Conservatives, what pisses you off the most about homosexuals

[bodecea]

Funny how back when the US had even lighter gun restrictions and a much more stringent code of morality, there was a lot less gun violence. Not to mention lower rates of divorce and other such things.

Illegetimacy is a major issue, these days. About a third of children in this country are now born without the benefit of a table family. In some ethnic groups, it's as much as three-fourths. Children being raised without the benefit of an intact family, with a mother and a father. This is a direct result of the decline of general standards of morality and decency in our society, and the consequences of it are tragic and destructive.

And that's the fault of gays.......I've heard that one before.

 

[bodecea]

It's funny to listen to homophobic Trump supporters talk about morality.

It's funny to hear the "anything goes" left talk about morality.

Especially as they openly support the foulest of immoral sexual perversions.

And you think about that a lot....right? As I said....homo-voyeurism.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For example, a baker who doesn't want to make a cake celebrating an immoral homosexual mockery of marriage.

How about a baker who doesn't want to make a cake celebrating what they perceive is the immoral mockery of religion by conservative republican christians (CRCS)?

If a baker is asked by a prospective client to make a cake that he perceives as “celebrating what they perceive is the immoral mockery of religion by conservative republican christians”, and he finds that objectionable, then I would fully support his right not to make such a cake. I'm not on the side that wants to force artists to produce works expressing and celebrating what they find objectionable.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When I am required to bake a cake for you, however, I am required to contribute and participate materially and physically. And I am required to violate my personal values and ethics if you require me to put something on that cake that I believe to be fundamentally wrong and/or participate or contribute in any other way in something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

I don't expect everybody reading this to appreciate the distinction between those two things. But there sure as hell is one.

It is not at all surprising that those who have no meaningful moral standards might have a difficult time understanding why we who do might object to being compelled to violate them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You Conservatives have an odd sense of morality and decency.

I cite the character of your political hero as People’s Exhibit A

Who are you claiming is my “political hero”, and what behavior on his part are you trying to suggest I condone or support?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Evil and madness? Are those traits exclusive to homosexuals?

No, of course not.

Homosexuality certainly is evil and madness, but there are many other unrelated forms of both evil and madness that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Nosmo King]

You Conservatives have an odd sense of morality and decency.

I cite the character of your political hero as People’s Exhibit A

Who are you claiming is my “political hero”, and what behavior on his part are you trying to suggest I condone or support?

The adoration of Trump comes exclusively from Conservatives.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But we all know these so-called Christian establishments do NOT operate their businesses by biblical standards

So you completely discount the possibility that there are Christian business owners out there who do? Are we going to trample on their rights as well?

And when there is a religious business owner who claims that following safety or health business laws are "against their religion"?

You must think I'm an idiot. Of course health and safety laws regarding business practice should be mandatory.

That is however, outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

 

[Nosmo King]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

The Conservative premise, as you skillfully laid out, is incorrect. Homosexuality is not a choice. At least not a conscious choice.

Human beings are aware of their sexual orientation usually during puberty. The effeminate boy or the Tom boy girl can be abandoned once the flood of hormones is let loose.

Given this false premise, given the faith reliant belief in this false premise, how can homosexual discrimination, marginalization, oppression by law be seen as legitimate from people claiming to be constitutional adherents?

 

[impuretrash]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

The Conservative premise, as you skillfully laid out, is incorrect. Homosexuality is not a choice. At least not a conscious choice.

Human beings are aware of their sexual orientation usually during puberty. The effeminate boy or the Tom boy girl can be abandoned once the flood of hormones is let loose.

Given this false premise, given the faith reliant belief in this false premise, how can homosexual discrimination, marginalization, oppression by law be seen as legitimate from people claiming to be constitutional adherents?

If it's not a choice, then it's a mental illness.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

The Conservative premise, as you skillfully laid out, is incorrect. Homosexuality is not a choice. At least not a conscious choice.

Human beings are aware of their sexual orientation usually during puberty. The effeminate boy or the Tom boy girl can be abandoned once the flood of hormones is let loose.

Given this false premise, given the faith reliant belief in this false premise, how can homosexual discrimination, marginalization, oppression by law be seen as legitimate from people claiming to be constitutional adherents?

Yes and no Nosmo King
not all cases of homosexuality are the same.
some are spiritually born that way although this isn't genetic (studies on identical twins show less than 50/50 correlating
orientation, so it isn't 100% genetic but some social or additional factors are involved)
others are the result of abuse;
and either way, some people have been able to change their orientation (similar to people coming out gay or transgender).

