change their beliefs much less
penalize them by law if they don't. So why do this to others
if you don't like this done to you. Both should stop and recognize
nobody is going to change their beliefs nor is required to by govt,
or it's abuse and harassment and discrimination by creed.

You might have noticed that I have been ignoring you, as has most others here. No one has the time or patience to deal with your convoluted logorrhea. Try to stop telling others what they should believe and tell us in some sort of straight forward manner -preferably using bullet points what you believe .

While we are at it, what the hell are "LGBT beliefs" and what do you mean by keeping out of government.? And who the hell is "mandating beliefs " How is that possible? Beliefs happen between your own two ears and no body can tell you what to believe. Gay rights , like all rights are about behavior, It's about how we treat each other. It's about how we treat people who are in some way different than us.

"Sorry you cannot see that both sets of beliefs are equally faith based creeds." Faith based creeds ? Seriously? Both sides? That reminds me of the Orange Ogre saying that there were "fine people on both sides" after Charlottesville. You seem to be saying that to deny bigots a voice in public policy is is discrimination? Get out of my life , please!​

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
thank you for asking a question I can answer:
What I mean by LGBT beliefs is
* the belief that LGBT orientation or identity is natural or born and not a choice and/or cannot be changed
* the belief that LGBT orientation or identity is a choice of behavior that can or should be changed
* any combination or variation of one of the above

Do you agree that people who BELIEVE that homosexual orientation or transgender identity is a DISORDER should keep THEIR BELIEFS out of govt to prevent from discriminating against people who believe it is natural born and cannot be changed?

Do you understand these people EQUALLY ask for related LGBT beliefs to be kept out of govt as well.

That's what I mean by LGBT beliefs, so this includes
BOTH sides and treats them EQUALLY under law, neither ESTABLISHING NOR PROHIBITING either one.

 

[Toro]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

People who think LGBTQ have a mental disorder have a mental disorder.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

Homosexuality also exists among animals and nature. Maybe you should spend your free time analyzing them and leave humans alone.

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

So we are non-thinking animals. Killing is common among animals and is considered natural. Tens of thousands of species live in the ocean, should we? Thousands of species eat plants that would kill us, should we? We have species that make their homes in manure, there you go!

No a very strong thought process there.

Creatures tend to hunt for food or to protect their young.
Republicans go out looking for people to attack. Blacks, Hispanics, gays..........they have a very long list of people they want to attack.

A pie chart with the suicide statistics among the LGBTQ community might have been more relevant but we know you and relevant don't mix

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

People who think LGBTQ have a mental disorder have a mental disorder.

I guess I'm a retard then because I know you freaks are off the charts mental

 

[francoHFW]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

Homosexuality also exists among animals and nature. Maybe you should spend your free time analyzing them and leave humans alone.

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

So we are non-thinking animals. Killing is common among animals and is considered natural. Tens of thousands of species live in the ocean, should we? Thousands of species eat plants that would kill us, should we? We have species that make their homes in manure, there you go!

No a very strong thought process there.

Creatures tend to hunt for food or to protect their young.
Republicans go out looking for people to attack. Blacks, Hispanics, gays..........they have a very long list of people they want to attack.

A pie chart with the suicide statistics among the LGBTQ community might have been more relevant but we know you and relevant don't mix

Thanks to discrimination from bigoted Republicans.

 

[francoHFW]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

People who think LGBTQ have a mental disorder have a mental disorder.

I guess I'm a retard then because I know you freaks are off the charts mental

I think I will go with psychiatrists and psychologists who think you are an a******.

 

[Toro]

I guess I'm a retard

"Guessing" isn't necessary.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I guess I'm a retard

"Guessing" isn't necessary.

Isn't it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you agree that people who BELIEVE that homosexual orientation or transgender identity is a DISORDER should keep THEIR BELIEFS out of govt to prevent from discriminating against people who believe it is natural born and cannot be changed?

Yes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you understand these people EQUALLY ask for related LGBT beliefs to be kept out of govt as well.

That that is the essence of you problem. You think that all "beliefs ": are equal. They are not. A role of government is to guard against discrimination. Those who would abuse and discriminate do not get equal time or a seat at the table. By "kept out of government" You seem to mean that they should be given free reign to discriminate, unconstrained by the law. That is your Libertarian/ Anarchistic world view that I am getting g from you that I cannot endorse. You can't say that everyone is right and can be accommodated.

 

[Moonglow]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

People who think LGBTQ have a mental disorder have a mental disorder.

I guess I'm a retard then because I know you freaks are off the charts mental

Normal people don't go to prison.. See how easy it is to judge people and play semantics?

 

[Ame®icano]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

Don't know if I answered this before TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).

2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)

3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.

Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."

For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.

So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!

You're comparing marriage and religion.

Can you point where in Constitution is mentioned marriage, as is religion?

