Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I see this as a spiritual process path or identity in life for people.
So that's why I respect people's views or beliefs on both sides as RIGHT for THOSE people or cases it applies to, but not for the cases it conflicts with.

OK but not sure what you mean about "cases it conflicts with"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A2. I also find people of BOTH beliefs
a. People who believe in limited govt, where govt is restricted to JUST the 18 enumerated duties in the body of the Constitution proper, and is NOT authorized to regulate or abridge individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Example: The Veteran Party of America states their political belief in their party platform statement that "all social legislation is unconstitutional"
b. People who believe that govt is the central authority for establishing the collective will of the people and promoting the general welfare, as their political belief.

You should have stuck with A1. The only relationship to the topic at hand that I see here is that if we adhered to your model of limited government, and the 18 enumerated rights, we would not have same sex marriage, but we also would not have interracial marriage, we would not have women's suffrage, blacks could not vote and may have well still be slaves in some states and the states would not be bound by the bill or rights- which of course includes the first and 2nd amendments, as well as the tenth- that conservatives love so much

 

[Meathead]

Get over it. No one cares. Go to a gay bar or something.

 

[emilynghiem]

A1. The reason I believe that both sides are right IN SOME CASES with their beliefs
a. I know some people for whom being gay or transgender is natural for them and is who they are spiritually
b. I know some people and/or know of many others for whom being gay or transgender turned out NOT to be natural for them, but causes unnaturally by abusive situations, and when they were healed of these conditions then they no longer experienced or identified with gay or transgender but report being naturally heterosexual/cisgender

OK, thank you. I think that what it comes down to is that some people are more comfortable with their sexuality and gender identity. And, those who are less comfortable with it should receive appropriate guidance and support in order to help them find their way but not to point them in any particular direction.

I don't know what your experience is with people who suffered trauma is, but I need to be convinced that any substantial number- at for that matter any at all, became gay or trans as a result. In any case you need to make a clearer distinction between healing from any trauma a person might have suffered, healing in relation to sexuality, the latter of which I have a problem with because it assigns a disease model to their sexuality

Thank you for such an intelligent and astute reply.

The same way you focus on this as sexuality and someone's comfort with that,
the people I know who have counseled and healed abuse victims
approach it as spiritual. Some people are not comfortable with that either, that's not
their experience or way either!

One approach should not be imposed on the other.
If you see it as sexual for you, that's your focus.
I know a lot of other people looking at the spiritual process going on,
and trying to reconcile on that level.

As for cases of people who "became" gay or trans because of unnatural
influences, no, they didn't "become" that way but felt those impulses.
A nontheistic minded secular thinker doesn't always "become" atheist,
some are just that way by their nature, but some people do express
"losing faith" or relating more to atheist approaches than to religious language and culture.

A friend of mine who was "worried" he was transgender, he was getting
impulses and signals that he was inclined more toward female and rejecting
his male physicality went through spiritual prayer and reconciliation
and decided he was comfortable being male, unlike his father who had transitioned to female.
So those impulses didn't "make him transgender and then he changed back"
the point is to distinguish what is the real person's nature and what is
an impulse or influence that is not natural for that person.

In the case of Chirlane Blasio, she USED to identify as Lesbian.
But in meeting the love of her life, she has a happy heterosexual marriage relationship
that she feels is spiritually whole and they are meant to be soulmates.
Does that mean she "changed" from homosexual to heterosexual?

My friend Olivia counseled a lesbian woman she described as having
abused other people sexually because she was abused first. The way
she worked with this woman through the healing process, is that in order
for these others to forgive her, she had to forgive the person who abused her, too!
So that's how they worked through the abuse first, and then the healing,
so the woman could restore what she normally would be like BEFORE any such abuse occurred.

A different member on here posted www.peoplecanchange.com

the best description of the healing process I have found is
through Drs. Francis and Judith MacNutt:
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
What makes their approach to counseling so different and so effective,
they recognize it doesn't apply to everyone the same.

the people MOST uncomfortable with this are either
* people who see it spiritually and cannot see how this
doesn't apply to all people who see it sexually or other ways
* people who see it as sexual identity only and cannot
see how spiritual healing or process has anything to do with it either

TheProgressivePatriot My friends who see all human relations
as spiritually based first, even their marriages and people they love personally,
often do not understand secular approaches that seem like foreign beliefs.