The common factor is that this remains faith based.
It is not like race that is decided genetically and cannot be changed.

I compare it to people deciding their own spiritual or religious identity purely based on their own beliefs, paths and process in life.
This cannot be proven or regulated by govt or it violates religious freedom of exercise and expression.

The advantage of defending LGBT beliefs as spiritual is
neither side, for or against, is required to prove their beliefs in order to have them equally respected and protected.

This would remove the pressure to bully or harass people for beliefs either way.
On the other hand, requiring people to PROVE their beliefs scientifically in order
to justify govt involvement in endorsing such arguments goes in circles because
each person may have different circumstances, and proving one case doesn't prove the others are the same way!

(PS if you have never researched the spiritual healing process that has allowed
people to come out either gay, straight or transgender according to their natural default orientation
I encourage you to look into the therapy studies on Dr. Francis and Judith MacNutt, whom I cited here:

http://pneumareview.com/conversation-with-francis-and-judith-macnutt/

How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education

Francis: Unfortunately, I don't think there is that much known among the clergy as a whole about healing the homosexual. That is why we are trying to bring healing back into the church. Even with physical healing, it's not fully understood in the population of priests that it can take place.

David: You've had a lot of success in your ministry with healing the homosexual. What do you do? How do you pray for a homosexual?

Francis: We've had some and Judith's had more actually. She had 20 clients when she was seeing patients in Clearwater who were either homosexual or lesbian in orientation, and they were all healed. Now, it took time. I think that really needs to be said. It is mostly over a period of time and in some depth.

David: Tell a story or two of people that you minister to, Judith, in this area to illustrate how you try to help the homosexual.

Judith: The first thing that has to be said is that they must want to be healed. By and large there are a lot of homosexuals and lesbians that are very happy with their lifestyle. They have found someone that they really care about, and they want to remain in that lifestyle. So, the first thing in coming for healing is saying, Lord Jesus, help me. As in any area of our lives whether it's weakness, sin, or whatever, we have to ask for the help of Jesus.

David: And how would you actually pray for them?

Judith: The actual prayer itself is not that much different than it would be for anybody else who is wounded in any area of their life. So many of us struggle with broken sexuality because of the way we were raised, the way we were taught, the ways our parents modeled or didn't model healthy sexuality, because so much of our sexuality is tied up in our identity, and identity issues need to be healed in most people. Very few of us really know the true-self that God created. Most of us function out of a false-self, so getting back to the true-self and the real true sexual identity is pretty much the same process for any issue that we would work with in inner healing. It involves going back to the childhood, and finding out was the person wanted. So many people say I didn't want a boy, I wanted a girl, or I didn't want a girl, I wanted a boy, and so there was a rejection of their very sexual identity from the time they were born.

I was reading somewhere yesterday where it was so important to a certain couple that they have a boy, and they had eight girls, and they kept trying and trying and trying, and finally they had to adopt a boy. Well, what message did that give to the eight daughters? You have no value and you were just a mistake. So there are all kinds of identity issues in childhood; there is rejection, there is wounding, there is sexual abuse, perhaps incest, perhaps someone outside the family. But so many of the people that I worked with had real broken identities - they just didn't know who they were in God or why they were here or where they were going. It would usually take about six months of psychotherapy, inner healing and generational healing for the person to come to a fullness of their identity.

David: It is quite common that male homosexuals haven't had a positive or strong father figure to call them into masculinity. How do you pray for that situation?

Judith: I found it took a multifaceted approach. We would do the inner healing work with God as father and Jesus as brother coming into the masculine identity that God had already created within them. In a deep father wound we would do the prayers of God the Father becoming their father, which He is, and then healing the brokenness that relates to the earthly father - the deep longing for Abba, with the daddy figure holding and loving them, accepting rather than rejecting them, having conditional love for them. We would have them sit with God the Father and let Him hold them during the inner healing prayer. I would have them listen to the voice of God - “What is He saying to you? Is He rejecting you?” And they would always with great tears of joy say, "No. He's telling me He loves me, but wants more for me," and God would speak all these beautiful words of love to them, and they would start having healing dreams and healing images and visions. Once the Spirit started working in them, that would start this whole healing process.

