Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[Boss]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

P.S. TheProgressivePatriot I did start a thread for the side issue if marriage and benefits can be equally administered other than through govt.

CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

If you want to discuss that there, I do believe this is critical to discuss in order to work out agreements on policy. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring equality; which I still believe is better protected by party that is motivated to defend and represent those interests.

Your points and principles are exactly what needs to be addressed if we are going to resolve these policy issues.

I plan to present this proposal to the Texas Governor and various party leaders to take on the challenge of separating policies in ways that still ensures equal protections, if people really want their religious freedom.

Yes I looked at that other thread of yours and it's just more convoluted, inane nonsense. I asked you for a practical, workable way to accommodate both those for and opposed to gay rights. What you are giving us here is a proposal to do away with marriage as we know it, the same old "government out of marriage" meme that few people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots. And, if I'm getting this right, you would also appease those opposed to race mixing??!! You are over the top bizarre and ridiculous.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Please explain exactly what that would look like and how it would work in the case of those who insist that homosexuality is a choice and wish to use that as a reason for claiming that gays should not have the same rights as others, as opposed to those of us who believe that the underlying cause is unimportant, that homosexuality is a immutable characteristic, and that gay people should be treated as equals. Please draw up a detailed plan and have it on my desk in the morning.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

You don't get it. I don't write up plans for anyone regarding their beliefs. That's the whole point. We let people write out their OWN plans.

For example, for schools: if districts
decide they need to separate school funding,
* some can teach creation, abstinence, prayer and no homosexuality or adultery/sex outside of marriage, those schools agree to those policies. And people who agree to fund benefits under those terms, sign up for their own health care and benefits under terms they agree to.
* While for those who don't want God in schools, but want to teach evolution and global warming, LGBT and same sex marriage and benefits, those constituents can form their own national networks and manage their own resources under their beliefs.

If this works or doesn't work, either way they have to agree to either fund it through govt where they AGREE on terms, or find a way to separate if they don't agree.

That's just an example.

It's up to people in the different groups or districts to decide how to represent their interests, and I suggest doing this by party.

They either need to AGREE if it's going to be public, or SEPARATE if they don't want to fund each other's beliefs.

The Democrats have already written out their platform of what "they believe in" so the only thing missing is to dedicate their own resources and taxes to fund it.

And same with the Republicans.

They can start with their two plans:
* the current ACA and make that the required policy of the Democratic Party, for their leaders and members to pay into who SUPPORT that program
* and the proposed reforms by the Republicans and make that their version of it. And let members of the public choose WHICH plan they want to fund and be under.

From there, why not add the marriage benefits where people can choose which plan, A or B, they want to fund. And organize it under the parties that already have structures and democratic process set up, from precinct levels to national, to develop their policies and programs that their members vote on, elect reps for, and agree to fund with their taxes going there instead of through the other parties' programs.

That in no way even begins to address the question that I presented to you. It is not about "marriage benefits " because marriage equality does not cost anybody anything and in fact results in a net increase in tax revenues. In addition, do you really think that the religious right would be satisfied if only their tax money was not used to benefit gays when they are still screaming over abortion and contraception that is not funded by tax dollars. You are making little sense while jabbering about the ACA and all sorts of other things. I'm trying to get you focused and your all over the map. Your grade for now: F Try again.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Whether it's beneficial or not, regardless who is paying for what, if it is being endorsed or managed through govt
THAT IS ALREADY A BIAS.

Many people already do not believe in that.

Even if everyone freely chooses to participate in Christianity, for example, as beneficial to all, if people don't agree to manage that through govt then it is wrongful to do so.

I am acknowledging that many people's beliefs about marriage and benefits do not belong in govt. No matter how good or cost effective or whatever, if people don't agree then they can just fund their own social programs outside of govt for themselves.

Galveston has its own social security.
The Mormons fund their own temporary 2 year program for their own members.
it's not unheard of or impossible to organize this if that is what people choose!

So I'm just saying if people object so much, then just fund it themselves! Quit griping, and use their own party to set up programs for managing resources.

You are still just jabbering about abstract concepts while failing miserably to address the issue of how pro gay and anti gay rights advocates can all be accommodated. Quite frankly I'm becoming frustrated and bored with you. Maybe you know what you're talking about, or think that you do, but no one else does. Grade: F

Okay I will keep trying to answer what I think you are asking.

1. If you are asking how can the policies be made equal through govt, I would say keep them NEUTRAL and just list the two partners as primary beneficiaries without listing any relationship at all. Then that would be neutral. No gender, no mention of marriage; any two consenting legally competent adults who want to form a domestic partnership or civil contract for property, child custody, estate, etc. would write out their agreement. And name their beneficiaries again with no mention of gender or relationship.

And how would that satisfy those who are opposed to any legal recognition of same sex unions regardless of what they are called? Again, you want to destroy the well established institution of legal marriage to appease the anti gay and anti race mixing bigots. You haven't really thought this through much. Or maybe you have.

 

[Boss]

....the same old "government out of marriage" meme that foe people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots....

It's not about "appeasing the bigots" and you should get off that meme. It's poisoning your mind. It's causing you to attack bigots with the same exact type of bigotry from the opposite perspective and that will never work.

I am opposed to what you call "Gay Rights" because I don't think the powers of government should be used to promote or encourage stereotypes and tropes. We are free people and we should be able to be who we are without the government defining it for us. What business does our government have in telling us what "marriage" means, Gay or Traditional? NONE! That's the answer.

It's not throwing anything out with the bathwater, it's rejecting the notion of labels and stereotypes in order to press an agenda. What is so difficult for you to understand about that? Why can't we all accept that we're humans and we have the freedom of expression? Why do you feel we need the government's seal of approval on our behaviors? There is absolutely no purpose served other than to divide us and keep us fighting over stereotypes.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. TheProgressivePatriot I did start a thread for the side issue if marriage and benefits can be equally administered other than through govt.

CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

If you want to discuss that there, I do believe this is critical to discuss in order to work out agreements on policy. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring equality; which I still believe is better protected by party that is motivated to defend and represent those interests.

Your points and principles are exactly what needs to be addressed if we are going to resolve these policy issues.

I plan to present this proposal to the Texas Governor and various party leaders to take on the challenge of separating policies in ways that still ensures equal protections, if people really want their religious freedom.

Yes I looked at that other thread of yours and it's just more convoluted, inane nonsense. I asked you for a practical, workable way to accommodate both those for and opposed to gay rights. What you are giving us here is a proposal to do away with marriage as we know it, the same old "government out of marriage" meme that few people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots. And, if I'm getting this right, you would also appease those opposed to race mixing??!! You are over the top bizarre and ridiculous.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
But that is giving ppl a consistent choice:
If we are going to be Consistent with separating state from personal private beliefs, then to be neutral and inclusive of all ppl and not pushing any social beliefs or preferences/biases at all,
the way to be neutral is:
* neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships
* neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities
Sorry to break it to you, but this is what neutrality looks like.
Where marriage and transgender issues remain free to the ppl to pursue without imposition by got either way.

Now if ppl decide like you TheProgressivePatriot that it's too much to remove marriage from govt, or renovating all restrooms to be single stalled or include gender neutral rooms, that's fine too! All I'm asking is give ppl that choice to decide. So nobody is forced by govt into policies they don't consent and don't represent their interests and beliefs.

Don't force marriage to stay in govt And force govt endorsed marriage to specifically recognize same sex marriage. Give ppl the choice to rewrite laws to be truly neutral, if they don't support any other language without objecting it doesn't represent them.