Instead of blaming each other for not being comfortable with the other side's approach,
I take the first step as accepting the fact we see and believe things differently,
the brains and mindset of secular and atheist types are going to be "set up"
differently than people who think in terms of spiritual or religious type terms or language.

Govt is not supposed to be in the business of deciding these things for people.
But we the people, as individuals, DO have freedom to talk and work things out on our own.

That's why I seek to reach understanding on points of agreement
across the board, with people like you seeing it one way and people who DON'T see it that way.

Isn't it the duty and principle of govt as public law to
accommodate people of BOTH beliefs or approaches
and neither impose or establish, prohibit or deny,
any of these beliefs?

To me that's a HUGE sign that govt is overstepping bounds
and getting involved in a personal matter of free choice,
when people's beliefs are so engrained they cannot agree.
That's a good indicator that such social policies and decisions
ARE supposed to be free choice of that individual and not infringed upon!

so that's why we need to make sure govt is not abused either way.

(and that gets into the A2 issue of how do we use govt
properly to PROTECT free choice without unfair discrimination
but NOT go TOO FAR where govt ESTABLISHES a bias.
How do we ensure equal protection but without govt overstepping bounds
and forcing people against their beliefs in matters where people on
both sides have beliefs they are trying to defend from oppression by the other??)

I think A2 is what is causing most of the public upset.
I believe we can resolve A2 if we agree to separate A1 first,
work that out as individuals and in groups where we can implement
an agreed policy among ourselves case by case. And then use
solutions from A1 working as individuals, to propose better
models or solutions for A2 or govt/public policy by free choice not by force of law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because I am a Constitutionalist who believes in isonomy or equal political power for all individuals, I believe under free exercise of religion and equal protection of laws, then I must include protect and respect the Political Beliefs of each person or group equally as any other Religious belief. Any personal belief is equal regardless of affiliation with a larger group or not.
I believe each person and group member has equal right to Consent or Dissent, by freedom of choice/civil liberties/free exercise of religion, so that laws and social contracts are based on informed consent of the governed, and respect equal protections and due process for all persons.
Especially when it comes to BELIEFS, people have a right to consent to how laws are written, interpreted or carried out so that all beliefs are equally protected and represented.

That's my general statement.
are you okay with that so far TheProgressivePatriot

Not really. You got off to a good start but are spiraling downward into the depths of blather land

Lets see

Freedom of religion ? Fine

Respect for political beliefs? Yes, to the extent that those beliefs are respectful of other

Personal beliefs? Same as above

Equal right to Consent or Dissent, by freedom of choice/civil liberties/free ? You'll have to unscramble that

People have a right to consent to how laws are written, interpreted or carried out so that ? If you mean through our represented democracy where we are free to make our views known, fine . If you mean some magical fantasy land were everyone has direct input, and nothing is enacted until every agrees- well just try to image how that would work out.

.......all beliefs are equally protected and represented.? This is where we part company. All beliefs cannot be equally protected unless we set up parallel universe. How do you protect the rights of minority people and at the same protect the rights of those who think that tose minorities should not have rights?

​

 

[emilynghiem]

A2. I also find people of BOTH beliefs
a. People who believe in limited govt, where govt is restricted to JUST the 18 enumerated duties in the body of the Constitution proper, and is NOT authorized to regulate or abridge individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Example: The Veteran Party of America states their political belief in their party platform statement that "all social legislation is unconstitutional"
b. People who believe that govt is the central authority for establishing the collective will of the people and promoting the general welfare, as their political belief.

You should have stuck with A1. The only relationship to the topic at hand that I see here is that if we adhered to your model of limited government, and the 18 enumerated rights, we would not have same sex marriage, but we also would not have interracial marriage, we would not have women's suffrage, blacks could not vote and may have well still be slaves in some states and the states would not be bound by the bill or rights- which of course includes the first and 2nd amendments, as well as the tenth- that conservatives love so much

No TheProgressivePatriot
because race and birth gender
is NOT the same as internal sexual identity.