I also asked for help within the Christian community wherever I've been, especially in private practice, I would ask for men from the community to come and take them under wing and take them out to dinner or take them fishing, take them biking, do whatever, have them in their home and embrace them as part of a Christian loving family. So it's not just prayer. This is where the church needs to respond. It's men and women stepping forward, parenting, what we would call re-parenting in psychology, and bringing them along. And the ones that were able to go through that experience were all healed.

David: When whatever has gone wrong is finally healed -- whether it's the masculine or the feminine identity or whether it's the trauma from child abuse -- what then happens to the homosexual identity versus the heterosexual identity?

Judith: The homosexual identity cannot coexist with a God-given identity so it just starts to go away. Now the struggle that some would have that were very active sexually, in pornography or in being very promiscuous, those images took longer to go away. It's just like anybody addicted to pornography - the images sometimes remain. That's where discipline and prayer had to come in for the individual to reject those images and to bring in the cross and the blood of Jesus to cover them, and then to put positive images in their place.

David: And in some, I would imagine, the true-self, the true heterosexual identity began to flower.

Judith: Oh, yes. The beautiful image starts to emerge within them of the way God created them to be, and they would come to such life in their identity and such joy in being the one that God created them to be. Many of them would say to me, “I always felt like I was living a lie when I was in this lifestyle. I was always full of shame. I was always full of a sense that it really wasn't me. It felt like someone else.” It was kind of like an alter-identity or an alter-ego, because when God starts in a therapeutic process, basically what He is doing is dismantling the ego that has developed, and replacing it with what is originally there, which is still there, but it's under this alter-ego/alter-identity.

Francis: The sad thing is that conservative Christians often don't offer homosexuals anything except condemnation. It takes six months of weekly individual counseling and an intense changing and building up of the individual. Shouting about it doesn't help very much. It just makes things worse.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

The Conservative premise, as you skillfully laid out, is incorrect. Homosexuality is not a choice. At least not a conscious choice.

Human beings are aware of their sexual orientation usually during puberty. The effeminate boy or the Tom boy girl can be abandoned once the flood of hormones is let loose.

Given this false premise, given the faith reliant belief in this false premise, how can homosexual discrimination, marginalization, oppression by law be seen as legitimate from people claiming to be constitutional adherents?

If it's not a choice, then it's a mental illness.

In some cases perhaps impuretrash

After all, some conservatives DO believe that liberalism in general reflects a mental disorder!
​

If you compare either sexual orientation or political identity
with atheists who can't help how they identify and experience life,
or with Christians who may or may not be able to change their beliefs either,
some of these people might be "off balance" and have mental deficiencies, imbalances or disorders as well.

But is it necessary that all such people be considered mentally ill
just because their way of being isn't a choice they can change?

Or for the one who CAN change from having "unwanted attractions"
does that mean it has to be an illness or disorder?

Can't people heal and change from being angry, and that doesn't mean they were mentally ill either?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

THANK you sir

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

Unfortunately you know ,I know ,we all know what we're dealing with. Totalitarian conformists and its only been getting worse and worse .

 

[emilynghiem]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

Why then is the resistance to equal rights for homos duals coming from Conservative voices?

Dear Nosmo King
because homosexual behavior is considered a choice of behavior
not an unchangeable genetic trait like genetic race or genetic gender.

The objections I have found with conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
1. LGBT beliefs are FAITH BASED, not proven by science to be inborn or natural
and thus should not be regulated, established or prohibited by Govt.
To do so as the LGBT are pushing to recognize a CLASS based on "behavior"
is establishing a faith based BELIEF and thus unconstitutional.
2. this further discriminates by CREED by pursuing or imposing penalties
for people who cannot comply with such laws due to their own faith based beliefs.
Govt must remain neutral and should never be abused to favor one belief while discriminating against another
3. liberals further discriminate against spiritual therapy and healing
that has been used to help people change from unwanted sexual orientation, attractions or identity.
such advocates even seek to BAN the choice of reparative therapy
and to persecute, harass, malign misrepresent and slander advocates who defend the
right of choice of natural healing therapies proven effective by purely voluntary participation without any coercion or abuse.
4. liberal/LGBT advocates continue to discriminate and exclude people identifying as ex-gay
who have been able to change their homosexual orientation, identity or behavior
5. as for marriage, this should have been kept personal and never mixed with govt
because it involves beliefs about personal relationships that are beyond govt authority to regulate.
changing laws on marriage and rights should require LEGISLATIVE action, not judicial authority.
the courts can rule that laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down,
but that's not the same as states writing laws on marriage.

