Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

Do you consider LGBTQ issues a mental deficiency?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Unsure


Results are only viewable after voting.
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.

Huh?

If what you say "Marriage beliefs and rituals are an "application" of free exercise of religion." is true, what is the government role in marriage, and why are they involved at all?
 
If your a man acting like a woman or a woman who acts like a man, there has got to be some kind of mental disorder going on in the mind. Or if you put your penis in another mans rectum, or if a woman wants to grind her vagina on another womans vagina, yes something is not clicking in your mind. It all goes against nature and human existence.Its a dead end lifestyle.!!

Even if being LGBT is a "dead end lifestyle," this is none of your concern.

Moreover, I have never known anyone, either heterosexual or LGBT, who ever adopted a "lifestyle," they just live their lives. I've had this conversation with at least three gay male friends. They all said that they knew that they were gay as children, but didn't have a name for it.. I know that I started saying things like "he's cute" by the time I was ten. We don't know how the process of developing a sexual orientation works. It's a mystery.

We also don't know why people of a particular sexual orientation find some individual sexually attractive and another not. Why do we find ourselves thinking that one is "hot" and another is not?

A major contributor to conservative angst towards the LGBT agenda is exemplified in "pride" parades which are a celebration of absolute debauchery-public sex acts all in view of children.

That shit needs to stop, yesterday.

I have been calling for the government to outlaw homosexuality. As it is illegal in many countries outside of America.Many of these LGBT individuals have mental problems, besides the obvious homosexual acts.
 
If your a man acting like a woman or a woman who acts like a man, there has got to be some kind of mental disorder going on in the mind. Or if you put your penis in another mans rectum, or if a woman wants to grind her vagina on another womans vagina, yes something is not clicking in your mind. It all goes against nature and human existence.Its a dead end lifestyle.!!

Even if being LGBT is a "dead end lifestyle," this is none of your concern.

Moreover, I have never known anyone, either heterosexual or LGBT, who ever adopted a "lifestyle," they just live their lives. I've had this conversation with at least three gay male friends. They all said that they knew that they were gay as children, but didn't have a name for it.. I know that I started saying things like "he's cute" by the time I was ten. We don't know how the process of developing a sexual orientation works. It's a mystery.

We also don't know why people of a particular sexual orientation find some individual sexually attractive and another not. Why do we find ourselves thinking that one is "hot" and another is not?

A major contributor to conservative angst towards the LGBT agenda is exemplified in "pride" parades which are a celebration of absolute debauchery-public sex acts all in view of children.

That shit needs to stop, yesterday.

I have been calling for the government to outlaw homosexuality. As it is illegal in many countries outside of America.Many of these LGBT individuals have mental problems, besides the obvious homosexual acts.
:abgg2q.jpg::abgg2q.jpg::abgg2q.jpg:Good luck with that shit Bubba. Who in government have you calling on? It might be easier for you to move to Russia or Uganda .:1peleas::1peleas::1peleas:
 
If your a man acting like a woman or a woman who acts like a man, there has got to be some kind of mental disorder going on in the mind. Or if you put your penis in another mans rectum, or if a woman wants to grind her vagina on another womans vagina, yes something is not clicking in your mind. It all goes against nature and human existence.Its a dead end lifestyle.!!

Even if being LGBT is a "dead end lifestyle," this is none of your concern.

Moreover, I have never known anyone, either heterosexual or LGBT, who ever adopted a "lifestyle," they just live their lives. I've had this conversation with at least three gay male friends. They all said that they knew that they were gay as children, but didn't have a name for it.. I know that I started saying things like "he's cute" by the time I was ten. We don't know how the process of developing a sexual orientation works. It's a mystery.

We also don't know why people of a particular sexual orientation find some individual sexually attractive and another not. Why do we find ourselves thinking that one is "hot" and another is not?

A major contributor to conservative angst towards the LGBT agenda is exemplified in "pride" parades which are a celebration of absolute debauchery-public sex acts all in view of children.

That shit needs to stop, yesterday.

I have been calling for the government to outlaw homosexuality. As it is illegal in many countries outside of America.Many of these LGBT individuals have mental problems, besides the obvious homosexual acts.
Nothing else to say Slick. What exactly would you like to have happen?

Void their marriages?

Take their kids away?

Public executions for homosexual acts.?

Don't be such a coward. Spell it out . Just keep in mind, that in a society where others rights are trampled on, your are likely to be also.
 