Race and birth gender ARE tied to physical DNA, genes, chromosomes
that people cannot change without changing the DNA that went into theirs.

Internal sexual identity and orientation is
more like someone's choice of religious spiritual or political ID,
affiliation, beliefs and practice.

And yes, TheProgressivePatriot
if you look at history we have always
had this issue of people fighting to push their
BELIEFS through govt.

I'm saying there's a better way.

The same way States have their own sovereignty to a limit
and so does Federal govt have its limits,
with Political Beliefs we can treat Parties
equally as Religious organizations or as States
that can govern themselves and fund their
own programs democratically for their members who agree!

I believe we are democratically evolving and preparing
to reorganize and allow direct or proportional
representation by party. The Greens have been preaching
this for ever, so they saw it coming. They practice
consensus based conflict resolution among their party
members, and I'm saying let's offer this model to parties
statewide and nationwide.

Race and birth gender
are different from one's religious or political beliefs,
spiritual or personal beliefs.

You don't have to prove those by science first,
but already have equal right to exercise and express them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

n general I seek to treat people like you with your beliefs about LGBT
equally as people with beliefs about Christianity; and try to respect your CONSENT as to what you believe and don't believe.

Then for any conflict between people of different beliefs,
I try to separate the issues, one by one, come up with a solution
that BOTH sides AGREE to, in order to quit imposing on each other.

I do this by respecting your free choice to believe and/or only to change if you agree to some better choice, but not by insulting what you believe or trying to force you by law to change it, because no person agrees to be forced.

The other person can be completely wrong in their beliefs or approach,
and/or in how they communicate ineffectively by attacking others,
and I still respect their free choice if anything is going to change.

I don't agree with such people imposing on you or others,
but the only change I've ever seen effectively when it comes to
personal or political beliefs is by equal respect and free choice.

So I tend to take the position in A2 of
NOT relying on Govt to force people to change beliefs,
but working on this as a personal spiritual process
where free choice is respected on all sides without attacking anyone
for their beliefs.

I find the spiritual process works first, then the political process follows.
By free will/free choice, not by force which backfires because nobody wants when this force of law is applied to them.

I am not getting into the rest of this now if ever, Totally glazed over.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because I am a Constitutionalist who believes in isonomy or equal political power for all individuals, I believe under free exercise of religion and equal protection of laws, then I must include protect and respect the Political Beliefs of each person or group equally as any other Religious belief. Any personal belief is equal regardless of affiliation with a larger group or not.
I believe each person and group member has equal right to Consent or Dissent, by freedom of choice/civil liberties/free exercise of religion, so that laws and social contracts are based on informed consent of the governed, and respect equal protections and due process for all persons.
Especially when it comes to BELIEFS, people have a right to consent to how laws are written, interpreted or carried out so that all beliefs are equally protected and represented.

That's my general statement.
are you okay with that so far TheProgressivePatriot

Not really. You got off to a good start but are spiraling downward into the depths of blather land

Lets see

Freedom of religion ? Fine

Respect for political beliefs? Yes, to the extent that those beliefs are respectful of other

Personal beliefs? Same as above

Equal right to Consent or Dissent, by freedom of choice/civil liberties/free ? You'll have to unscramble that

People have a right to consent to how laws are written, interpreted or carried out so that ? If you mean through our represented democracy where we are free to make our views known, fine . If you mean some magical fantasy land were everyone has direct input, and nothing is enacted until every agrees- well just try to image how that would work out.

.......all beliefs are equally protected and represented.? This is where we part company. All beliefs cannot be equally protected unless we set up parallel universe. How do you protect the rights of minority people and at the same protect the rights of those who think that tose minorities should not have rights?

​

Yes AGREED that we use the Democratic process to
establish consent/dissent not some intangible fantasy system.

RE: all beliefs protected equally, how?
By holding members of groups to their OWN beliefs.
So if minorities do not believe in not having equal rights in that group,
they choose not to support that group.