Currently people sue to remove references to crosses prayer Bibles and creation from public institutions.

TheProgressivePatriot I can name any number of people who consider and blame this as a problem to "remove" prayer and God from schools as a cause of school disruptions violence gangs and bullying.

I personally have brought up the lifesaving benefits of spiritual healing, which by its nature, is removed from govt, has to be chosen and participated in freely in order to work, but without the knowledge access and assistance, people are deprived of help that could have saved their lives lost to sickness abuse addiction and disease that could have been cured. Medical research has proven that specific methods of intercessory prayer have cured disease, but this remains removed from govt that isn't designed to manage such matters, EVEN though it means LIVES are lost that could have been saved. For FREE.

So if ppl are expected to keep intercessory prayer in private and remove the benefit it provides, EVEN WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE, because the principle of freedom of choice in spiritual and religious matters is absolute when it comes to govt limitations,

Then how is it so ridiculous to enforce this same standard consistently when it comes to marriage that can be recognized without going through govt.

Why not give ppl the choice how consistent they want to be with "separation of church and state."
And sure, if ppl of a state decide it's not worth the hassle of separating marriage, benefits, and health care policies, they can either write neutral policies they agree on or can agree to go with compromising on marriage if they decide it's not worth haggling over. But give them a choice so these laws represent their consent.


Thank you TheProgressivePatriot

​

 

[emilynghiem]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

Dear Boss and also cc TheProgressivePatriot
This viewpoint framing this as a choice should be equally protected but not imposed to the exclusion of ppl who really believe their identity is not a choice and deserve to be equally included.

However govt. is not the place to endorse this belief or that one, which should already be included and protect ed equally under religious freedom, equal protections of the laws, and civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

When Muslims argue or fight legally to be recognized instead of discriminated against as a group, do they demand laws that specifically state and protect Muslims? No, they cite existing laws based on religious freedom that applies to all people of all beliefs. If LGBT beliefs either for or against are going to be treated and respected seriously as equal to any other beliefs , they should be held to the same standards of free exercise and protection at the same time as not being imposed on others by govt and laws. No other beliefs have the right to be imposed or endorsed through govt, so why should LGBT beliefs be treated any differently.

Now I do recognize that if traditional heterosexual couples get govt benefits by marriage then sure this becomes discriminatory if other spouses are denied the same. But that's because social policies don't really belong in govt to begin with or it's a violation of separating personal values beliefs and choices from govt jurisdiction. Only if we AGREE to give govt such authority is it lawful by consenting to social contracts.

If we don't agree then it's no different from ppl disagreeing whether to donate or manage their charitable giving and receiving through Catholic Charities, Doctors Without Borders, habitat for humanity, the Mormons or the Jehovahs Witnesses. Why try to mandate one way if ppl do not agree.

If ppl agree on govt endorsed marriage, or on IRS or Federal Reserve legislation also contested as unconstitutional, then we continue recognising these. But if ppl don't agree on their constitutionality, of course, we have the right and responsibility to change these.

But it has to be something that ppl agree protects them equally in order to be constitutional. That's the challenge, and there's no way around it. If ppl refuse to compromise their beliefs, they should have the right and the support to fund their beliefs separately and not forced to fund conflicting beliefs through govt that compromise or violate their beliefs.

 

[Vigilante]

Absolute PROOF that it's IN THE GENE......

 

[emilynghiem]

Absolute PROOF that it's IN THE GENE......

Someday we'll find it
The rainbow connection
What makes us LGBT!!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

P.S. TheProgressivePatriot I did start a thread for the side issue if marriage and benefits can be equally administered other than through govt.

CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

If you want to discuss that there, I do believe this is critical to discuss in order to work out agreements on policy. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring equality; which I still believe is better protected by party that is motivated to defend and represent those interests.

Your points and principles are exactly what needs to be addressed if we are going to resolve these policy issues.

I plan to present this proposal to the Texas Governor and various party leaders to take on the challenge of separating policies in ways that still ensures equal protections, if people really want their religious freedom.

Yes I looked at that other thread of yours and it's just more convoluted, inane nonsense. I asked you for a practical, workable way to accommodate both those for and opposed to gay rights. What you are giving us here is a proposal to do away with marriage as we know it, the same old "government out of marriage" meme that few people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots. And, if I'm getting this right, you would also appease those opposed to race mixing??!! You are over the top bizarre and ridiculous.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
But that is giving ppl a consistent choice:
If we are going to be Consistent with separating state from personal private beliefs, then to be neutral and inclusive of all ppl and not pushing any social beliefs or preferences/biases at all,
the way to be neutral is:
* neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships
* neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities
Sorry to break it to you, but this is what neutrality looks like.
Where marriage and transgender issues remain free to the ppl to pursue without imposition by got either way.

Now if ppl decide like you TheProgressivePatriot that it's too much to remove marriage from govt, or renovating all restrooms to be single stalled or include gender neutral rooms, that's fine too! All I'm asking is give ppl that choice to decide. So nobody is forced by govt into policies they don't consent and don't represent their interests and beliefs.

Don't force marriage to stay in govt And force govt endorsed marriage to specifically recognize same sex marriage. Give ppl the choice to rewrite laws to be truly neutral, if they don't support any other language without objecting it doesn't represent them.

Currently people sue to remove references to crosses prayer Bibles and creation from public institutions.

TheProgressivePatriot I can name any number of people who consider and blame this as a problem to "remove" prayer and God from schools as a cause of school disruptions violence gangs and bullying.

I personally have brought up the lifesaving benefits of spiritual healing, which by its nature, is removed from govt, has to be chosen and participated in freely in order to work, but without the knowledge access and assistance, people are deprived of help that could have saved their lives lost to sickness abuse addiction and disease that could have been cured. Medical research has proven that specific methods of intercessory prayer have cured disease, but this remains removed from govt that isn't designed to manage such matters, EVEN though it means LIVES are lost that could have been saved. For FREE.

So if ppl are expected to keep intercessory prayer in private and remove the benefit it provides, EVEN WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE, because the principle of freedom of choice in spiritual and religious matters is absolute when it comes to govt limitations,

Then how is it so ridiculous to enforce this same standard consistently when it comes to marriage that can be recognized without going through govt.

Why not give ppl the choice how consistent they want to be with "separation of church and state."
And sure, if ppl of a state decide it's not worth the hassle of separating marriage, benefits, and health care policies, they can either write neutral policies they agree on or can agree to go with compromising on marriage if they decide it's not worth haggling over. But give them a choice so these laws represent their consent.


Thank you TheProgressivePatriot

​

You continue to fail miserably at explaining how everyone can be accommodated in practical, workable and understandable terms. And the reason why you are failing is because what you want to achieve it simply not possible. You want government to remain “neutral” and that is patently absurd. One of the most important functions of government is to intervene where disputes and disagreement exist and to defend the constitutional rights of those who are discriminated against. The government has no obligation to ensure that those who seek to inflict discrimination on others are protected when their feathers are ruffled. . The only thing that makes any sense that you said here is to advocate for neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities

There is no way that the government is going to satisfy every one’s beliefs and interests nor should it try. Regarding “beliefs, you keep blathering about separating the government from “personal private beliefs” However, neither I, nor the government give a load of cow flop what you or anyone else believes privately. The concern is how you behave towards others.