Ame®icano
I'm saying Marriage like Baptism or other religious rites
is INCLUDED under "free exercise of religion."

I'm saying it isn't a separate right like Gun Rights or Voting Rights
that are established by Constitutional process of passing Amendments ratified by States,
not created by judicial rulings or passed by Congress without Amending the Constitution.

Where does it say that marriage is free exercise of religion?

 

[Ame®icano]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

According to the Article 1. Section 1. of the Constitution, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.". Courts cannot make the law out of thin air, that's Congress job.

The court does not write laws. Granted, they issue binding precedents that determine what the law means and whether or not it is constitutional. Those rulings do indeed alter the legal landscape and effect countless lives. But every court case-every ruling starts with a law that was passed by a legislative body, AND that was then challenged by someone effected by that law. Without the oversite role of the courts ,the people would have no recourse except for the lengthy and uncertain process of getting rid of the elected officials who voted for the law.

And you can say with the straight face that IS the case with Kennedy's ruling on ACA when he rewrote penalty into a tax? And if what you say is true, than how Roe v. Wade is constitutional?

 

[Papageorgio]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

Homosexuality also exists among animals and nature. Maybe you should spend your free time analyzing them and leave humans alone.

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

So we are non-thinking animals. Killing is common among animals and is considered natural. Tens of thousands of species live in the ocean, should we? Thousands of species eat plants that would kill us, should we? We have species that make their homes in manure, there you go!

No a very strong thought process there.

Creatures tend to hunt for food or to protect their young.
Republicans go out looking for people to attack. Blacks, Hispanics, gays..........they have a very long list of people they want to attack.

A pie chart with the suicide statistics among the LGBTQ community might have been more relevant but we know you and relevant don't mix

Thanks to discrimination from bigoted Republicans.

Why should we believe you when we have caught you lying?

 

[emilynghiem]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

According to the Article 1. Section 1. of the Constitution, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.". Courts cannot make the law out of thin air, that's Congress job.

The court does not write laws. Granted, they issue binding precedents that determine what the law means and whether or not it is constitutional. Those rulings do indeed alter the legal landscape and effect countless lives. But every court case-every ruling starts with a law that was passed by a legislative body, AND that was then challenged by someone effected by that law. Without the oversite role of the courts ,the people would have no recourse except for the lengthy and uncertain process of getting rid of the elected officials who voted for the law.

And you can say with the straight face that IS the case with Kennedy's ruling on ACA when he rewrote penalty into a tax? And if what you say is true, than how Roe v. Wade is constitutional?

Dear Ame®icano
1. The Supreme Court ruling that "rewrote" the ACA passed as a public health bill but "interpreted" it as a tax bill did not follow Constitutional process that requires the SAME bill to be passed by Congress and ruled on by Courts. The bill as ruled on by the Court would NOT have passed through Congress as a "tax bill."

ACA is arguably unconstitutional because of this and other conflicts that failed to meet Constitutional requirements on process.

If it is argued that the Court had the power to rule on the ACA "as a tax bill" BECAUSE it was ARGUED and PRESENTED to the Court as such, this means the vote should ALSO be retallied through Congress on the ACA "as a tax bill."

I agree with you, that you cannot have it both ways; if the same bill doesn't pass through both Congress and Courts, then it fails to meet Constitutional standards and process.

The reason this bill is so divisive is that it involves political BELIEFS about health care through govt; and giving authority to federal govt to decide a matter of beliefs is in itself unconstitutional unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed granting federal govt that power.

2. Roe V. Wade struck down a state law banning abortions largely because the government could not investigate or prosecute without violating "substantive due process".
It does NOT serve any legislative function of "making abortion legal" which is still the function of legislatures.

Similarly with the ruling on "gay marriage" -- striking down a ban on same sex marriage is within judicial authority, by finding it unconstitutional or discriminatory.
However, writing a law endorsing same sex marriage would be a function of the legislature.

From my understanding of the liberal approach to government, it means being able to pass any laws or reform by majority-rule unless and until it is struck down by the courts. Since this approach does not respect limits on government by enforcing Constitutional laws directly, it merely relies on "judicial rulings" to decide what is Constitutional or not.

Thus, it becomes a different political belief system or political religion in contrast to
Constitutionalism by which it is ALREADY a violation of law to breach limits, separation of, and checks and balances on powers.

With the liberal approach, not until a Court rules on it is this proven or disproven to be constitutional or unconstitutional.

 

[emilynghiem]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

People who think LGBTQ have a mental disorder have a mental disorder.

Dear Toro
In the cases of Pedophiles or Gender Dysphoria,
yes, there are mental disorders involved.

Some cases ARE unnatural where the individuals seek help for unwanted attractions or addictions.