If you want free health care for all as a right,
all members who believe in that join that group,
set it up and pay for it.

Minorities who disagree and don't want to be forced
to pay for everyone's health care unless certain
rules are followed (such as no drugs, no abortion etc)
can set up their own group under their terms.

You separate each group instead of imposing any
biased beliefs through govt.

So that's how you keep them from imposing
on minorities they don't believe have equal rights
TheProgressivePatriot

All the other points we seem to agree on in principle.
We are still questioning how do we protect rights of
minorities from groups whose beliefs exclude those?
How do we do this, and not end up abusing govt
by going too far and punishing only "one group but not the others"
for exclusion instead of preventing ALL groups from doing that same discrimination unlawfully?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No TheProgressivePatriot
because race and birth gender
is NOT the same as internal sexual identity.

Race and birth gender ARE tied to physical DNA, genes, chromosomes
that people cannot change without changing the DNA that went into theirs.

Internal sexual identity and orientation is
more like someone's choice of religious spiritual or political ID,
affiliation, beliefs and practice.

Pretty sure that you do not know what you're talking about here. Constitutional law is not concerned about DNA

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm saying there's a better way.

The same way States have their own sovereignty to a limit
and so does Federal govt have its limits,
with Political Beliefs we can treat Parties
equally as Religious organizations or as States
that can govern themselves and fund their
own programs democratically for their members who agree!

I believe we are democratically evolving and preparing
to reorganize and allow direct or proportional
representation by party. The Greens have been preaching
this for ever, so they saw it coming. They practice
consensus based conflict resolution among their party
members, and I'm saying let's offer this model to parties
statewide and nationwide.

Race and birth gender
are different from one's religious or political beliefs,
spiritual or personal beliefs.

You don't have to prove those by science first,
but already have equal right to exercise and express them.

OK sure , well have gay states and straight states, like we had slave and free states.....get real

 

[emilynghiem]

n general I seek to treat people like you with your beliefs about LGBT
equally as people with beliefs about Christianity; and try to respect your CONSENT as to what you believe and don't believe.

Then for any conflict between people of different beliefs,
I try to separate the issues, one by one, come up with a solution
that BOTH sides AGREE to, in order to quit imposing on each other.

I do this by respecting your free choice to believe and/or only to change if you agree to some better choice, but not by insulting what you believe or trying to force you by law to change it, because no person agrees to be forced.

The other person can be completely wrong in their beliefs or approach,
and/or in how they communicate ineffectively by attacking others,
and I still respect their free choice if anything is going to change.

I don't agree with such people imposing on you or others,
but the only change I've ever seen effectively when it comes to
personal or political beliefs is by equal respect and free choice.

So I tend to take the position in A2 of
NOT relying on Govt to force people to change beliefs,
but working on this as a personal spiritual process
where free choice is respected on all sides without attacking anyone
for their beliefs.

I find the spiritual process works first, then the political process follows.
By free will/free choice, not by force which backfires because nobody wants when this force of law is applied to them.

I am not getting into the rest of this now if ever, Totally glazed over.

Come back and start in when you can.
These issues aren't going away.

Think of it this way TheProgressivePatriot
If you can wrap your mind around these points,
and get where others are coming from,
then more of them will do the same for you
instead of saying enough I can only take so much.

This is deep stuff.

Thanks for all your effort which I applaud,
encourage and want everyone to do the same.

If you want others to get what you mean,
and not just project what is convenient for them to hear
and think you are saying, this is how much
work you are asking of other people.

If you aren't willing to do the work,
how can you ask others to include and hear you either?

This is what it looks like.
It's comprehensive, and deep,
but once we cover it all, then we gain all that ground.
We either finish the process
or it finishes us.

 

[emilynghiem]

No TheProgressivePatriot
because race and birth gender
is NOT the same as internal sexual identity.

Race and birth gender ARE tied to physical DNA, genes, chromosomes
that people cannot change without changing the DNA that went into theirs.