Most of what you write is just a jumbled and tangled web of confusing gibberish-kind of like listening to a Sara Palin speech. To make matters worse, you obfuscate what is already word salad by throwing in all sorts of other issues such as school prayer and health care in a thread that is supposed to be about the (political/ policy) implications of gay being genetic or a choice

We are done here Grade F-

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

Dear Boss and also cc TheProgressivePatriot
This viewpoint framing this as a choice should be equally protected but not imposed to the exclusion of ppl who really believe their identity is not a choice and deserve to be equally included.

However govt. is not the place to endorse this belief or that one, which should already be included and protect ed equally under religious freedom, equal protections of the laws, and civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

When Muslims argue or fight legally to be recognized instead of discriminated against as a group, do they demand laws that specifically state and protect Muslims? No, they cite existing laws based on religious freedom that applies to all people of all beliefs. If LGBT beliefs either for or against are going to be treated and respected seriously as equal to any other beliefs , they should be held to the same standards of free exercise and protection at the same time as not being imposed on others by govt and laws. No other beliefs have the right to be imposed or endorsed through govt, so why should LGBT beliefs be treated any differently.

Now I do recognize that if traditional heterosexual couples get govt benefits by marriage then sure this becomes discriminatory if other spouses are denied the same. But that's because social policies don't really belong in govt to begin with or it's a violation of separating personal values beliefs and choices from govt jurisdiction. Only if we AGREE to give govt such authority is it lawful by consenting to social contracts.

If we don't agree then it's no different from ppl disagreeing whether to donate or manage their charitable giving and receiving through Catholic Charities, Doctors Without Borders, habitat for humanity, the Mormons or the Jehovahs Witnesses. Why try to mandate one way if ppl do not agree.

If ppl agree on govt endorsed marriage, or on IRS or Federal Reserve legislation also contested as unconstitutional, then we continue recognising these. But if ppl don't agree on their constitutionality, of course, we have the right and responsibility to change these.

But it has to be something that ppl agree protects them equally in order to be constitutional. That's the challenge, and there's no way around it. If ppl refuse to compromise their beliefs, they should have the right and the support to fund their beliefs separately and not forced to fund conflicting beliefs through govt that compromise or violate their beliefs.

More inane equine excrement. No branch of government has ever expressed a view or “endorsed “anything about the underlying origins of homosexuality. Throughout the lengthy litigation, “choice vs. genetic” was never an issue and those opposing gay rights knew better than to even go there. Again, you are free to believe that the gay is a choice, that the moon is made of green cheese or anything else that you want to believe.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. TheProgressivePatriot I did start a thread for the side issue if marriage and benefits can be equally administered other than through govt.

CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

If you want to discuss that there, I do believe this is critical to discuss in order to work out agreements on policy. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring equality; which I still believe is better protected by party that is motivated to defend and represent those interests.

Your points and principles are exactly what needs to be addressed if we are going to resolve these policy issues.

I plan to present this proposal to the Texas Governor and various party leaders to take on the challenge of separating policies in ways that still ensures equal protections, if people really want their religious freedom.

Yes I looked at that other thread of yours and it's just more convoluted, inane nonsense. I asked you for a practical, workable way to accommodate both those for and opposed to gay rights. What you are giving us here is a proposal to do away with marriage as we know it, the same old "government out of marriage" meme that few people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots. And, if I'm getting this right, you would also appease those opposed to race mixing??!! You are over the top bizarre and ridiculous.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
But that is giving ppl a consistent choice:
If we are going to be Consistent with separating state from personal private beliefs, then to be neutral and inclusive of all ppl and not pushing any social beliefs or preferences/biases at all,
the way to be neutral is:
* neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships
* neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities
Sorry to break it to you, but this is what neutrality looks like.
Where marriage and transgender issues remain free to the ppl to pursue without imposition by got either way.

Now if ppl decide like you TheProgressivePatriot that it's too much to remove marriage from govt, or renovating all restrooms to be single stalled or include gender neutral rooms, that's fine too! All I'm asking is give ppl that choice to decide. So nobody is forced by govt into policies they don't consent and don't represent their interests and beliefs.

Don't force marriage to stay in govt And force govt endorsed marriage to specifically recognize same sex marriage. Give ppl the choice to rewrite laws to be truly neutral, if they don't support any other language without objecting it doesn't represent them.

Currently people sue to remove references to crosses prayer Bibles and creation from public institutions.

TheProgressivePatriot I can name any number of people who consider and blame this as a problem to "remove" prayer and God from schools as a cause of school disruptions violence gangs and bullying.

I personally have brought up the lifesaving benefits of spiritual healing, which by its nature, is removed from govt, has to be chosen and participated in freely in order to work, but without the knowledge access and assistance, people are deprived of help that could have saved their lives lost to sickness abuse addiction and disease that could have been cured. Medical research has proven that specific methods of intercessory prayer have cured disease, but this remains removed from govt that isn't designed to manage such matters, EVEN though it means LIVES are lost that could have been saved. For FREE.

So if ppl are expected to keep intercessory prayer in private and remove the benefit it provides, EVEN WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE, because the principle of freedom of choice in spiritual and religious matters is absolute when it comes to govt limitations,

Then how is it so ridiculous to enforce this same standard consistently when it comes to marriage that can be recognized without going through govt.

Why not give ppl the choice how consistent they want to be with "separation of church and state."
And sure, if ppl of a state decide it's not worth the hassle of separating marriage, benefits, and health care policies, they can either write neutral policies they agree on or can agree to go with compromising on marriage if they decide it's not worth haggling over. But give them a choice so these laws represent their consent.


Thank you TheProgressivePatriot

​

You continue to fail miserably at explaining how everyone can be accommodated in practical, workable and understandable terms. And the reason why you are failing is because what you want to achieve it simply not possible. You want government to remain “neutral” and that is patently absurd. One of the most important functions of government is to intervene where disputes and disagreement exist and to defend the constitutional rights of those who are discriminated against. The government has no obligation to ensure that those who seek to inflict discrimination on others are protected when their feathers are ruffled. . The only thing that makes any sense that you said here is to advocate for neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities

There is no way that the government is going to satisfy every one’s beliefs and interests nor should it try. Regarding “beliefs, you keep blathering about separating the government from “personal private beliefs” However, neither I, nor the government give a load of cow flop what you or anyone else believes privately. The concern is how you behave towards others.

Most of what you write is just a jumbled and tangled web of confusing gibberish-kind of like listening to a Sara Palin speech. To make matters worse, you obfuscate what is already word salad by throwing in all sorts of other issues such as school prayer and health care in a thread that is supposed to be about the (political/ policy) implications of gay being genetic or a choice

We are done here Grade F-

No TheProgressivePatriot
It is NOT impossible for
* people to agree to change signs on restrooms to be neutral gender unisex
* people to agree to change laws to remove references to marriage and gender/relationship and just make them civil unions or partnerships

If people can remove God from schools, crosses and Bibles from displays; if people can pass ordinances to change bathroom policies to include Transgender preferences when this is MINORITY, a fraction of 1 percent of the population,
then anyone can do anything.

Now if this is impossible for YOU to tolerate, that is your issue.

So if people like you don't believe it is possible, that is your belief.

But you have no right to impose YOUR belief that it isn't possible
over those who would rather keep govt neutral.

If the LGBT and less than 1% (I think 1/4 of 1 percent) can get laws passed favoring THEIR beliefs over the other 99%, then what is wrong with 4% or 50% saying we don't want govt messing with marriage beliefs at all?

Constitutionally, that argument would be the equivalent of prochoice that allows both beliefs in traditional marriage or same sex marriage to be treated equally without favoring either one!