In general the key problems are
A. establishing beliefs about sexual orientation and identity in conflict with beliefs of others
when both remain "faith based" and should not be govt jurisdiction but remain free choice of individuals without penalty
B. abusing courts to establish law "based on faith based beliefs"
instead of going through democratic legislative process of representing public interest in writing and reforming laws
that truly reflect public consensus
C. discriminating by creed, by favoring LGBT beliefs treated differently from Christian or other beliefs barred from schools, govt and public institutions

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

But politicizing the LGBT issues to the point of excluding, denying and discriminating against other beliefs,
even censoring LGBT people who have had the experience of changing orientation,
becomes so problematic it creates a bigger backlash and objection to the abusive politics!

THANK you sir

If LGBT and liberal activists would be fair and treat those beliefs EQUALLY as any other BELIEFS,
including opposing Christian beliefs, at least we could have equal inclusive representation and discussions.

Unfortunately you know ,I know ,we all know what we're dealing with. Totalitarian conformists and its only been getting worse and worse .

Dear Deplorable Yankee thank you for your tolerance of these difficult times and process.
I believe this is a stage in development, that will pass, but which people must go through to learn by experience.

As much as liberal Democrats have blamed Christians for being intolerant and discriminatory,
the only way some can learn how that happens is to go through the same problems and steps.

Once both sides have experienced equal blame, we have a chance to address one another as equals.
If that's what it takes to overcome these biases, the sooner we get through this process, the sooner we can
reach recovery and resolution on the other side. Not as enemies, but with understanding we share equal responsibility for problems as well as solutions.

To speed up the process, I find it better to forgive and embrace and work with what we have.
Not to resist and fight to blame each other, which merely prolongs the vicious cycle.

Forgiveness is the key to breaking free from this mutual stuckness due to human stubbornness and defensiveness.
The good news is the bad karma is finite, not sustainable, and will run out of fuel over time.

Only the positive energy in people can replicate sustainably, so the good will eventually overcome the bad.
And the truth will eventually prevail over falsehood
where denial and ignorance cannot compete with knowledge that once established remains consistent.

This too shall pass, it is a phase necessary for fuller social and spiritual development.
And once we get past this, society will be in a much better place, where the rewards outweigh the struggles to get there.

 

[Lysistrata]

Sexual orientation is not a choice. It is innate to the individual, despite this made-up crap that being LGBT is somehow a "religion." But choosing to join a religion, such as those sects of the Christian faith that oppose LGBTs, IS a choice. These people CAN change.

It's funny in a really sick way that so many people, particularly men in these sects, hate heterosexuality, as well, and uphold as their idols the two who now occupy the offices of president and vice president, who represent the radical ends of the spectrum of heterosexual men who hate both women and heterosexuality.

We actually have never in our history had a universal standard of "sexual morality,." Men have always acted as if any such standard was, and is optional without paying attention to their own behavior, but morality is based on conduct, not the identity of the miscreant.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You Conservatives have an odd sense of morality and decency.

I cite the character of your political hero as People’s Exhibit A

Who are you claiming is my “political hero”, and what behavior on his part are you trying to suggest I condone or support?

The adoration of Trump comes exclusively from Conservatives.

That doesn't address the question, nor does it support your previous claim.

Who are you claiming is my “political hero”, and what behavior on his part are you trying to suggest that I condone or support?

 

[JoeB131]

I am bisexual... so nothing. I can be a conservative and part of the LGBT community if I want to. Being conservative does not automatically mean one hates homosexuals. So uh...

You're bisexual now? YOu know you have to get off the couch first, right?

Okay, most conservatives do hate gays, but when you boil it down to brass tacks, it all comes down to "I think it's icky when it's two dudes," and " My imaginary friend in the sky says it's bad."

 

[miketx]

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

Interesting...

Have you ever considered that people use their sexual orientation as an instrument of hatred? What if they force themselves on a Muslim? Would you be here saying the same thing?

I have a real problem with people losing rights in favor of others gaining them. It's true, gays and people like me don't have as much rights as a heterosexual male or female would (and I hope one day both sides can get what they want from the law) but for me it seems that we/they are being unreasonable in their demands for equal rights. There is no equality in discrimination, but there is also no equality in demanding that someone violate the basic tenets of their beliefs to suit your sexual preferences.

Something needs to change.

I agree, you need to change your mentally ill behavior.