Internal sexual identity and orientation is
more like someone's choice of religious spiritual or political ID,
affiliation, beliefs and practice.

Pretty sure that you do not know what you're talking about here. Constitutional law is not concerned about DNA

Constitutional law covers free exercise of religion.
Your internal gender ID or orientation/identity is your free choice to believe
and treat as you believe,
and doesn't have to be proven by science / DNA to be defended.

My point exactly TheProgressivePatriot
just cite Constitutional law as given in the First Amendment
and "same sex marriage" is already covered under free exercise in the First Amendment.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm saying there's a better way.

The same way States have their own sovereignty to a limit
and so does Federal govt have its limits,
with Political Beliefs we can treat Parties
equally as Religious organizations or as States
that can govern themselves and fund their
own programs democratically for their members who agree!

I believe we are democratically evolving and preparing
to reorganize and allow direct or proportional
representation by party. The Greens have been preaching
this for ever, so they saw it coming. They practice
consensus based conflict resolution among their party
members, and I'm saying let's offer this model to parties
statewide and nationwide.

Race and birth gender
are different from one's religious or political beliefs,
spiritual or personal beliefs.

You don't have to prove those by science first,
but already have equal right to exercise and express them.

OK sure , well have gay states and straight states, like we had slave and free states.....get real

Nope Not what I said
although there is a popular gay business district
that does quite well in Houston, so organizing by community has its benefits.

What I mean is the Democratic and Green party
is freely able to organize collective benefits for
its own members, under terms they all agree to fund under.
So they can have same sex marriage, or welfare for
former inmates or single moms etc and not impose
on people who only believe in funding charity on
sustainable terms by requiring counseling to get out of drugs for example.

If we don't agree on terms for providing benefits,
then why not separate into different membership pools
under terms we DO agree to?

This can extend OVER state lines
because parties organize both locally
and nationally too! So every district
can organize resources to buil dtheir own
health care programs as they see necessary.

All funded by voluntary participation,
donations or investment, loans or barter etc.

 

[toobfreak]

Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

So you are admitting that the Democrat Party is not a party of God, has no room for God and if you believe in a God they want nothing to do with you? That's an awful LOT of people you are telling to go vote Republican!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Come back and start in when you can.
These issues aren't going away.

No the issues aren't going away but I am. You are what is called high maintenance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Come back and start in when you can.
These issues aren't going away.

No the issues aren't going away but I am. You are what is called high maintenance.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
It's the issues, not me that are this highly comprehensive.
If you want to leave out the spiritual side of this equation,
don't complain when people cut you out of their calculations.

I didn't make that side up.
I'm just reporting what's out there, agree or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

I see this as a spiritual process path or identity in life for people.
So that's why I respect people's views or beliefs on both sides as RIGHT for THOSE people or cases it applies to, but not for the cases it conflicts with.

OK but not sure what you mean about "cases it conflicts with"

^sorry TheProgressivePatriot didn't see this point^

it means either
* cases or reports of people changing their orientation
where they no longer have homosexual attractions
conflict with beliefs that "ALL cases are unchangeable period"
that homosexual orientation is "inborn only" and "NEVER" a choice
of behavior that can change in ANY CASES AT ALL

* cases or reports of people not being able to change
their orientation (even if they are Christian and went
through spiritual healing and reconciled with God etc.)
conflict with beliefs that "ALL cases" are changeable,
"NONE" are naturally born that way but ALL are a "choice of behavior"

This is what I said before:
if you take either EXCLUSIVE position that
* ALL cases are natural, inborn and cannot be changed
OR
* ALL cases are unnatural, behavior, and a choice that can be changed
without exception, but one way for ALL cases, and that's the ONLY RULE,
then these Extreme Exclusive positions
LEAVE OUT cases of the other description.
They mutually exclude each other.