Sorry this disturbs you so much.

It also bothers me we don't have a consistent policy or consensus on this.

Normally if people don't agree on beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims, they keep their beliefs OUT of govt and avoid this problem all together.

So why not enforce the same with keeping beliefs about marriage out of govt?

Very disturbing question, TheProgressivePatriot
I'm glad you have a healthy sense of skepticism and conscience about this, because it IS THAT SERIOUS.

Thank you VERY much, you renew my faith that people do care enough to fight for what is right, and not stop until we have an agreed resolution.

I believe in the human conscience and free will to push for solutions that satisfy and fulfill the true meaning of equal justice under constitutional laws.

Thanks for being one of those people willing to fight the good fight. We need more people like you, and maybe we will see progress and solutions come out of these conflicts. Thanks!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

Dear Boss and also cc TheProgressivePatriot
This viewpoint framing this as a choice should be equally protected but not imposed to the exclusion of ppl who really believe their identity is not a choice and deserve to be equally included.

However govt. is not the place to endorse this belief or that one, which should already be included and protect ed equally under religious freedom, equal protections of the laws, and civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

When Muslims argue or fight legally to be recognized instead of discriminated against as a group, do they demand laws that specifically state and protect Muslims? No, they cite existing laws based on religious freedom that applies to all people of all beliefs. If LGBT beliefs either for or against are going to be treated and respected seriously as equal to any other beliefs , they should be held to the same standards of free exercise and protection at the same time as not being imposed on others by govt and laws. No other beliefs have the right to be imposed or endorsed through govt, so why should LGBT beliefs be treated any differently.

Now I do recognize that if traditional heterosexual couples get govt benefits by marriage then sure this becomes discriminatory if other spouses are denied the same. But that's because social policies don't really belong in govt to begin with or it's a violation of separating personal values beliefs and choices from govt jurisdiction. Only if we AGREE to give govt such authority is it lawful by consenting to social contracts.

If we don't agree then it's no different from ppl disagreeing whether to donate or manage their charitable giving and receiving through Catholic Charities, Doctors Without Borders, habitat for humanity, the Mormons or the Jehovahs Witnesses. Why try to mandate one way if ppl do not agree.

If ppl agree on govt endorsed marriage, or on IRS or Federal Reserve legislation also contested as unconstitutional, then we continue recognising these. But if ppl don't agree on their constitutionality, of course, we have the right and responsibility to change these.

But it has to be something that ppl agree protects them equally in order to be constitutional. That's the challenge, and there's no way around it. If ppl refuse to compromise their beliefs, they should have the right and the support to fund their beliefs separately and not forced to fund conflicting beliefs through govt that compromise or violate their beliefs.

More inane equine excrement. No branch of government has ever expressed a view or “endorsed “anything about the underlying origins of homosexuality. Throughout the lengthy litigation, “choice vs. genetic” was never an issue and those opposing gay rights knew better than to even go there. Again, you are free to believe that the gay is a choice, that the moon is made of green cheese or anything else that you want to believe.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
I believe that someone's transgender or homosexual orientation is spiritually determined.

And yes, any laws passed by govt that attempt to recognize or treat such orientation or identity as a protected status violates the beliefs of people who believe it is a choice of behavior, since neither side is proven or disproven but both remain FAITH BASED.

I don't have to support or share that belief in order to defend it by law.

My beliefs are to treat all people equally according to their spiritual path and process, so I support BOTH the people who treat this as a choice, as not a choice, as natural or as unnatural, etc. Whatever is true for that person, I support equally by religious freedom and equal protections of the law including no discrimination by creed and no taxation without representation.

By that same token, yes, i also defend the beliefs of people who believe that orientation/identity is a choice of behavior where it doesn't match someone's gender by birth.

Since neither sides beliefs are either proven or disproven, I hold they should be treated and respected equally by law.

So if laws are going to be written passed and enforced touching "faith based beliefs or biases" on either side, these should be passed by consensus or kept separate from govt similar to other religious beliefs.

That's just my standard for treating and respecting all people equally regardless what beliefs they have!

Sorry if this wasn't clear and if I offended you when this was not my intent, but the opposite to include and defend all beliefs equally in public or in private as needed for people to be included equally in security and representation.

Thanks TPP!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

P.S. TheProgressivePatriot I did start a thread for the side issue if marriage and benefits can be equally administered other than through govt.

CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

If you want to discuss that there, I do believe this is critical to discuss in order to work out agreements on policy. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring equality; which I still believe is better protected by party that is motivated to defend and represent those interests.

Your points and principles are exactly what needs to be addressed if we are going to resolve these policy issues.

I plan to present this proposal to the Texas Governor and various party leaders to take on the challenge of separating policies in ways that still ensures equal protections, if people really want their religious freedom.

Yes I looked at that other thread of yours and it's just more convoluted, inane nonsense. I asked you for a practical, workable way to accommodate both those for and opposed to gay rights. What you are giving us here is a proposal to do away with marriage as we know it, the same old "government out of marriage" meme that few people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots. And, if I'm getting this right, you would also appease those opposed to race mixing??!! You are over the top bizarre and ridiculous.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
But that is giving ppl a consistent choice:
If we are going to be Consistent with separating state from personal private beliefs, then to be neutral and inclusive of all ppl and not pushing any social beliefs or preferences/biases at all,
the way to be neutral is:
* neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships
* neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities
Sorry to break it to you, but this is what neutrality looks like.
Where marriage and transgender issues remain free to the ppl to pursue without imposition by got either way.

Now if ppl decide like you TheProgressivePatriot that it's too much to remove marriage from govt, or renovating all restrooms to be single stalled or include gender neutral rooms, that's fine too! All I'm asking is give ppl that choice to decide. So nobody is forced by govt into policies they don't consent and don't represent their interests and beliefs.

Don't force marriage to stay in govt And force govt endorsed marriage to specifically recognize same sex marriage. Give ppl the choice to rewrite laws to be truly neutral, if they don't support any other language without objecting it doesn't represent them.

Currently people sue to remove references to crosses prayer Bibles and creation from public institutions.

TheProgressivePatriot I can name any number of people who consider and blame this as a problem to "remove" prayer and God from schools as a cause of school disruptions violence gangs and bullying.

I personally have brought up the lifesaving benefits of spiritual healing, which by its nature, is removed from govt, has to be chosen and participated in freely in order to work, but without the knowledge access and assistance, people are deprived of help that could have saved their lives lost to sickness abuse addiction and disease that could have been cured. Medical research has proven that specific methods of intercessory prayer have cured disease, but this remains removed from govt that isn't designed to manage such matters, EVEN though it means LIVES are lost that could have been saved. For FREE.

So if ppl are expected to keep intercessory prayer in private and remove the benefit it provides, EVEN WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE, because the principle of freedom of choice in spiritual and religious matters is absolute when it comes to govt limitations,

Then how is it so ridiculous to enforce this same standard consistently when it comes to marriage that can be recognized without going through govt.

Why not give ppl the choice how consistent they want to be with "separation of church and state."
And sure, if ppl of a state decide it's not worth the hassle of separating marriage, benefits, and health care policies, they can either write neutral policies they agree on or can agree to go with compromising on marriage if they decide it's not worth haggling over. But give them a choice so these laws represent their consent.