This doesn't mean ALL cases are.
And the cases that aren't like this doesn't mean that ALL cases are natural and healthy either!

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you understand these people EQUALLY ask for related LGBT beliefs to be kept out of govt as well.

That that is the essence of you problem. You think that all "beliefs ": are equal. They are not. A role of government is to guard against discrimination. Those who would abuse and discriminate do not get equal time or a seat at the table. By "kept out of government" You seem to mean that they should be given free reign to discriminate, unconstrained by the law. That is your Libertarian/ Anarchistic world view that I am getting g from you that I cannot endorse. You can't say that everyone is right and can be accommodated.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
1. If the belief causes someone to VIOLATE laws, then that ACTION is wrongful.
But you cannot police someone's BELIEFS that are internal and a personal choice of thought.

Example of making this distinction with homosexual persons or couples

A. In the case of wrongful discrimination against LGBT persons by businesses:

(1) YES it is wrongful to refuse to serve customers in a place of business open to the public
on the basis of those persons being homosexual, transgender, etc.

THAT IS A BEHAVIOR that is discriminatory by refusing to serve them.
It is not their BELIEF that is being punished but their refusal to serve a certain group of people.

(2) NO it is not wrongful to refuse a certain type of service which the business does not agree to provide.

That is NOT discriminating against the person, but is about the choice of services being offered.

So that is where the business owners beliefs and preferences about what SERVICES to provide or not
is within their rights and freedom to choose.

B. In the case of wrongful discrimination against LGBT persons by marriage laws:

(1) YES it is wrongful for the state to endorse heterosexual marriages only which discriminates against and denies equal rights of people who believe in marriage equality and same sex marriage.

The Government can neither establish nor prohibit beliefs, so beliefs about marriage do not belong in govt policy.

(2) YES it is wrongful for the state to endorse homosexual marriage where this violates beliefs of people against this practice

Again, the Government can neither establish nor prohibit beliefs, so beliefs about marriage do not belong in govt policy.

(3) HOWEVER if people of a State all AGREE to marriage policies through government,
the people can consent to marriage laws being incorporated through govt as long as they AGREE on the terms.

If not, if they do not agree because of conflicting beliefs, then it would be unconstitutional to pass marriage laws
because of (1) and/or (2) causing discrimination against citizens of the other opposing belief

(4) It would be constitutional for the Govt to only pass neutral laws on Civil Unions and Domestic Contracts
that do not rely on, impose or establish ANY BELIEF about social relations between the partners to a partnership contract.

2. NOTE: I am NOT saying that "all beliefs are equal", I am saying that faith based beliefs should be treated equally under law.
Until or unless that person is causing a breach of the peace, harassment, abuse or other violation of rights, security or
equal protection of the laws, they have the right to liberty and not to have rights denied or disparaged without DUE PROCESS
to PROVE they have caused harm or threat to peace, security, rights or protections of others.

Examples of beliefs that are not equal, but deserve equal treatment until and unless abuse or violation occurs.

A. If someone believes the earth is flat, vs. others believing the world is round,
I would work with the flat earther to resolve the conflicts causing this belief.
So no, those "beliefs" are not equal. The flat-earth beliefs requires a different approach that the round-earth does not require.

But yes, I would treat both people's beliefs with equal RESPECT because that person has a right to their beliefs,
and to free will and reason to change their minds when and because they WANT to. Right or wrong, their beliefs are their right to change or not change at will, and I DO believe in treating such people with equal respect for their beliefs.

Is this a fair enough example of how beliefs are not the same, but people with those beliefs deserve equal free choice whether or not to change their beliefs?

B. Another example:
If someone has a dangerous belief that threatens the life, safety, or health of themselves or others
again, that belief is not the SAME as "any other belief" and would require counseling to resolve any threats it causes,
but this counseling process would still involve working with the person's free will to change and solve the conflicts.

(a) Example 1: Someone with a pedophile addiction
If a person has an unnatural attraction or fetish for young children, has not acted on it, but is seeking therapeutic
help to make sure this disorder does not lead to threats or harm to anyone,
* NO they should not be punished for their beliefs since they have not committed any crimes or abuses.
* But this situation would require helping them to access effective therapy and counseling to heal the
root cause of this addiction so that it doesn't threaten the health, security, protections, rights or freedom of anyone.
I would still respect the person's free will to get counseling help, because that approach is the most effective
I have found for making sure such people get help and complete the counseling process to heal enough
to comply with authorities and/or to attain complete cure and recovery wherever possible.

NOTE: If a person has pedophile addiction or beliefs and HAS committed crimes or abuses,
the same approach applies to getting treatment, but I would also counsel such persons to
comply with authorities and cooperate on assessing and addressing all history of abuses and crimes as well.
The person still has to address the root cause of their addiction, so again the most effective process for
therapy and recovery involves working WITH the person, not rejecting or punishing them for their beliefs.