That's what I mean by leaving out cases that "conflict" (or don't fit that exclusive rule)
and only counting cases that FIT your beliefs (or the other beliefs where they leave yours out),
so that neither Extreme of either/or explains or includes ALL cases out there.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know what your experience is with people who suffered trauma is, but I need to be convinced that any substantial number- at for that matter any at all, became gay or trans as a result. In any case you need to make a clearer distinction between healing from any trauma a person might have suffered, healing in relation to sexuality, the latter of which I have a problem with because it assigns a disease model to their sexuality

^ Dear TheProgressivePatriot ^
Let's back up to this point.
Of why you need convincing?
You don't have to AGREE with a belief as valid for it to be protected as someone's free exercise of belief.
You don't have to be convinced, like does God or Jesus need to be proven valid to anyone before that belief can be claimed under free exercise? Belief in prayer or angels have to be verified first as real?

All we need is to agree that something is a belief, first of all.

Secondly, I think the issue is not allowing ABUSE of some belief to discriminate violate rights or harm someone else.

Example: Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientist believers have the right to refuse medical procedures for themselves as consenting adults, which is legal. But we draw the line at one of their adults deciding for a minor child and refusing treatment that can save the life of someone under the age of consent.

With Christian beliefs against gay marriage, or with Constitutionalist beliefs against marriage through the state, I think you are saying it's one thing to HAVE a belief but another thing to IMPOSE it publicly on someone else to cause harm or violate equal rights.

Can we take these two separately?

1. First if we can AGREE that different beliefs are held by different people and govt cannot impose one and penalize the other on the basis of creed, can we AGREE that if both parties or sides AGREE to recognize equal rights to express and exercise those beliefs, then we don't abuse govt to impose either one on the other.

Do you need to see BOTH sides agree to respect and NOT to violate each other's beliefs
in order to feel safe that this enforcement of Constitutional law will be upheld and respected?

2. Second, once we have an agreement between both parties to respect separate beliefs as equal,
then can we set up ways to prevent ABUSES that we want to ban?
One side does not want Christian prayer or doctrine pushed on people through schools or govt to create discrimination and harassing or abusive situations.
One side does not want LGBT beliefs, expressions, policies or practiced pushed through schools or govt either.

Neither side wants the other to "teach or indoctrinate anyone" with FALSE information that either
* ALL cases are natural and NONE can change
(and thus deprive people of spiritual healing that could help those who can and want to change) or that
* ALL cases are Unnatural and ALL can or should change (and thus discriminate harass and exclude people who cannot change their identity, beliefs or ways of expression and relations)

You don't have to agree with my beliefs, you can defend your own
and still argue we need to have a public agreement between parties
NOT to abuse govt to impose or violate people's beliefs about this!

Is the problem that you do not trust other groups to respect rights
without imposition by govt? again, that falls under beliefs in A2.
If so, then we need to address THAT issue ADDITIONALLY.

 

[talksalot]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681



Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:



I




Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Nothing good has come from gay marriage, allowing men in women's restrooms, letting biological men take over women's sports, the ridiculous pronoun wars, encouraging children to think they can change their biological sex and abortion on demand. NOTHING.
Democrats are in control of the economy and the media and corporations do the Democrat's bidding. Work on that. Our country is in serious decline and you think Republicans only concern is about making it "a difficult time for LBGT people?"
Everyone is having a DIFFICULT TIME.

Why ask what would God want? You're too busy spreading LGBT perversion to know or care.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing good has come from gay marriage, allowing men in women's restrooms, letting biological men take over women's sports, the ridiculous pronoun wars, encouraging children to think they can change their biological sex and abortion on demand. NOTHING.
Democrats are in control of the economy and the media and corporations do the Democrat's bidding. Work on that. Our country is in serious decline and you think Republicans only concern is about making it "a difficult time for LBGT people?"
Everyone is having a DIFFICULT TIME.

Why ask what would God want? You're too busy spreading LGBT perversion to know or care.

Seriously?? The whole transgender thing is a result of gay marriage? You'll have to explain that a little better. It is a false cause logical fallacy

I didn't say that LGBT issues are the only concern of Republicans, but do not try to tell me that they are not targeting gay and trans people, especially the latter. Democrats very much want to move forward on the economy and a whole host of other issues that matter to all Americans. Republicans are stuck in the mud and want to go backwards on social issues a the behest of a small number of bigots and misogynists.