Thank you TheProgressivePatriot

​

You continue to fail miserably at explaining how everyone can be accommodated in practical, workable and understandable terms. And the reason why you are failing is because what you want to achieve it simply not possible. You want government to remain “neutral” and that is patently absurd. One of the most important functions of government is to intervene where disputes and disagreement exist and to defend the constitutional rights of those who are discriminated against. The government has no obligation to ensure that those who seek to inflict discrimination on others are protected when their feathers are ruffled. . The only thing that makes any sense that you said here is to advocate for neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities

There is no way that the government is going to satisfy every one’s beliefs and interests nor should it try. Regarding “beliefs, you keep blathering about separating the government from “personal private beliefs” However, neither I, nor the government give a load of cow flop what you or anyone else believes privately. The concern is how you behave towards others.

Most of what you write is just a jumbled and tangled web of confusing gibberish-kind of like listening to a Sara Palin speech. To make matters worse, you obfuscate what is already word salad by throwing in all sorts of other issues such as school prayer and health care in a thread that is supposed to be about the (political/ policy) implications of gay being genetic or a choice

We are done here Grade F-

No TheProgressivePatriot
It is NOT impossible for
* people to agree to change signs on restrooms to be neutral gender unisex
* people to agree to change laws to remove references to marriage and gender/relationship and just make them civil unions or partnerships

If people can remove God from schools, crosses and Bibles from displays; if people can pass ordinances to change bathroom policies to include Transgender preferences when this is MINORITY, a fraction of 1 percent of the population,
then anyone can do anything.

Now if this is impossible for YOU to tolerate, that is your issue.

So if people like you don't believe it is possible, that is your belief.

But you have no right to impose YOUR belief that it isn't possible
over those who would rather keep govt neutral.

If the LGBT and less than 1% (I think 1/4 of 1 percent) can get laws passed favoring THEIR beliefs over the other 99%, then what is wrong with 4% or 50% saying we don't want govt messing with marriage beliefs at all?

Constitutionally, that argument would be the equivalent of prochoice that allows both beliefs in traditional marriage or same sex marriage to be treated equally without favoring either one!

Sorry this disturbs you so much.

It also bothers me we don't have a consistent policy or consensus on this.

Normally if people don't agree on beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims, they keep their beliefs OUT of govt and avoid this problem all together.

So why not enforce the same with keeping beliefs about marriage out of govt?

Very disturbing question, TheProgressivePatriot
I'm glad you have a healthy sense of skepticism and conscience about this, because it IS THAT SERIOUS.

Thank you VERY much, you renew my faith that people do care enough to fight for what is right, and not stop until we have an agreed resolution.

I believe in the human conscience and free will to push for solutions that satisfy and fulfill the true meaning of equal justice under constitutional laws.

Thanks for being one of those people willing to fight the good fight. We need more people like you, and maybe we will see progress and solutions come out of these conflicts. Thanks!!!

Just a few points:

1. I already agreed with you on gender neutral bathrooms

2. Gender has already been removed as a marriage requirement. However, it is still marriage. For some strange reason, you do not want it to be called marriage or recognized by the government. Why? Because some people are offended by that? Ya know what, there are some who will be offended by any recognition whatsoever of same sex unions. For my part I would be offended if I could not call my marriage "marriage"

3. Your idea that a consensus can be reached that will satisfy everyone on gays rights or most anything else is pure and utter fantasy

4. You keep harping on this nonsense about beliefes. Again, no one is imposing beliefs on anyone . It's about rights and discriminatory behavior towards others. And being gay is not a belief . Its an identity

5. LGBT people are only 4%.? So what, what percentage of the population does a minority have to be to be granted constitutional right. What % are blacks?

Sorry, your still not making any sense to me.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. TheProgressivePatriot I did start a thread for the side issue if marriage and benefits can be equally administered other than through govt.

CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

If you want to discuss that there, I do believe this is critical to discuss in order to work out agreements on policy. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring equality; which I still believe is better protected by party that is motivated to defend and represent those interests.

Your points and principles are exactly what needs to be addressed if we are going to resolve these policy issues.

I plan to present this proposal to the Texas Governor and various party leaders to take on the challenge of separating policies in ways that still ensures equal protections, if people really want their religious freedom.

Yes I looked at that other thread of yours and it's just more convoluted, inane nonsense. I asked you for a practical, workable way to accommodate both those for and opposed to gay rights. What you are giving us here is a proposal to do away with marriage as we know it, the same old "government out of marriage" meme that few people want and that would never fly with the American people. It amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sink the ship to drown the rats. Anything to avoid government recognition of same sex marriage to appease the bigots. And, if I'm getting this right, you would also appease those opposed to race mixing??!! You are over the top bizarre and ridiculous.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
But that is giving ppl a consistent choice:
If we are going to be Consistent with separating state from personal private beliefs, then to be neutral and inclusive of all ppl and not pushing any social beliefs or preferences/biases at all,
the way to be neutral is:
* neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships
* neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities
Sorry to break it to you, but this is what neutrality looks like.
Where marriage and transgender issues remain free to the ppl to pursue without imposition by got either way.

Now if ppl decide like you TheProgressivePatriot that it's too much to remove marriage from govt, or renovating all restrooms to be single stalled or include gender neutral rooms, that's fine too! All I'm asking is give ppl that choice to decide. So nobody is forced by govt into policies they don't consent and don't represent their interests and beliefs.

Don't force marriage to stay in govt And force govt endorsed marriage to specifically recognize same sex marriage. Give ppl the choice to rewrite laws to be truly neutral, if they don't support any other language without objecting it doesn't represent them.

Currently people sue to remove references to crosses prayer Bibles and creation from public institutions.

TheProgressivePatriot I can name any number of people who consider and blame this as a problem to "remove" prayer and God from schools as a cause of school disruptions violence gangs and bullying.

I personally have brought up the lifesaving benefits of spiritual healing, which by its nature, is removed from govt, has to be chosen and participated in freely in order to work, but without the knowledge access and assistance, people are deprived of help that could have saved their lives lost to sickness abuse addiction and disease that could have been cured. Medical research has proven that specific methods of intercessory prayer have cured disease, but this remains removed from govt that isn't designed to manage such matters, EVEN though it means LIVES are lost that could have been saved. For FREE.

So if ppl are expected to keep intercessory prayer in private and remove the benefit it provides, EVEN WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE, because the principle of freedom of choice in spiritual and religious matters is absolute when it comes to govt limitations,

Then how is it so ridiculous to enforce this same standard consistently when it comes to marriage that can be recognized without going through govt.

Why not give ppl the choice how consistent they want to be with "separation of church and state."
And sure, if ppl of a state decide it's not worth the hassle of separating marriage, benefits, and health care policies, they can either write neutral policies they agree on or can agree to go with compromising on marriage if they decide it's not worth haggling over. But give them a choice so these laws represent their consent.


Thank you TheProgressivePatriot

​

You continue to fail miserably at explaining how everyone can be accommodated in practical, workable and understandable terms. And the reason why you are failing is because what you want to achieve it simply not possible. You want government to remain “neutral” and that is patently absurd. One of the most important functions of government is to intervene where disputes and disagreement exist and to defend the constitutional rights of those who are discriminated against. The government has no obligation to ensure that those who seek to inflict discrimination on others are protected when their feathers are ruffled. . The only thing that makes any sense that you said here is to advocate for neutral restrooms or single-stalled facilities

There is no way that the government is going to satisfy every one’s beliefs and interests nor should it try. Regarding “beliefs, you keep blathering about separating the government from “personal private beliefs” However, neither I, nor the government give a load of cow flop what you or anyone else believes privately. The concern is how you behave towards others.