If your a man acting like a woman or a woman who acts like a man, there has got to be some kind of mental disorder going on in the mind. Or if you put your penis in another mans rectum, or if a woman wants to grind her vagina on another womans vagina, yes something is not clicking in your mind. It all goes against nature and human existence.Its a dead end lifestyle.!!

Even if being LGBT is a "dead end lifestyle," this is none of your concern.

Moreover, I have never known anyone, either heterosexual or LGBT, who ever adopted a "lifestyle," they just live their lives. I've had this conversation with at least three gay male friends. They all said that they knew that they were gay as children, but didn't have a name for it.. I know that I started saying things like "he's cute" by the time I was ten. We don't know how the process of developing a sexual orientation works. It's a mystery.

We also don't know why people of a particular sexual orientation find some individual sexually attractive and another not. Why do we find ourselves thinking that one is "hot" and another is not?

A major contributor to conservative angst towards the LGBT agenda is exemplified in "pride" parades which are a celebration of absolute debauchery-public sex acts all in view of children.

That shit needs to stop, yesterday.

I have been calling for the government to outlaw homosexuality. As it is illegal in many countries outside of America.Many of these LGBT individuals have mental problems, besides the obvious homosexual acts.

There is no reason to outlaw homosexuality. You have a perfect right to choose your own lifestyle and beliefs, which you apparently have done. It is not your right to control another person's choices, particularly through abuse of government power, unless their sexual behavior involves aggression/violence against an unwilling party or their intended partner is a child.
 
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.

Huh?

If what you say "Marriage beliefs and rituals are an "application" of free exercise of religion." is true, what is the government role in marriage, and why are they involved at all?

BINGO Ame®icano

If Federal Govt is not supposed to be involved in personal matters of faith, belief and individual choice/liberty
then the "social conditions" of marriage are not the govt's business.
ONLY the LEGAL/FINANCIAL contracts and agreements, similar to licensing
proprietorship/partnership owners in an LLC UNDER CONTRACT.

The Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships should be NEUTRAL
and not regulating anyone on the basis of social relationship!

So if people AGREE to pay a worker plus a "primary partner" their benefits,
then whoever they claim as a dependent should be up to them.

NOTE: If people can't agree on THAT, that's where I suggest that
BENEFITS be decided within democratically run organizations, so members
can determine their own terms and conditions of paying group benefits.

ONLY the terms of policies, taxes and services that the public AGREES ON
should be public policy. Where they don't agree on social beliefs, they should separate.
Similar to Catholic churches not recognizing or hiring females as priests.
If you don't agree on terms of administration, then go join and pay into your own group
that DOES agree to the same terms you believe in. And keep that out of govt
so individuals have Freedom of association and NO Taxation without Representation.
 
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?

Dear Grampa Murked U
Maybe it's the other way around.

Maybe it's the AVOIDANCE and REJECTION of Spiritual Healing
which can naturally cure causes of:
depression
OCD
stress
Schizophrenia
bipolar mood disorder
that explains why more people aren't receiving effective healing therapy
to resolve conflicting issues with gender ID and sexual orientation.

If such spiritual healing WAS shown and known by more people
to heal the roots causes behind conflicting identity and/or orientation,
This same natural process would ALSO be demonstrated
and documented as effective with many other areas of
physical, mental or social ills.

All the above are being blocked from access and knowledge
to natural spiritual healing. If we discover this solutions works
to restore natural health in ONE case, how long before it
becomes public knowledge the same process works for others?
 
Why don’t you you just leave them alone?


We do.., however they try to sue bakeries that will not bake their special wedding cakes.
So you feel people shouldnt be allowed to sue for their rights...are religious people allowed to sue for their rights? Or does this only apply to certain classes of people?
 
Why don’t you you just leave them alone?


We do.., however they try to sue bakeries that will not bake their special wedding cakes.
So you feel people shouldnt be allowed to sue for their rights...are religious people allowed to sue for their rights? Or does this only apply to certain classes of people?

I believe anyone is free to sue for things they feel are unlawful to them. However, people are free to also provide their services independent
Why don’t you you just leave them alone?


We do.., however they try to sue bakeries that will not bake their special wedding cakes.
So you feel people shouldnt be allowed to sue for their rights...are religious people allowed to sue for their rights? Or does this only apply to certain classes of people?

~~~~~~
People have free will and can do as the want. However in this case the baker just won his case with a payday.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top