Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"rights"


according to EVERY CONSERVATIVE in the country our ONLY RIGHTS are THOSE ACTUALLY LISTED in the constitution.


period.


marriage is NOT mentioned in the constitution.

exclamation point.

Bubba. The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination. Let us know when jurisdictions start to arbitrarily refuse marriage licenses to opposite sex couples and then we can talk about rights

And that still doesn't solve the problem of trying to establish beliefs THROUGH GOVT about social relationships
into civil contracts on marriage.

What this did TheProgressivePatriot is prove WHY marriage should not be in govt in the first place.
Only neutral civil unions and contracts that don't dictate or recognize some social relations over others.

Any two partners should be able to form and police a financial and legal contract
regardless of their social relations with each other or whole groups that do or do not recognize that relationship.

That shouldn't affect their rights in the first place.

It is true that if you are going to have marriage through the state
then if you have this for some couples you should have that for others without discrimination.

What the correction failed to do is address the option of neutralizing marriage
and removing ALL references to social relations so that the state is only
responsible for the financial and legal agreements such as custody and guardianship etc.
and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOCIAL RELATIONS that are private between people.

This is like arguing "since White people can get an LLC or 501c3 through the state
then BLACK people should be able to get the same"

Why tie in Race (or in this case Orientation) with the LLC to begin with?

The same way ANYONE can get an LLC, anyone should be able to
get a CIVIL or DOMESTIC partnership agreement governing legal and financial terms.

NOT have "government" endorsing, recognizing or regulating ANY type of
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP that is not government's business, as you are arguing
with the man/woman definition of marriage. Get that out of the state period,
and just use CIVIL UNIONS and DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS to govern custody, guardianship and benefits
NEUTRALLY.

 

[emilynghiem]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

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

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

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

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

 

[toobfreak]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

TRANSLATION: I block out consideration of any viewpoints or info that does not meet with my own.

 

[anynameyouwish]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

TRANSLATION: I block out consideration of any viewpoints or info that does not meet with my own.

"TRANSLATION: I block out consideration of any viewpoints or info that does not meet with my own"

and how is that different from any conservative?

 

[deanrd]

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

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

I completely believe that conservatism is a mental health problem. Look at Republicans, they are following the cult of Donald Trump. This is mental illness. Remember Jim Jones? I don’t see a difference between Jim Jones followers and Donald Trump‘s followers.

When you have a political party that calls itself the party of law and order and they follow a president who’s committed multiple felonies and don’t care?
Proof that the Republican Party has become a cult.

 

[deanrd]

And the terrible racism inside the GOP. Racism is a mental sickness.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

 

[deanrd]

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

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

 

[flewism]

Both homosexual males I know have mental issues and on disability and Medicaid, seeing mental healthcare professionals. They have unacceptable social behavior, take medication both legal and illegal, drink in excess. They are always looking to game the system for more stuff. If fact one just hit us up for $200 because he finally got his SSDI approval for mental illness but he hasn’t seen his first check yet, and his long term disability cut him off . Showed up a few hours late at my house wanting me to smoke pot with him.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan gave Republicans permission to blame the poor. Trump gives them permission to hate everyone different from themselves and foreigners etc etc etc.... Tolerance is no longer a good quality among the GOP anymore... A disgrace.

 

[anynameyouwish]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

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

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

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

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

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

I don't consider YOUR reasoning to be "very strong" either.

1. homosexuals exist
2. there have ALWAYS BEEN homosexuals
3. MOST homosexuals are decent and honorable people
4. their sexual desires are none of our business

I choose to ignore their homosexuality and just be friends with them.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

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

If there was any truth to what you say I’d be alarmed, since there isn’t, I’ll just laugh.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

I don't consider YOUR reasoning to be "very strong" either.

1. homosexuals exist
2. there have ALWAYS BEEN homosexuals
3. MOST homosexuals are decent and honorable people
4. their sexual desires are none of our business

I choose to ignore their homosexuality and just be friends with them.

Never said otherwise did I and nothing you posted refutes what I posted.

 

[toobfreak]

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

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

What is this Tard, another Scum-sucking bold-faced LeftWing LIE of yours? Only one looking to ATTACK anyone are TARDS like YOU. Come on here and try to fool us with your phony, made up BULLSHIT! Here is the REAL data:

There's a REASON why they labeled the Leftard killing zone BLUE and Right Wing zone RED, fool.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[francoHFW]

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

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

What is this Tard, another Scum-sucking bold-faced LeftWing LIE of yours? Only one looking to ATTACK anyone are TARDS like YOU. Come on here and try to fool us with your phony, made up BULLSHIT! Here is the REAL data:

View attachment 261889

There's a REASON why they labeled the Leftard killing zone BLUE and Right Wing zone RED, fool.

Garbage propaganda, dingbat. The only spike in violence has been against Jews Muslims LBGTQ and blacks...

 

[toobfreak]

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

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

What is this Tard, another Scum-sucking bold-faced LeftWing LIE of yours? Only one looking to ATTACK anyone are TARDS like YOU. Come on here and try to fool us with your phony, made up BULLSHIT! Here is the REAL data:

View attachment 261889

There's a REASON why they labeled the Leftard killing zone BLUE and Right Wing zone RED, fool.

Garbage propaganda, dingbat. The only spike in violence has been against Jews Muslims LBGTQ and blacks...

And a moment ago, it was ironclad proof of the radicalism of the Right. I never thought I'd see you call your buddy Deantard a garbage propagandist.

 

[francoHFW]

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

Homosexual behaviour is natural in the animal and plant kingdoms

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

No a very strong thought process there.

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

What is this Tard, another Scum-sucking bold-faced LeftWing LIE of yours? Only one looking to ATTACK anyone are TARDS like YOU. Come on here and try to fool us with your phony, made up BULLSHIT! Here is the REAL data:

View attachment 261889

There's a REASON why they labeled the Leftard killing zone BLUE and Right Wing zone RED, fool.

Garbage propaganda, dingbat. The only spike in violence has been against Jews Muslims LBGTQ and blacks...

And a moment ago, it was ironclad proof of the radicalism of the Right. I never thought I'd see you call your buddy Deantard a garbage propagandist.

Of course I was talking about your graph.

 

[emilynghiem]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

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

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

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

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

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

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

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

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

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

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

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia

Spare me the religious gobbity gook

TRANSLATION: I block out consideration of any viewpoints or info that does not meet with my own.

Dear toobfreak
BOTH sides do this when it comes to
assuming either
"ALL CASES" of LGBT are a negative
disorder or choice that can/should be changed
or "ALL CASES" are natural born and NONE can be changed as a choice of behavior

In truth, both types of cases and experiences are true
for different people, and NEITHER should be endorsed by govt as the ONLY way to treat people of LGBT orientation or identity.

BOTH SIDES needs to KEEP THEIR BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT so Government can remain NEUTRAL, ALL INCLUSIVE, and EQUALLY representative of ALL people REGARDLESS of their views or beliefs, as with any other faith based issues, policies or practices.

If groups WANT to discriminate against LGBT or against Christians teaching spiritual healing, they may remain as PRIVATE organizations and stay out of public policy. On the other hand, if the LGBT advocates such as TheProgressivePatriot want to open public doors, schools, policies and institutions to embrace and endorse LGBT beliefs and practices, this means opening the door for CHRISTIAN Prayer and Spiritual Healing, which has been used to heal people of unwanted homosexual or transgender orientation that was NOT natural for them.

The Christians I know would WELCOME inclusion if THEY were included in it!