Most of what you write is just a jumbled and tangled web of confusing gibberish-kind of like listening to a Sara Palin speech. To make matters worse, you obfuscate what is already word salad by throwing in all sorts of other issues such as school prayer and health care in a thread that is supposed to be about the (political/ policy) implications of gay being genetic or a choice

We are done here Grade F-

No TheProgressivePatriot
It is NOT impossible for
* people to agree to change signs on restrooms to be neutral gender unisex
* people to agree to change laws to remove references to marriage and gender/relationship and just make them civil unions or partnerships

If people can remove God from schools, crosses and Bibles from displays; if people can pass ordinances to change bathroom policies to include Transgender preferences when this is MINORITY, a fraction of 1 percent of the population,
then anyone can do anything.

Now if this is impossible for YOU to tolerate, that is your issue.

So if people like you don't believe it is possible, that is your belief.

But you have no right to impose YOUR belief that it isn't possible
over those who would rather keep govt neutral.

If the LGBT and less than 1% (I think 1/4 of 1 percent) can get laws passed favoring THEIR beliefs over the other 99%, then what is wrong with 4% or 50% saying we don't want govt messing with marriage beliefs at all?

Constitutionally, that argument would be the equivalent of prochoice that allows both beliefs in traditional marriage or same sex marriage to be treated equally without favoring either one!

Sorry this disturbs you so much.

It also bothers me we don't have a consistent policy or consensus on this.

Normally if people don't agree on beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims, they keep their beliefs OUT of govt and avoid this problem all together.

So why not enforce the same with keeping beliefs about marriage out of govt?

Very disturbing question, TheProgressivePatriot
I'm glad you have a healthy sense of skepticism and conscience about this, because it IS THAT SERIOUS.

Thank you VERY much, you renew my faith that people do care enough to fight for what is right, and not stop until we have an agreed resolution.

I believe in the human conscience and free will to push for solutions that satisfy and fulfill the true meaning of equal justice under constitutional laws.

Thanks for being one of those people willing to fight the good fight. We need more people like you, and maybe we will see progress and solutions come out of these conflicts. Thanks!!!

Just a few points:

1. I already agreed with you on gender neutral bathrooms

2. Gender has already been removed as a marriage requirement. However, it is still marriage. For some strange reason, you do not want it to be called marriage or recognized by the government. Why? Because some people are offended by that? Ya know what, there are some who will be offended by any recognition whatsoever of same sex unions. For my part I would be offended if I could not call my marriage "marriage"

3. Your idea that a consensus can be reached that will satisfy everyone on gays rights or most anything else is pure and utter fantasy

4. You keep harping on this nonsense about beliefes. Again, no one is imposing beliefs on anyone . It's about rights and discriminatory behavior towards others. And being gay is not a belief . Its an identity

5. LGBT people are only 4%.? So what, what percentage of the population does a minority have to be to be granted constitutional right. What % are blacks?

Sorry, your still not making any sense to me.

Close enough
I'm thanking you for this message TheProgressivePatriot
in case it's the closest we are going to get to agreeing online.

This has lots of issues to branch off on:
1. Identity if it isn't based on proven science is still faith based
2. if people can't have consensus, then like Hindus and Muslims, that's why I'm saying to separate beliefs from govt
3. the word "marriage" is obviously not neutral, so if the word GOD or JESUS can be removed from public institutions, why not remove the mention of "marriage" if it brings up religious connotations and beliefs.
if people can object to words like God and Jesus being nonneutral, then why not object to marriage.
We don't need to have communions and baptisms
endorsed by govt in order to practice them, so why not marriages -- IF WE CANNOT AGREE

4. my point about the % is that it does not matter, beliefs are beliefs, so as long as beliefs are involved you are not going to have people agree to have govt impose against their beliefs, regardless what % of the population they are.

For whatever reasons you want to cite, the LGBT community and advocates are able to organize their lobbies and get their arguments heard. it wasn't based on % but you can attribute it to either media usage or to spiritual process.

I believe it is part of a spiritual process. I believe it has something to do with the fact that that same process of spiritual healing that has changed people and allowed them to come out as either gay, straight, transgender etc. is the same process that has healed people of mental and physical conditions by addressing the spiritual causes of obstructions that block natural healing and recovery.

Because this process of healing also affects conflict resolution and restoring healthy relations, I think that is why this issue is coming forward.

BLM and rape victims are also getting more and more attention and sympathy in the media, and I believe it is part of this same spiritual movement toward restorative justice and healing relations to establish peace.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

Dear Boss and also cc TheProgressivePatriot
This viewpoint framing this as a choice should be equally protected but not imposed to the exclusion of ppl who really believe their identity is not a choice and deserve to be equally included.

However govt. is not the place to endorse this belief or that one, which should already be included and protect ed equally under religious freedom, equal protections of the laws, and civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

When Muslims argue or fight legally to be recognized instead of discriminated against as a group, do they demand laws that specifically state and protect Muslims? No, they cite existing laws based on religious freedom that applies to all people of all beliefs. If LGBT beliefs either for or against are going to be treated and respected seriously as equal to any other beliefs , they should be held to the same standards of free exercise and protection at the same time as not being imposed on others by govt and laws. No other beliefs have the right to be imposed or endorsed through govt, so why should LGBT beliefs be treated any differently.

Now I do recognize that if traditional heterosexual couples get govt benefits by marriage then sure this becomes discriminatory if other spouses are denied the same. But that's because social policies don't really belong in govt to begin with or it's a violation of separating personal values beliefs and choices from govt jurisdiction. Only if we AGREE to give govt such authority is it lawful by consenting to social contracts.

If we don't agree then it's no different from ppl disagreeing whether to donate or manage their charitable giving and receiving through Catholic Charities, Doctors Without Borders, habitat for humanity, the Mormons or the Jehovahs Witnesses. Why try to mandate one way if ppl do not agree.

If ppl agree on govt endorsed marriage, or on IRS or Federal Reserve legislation also contested as unconstitutional, then we continue recognising these. But if ppl don't agree on their constitutionality, of course, we have the right and responsibility to change these.

But it has to be something that ppl agree protects them equally in order to be constitutional. That's the challenge, and there's no way around it. If ppl refuse to compromise their beliefs, they should have the right and the support to fund their beliefs separately and not forced to fund conflicting beliefs through govt that compromise or violate their beliefs.

More inane equine excrement. No branch of government has ever expressed a view or “endorsed “anything about the underlying origins of homosexuality. Throughout the lengthy litigation, “choice vs. genetic” was never an issue and those opposing gay rights knew better than to even go there. Again, you are free to believe that the gay is a choice, that the moon is made of green cheese or anything else that you want to believe.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
I believe that someone's transgender or homosexual orientation is spiritually determined.

And yes, any laws passed by govt that attempt to recognize or treat such orientation or identity as a protected status violates the beliefs of people who believe it is a choice of behavior, since neither side is proven or disproven but both remain FAITH BASED.

I don't have to support or share that belief in order to defend it by law.

My beliefs are to treat all people equally according to their spiritual path and process, so I support BOTH the people who treat this as a choice, as not a choice, as natural or as unnatural, etc. Whatever is true for that person, I support equally by religious freedom and equal protections of the law including no discrimination by creed and no taxation without representation.

By that same token, yes, i also defend the beliefs of people who believe that orientation/identity is a choice of behavior where it doesn't match someone's gender by birth.

Since neither sides beliefs are either proven or disproven, I hold they should be treated and respected equally by law.