Their criminal ACTIONS incur penalty, but their BELIEFS require a different approach in order to resolve causes of disorder internally.

(b) Example 2: Someone who is either naturally transgender or has gender dysphoria
* NO they should not be punished for their beliefs since they have not committed any crimes or abuses
* I would still encourage them to seek counseling to resolve any issues of abuse or conflicts
with respect to their free choice as part of their spiritual path and process.

Again, only if they have committed abuses or violations, then those ACTIONS require different treatment.
Their BELIEFS are not justification to incur punishment, but only if they caused HARM to others which is BEHAVIOR.

C. Since you question whether Christian discrimination or Racial discrimination
should be treated differently as unequal beliefs or equally as faith based beliefs:

* Within their own congregations, organizations have the right to their own policies for their own members in private.
* With Federal and State Govt and public institutions,
NO, these institutions are under the same Constitutional and Civil Rights policies against
"establishing or prohibiting" religion or faith based beliefs and against Discrimination by Creed
* With ACTIONS and POLICIES toward others,
NO, businesses and institutions serving the public cannot discriminate against serving customers equally but
YES, the people running businesses have a right to their beliefs, right or wrong, as long as they do not act on these unlawfully

Frankly TheProgressivePatriot

The groups that cause the worst discrimination, and getting away with pushing this into government,
are the Political Parties. Previous legal arguments defended the right of parties to discriminate by their political party
beliefs and preferences, which I agree is fine if these policies and activities are kept PRIVATE.

What I find to be increasingly unconstitutionally abusive is pushing this discrimination between parties
into public policy where it is forced onto other people against their will, beliefs and consent.

My argument is that where political parties have pushed political beliefs and become the equivalent of Political Religions --
(such as Socialist beliefs in govt managing all health care and social benefits for people by MANDATORY taxation,
pitted against Constitutional beliefs in limited govt and "no taxation without representation")
why should Parties get "special treatment" that Religious Organizations are denied?

Why allow Parties to vote in THEIR "beliefs" by majority rule or judicial court order
when this would be unconstitutional if other religious organizations did that?

That to me constitutes Discrimination by Creed.

If we can resolve that issue with political beliefs competing for dominance,
when none of that is even constitutional if we treated political beliefs as any other form of religion or creed,
then all these other beliefs and conflicts can be managed by that same approach.

 

[emilynghiem]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

Don't know if I answered this before TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).

2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)

3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.

Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."

For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.

So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!

You're comparing marriage and religion.

Can you point where in Constitution is mentioned marriage, as is religion?

Ame®icano
I'm saying Marriage like Baptism or other religious rites
is INCLUDED under "free exercise of religion."

I'm saying it isn't a separate right like Gun Rights or Voting Rights
that are established by Constitutional process of passing Amendments ratified by States,
not created by judicial rulings or passed by Congress without Amending the Constitution.

Where does it say that marriage is free exercise of religion?

Ame®icano

It's not literal or the same.
Marriage beliefs and rituals are an "application" of free exercise of religion.
Just like other rites and rituals, from Baptisms to Communions or Prayers.

"Free exercise of religion" doesn't LITERALLLY state "Christian Prayer" either.
But that's understood to be covered as an activity under "free exercise of religion."

Beliefs of Buddhists, Muslims, Quakers, Catholics, Atheists
are all understood to be variations under "free exercise of religion."
NONE of those are expressly specified, but generally accepted
as included under "free exercise of religion."

I ask why don't we recognize ALL beliefs under this?

LGBT beliefs
Beliefs about health care
Beliefs about marriage
and other Political Beliefs so these are respected and protected
as free choices and not imposed on other people by abuse of govt

That way, all people are protected and treated equally
REGARDLESS of beliefs or whether they belong to large groups or not:​

NOTE: it actually makes more sense to me that we NOT restrict through govt
what constitutes "free exercise of religion" to the point where we DISCRIMINATE
and protect only SOME recognized beliefs while denying equal protection to other beliefs.

That would be a form of discriminating by creed, if only people who were part of a recognized
belief or religion got protections by the First Amendment while people with beliefs that aren't
part of a large organization get denied equal protection of the laws. We don't want to get
the govt into the business of REGULATING what beliefs count as protected or not.

What matters is if people are violating laws and committing abuses or not.
It's not their beliefs that can be regulated or policed by govt, but whether
they are committing violations that breach the rights or protections of others.

 

[PredFan]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

I would be just fine leaving them alone. The problem is that they won't be left alone. They aren't satisfied with just being gay. They want to be in our faces and control our lives as well.

 

[Moonglow]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

I would be just fine leaving them alone. The problem is that they won't be left alone. They aren't satisfied with just being gay. They want to be in our faces and control our lives as well.

Awww,, has some gay guy been hitting' on you??