So if laws are going to be written passed and enforced touching "faith based beliefs or biases" on either side, these should be passed by consensus or kept separate from govt similar to other religious beliefs.

That's just my standard for treating and respecting all people equally regardless what beliefs they have!

Sorry if this wasn't clear and if I offended you when this was not my intent, but the opposite to include and defend all beliefs equally in public or in private as needed for people to be included equally in security and representation.

Thanks TPP!

This is the bottom line and what differentiates us. While like you, I believe that everyone is free to believe as they do, and live according to those beliefs, I do not give a rats hind parts about who is offended by civil rights being granted to those who they disapprove of. They are free to move to Russia or Nigeria or the middle east where they will not have to breath the same air as married same sex couples because there aren't any.

You want to treat all people equally....both the oppressed and the oppressors and that is just ridiculous!

 

[emilynghiem]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

Dear Boss and also cc TheProgressivePatriot
This viewpoint framing this as a choice should be equally protected but not imposed to the exclusion of ppl who really believe their identity is not a choice and deserve to be equally included.

However govt. is not the place to endorse this belief or that one, which should already be included and protect ed equally under religious freedom, equal protections of the laws, and civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

When Muslims argue or fight legally to be recognized instead of discriminated against as a group, do they demand laws that specifically state and protect Muslims? No, they cite existing laws based on religious freedom that applies to all people of all beliefs. If LGBT beliefs either for or against are going to be treated and respected seriously as equal to any other beliefs , they should be held to the same standards of free exercise and protection at the same time as not being imposed on others by govt and laws. No other beliefs have the right to be imposed or endorsed through govt, so why should LGBT beliefs be treated any differently.

Now I do recognize that if traditional heterosexual couples get govt benefits by marriage then sure this becomes discriminatory if other spouses are denied the same. But that's because social policies don't really belong in govt to begin with or it's a violation of separating personal values beliefs and choices from govt jurisdiction. Only if we AGREE to give govt such authority is it lawful by consenting to social contracts.

If we don't agree then it's no different from ppl disagreeing whether to donate or manage their charitable giving and receiving through Catholic Charities, Doctors Without Borders, habitat for humanity, the Mormons or the Jehovahs Witnesses. Why try to mandate one way if ppl do not agree.

If ppl agree on govt endorsed marriage, or on IRS or Federal Reserve legislation also contested as unconstitutional, then we continue recognising these. But if ppl don't agree on their constitutionality, of course, we have the right and responsibility to change these.

But it has to be something that ppl agree protects them equally in order to be constitutional. That's the challenge, and there's no way around it. If ppl refuse to compromise their beliefs, they should have the right and the support to fund their beliefs separately and not forced to fund conflicting beliefs through govt that compromise or violate their beliefs.

More inane equine excrement. No branch of government has ever expressed a view or “endorsed “anything about the underlying origins of homosexuality. Throughout the lengthy litigation, “choice vs. genetic” was never an issue and those opposing gay rights knew better than to even go there. Again, you are free to believe that the gay is a choice, that the moon is made of green cheese or anything else that you want to believe.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
I believe that someone's transgender or homosexual orientation is spiritually determined.

And yes, any laws passed by govt that attempt to recognize or treat such orientation or identity as a protected status violates the beliefs of people who believe it is a choice of behavior, since neither side is proven or disproven but both remain FAITH BASED.

I don't have to support or share that belief in order to defend it by law.

My beliefs are to treat all people equally according to their spiritual path and process, so I support BOTH the people who treat this as a choice, as not a choice, as natural or as unnatural, etc. Whatever is true for that person, I support equally by religious freedom and equal protections of the law including no discrimination by creed and no taxation without representation.

By that same token, yes, i also defend the beliefs of people who believe that orientation/identity is a choice of behavior where it doesn't match someone's gender by birth.

Since neither sides beliefs are either proven or disproven, I hold they should be treated and respected equally by law.

So if laws are going to be written passed and enforced touching "faith based beliefs or biases" on either side, these should be passed by consensus or kept separate from govt similar to other religious beliefs.

That's just my standard for treating and respecting all people equally regardless what beliefs they have!

Sorry if this wasn't clear and if I offended you when this was not my intent, but the opposite to include and defend all beliefs equally in public or in private as needed for people to be included equally in security and representation.

Thanks TPP!

This is the bottom line and what differentiates us. While like you, I believe that everyone is free to believe as they do, and live according to those beliefs, I do not give a rats hind parts about who is offended by civil rights being granted to those who they disapprove of. They are free to move to Russia or Nigeria or the middle east where they will not have to breath the same air as married same sex couples because there aren't any.

You want to treat all people equally....both the oppressed and the oppressors and that is just ridiculous!

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot
That is a very fair and astute summary/observation.
Thank you!

It is not illegal to be biased, to believe in right to life and no abortion, and not to believe in endorsing or govt endorsing either abortion or same sex marriage etc.

What is illegal is infringing on other people's rights and beliefs, to collude or conspire to violate equal rights of others by abusing govt for coercion or exclusion or discrimination.

So yes, as a Constitutionalist I will go to bat defending the beliefs of others as I would like beliefs of me and you and everyone else respected to the same degree.

I believe that is the best way to defend Constitutional rights from infringement, is to teach equal respect for the laws, for due process, and conflict resolution/consensus.

I find that encourages and inspires people to do the same, even where they also disagree diametrically with you or me, because we all have rights to our beliefs.

And the best part TPP is that by standing on consistent law enforcement provides consistent authority to COMPEL people to respect the same laws.

What I find is the Golden Rule applies to Constitutional laws and protections, to "equal justice", that if I am NOT consistent but only seek to defend my beliefs ABOVE someone else, then they do the same and keep pushing their beliefs above mine. But if I respect them equally as myself, this compels people to do the same or to back off if they are unable to.

Thus, the last people standing, the meek who shall inherit the earth, and the fools who will confound the wise elders, may well be the people who believe in peace and justice when everyone else says this is not possible but foolish.

Luckily those people who will end up being the go to people, are not the ones to impose on anyone else. So those are the mediators who will end up facilitating all other people with biased interests, to make sure there are checks and balances between them. The very meekest who believe in listening and including all people in consensus building. These are the "leaders" who will rise to the top, not by dictating or bullying, but by serving all people as govt is supposed to do.

You are right TheProgressivePatriot
all the other people who cannot or do not want to respect civil rights of others will back off or get out of the way! You are right about that! Thank you again, it's great to have people like you involved and I hope you will seriously consider participating in outreach to bring parties together on solutions to these conflicts that aren't getting solved by govt alone, it takes the people to work out the issues before we can present proposed corrections and reforms to govt. The govt is supposed to represent we the people, not dictate to us. That's how we're going to turn this ship around, by taking hold of the helm and giving instructions to govt to follow, not the other way around! Take care!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

Bottom line is this... The decision to engage in homosexual activity is a choice. Regardless and irrespective of what a person is attracted to sexually, the decision to act on your impulses and urges is still a choice. You can take that to mean whatever you like, it's still a fact.

If I am a male who decides that I want to get naked and crawl into bed with another male, that is what makes me "homosexual" and if I wake the next morning and decide that I no longer desire to sleep with males, I am no longer a homosexual. It is my choice to engage in homosexual behavior that makes me homosexual. I may have desires and urges, but I may choose to suppress those for any number of reasons. Maybe it's social stigma, maybe it's acceptance? It doesn't matter, it's my choice. My actions are what defines what I am, not my urges and desires.

I believe... in 2016... we live in an age where people should throw off these labels which define us. If you are consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else, you should be able to do what you want to do and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached to your choices. But the social stigma is attached to the labels we've traditionally applied. The LABELS are what needs to change. We don't NEED "Gay Rights" we simply need human rights. You should be free to make your own choices without being labeled or stigmatized by society... that starts with disavowing these labels, not reinforcing them through the powers of government.

Dear Boss and also cc TheProgressivePatriot
This viewpoint framing this as a choice should be equally protected but not imposed to the exclusion of ppl who really believe their identity is not a choice and deserve to be equally included.

However govt. is not the place to endorse this belief or that one, which should already be included and protect ed equally under religious freedom, equal protections of the laws, and civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

When Muslims argue or fight legally to be recognized instead of discriminated against as a group, do they demand laws that specifically state and protect Muslims? No, they cite existing laws based on religious freedom that applies to all people of all beliefs. If LGBT beliefs either for or against are going to be treated and respected seriously as equal to any other beliefs , they should be held to the same standards of free exercise and protection at the same time as not being imposed on others by govt and laws. No other beliefs have the right to be imposed or endorsed through govt, so why should LGBT beliefs be treated any differently.

Now I do recognize that if traditional heterosexual couples get govt benefits by marriage then sure this becomes discriminatory if other spouses are denied the same. But that's because social policies don't really belong in govt to begin with or it's a violation of separating personal values beliefs and choices from govt jurisdiction. Only if we AGREE to give govt such authority is it lawful by consenting to social contracts.

If we don't agree then it's no different from ppl disagreeing whether to donate or manage their charitable giving and receiving through Catholic Charities, Doctors Without Borders, habitat for humanity, the Mormons or the Jehovahs Witnesses. Why try to mandate one way if ppl do not agree.

If ppl agree on govt endorsed marriage, or on IRS or Federal Reserve legislation also contested as unconstitutional, then we continue recognising these. But if ppl don't agree on their constitutionality, of course, we have the right and responsibility to change these.

But it has to be something that ppl agree protects them equally in order to be constitutional. That's the challenge, and there's no way around it. If ppl refuse to compromise their beliefs, they should have the right and the support to fund their beliefs separately and not forced to fund conflicting beliefs through govt that compromise or violate their beliefs.

More inane equine excrement. No branch of government has ever expressed a view or “endorsed “anything about the underlying origins of homosexuality. Throughout the lengthy litigation, “choice vs. genetic” was never an issue and those opposing gay rights knew better than to even go there. Again, you are free to believe that the gay is a choice, that the moon is made of green cheese or anything else that you want to believe.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
I believe that someone's transgender or homosexual orientation is spiritually determined.

And yes, any laws passed by govt that attempt to recognize or treat such orientation or identity as a protected status violates the beliefs of people who believe it is a choice of behavior, since neither side is proven or disproven but both remain FAITH BASED.

I don't have to support or share that belief in order to defend it by law.

My beliefs are to treat all people equally according to their spiritual path and process, so I support BOTH the people who treat this as a choice, as not a choice, as natural or as unnatural, etc. Whatever is true for that person, I support equally by religious freedom and equal protections of the law including no discrimination by creed and no taxation without representation.

By that same token, yes, i also defend the beliefs of people who believe that orientation/identity is a choice of behavior where it doesn't match someone's gender by birth.

Since neither sides beliefs are either proven or disproven, I hold they should be treated and respected equally by law.

So if laws are going to be written passed and enforced touching "faith based beliefs or biases" on either side, these should be passed by consensus or kept separate from govt similar to other religious beliefs.

That's just my standard for treating and respecting all people equally regardless what beliefs they have!

Sorry if this wasn't clear and if I offended you when this was not my intent, but the opposite to include and defend all beliefs equally in public or in private as needed for people to be included equally in security and representation.

Thanks TPP!

This is the bottom line and what differentiates us. While like you, I believe that everyone is free to believe as they do, and live according to those beliefs, I do not give a rats hind parts about who is offended by civil rights being granted to those who they disapprove of. They are free to move to Russia or Nigeria or the middle east where they will not have to breath the same air as married same sex couples because there aren't any.

You want to treat all people equally....both the oppressed and the oppressors and that is just ridiculous!

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot
That is a very fair and astute summary/observation.
Thank you!

It is not illegal to be biased, to believe in right to life and no abortion, and not to believe in endorsing or govt endorsing either abortion or same sex marriage etc.

What is illegal is infringing on other people's rights and beliefs, to collude or conspire to violate equal rights of others by abusing govt for coercion or exclusion or discrimination.

So yes, as a Constitutionalist I will go to bat defending the beliefs of others as I would like beliefs of me and you and everyone else respected to the same degree.

I believe that is the best way to defend Constitutional rights from infringement, is to teach equal respect for the laws, for due process, and conflict resolution/consensus.

I find that encourages and inspires people to do the same, even where they also disagree diametrically with you or me, because we all have rights to our beliefs.

And the best part TPP is that by standing on consistent law enforcement provides consistent authority to COMPEL people to respect the same laws.

What I find is the Golden Rule applies to Constitutional laws and protections, to "equal justice", that if I am NOT consistent but only seek to defend my beliefs ABOVE someone else, then they do the same and keep pushing their beliefs above mine. But if I respect them equally as myself, this compels people to do the same or to back off if they are unable to.

Thus, the last people standing, the meek who shall inherit the earth, and the fools who will confound the wise elders, may well be the people who believe in peace and justice when everyone else says this is not possible but foolish.

Luckily those people who will end up being the go to people, are not the ones to impose on anyone else. So those are the mediators who will end up facilitating all other people with biased interests, to make sure there are checks and balances between them. The very meekest who believe in listening and including all people in consensus building. These are the "leaders" who will rise to the top, not by dictating or bullying, but by serving all people as govt is supposed to do.

You are right TheProgressivePatriot
all the other people who cannot or do not want to respect civil rights of others will back off or get out of the way! You are right about that! Thank you again, it's great to have people like you involved and I hope you will seriously consider participating in outreach to bring parties together on solutions to these conflicts that aren't getting solved by govt alone, it takes the people to work out the issues before we can present proposed corrections and reforms to govt. The govt is supposed to represent we the people, not dictate to us. That's how we're going to turn this ship around, by taking hold of the helm and giving instructions to govt to follow, not the other way around! Take care!!

Thank you very much! This is much more reasonable and understandable than your previous posts. In fact, if I were to have amnesia, and not recall your previous writings, I would say that we agree on quite a lot. However, I don't have amnesia and there are still the stick issues of government recognition of marriage and the idea that we could reach a consensus of the sticky issue of gay rights. However, it's a start. Thank you again.

 

[Mortimer]

I think its a choice and maybe socialisation. i dont think its genetic.

more and more young people nowadays have sex with both genders, because of the culture they grew up with and i think these will increase even more in the next decades.

Half of all young people are at least a little bit gay

‘I’m a bisexual homoromantic’: why young Brits are rejecting old labels

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think its a choice and maybe socialisation. i dont think its genetic.

more and more young people nowadays have sex with both genders, because of the culture they grew up with and i think these will increase even more in the next decades.

Half of all young people are at least a little bit gay

‘I’m a bisexual homoromantic’: why young Brits are rejecting old labels

Have you read much on the subject or spoken to any gay people about it?

 

[320 Years of History]

young people nowadays have sex with both genders, because of the culture they grew up with

I think young people have sex because:

1. they are horny,
2. they encounter someone else who is also horny,
3. the parties involved are attracted to one another, and
4. they have nothing better to do with their time at that moment.